The Supreme's Delayed Decision & Foreign Contributions (DailyCensored.Com)

[autorank]

Foreign Contributions and the Supreme’s Overdue Decision on Campaign Funding

by Michael Collins

The Supreme Court of the United States will soon announce a major decision on our lightly controlled system of campaign funding. Will it retain some limitations on corporate influence or will the court blow the lid off and cause a perpetual flood of unrestricted corporate contributions?

An additional outcome may surprise and shock the public. Snip

During oral arguments before the court, Olson argued that McCain-Feingold unlawfully restricts the First Amendment rights of U.S. corporations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this exchange with Olson:

MR. OLSON: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, Rose Jean v. Associated Press, and over and over again, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include –

MR. OLSON: Now, Justice –

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include today’s mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be foreign individuals or entities?

MR. OLSON: The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a share of a corporation.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Own many shares?

MR. OLSON: Pardon?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Nowadays there are foreign interests, even foreign governments that own not one share but a goodly number of shares.Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Oral Arguments, pp. 4, 5, Sept. 9, 2009

Justice Ginsburg created a poison pill by putting on notice any Supreme Court majority that overturns the lower court decision: your actions will allow foreign funding for U.S. campaigns. Any foreign entity could simply exercise an existing or newly acquired ownership position in a U.S. corporation to demand services from that corporation’s latest wholly owned candidate.

The current bans on direct corporate contributions and contributions from foreign entities would become meaningless. The influence of the “corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth” obtained through the control of puppet politicians would submit all of us to the vicissitudes of balance sheets and the salary and bonus demands of board chairmen all over the world (to an even greater degree than we now experience).

Supremes Green Light Foreign Money in U.S. Elections! How well will that fly with citizens in the current political climate? Does the Supreme Court even care?

[Neecy]

1. Big K&R

Justice Ginsburg is a treasure. She raises an excellent point here, hopefully one that will give the wingnuts on the Court pause.

[autorank]

3. A big pause

She goes right for the throat, appropriately so.

Imagine having two alumni of stolen election 2000, Florida recount; one the Chief Justice, the other
the attorney for ruining election controls on corporations, weak as they are.

[clear eye]

2. Thank you for uncovering the contradictions in the very dangerous ruling

expected any day now.

Anybody who cares about responsive gov't really has to unite w/ Common Cause and the Brennan Center for Justice in working to counteract the consequences.

[autorank]

4. Links- Common Cause & Brennan Center

Corporate Democracy:
Potential fallout from a Supreme Court decision on Citizens United
http://www.commoncause.org/CitizensUnitedReport

Brennan Center Files Amicus in Citizens United Case
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/brennan_center_files_amicus_in_citizens_united_case/

[ihavenobias]

5. K & R, very interesting. n/t

[autorank]

6. Interesting now but I hope irrelevant when the decision comes out

;)

[autorank]

7. Foreign Ownership of U.S. Corporations

Foreign Ownership From - SourceWatch
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_ownership_of_U.S._corporations

According to the website Economy in Crisis, "Foreign ownership refers to ownership of assets of a particular industry by foreign controlled domestic U.S. Corporations (FDC) 50% or more owned by a foreign entity."<1>

By that definition, the percentage of foreign ownership as of 2002 by industrial sector was as follows:<2>

* Sound recording industries - 97%
* Commodity contracts dealing and brokerage - 79%
* Motion picture and sound recording industries - 75%
* Metal ore mining - 65%
* Motion picture and video industries - 64%
* Wineries and distilleries - 64%
* Database, directory, and other publishers - 63%
* Book publishers - 63%
* Cement, concrete, lime, and gypsum product - 62%
* Engine, turbine and power transmission equipment - 57%
* Rubber product - 53%
* Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing - 53%
* Plastics and rubber products manufacturing - 52%
* Plastics product - 51%
* Other insurance related activities - 51%
* Boiler, tank, and shipping container - 50%
* Glass and glass product - 48%
* Coal mining - 48%
* Sugar and confectionery product - 48%
* Nonmetallic mineral mining and quarrying - 47%
* Advertising and related services - 41%
* Pharmaceutical and medicine - 40%
* Clay, refractory, and other nonmetallic mineral products - 40%
* Securities brokerage - 38%
* Other general purpose machinery - 37%
* Audio and video equipment mfg and reproducing magnetic and optical media - 36%

* Support activities for mining - 36%
* Soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation - 32%
* Chemical manufacturing - 30%
* Industrial machinery - 30%
* Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial investments and related activities - 30%

* Other food - 29%
* Motor vehicles and parts - 29%
* Machinery manufacturing - 28%
* Other electrical equipment and component - 28%
* Securities and commodity exchanges and other financial investment activities - 27%

* Architectural, engineering, and related services - 26%
* Credit card issuing and other consumer credit - 26%
* Petroleum refineries (including integrated) - 25%
* Navigational, measuring, electromedical, and control instruments - 25%
* Petroleum and coal products manufacturing - 25%
* Transportation equipment manufacturing - 25%
* Commercial and service industry machinery - 25%
* Basic chemical - 24%
* Investment banking and securities dealing - 24%
* Semiconductor and other electronic component - 23%
* Paint, coating, and adhesive - 22%
* Printing and related support activities - 21%
* Chemical product and preparation - 20%
* Iron, steel mills, and steel products - 20%
* Agriculture, construction, and mining machinery - 20%
* Publishing industries - 20%
* Medical equipment and supplies - 20%

[puebloknot]

24. This is a ghastly and frightening list.

And I'm curious about what this means: Other insurance related activities - 51%

Got a clue for the likes of me? :)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. Ruth - smarter than the average bear and blows the cover off.

In fact, she raises questions about foreign influence that don't need to wait for a Supreme Court decision, they could be followed and investigated right now - Foreign nations influencing and buying our elections under the guise of campaign contributions even as we speak?

The right tries to divert attention by screaming and crying about ACORN and relatively penny ante voter fraud (if proven) - I think the idea of foreign owned corporations controlling our elections is more like OAK TREE in comparison.

Brings into question the whole idea of corporate citizenship and personhood. What exactly is the criteria for determining what is a US Corporation?

[Hannah Bell]

12. also calls into question the idea that "our" workers have to take lower

wages at "our" corporations to compete against "their" workers at "their" corporations.

there are no "our" corps except small local ones; ditto for theirs.

there's just one global cluster-fuck of the working class.

the world is run by a bunch of gangs; they cross lines of race, creed, & nation.

in fact, from down here the peons have not clue one what the organizing principle is except money.

but what i think more people are realizing is that everything they were taught about how the world is structured - ain't necessarily so.

[Hannah Bell]

20. kik

[autorank]

21. ain't necessarily so

Except that comment on money, that's the goal. There's one other element, paranoia. The top of
the heap are frightened that we'll catch on so they go to great lengths to create diversions and
laws that lock down any form of free speech or information flow. They do a good job but only
because they control the game, rules, hire the judges. Self congratulations abound in the form
of prizes, honors, etc., so much so they probably believe they deserve the attention and rewards.
People are getting hip at a record rate. The fundamental corruption is well known. Just look at
the responst to the very first bailout. Scared them half to death.

[Me.]

9. I'm Surprised At Scalia

What's up with him?

[autorank]

11. Globalism meets U.S. politics

Scalia never met a "con" he didn't like;)

[Me.]

10. Ket's Keep This Going

:kick:

[diva77]

13. k&r #14 thanks for shedding light on this!

[autorank]

22. Ginzburg called the scam

Ant it is just that. But we know what they're up do. There's a chance that her excellent point
is the reason for the delay in this decision, which was to be out last Wed.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. good morning kick! nt

[Orwellian_Ghost]

15. K&R

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. The Founding Fathers can hardly have anticipated that commercial

corporations, any corporations, would one day be granted legal status as "natural" persons. Is it formal status as a natural person? If so, it represents American exceptionalism at its worst, being completely repugnant to common-sense, indeed, to the very meaning of the basic terms of the English language, concerned. And, of course, the Founding Fathers were not at all lacking in common-sense. Far from it. In the rest of the world, companies may be "legal persons", but for them to enjoy the rights proper to "natural" (i.e. human) persons would be rightly regarded as surreally perverse, completely nonsensical.

In fact, were not the Founding Fathers, who were themselves not without a certain element of elitism, well aware of just how criminally perverse the American right-wing could eventually become? But of course, they could only warn about it. So, for Olson to invoke protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution is doubly surreal. Who could believe that the Founding Fathers would have been so perverse as to countenance such a nonsense as a corporation's enjoying the status of a natural person. Such folly, however, is by no means unknown among the most eminent judges.

[autorank]

23. Olson is the Salvadore Dali of juris prudence

You're right on "exceptionalism" - this is the worst example of it at work.

:hi:

[Joe Chi Minh]

25. Good one, capting! How about Magritte? (rhetorical!)

[Kurovski]

17. I've been waiting for this for awhile now.

Corporations are persons. Oh brother. I just love that bullshit.

You'd think that FOX viewers would actually be appaled at foriegners having a say in our elections.

Oh well, Public financed elections NOW!!!


So Sir auto...be sure to read my book "Life on DU: From Prince to Tawdry in Twelve Easy Posts". :spank: :hi:

[autorank]

26. I received a copy in a plain brown wraper

Of your book, that is. Very tantilizing;)

If corporations were people, we could put them in jail.

[mod mom]

18. Too bad the stolen elections of 2000 & 2004 stacked the court w corporatists

that will rule in favor of corporate interest over the people.

[truedelphi]

19. Wow! Way to go, Ruthie Baby. And you too Mr A. n/t