The Supreme Court ruling on the Hillary Movie will up hold the

[WCGreen]

status quo for two reasons.

1) It is illegal to take contributions from foreign sources and since many corporations have foreign investors, they would be precluded from contributing to a campaign.

2) Contributions to campaigns are not tax deductible. Setting up a PR division within an existing corporation is. That PR division is where most of the advocacy comes from all ready. There really is no need to allow corporate contributions to campaigns.

Of course, this activist court which loves to ignore previous decisions and is not afraid to take controversial stands could trump my two reasons, but there is definitely grounds to challenge if they do.

[Thrill]

1. When is the ruling expected??

[WCGreen]

3. July at the latest...

But I think they will push hard on this one...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That's interesting...

I am looking forward to hearing how they decide this case...

[qazplm]

4. I dont think an American corp

having foreign investors will be held to qualify as being a "foreign source."

Once you allow corps to donate, then you have to treat them as approximate individuals for that purpose too and if the vast majority is American, the corp will not be deemed to be a foreign source.

The PR costs will be minuscule compared to the benefits of being able to contribute to and beholden congress critters.

[BzaDem]

5. Those two elements aren't relevant at all.

This whole case is about corporations spending money to avocate for the election or defeat of a candidate, independent of the candidate's campaign. It is a completely different question than whether or not to allow contributions. No matter how they decide this case, the contribution status quo will stand. The question is whether the expenditure status quo will stand (and most people think probably not).

[georgian style]

6. I take your challenge

The Roberts' court will do what's wrong.