No foreign influence?

[SHRED]

Why do the defenders of the SCOTUS ruling ignore the current widespread foreign ownership (especially Saudi Arabia and China) of USA real estate, land, corporations, and other assets?

As if they won't now use their billions to influence our elections.

Why do Beck, Scarborough, Limbaugh, etc...lead their listeners into defending the giveaway the SCOTUS has laid at the feet of the almighty highest bidder?

Nevermind the hypocrisy of working for foreigner Rupert Murdoch.

---

[RedCrayons]

1. If you read the SCOTUS ruling

You'll find it didn't strike down the foreign corporations part of the law.

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. Maybe I am wrong but the way I read it foriegn money

can't be used but the subsidiaries of foreign corporation can use their money. That to me is semantics. A foreign corporation could have their US subsidiary take a loss spending on an election if they wanted to.

[Moochy]

5. exactly so

one level on indirection makes it legal!

[RedCrayons]

7. The US subsidiaries of foreign companies ...

... were already free to buy ads under prior Supreme Court rulings, as were corporations and unions (see FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life).

The only difference now with the new ruling is that the ads that were already being run by corporations and unions can now explicitly say who to vote for.

For example, under prior Supreme Court rulings, and corporate funded ad might say, "Candidate X is a sleazeball who wants to kill all unborn babies."

Under the new law, the same groups can now run, "Candidate X is a sleazeball who wants to kill all unborn babies. Vote for Candidate Y!"

[Bonhomme Richard]

8. "explicitly say who to vote for" That's a huge difference. n/t

[RedCrayons]

9. Why?

Who else are you supposed to vote for in a two party system?

[doc03]

6. Define foreign corporations! How about this

one since I am familiar with it, Severstal North America. Is it a domestic corporation or a foreign corporation? Who owns it and can they spend unlimited sums of money on political ads or not?

[RedCrayons]

10. Their ability to spend hasn't changed

If they could spend unlimited amounts to run ads before this ruling, they still can.

If they were prohibited from spending unlimited amounts before this ruling, they're still prohibited.

If the press ever actually reads the ruling, they're going to figure out that Obama was wrong in his characterization of what the ruling did. The staff people who prepped him and wrote his speech should have been more careful.

The press, however, seems to be far more fixated on Alito's smirk. What a fricken' waste of electrons.

[doc03]

15. All you are doing is asking more questions while ignoring

my question? You say (if) they could spend unlimited amounts to run ads before this ruling they still can. Well could they? Define the ads they could run before? You say (if) they were prohibited from spending unlimited amounts before this, they're still prohibited. Were they? Are they now? (That was my question is that company considered an American company and what can they spend
on ads and what kind of ads?) Myself I don't agree before or after the ruling any f----g company should be able to do political advertising period companies are not people they are not citizens of this country and in fact could very well not be representing any citizen of this country. The same goes for Unions. I think there should be public funding of elections. That's the problem with our entire political system it is based on who can sell themselves to the highest bidder.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. And how, precisely, will that be enforced without new laws being created?

Right now a Chinese company could set up a shell corporation with a few American employees, funnel money to it, and that corporation can then pour money into an election.

[agent46]

3. About Beck and company

Historically, times of economic crisis have seen the rise of authoritarian fascist movements. The least informed and most vulnerable segment of the population get targeted. Most of the tea-baggers don't understand that the fake populist "Real American" ethos they've internalized is entirely manufactured to ultimately benefit corporate interests. Beck (on Fox) in particular has taken the role of propagandist rabble rouser. A few months back, Beck announced an effort to organize events across the country to get his people mobilized to begin influencing local elections and government - a similar tactic used by the Dominionists. I don't know what's come of that, but imo the conscious intent behind Beck's soapbox is to mobilize a movement of fascist tools (angry white people and deluded libertarians) Though I think the efforts are failing, fascism/corporatism seems to be moving ahead nicely without them this time around.

The scope of the big boys is international and their loyalties don't lie with individual governments. They just want an unobstructed playing field. The intent seems to be permanently restructuring the political landscape to favor corporate hegemony on every level. The fantasy they're hankering for is no less ominous than the fantasy of a third reich.

Limbough is the same kind of mouthpiece.

[scarletwoman]

4. Spot on.

The intent seems to be permanently restructuring the political landscape to favor corporate hegemony on every level.

Well and succinctly put.

[krabigirl]

11. That any libertarian would follow Beck shows that they are nuts.

He is a crazy theocratical nut with no respect for personal liberties. I don't see how they can't see that.

[EFerrari]

12. Let's start a rumor that CITGO will run Hugo!

:evilgrin:

[jtrockville]

14. If they're "people", why can't corporations (foreign and domestic) vote?