If I was a billionaire, couldn't I just go to the county

[doc03]

courthouse and pay my $10 for a business licence and get my lawyer do draw up papers for Doc03 LLC?
Then being a corporation I wouldn't have to abide by the contribution limits for an individual would I?

[hfojvt]

1. that would be redundant

you can already make unlimited donations to "Americans for the Prosperous" (otherwise known as "Americans for Prosperity") and they, in turn, can make unlimited contributions to any candidate. Although, technically, they already were unlimited, I think, since they are an "issue advocate". It's just a coincidence, I am sure, that the issues they advocate line up almost exactly with Republican economic policies.

[timeforpeace]

2. It's a shame that an issue advocate such as this cannot do the same for Democrat policies.

[harkadog]

6. They do

Last election cycle that there is figures -- that I can find ---2006 -- there was a total of $171,045,165 spent by these organizations $121,665,587 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $49,379,578 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_Organization

[doc03]

3. What I am getting at is if someone with a ton of money

calls himself a corporation he could just cut a check to say Sarah Palin for President for an unlimited amount couldn't he? Couldn't this SCOTUS ruling just enable anyone with money to exceed the contribution limits for individuals?

[harkadog]

7. No

Corporations still can't directly contribute to political candidates.

[doc03]

10. I said to Sarah Palin for President not directly to Sarah Palin n/t

[harkadog]

11. If that is her campaign committee they can't contribute.

[doc03]

12. I guess you just want to be argumentative, you know

what the f---- I mean. If I am billionaire I can buy any elected office I chose to but you want to make some ridiculous argument that has nothing to do with the point of the OP. :mad:

[harkadog]

14. Not ridiculous at all

There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation posted on DU about this case.

[doc03]

16. Well why don't you educate us. I went through your posts

and don't see one piece of useful information other than just contradicting others.

[harkadog]

21. You don't have to go through my posts, just look at the posts

in general on the subject. Most people think this decision allows corporations to contribute any amount of money they want to a candidate. They can't. They can't contribute anything. Of course this decision allows them to do promote advertisements, pretty much unfettered, but they had ways to do a lot of that anyway. Posters complained this decision has destroyed campaign financing reform, including public financing of campaigns, but Obama destroyed that system in 2008 when he rejected public funding and far out raised McCain who did take public funding. No candidate in the future will ever accept public funding again. This may not be useful to you or anyone else that wants to say "this is when the fascist state began" and "this is when democracy died". But no one is going to be able to help folks like that. They were gone a long time ago.

[doc03]

23. I don't think people are saying anything of the sort

you just want to split hairs. We know they can't contribute directly to the campaign and they gave a lot of money anyway. What this does is take all restrictions off of the money. If you can't see the danger in letting a company that may even be owned by a foreign government being able to contribute an unlimited sum of money to influence our election there is no point even discussing it with you. Go listen to Rush Limbaugh he always said money is free speech you and him have a lot in common.

[harkadog]

24. When you have to grasp for a straw man you have lost the argument

[FreakinDJ]

4. You could run your own attack adds with impunity

who needs a 527

[wtmusic]

8. Absolutely - you could bury an opponent in attack ads

to the point where he/she wouldn't stand a chance.

This ruling is extremely naive.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. Yes, you could.

Although, the real world meaning is that you would just then be able to mount as much advocacy advertising as you could afford.

Significant if you are a billionaire, I guess, but they probably already have some business entities.

I keep hearing news spokesmodels saying that now George Soros can spend as much as he likes. I can't tell if they are trying to scare the right or comfort the left.

[doc03]

9. So the billionaire doc03 LLC could just donate

an unlimited sum of money to any campaign he wishes to support. If that is the case doesn't the SCOTUS ruling in effect also lift any restrictions on personal donations.

[alfredo]

13. Money from foreign shareholders could be laundered through the corporation.

[metalbot]

15. You're missing the point

The billionaire doesn't NEED to form an LLC to donate as much as he wants to an entity that will then work on behalf of a candidate.

Corporations have no "extra" rights in this case that people don't have.

[doc03]

17. Corporations don't have rights they are not citizens

Corporations are a group of people that own a company, 100% of those people need not even be residents of the US or even people it could be a company 100% owned buy a foreign government hostile to the USA. I don't think the constitution says anything about Corporations having any rights.

[metalbot]

19. That's a separate issue

The point is that in your posts you seem to be implying that the lifting of restrictions creates a loophole for a billionaire to incorporate himself and somehow take advantage of the abilities of a corporation to make political donations. I'm just pointing out that the recent ruling by SCOTUS does NOT grant corporations some greater ability to make political donations than an individual does. The billionaire could already donate as much as he wanted to political action campaigns.

Though I would argue that corporations clearly DO have rights, and that's been demonstrated repeatedly by case law. Police can't, for example, search the offices or records of a corporation without either consent or a search warrant. Corporations can own firearms. Surely you don't think that the US government would, for example, have the right to pass a law that said no corporate communication could be critical of the US government, right? Could the US government forbid a corporation from being closed on a Jewish Holiday?

Citizenship is not required in order to exercise a right except under fairly limited circumstances. I'm assuming, for example, that you don't think it would be Constitutional to torture illegal immigrants? After all they aren't citizens. A tourist to the US isn't a citizen, but you can't pass a law that makes it illegal for a tourist to criticize the government.

[doc03]

22. I will repeat this again a corporation is a corporation

from what I understand the SCOTUS ruling doesn't say it has to be a US chartered corporation. Even if it does any large corporation has stock holders from all over the world (not-US citizens) and in many cases much of the ownership of a corporation may even be a government hostile to the US. I myself am employed by a US subsidiary 100% owned by a Russian company and that company is 95% owned by one single Russian oligarch. Now do think it would be OK if that Russian decided he didn't like Senator Sherrod Brown's position on Cap and Trade and spent several million to defeat him. What if Hugo Chavez through his Citco company would buy himself a Senator or even a President? If you can't see the danger in this decision there is no use discussing it any further. Possibly you would like to see the Democrats voted out, you seem to have the same position on this as Rush Limbaugh.

[ctaylors6]

18. the case was not about corporate contributions. it was about independent expenditures

corporations are still prohibited from directly donating to any campaigns at all. Individual contribution limits were not affected by this decision.

The case addressed whether corporations can spend money on their own (eg run an ad in the newspaper with corporate funds) independent from any campaign. McCain-Feingold and prior SC law, had placed restrictions on corporate independent expenditures.

Individuals have not had any restrictions on independent expenditures and still do not. CU basically holds that the source of the money for independent expenditures is now pretty much irrelevant as far as whether it's a corporation (eg Exxon, Sierra Club, etc.) or an individual.

I apologize in advance if I misunderstood your post. I read your posts as saying that the CU decision lifted the ban on corporations directly donating to campaigns.

Edited to add link to FEC summary of campaign laws pre-Citizens United: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Independent_Expenditures

So Doc3 the individual can make unlimited independent expenditures (eg run ads in every newspaper) AND contribute to campaigns within FEC contribution limits. CU did not affect any of that.

Before CU, Doc3 LLC (assuming the LLC elected corporation status) could NOT contribute directly to any campaign and could make independent expenditures only in certain very restricted ways (eg through a PAC, not in the weeks right before elections).

After CU, Doc3 LLC still cannot contribute directly to campaigns but can make independent expenditures directly from LLC funds (instead of a PAC).

As a trivial point, if you form Doc3 LLC by yourself (ie single-member LLC) and don't elect corporate status I'm pretty sure Doc3LLC would be disregarded for FEC purposes anyway (ie Doc3 the individual would apply).

[KharmaTrain]

20. People Already Do It...Called An "S" Chapter

Incorporate yourself and you'll find a lot of neat little tax loopholes and how you can buy every candidate you want.

I'm just waiting for the SCOTUS to next decide that these "donations" are tax deductable...