Can a Chinese company now come in and purchase a Senator or two.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

How about Saudi Arabia?

What prevents the whole sale buying and selling of the American government. Maybe they can just buy our goverment to use our military might for their purposes.

The SCOTUS had their heads up their asses and locked on this one.

[onehandle]

1. Company? Try government. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. I'm speaking specifically about corporations being able to buy our government

Will foreign owned corporations be allowed to buy our government?

Foreign citizens can't vote here, but this makes it moot.

[tekisui]

2. That is my understanding.

Really, things can just be more overt now.

[backscatter712]

3. I think it's still technically illegal for foreign nationals to donate to U.S. elected officials.

So they'll have to have their American subsidiary do it...

[Vincardog]

8. The court ruled that corporations do not have to abide by the limits placed on individuals

[Armstead]

5. Free trade -- We can't restrict free trade so they probably can

[Bragi]

6. That only seems fair

As long as they pay the $500 needed to set up a New Jersey-based corporate shell, why shouldn't their right to political free speech be protected.

Ditto on foreign governments. For too long Americans have hoarded their political rights. No doubt a future SC will eventually allow corporations far and wide to vote.

[rwheeler31]

7. Sure why not, We don't need no stinking sovereignty.

[cascadiance]

9. I would suggest they already have! How come the WTO doesn't come down on THEM for their tariffs

and other trade protectionism for their own country? Why isn't our government challenging these tariffs like we do with Mexico on their efforts to put tariffs on diabetes causing HFCS-based goods instead of sugar.

[JVS]

10. Our best hope is that the Communist Party of China has a shift left and decides to invest in...

US politics.

[Orangepeel]

11. Companies can't and still can't contribute directly

"Federal law has long barred corporations from contributing directly to federal political candidates, and Thursday's ruling keeps that restriction in place."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204...

Not that that makes this ruling any better. Now, they don't have to. They can just buy all the ad time available to advocate for or against a candidate. Congress can and should make disclosure requirements really, really strong.

"The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote

I don't know what this means in terms of coordination. Yesterday, a union, for example, was not allowed to coordinate with a campaign in terms of ad content. Now, companies may be able to take a campaign ad for a candidate and just pay to run it. :shrug: