Democrats Writing Bill to Bar Foreign Money from U.S. Political Campaigns

[sabra]

Source: ABC News

Van Hollen Says Supreme Court's Decision in Citizens United Case Left Door Open to Overseas Donors

Rep. Chris Van Hollen said Monday that Democrats are crafting legislation to prevent foreign owned corporations from funneling money into American political campaigns, saying the prospect of overseas influence is a "big danger" in the aftermath of a landmark Supreme Court opinion that changed the rules for political fundraising.

"There's a big danger that the decision opens the door to foreign owned corporations indirectly spending millions of dollars to influence the outcome of U.S. elections through their American subsidiaries," Van Hollen, D.-Md., told ABC News. "The American people should be deeply concerned. This decision raises all sorts of questions."

Van Hollen said a ban on foreign-owned companies from donating will be part of broad legislation being crafted by Democratic leaders in Congress, in consultation with the White House. Van Hollen and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., will be drafting the bill, which will try and unwind the court's action.

Thursday's opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political commercials on the grounds that corporations should be treated just like individuals when it comes to First Amendment rights.

The problem, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Scott Thomas told ABC News, is that it's much tougher to determine whether foreign money is behind a political ad when the check is cut by a multi-national corporation.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-bar-foreign-money-us-politics/story?id=9658403

[havocmom]

1. With the convoluted ownerships of this and that company, it's all for show

The problem is corporate money, not, oops, some furriners might by air time.

[Demeter]

2. Only if the Corporation Divests ALL Foreign Production and Management

They can have sales offices abroad, but nothing else. Otherwise, they are defacto foreign.

[havocmom]

5. Yep, 'Born in the USA' does not stop corporations from destroying it for profit

American or foreign, many (if not most or even all) huge corporations have no country.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Anybody can set up a Delaweare corporation, even Osama Bin Laden

And then just funnel the money through that corporation.

The corporation does not have to own assets overseas, or employ anybody. It just has to exists.

So the restriction should be based not on what the corporation owns, but who own the corporation.

And as long as there is even one foreign owner, the money should be considered tainted and ineligible to be used for political purposes.

[blm]

4. Bullshit move...global fascists are mainly HEADQUARTERED in US with US 'owners'.

What a focking crock. All show, no TEETH.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Prove it.

That's a pretty broad statement to make. Where is your evidence?

[winyanstaz]

15. open your eyes and take a look around.....

[Xipe Totec]

23. No data?

I look around, I see that the largest companies are now substantially foreign owned. Even Ford, GM, Exxon... The list goes on.

Name some large corporations that are 100% US owned. I would be very interested.

[winyanstaz]

32. whats the matter..are your fingers broke?

Try using google...here...I started it for you...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=large+corporations+that+are+100%25+US+owned&btnG=Search&aq=f&aql=&aqi=g10&oq=

p.s. People that wont do their own homework are just lazy.

[Xipe Totec]

34. Ooh! You can Google! That surpassed my expectations!

Now where are the companies that are 100% American owned?

(ETA)

I'll give you a hint: Google for privately held corporations.

Hint #2:

I'll give you two companies that are privately held and American owned: Koch Industries, Mathworks.

Now, your homework, is to find other LARGE CORPORATIONS that are 100% American owned, and therefore will not be covered by the Foreign Investor restrictions contemplated by Congress.

[blm]

21. Every broadcast media corp has US owners who've allowed huge stock shares to be bought by

international financiers. You think Kingdom Holdings holds our democracy dear? Murdoch?

And WalMart and China dealings go back to 70s when Jackson Stephens set up WalMart with Chinese financiers and industrialists - I'm sure it was just a coincidence that GHWBush and his brother Prescott were in China in the 70s, and Prescott headed the US-China Chamber of Commerce for the next two decades.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Global FASCISM. It is what it is.

[Xipe Totec]

25. I think you are in violent agreement with me

Take a deep breath, go back and read down the thread. I think you will see we are saying the same thing.

American companies are substantially foreign owned.

[RoccoR5955]

28. Fox News is evidence enough.

Rupert Murdock is Australian. He runs his empire, not from the US, but from Down Under. Who's to say that they will not or have not contributed to political campaigns?

[Xipe Totec]

33. Read my post again; I think we are in total agreement

The point is that most corporations are tainted with foreign money. If we prohibit foreign money, no corporation can participate in political debates.

I think it is a brilliant move.

[dogfacedboy]

38. Unfortunately, Murdoch is a US citizen...

[AlphaCentauri]

7. Populism nothing more

the change has to be greater than that

[salguine]

8. Great. While you're at it, why not write a bill to bar CORPORATE money from elections? In this

way, the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. It's like health care...they want to fix the health care system, but not to the point of actually FIXING it...they twist themselves in knots trying to do absolutely everything possible EXCEPT the ONE THING that will work. Why not a bill banning corporate money too, Democrats? Hell, why not a bill eliminating campaign donations altogether and creating a system of public financing for elections? Every other civilized Western democracy has that. But, no, you're still trying to have it both ways.

[rudy23]

9. Who wants to do that? No one in DC, that's for sure. It's pretty much just us.

I guess we can go pound sand.

[MH1]

Um, isn't that what the SC just struck down?

[No Elephants]

39. They can't write such a bill. It would be unconstitutional, under the recent decision of the

SCOTUS in the Citizens United case.

[Zorra]

10. No possible way can this work, Corporate money must be banned completely.

Indisputable fact: Corrupt corporate lawyers (like Chief Justice John Roberts) will figure out how to beat any law that does not bar corporations from donating money for campaign advertising completely.

[avaistheone1]

14. I agree.

[RoccoR5955]

29. Forget that, just take away "corporate personhood."

Because they are not people, they are merely pieces of paper.

[earcandle]

11. Given C Street whores have been buying off world leaders to follow their new idea of Christ and God,

we have to be very careful because their plan is to change us
from the outside in.

[earcandle]

13. In case you don't know it, they do not follow the traditions of the real faith, but have made up

their own version, which basically gives them the right to
rape, kill, plunder with the support of their version of this
kooky belief system.   Somebody ought to bomb C Street with
rotten eggs and pour tar on their sidewalks.  

[No Elephants]

40. AND from the inside out, too. And they go after the young 'uns, too, via various types.

of youth groups and "leadership" groups, schools, textbooks, etc.

They've got it covered six ways to Sunday, no pun intended. Meanwhile, we're sitting around picking our noses.

[earcandle]

44. true dat!

[dgibby]

12. And the Supreme Court will shoot it down. n/t

[winyanstaz]

16. There are five supreme court judges that need to be impeached..

And we all know who they are.

[barb162]

17. It's a good start, so I applaud their efforts, but there's a long way to go

[notadmblnd]

18. should include multi national corporations based in US too.

[blm]

22. EXACTLY!

.

[fascisthunter]

19. Nope... not good enough. No more corporate Money

it's done enough damage to our democracy as is. This isn't a solution, this more of a dog-and-pony show. I'm sure foreign companies will find a loophole anyways. Time to bann corporate funds.

[JCMach1]

20. Political CYA and window-dressing

You cannot stop foreign money if they are behind a U.S. corporation.

[Kablooie]

24. The constitution does not limit freedom of speech to citizens. It allows anyone to speak.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"

So by the SCOTUS new standards, foreign corporations are welcome to influence our elections all they want.

If this becomes law, SCOTUS can shoot it down.

[RoccoR5955]

30. Nothing in the Constitution states that

corporations are citizens.

[No Elephants]

41. No, but tthe SCOTUS has just ruled they have First Amendment rights.

Actually, that is not an entirely new concept. The SCOTUS found in the 50's or 60's that the NAACP had first amendment rights. Sort of. It was just usually held that the interest in pure elections justified regulation of corporate political spending. The Roberts court said, "Not really."

[JDPriestly]

26. They need to pass an amendment to the Constitution.

This is a phony show of action. It is a waste of time.

The Supreme Court will just overturn any law that the Supreme Court deems to violate the Constitution.

Why limit restrictions to foreign corporations (although it is important that they be prohibited from any participation in our elections)? Why not just pass an amendment making it clear that corporations and other similar associations of people are not human beings. Individual human beings have civil rights including the right of association. But once individuals join associations, the association, whether a corporation or a joint venture, has no rights of its own.

[No Elephants]

42. Not so easy to pass a controversial constitutional amendment. And, once you open up the

Constitution, you may not like the final result.

I think we have to wait for someone to retire or die, then hope to heaven a Democrat willing to appoint a liberal Justice is President at the time. Then hope for the Citizens case to be overruled.

[SlingBlade]

27. Oh Yes, And the Tooth Fairy is real !

[Romulox]

31. This is meaningless. Mutlinational corps. may be HQed in the US, but that doesn't

mean they have my interests at heart any more than a foreign corp.

[Xipe Totec]

35. Agreed

But that's not what Congress is trying to do; they are trying to block Multinationals from plowing money into political speech, precisely because the do not have our interests at heart.

This is about preventing any corporation that is even partially foreign owned from spending money on political campaigning in the US.

I think this is a brilliant move.

[AlinPA]

36. It will be filibustered to death immediately in the senate, the assholes are just grandstanding.

[yurbud]

37. does it include any foreign shareholders?

[Kokonoe]

43. Good... the last thing we want is a socialistic influence on

our corporate free speech.:sarcasm: