What's to stop a Chinese, Russian or Saudi company

[NJmaverick]

from buying a small American company, then pumping hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars into it. Then have that money go to a front organization like say Citizens for a good America (or any other innocent sounding name) and then have that organization change the face of our Congress and even our Presidency by running massive ad campaigns for and against those they want to rule us?

[last1standing]

1. Absolutely nothing.

For once we're going to agree on something. This ruling was not just pro-corporation, it was anti-American. To be blunt it was treason.

[NJmaverick]

2. I agree

[gateley]

3. Nothing. Which is why the Republicans love this ruling. nt

[City Lights]

7. They won't like it if Hugo Chavez tries it. nt

[gateley]

13. They'd find a way to stop it. I'm convinced of it. nt

[City Lights]

25. Yup. They'll find a way to invoke their double-standard rule.

And I'm convinced the Dems won't say a word when they do.

[timeforpeace]

47. They would be just as likely to do that to support Dems as repukes.

[Richard D]

34. Citgo

Already in place.

[DrDan]

9. not all love it - Ben Ginsberg - noted RW attorney of Bush-v-Gore fame was on am-talk this morning

speaking out against it.

[gateley]

12. He's not a politician. I'm guessing that there are actually some in Congress who

are going "ewwww" but have to publicly toe the party line. On the whole, though, I think they believe this will benefit them because after all, who has more money to spend than the corporations, the Republicans' best friends?

[DrDan]

15. the post I replied to stated "Republicans" love it - not "Republican Politicians"

[gateley]

18. You're right. It's my post and I apologize for not specifying 'politicians'. nt

[Bjorn Against]

52. I believe that McCain and Olympia Snow have already spoken out against the ruling

While there are certainly a number of Republicans expressing glee about this ruling, I suspect there is going to be more opposition among the right than many people expect. You have to remember that most Republican voters are not wealthy and have little stake in corporate America, they will go along with a corporate agenda but only until that agenda directly and visibly effects their lives. This decision is going to change political campaigns drastically, and the vast majority of people are not going to like the changes. Embracing this ruling could turn out to be political suicide once Americans start to see the effects this has on the 2010 elections, I suspect this issue is going to drive a major wedge through the right-wing but you will probably see more Republicans speaking out against this ruling than you might expect.

[NashVegas]

58. In That Case, Both Republicans and Party Dems

Who are already big fans of the WTO.

[leftstreet]

4. I hope the Canadians take us over. Single Payer Healthcare!

:bounce:

[treestar]

22. I for one would welcome our Canadian overlords.

:rofl:

But then I don't know their campaign finance laws.

And their First Amendment situation.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Not a damned thing. THIS is our trump card in this debate. nt

[Contrary1]

6. ...or maybe a "Muslim" owned company?

They might actually notice that.

[NJmaverick]

10. That might give them pause, but it's too late

[Yavin4]

8. Unrestrained Greed Makes One Myopic and Unethical

The cons on the SCOTUS probably don't really understand that corporations are more global than they are domestic. Recall, these are old men who spent their entire lives in the legal world, not the real world.

They probably don't understand that they've given foreign corporations a backdoor to control US policy.

[NJmaverick]

11. Yes greed and short sightedness will be our nations' epitaph

[Hippo_Tron]

14. As far as I know nothing stops them from doing this already

[NJmaverick]

16. There was campaign finance law that limited the effectiveness of such a tactic

now that the rightwing 5 have rewritten the constitution to declare companies people and $$$ speech there is nothing that can stop this from happening.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. The law said you could spend the money on "issue ads"

Which means that you can't say vote against John Kerry or vote for George W Bush but you can say "John Kerry is a traitor to his country". Doesn't seem like its a huge limit to the effectiveness of it.

[NJmaverick]

21. Even the issue ads had to stop 60 days before and 30 days after an election

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Yes but that was a McCain-Feingold provision, its only been that way since 2002

[NJmaverick]

29. This ruling has over turned laws dating back to Teddy Roosevelt

who had banned money from Railroads and Federal banks

[HipChick]

17. Like Citibank?....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/business/worldbusiness/15iht-15citi.9216353.html

[NJmaverick]

30. Did the foreign bail outs come through?

[treestar]

20. Nothing

Then again, they'd have to have some American advise them or their ads would not resonate.

Also the US has surely done that too!

[NJmaverick]

23. How hard would it be to find some republican advisors that would be willing to put $$$$

ahead of America's best interests?

[treestar]

59. That would not be difficult at all

Though what form would it take? Republicans already have enough money to put ads out there and they own the media.

And then the Chinese could have some agenda that conflicts with the Republicans'

[AzDar]

24. Amounts to possible rule by 'foreign entities'. Treasonous.

:grr:

[humblebum]

40. Treasonous is the exact word needed here.

When the will and the rights of the people are subverted, along with their ability to dictate their own future, it is most certainly treasonous.

[Spike89]

27. Not defending the decision, but it isn't that different

Without a doubt more money will bring more corruption, but it isn't as if the corporations were uninvolved in politics before the SC ruling...in fact, an argument can be made that the "ethical" corporations were the only ones not finding ways to skirt the old campaign finance rules. Money doesn't always mean victory at the polls and when the money gets even larger, sometimes it makes "following the money" easier. We all bemoan the "ignorance and/or compliance" of the electorate, but people aren't stupid and if they see (and if the information is shared) that corporation X, heavily tied to Country Y is sending bundles of cash to candidate z, that can have a negative effect.

In a sense, this isn't that different from negative campaigning...it has been proven to work, to a certain extent, but it can be countered and often backfires. The key will being in forcing politicians to defend where they get their donations (something we already do to a large degree).

It is a bad situation, but this ruling lets more money into campaigns, it doesn't necessarily allow them to buy votes.

[NJmaverick]

28. This is a nation where many can't even find us on a map or globe

how do you explain to them that Citizens for Democracy is being funded by Citizens for change which is funded by company A which is a subsidary of company B which is controlled by company C which gets large tax breaks from Country XYZ. By the third link in the chain the majority of American's eyes will have glazed over.

[YOY]

31. We begin to agree again.

n.t.

[madinmaryland]

32. Why even bother with a front group. Companies can now spend

without the front companies.

[NJmaverick]

35. The front groups allow the politicians to avoid looking like they are bought and paid for

[leftstreet]

39. And why buy the politician, when you can go direct to advertising?

:shrug:

[Xithras]

33. While possible, reporting and disclosure laws limit their efficacy.

If the citizens group is running commercials directly for or against a candidate, they fall under FEC rules and have to divulge their donors. Those lists are public. So are corporate ownership records. It would literally take minutes for the blogosphere and major media to trace the links and determine that the commercials were being run with money from a foreign parent.

Here's where it gets fun. Lets say that a Chinese outsourcing firm wants to put a man in Washington to push their ideals. Let's call him Candidate X. The Chinese outsourcing firm buys All-American Corporation and dumps a billion dollars into it. All-American funds "Citizens For A Happier America", which in turn runs commercials against Candidate Y.

When Citizens For A Happier America turns in it's FEC disclosures, people will quickly discover that it's funded by All-American. A quick check of that corporations public articles and ownership records will show that it's owned by Beijing Outsourcing, Inc. The very next day, Candidate Y would have commercials on the air: "Candidate X is CHINA'S choice to be your next Senator!" or "Your toaster is made in China, and now your Senator can be too!" or "Veto Senator Walmart!". The attacks would be vicious, and the brand of being the "furrnirs" choice would be the death-knell for a campaign from either party.

So long as we have the sunshine laws, the effects of this on foreign candidate funding should be muted, at best.

[NJmaverick]

37. The problem is trying to get American's to understand complex shell games

of parent corporations and subsideries and why not put 2 or 3 different groups donating to one another while they are at it.

Sure you can try and claim that candidate X is China's choice but trying to keep the average American's attention span long enough to explain the complex and lengthy connections will be another.

Plus they are acting independently so candidate X will simply deny any relationship with company or Country Z

[TheKentuckian]

36. That would be jack apple shit but American owned has nothing to do with public interest anyway

There is no such thing as corporate loyalty or patriotism. It's a handy debate point but nothing to the heart of the problem.

[NJmaverick]

38. True even American companies think globally and care little about the welfare of our nation

but when trying to debate others this scenario is easier to get them to understand, IMO

[jtuck004]

41. New York Times Article on Chinese Language

Chinese language teachers being sent to U.S., salaries paid by China - As opposed to the downward trend of nearly every other language.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/education/21chinese.html

[readmoreoften]

42. Nothing. But personally I'm not concerned about the agenda of "evil foreign nations"

the agenda of "American corporations" is bad enough for me, thanks. And as history continues to unfold corporations will be more and more purely international.

[NJmaverick]

44. Well when you try to explain to a right winger how badly their 5 judges screwed up

this example might help

[readmoreoften]

56. That is a good point. It is strong populist/nationalist rhetoric.

I worry what its repercussions would be in the long term; but I agree, it might get them thinking.

[Raineyb]

43. Not a damn thing. n/t

[TxRider]

45. What was to stop them last week?

Nothing I can see.

[NJmaverick]

46. there was a 100 years of campaign finance law dating back to Teddy Roosevelt's

ban on money from railroads and national banks. Plus even the issue ads that corporations could run had to stop 60 days before an election and 30 days after an election. So they could make some impact but the laws that the right wing 5 struck down minimized their ability to do so.

[Odin2005]

48. Nothing.

Which is why the Corporate 5 on the SCOTUS should be arrested and charged with treason.

[Bjorn Against]

49. NJmaverick, we may not agree often but we are on the same side on this issue

I think when people really see the effects of this decision a lot of people who normally don't agree are going to come together to oppose it. Most Democrats oppose this, virtually all leftists oppose this, and I suspect there will be more opposition coming from the right than people are expecting. This is a decision that will cause great harm to the vast majority of Americans, and we will see a lot of people who normally think very differently come together to stand against the Supreme Court on this.

[BlueCollar]

50. nothing...n/t

[Fla Dem]

51. Isn't this what Rupert Murdock has already done? n/t

[NJmaverick]

54. To a degree, but we aint seen nothing yet

[spanone]

53. they will have the endorsement of the United States supreme court

[Zorra]

55. Yep. It's a deadly threat to national security. We need an immediate Presidential Directive from

President Obama that declares this SCROTUS ruling moot because it is a direct threat to our national security.

Excellent post!
:hi:

[Quantess]

57. Good point.