The actual rule on foreign corporations and political spending, if anyone cares.

[jobycom]

The ruling yesterday didn't change this, although it may need some tweaking in terms of "domestic subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations," since it doesn't discuss political ads, which were previously forbidden to all corporations, thus not addressed here in terms of those domestic subsidiaries. Foreign corporations would still be banned, though.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:

•Foreign governments;
•Foreign political parties;
•Foreign corporations;
•Foreign associations;
•Foreign partnerships;
•Individuals with foreign citizenship; and
•Immigrants who do not have a "green card."

Individuals: The "Green Card" Exception
An immigrant may make a contribution if he or she has a "green card" indicating his or her lawful admittance for permanent residence in the United States.

Domestic Subsidiaries and Foreign-Owned Corporations
A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation or a U.S. corporation that is owned by foreign nationals may be subject to the prohibition, as discussed below.

PAC Contributions for Federal Activity
A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if:

1.The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or
2.Individual foreign nationals:
◦Participate in the operation of the PAC;
◦Serve as officers of the PAC;
◦Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or
◦Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure. 11 CFR 110.20(i).
(See also AOs 2000-17, 1995-15, 1990-8, 1989-29, and 1989-20.)

Corporate Contributions for Nonfederal Activity
Additionally, a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may not donate funds or anything of value in connection with state or local elections if:

1.These activities are financed by the foreign parent or owner; or
2.Individual foreign nationals are involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.

[uncle ray]

1. well at least it will just be "American" coprorations that own us.

thanks for being such a ray of hope this week, we all really need this.

[jobycom]

3. The ruling isn't really all that bad, but I'm afraid to start a thread saying that.

People will get there eventually, and I'm too tired these days to fight people I basically agree with on 80% or more of everything.

But all this does is allow corporations to say "Vote for Robin Scum," instead of just saying, as they do now, "Robin Scum is our friend. Remember that when you vote."

Personally, I still think corporate ownership of the media is a much bigger problem. Let corporations be more obvious in their ads. At least then we can fight them directly.

[Igel]

6. I keep trying to agree.

Then I read something that makes me doubt the ruling's importance and points out where I crucially misunderstand something. And I think, "Oh, no, we're all going to be sucked into a singularity where politics and corporate megafinances will crush all reasoning and electoral process down to their constuent quarks." Then I stop foaming at the mouth and read something to enlighten myself a bit more.

After I've fixed my misunderstanding of the law, of the ruling, of some definition or other, I conclude my doubts weren't justifed but doubts are.

Until I read something that makes me conclude that the ruling really does mean The End of All Things. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[kudzu22]

9. I tend to agree

The big corporate money has always been in politics, they just have to be sly and underhanded as to how they go about it. All this ruling means is that they no longer have to be sneaky about it.

[ddeclue]

2. A distinction without a difference.. that's why God created subsidiaries..

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

4. Like that has stopped Toyota from lobbying against money for GM.

Like that has stopped FIAT from lobbying for money for Chrysler.


Creating layers of paper that make OK that which is not OK is what large law firms pay ambitious young attorneys to do.

The Supreme Court ruling means the limits on campaign efforts by corporations have been defanged, and any corporation anywhere in the world will be able to influence US elections mightily.

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Many of the biggest Corporations are international in scope...

The piece of ground where their headquarters sits is a convenient political tool.

If they have interests in another country, they will turn their enormous influence on our government to benefit that country.

Here in the U.S. BAE is the wholly owned American subsidiary of BAE in Britain. They created that company so it can get around the laws about national security and political greed. They are really the same company with the same goals and the same customers. Legally, we are allowed to pretend they are different.

[readmoreoften]

7. +1

[BeHereNow]

8. EXACTLY- the corporations who MATTER are trans national.

On paper, they appear to be "US based" companies.
In reality, they are vines from a global branch.

How can people fail to comprehend this fact?

BHN