The simplest way to neutralize the SCOTUS ruling:

[stellad]

http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2797

... Congress should prohibit any corporation from engaging in this new political spending if it has any non-American shareholders or owners. Because after all, foreigners have no 1st Amendment protections.

The “logic” behind the SCOTUS ruling is that a corporation composed of individuals ought to possess the legal attributes of its individual owners. Thus the same logic ought to require that partial foreign ownership renders the corporation a foreign body at least in part. The foreign parts of a corporation have no constitutional right to free speech. And since there is no practical way to distinguish the legal rights of the parts from the rights of the whole corporation (that presumption underpins the SCOTUS ruling), then it’s impossible to give American constitutional rights to part of a corporation but withhold them from another part.

Hence it is constitutionally permissible to deny a partly foreign-owned corporation from spending on political speech within the United States. Congress should act to do so immediately.

Why make this a priority? There can’t be many large corporations that are entirely owned by American persons. Indeed large corporations would not find it easy to determine the legal status of their actual human owners (that’s the rotten core of the Supreme Court’s insistence on treating corporations as if they were homunculi, or composite persons). And it should be obvious that the last trade-off that corporations will want to make, in order to be able to interfere directly in political contests, is to drive away foreign investors.

[kenny blankenship]

1. Try everything and anything, I say, even stop gap measures you know will be struck down

Throw the kitchen sink at it.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Agree 1000%

[adamuu]

2. It is a matter of national security . n/t

[SharonAnn]

3. Thus, if a corporation commits a felony, its shareholders should be punished. Right?

And if a corporation commits murder, its shareholders should be put to death?

Works for me.

[pocoloco]

4. Great idea!!

Pick up Teabagger support too!

[NoNothing]

5. Foreigners have no First Amendment rights?

Really?

[customerserviceguy]

15. Good point

It's tough to say that foreign shareholders have no First Amendment rights, but on the other hand, foreign combatants who would blow airplanes out of our skies have Miranda rights.

It's going to go nowhere.

[eridani]

21. Not with respect to campaign donations they don't n/t

[eShirl]

22. Maybe they could restrict it to "eligible voters only" then.

[jwirr]

6. No multinational corporations should be the law. Maybe also no

corporations that work for/ contract with the government.

[MrsCorleone]

18. One of Grayson's bills addresses gov contracts & political spending.

It will deter at least some corporations from perverting our elections.

[Kablooie]

7. The SCOTUS way of seeing it is the opposite. If there is one American owner it's American.

His right to influence elections overrides the denial of rights to foreigners to do so.

And this would mean that any foreign corporation only needs to find one American to invest in the company to get full privileges to influence American elections.

[benld74]

8. Sound good but I liked the one I heard yesterday,,,

Get 3 people to incorporate themselves preferrably the same sex,
THen have 2 of the three to marry
then adopt the third



That will keep lawyers busy for years!

[alfredo]

9. Business owners own their businesses, I own a gun, should it be granted personhood?

[Kablooie]

10. Absolutely yes! I own a lawn chair and it is a full person in the eyes of the law.

I'm looking forward to sharing in it's social security benefits.

[alfredo]

11. Now how do we incorporate a gun or a lawn chair?

[FreakinDJ]

14. Can I Marry your Gun .......Dad

[kelly1mm]

12. Good thoughts but the premise is wrong - foreigners do have 1st amendment

rights while in the US. There are laws concerning direct campaign contributions to candidates themselves but Citizens United did not deal with that prohibition but rather independent expenditures.

[JPZenger]

24. I've never heard of challenge to foreign ban on contributions

There have been extensive bans for years on non-citizens making political contributions in the US. I've never heard of a challenge to those laws. I believe most other countries have the same laws.

[femrap]

16. So if a corporation listed

on a public exchange was open to foreign ownership, it could not give $$$ to campaigns nor advertise for or against a candidate.

Foreign owners would have to sell their shares....oops, stock price goes down. Bummer.

I think this is a good idea.

As an aside, I think we need to put a face on these faceless Corporations. For example, when Goldboy Sacks is mentioned, we say 'Blankenfeld's Goldboy Sacks.'

These CEOs have been hiding for waaaaaaaaaay toooooooooooo long. And we should show a picture of the ugly turd as well.

[Kablooie]

17. A foreign/American owned corporation would be viewed as a person with dual citizenship.

So it would have full citizen rights to influence campaigns all it wants.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KharmaTrain]

20. Full Disclosure...

There is a nugget in the ruling that can be used to hurt candidates and shame the corporates. All commercials will have to fully disclose who is sponsoring the ad...thus tie the candidate to the corporation and visa versa.

This ruling is unpopular on many fronts. Wingnuts are worried the unions and George Soros will buy elections (I know, I know) and not too crazy about the corporates either. Pull away the curtain and educate voters...all the money in the world can't buy knowledge.

Make it expensive for the corporates to throw their money around...and make it a waste. They may try to buy votes, but it won't work if no one is buying.

[JPZenger]

23. Yes, plus a corporation should have the same max. spending limit as an individual