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

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

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

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

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

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.

What a focking crock. All show, no TEETH.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

the change has to be greater than that

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.

I guess we can go pound sand.

SCOTUS in the Citizens United case.

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.

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

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.

And we all know who they are.

.

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.

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

"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.

corporations are citizens.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

our corporate free speech.:sarcasm: