Corporations are often FOREIGN. Owned by FOREIGNERS and/or run by FOREIGNERS!!!!

[Captain Hilts]

You want this issue to get some traction among conservatives, there you go.

You know what to do.

Hilts.

[glinda]

1. I recall that the prediction was that it would be just a few rich around the world controlling

everything. Well here we go!

[BzaDem]

2. Justice Kennedy thought of that when he wrote the opinion.

He specifically said that the opinion didn't cover foreign corporations.

[Captain Hilts]

4. They're often run by foreigners. Outfits like Coca cola have had non-citizens as CEOs, etc. nt

[DFW]

5. The Republicans won't care

Even if the real owners are in Iran or North Korea, if the corporation is registered in Helena, Montana with a CEO named
James Worthington III, it's not like they will care a whole hell of a lot (unless Keith Olbermann exposes it) where their
money comes from as long as the checks clear, and the cash disbursements are in genuine banknotes.

[Captain Hilts]

6. They cared about port management by foreign entities. nt

[DFW]

8. That was for headlines, This is for money in their pockets

Which will translate into congressional seats they don't deserve. They ARE for sale, after all. Free enterprise and all that.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Well then he's a fucking idiot and possibly senile who doesn't understand how corporations work. nt

[ShadowLiberal]

23. But how do you define foreign? Corporations can be international

It's quite possible for a company to 'technically' be US based, but have a majority of the stock holders (as in 50% + 1 of the voting stock) be owned by foreigners, even if the company doesn't actually have any operations in other countries. There's too much gray area in what a foreign company actually is for a provision blocking foreign corporations from spending money on US ads to work out in practice.

I mean what if a big foreign company (say 'Corporation ABC' based in Europe) pays an American (who used to work at their Europe office and is great pals with the upper management of the Europe company, plus they own a decent chunk of the stock in the European company) to set up an American owned version of their company called 'Corporation ABC US'. But then, because this is supposed to be the foreign corporation's American division, the two companies start to give each other cash as needed to keep the other afloat and help them expand, the foreign corporation even 'loans' the American corporation a big chunk of cash to help them get started, and they even market themselves together as 'Corporation ABC'. Even if Corporation ABC US is technically 100% American owned and run by an American CEO, it's still basically a foreign corporation, and can easily get cash infusions from the foreign corporation to spend on campaign ads.

You think the above situation can't happen? Think again, the place I work at has a very similar set up, except with America and Europe reversed. The reason they do this is for tax purposes, and legal protection so that in theory if part of the company is sued then the rest of the company is protected from the lawsuit if it bankrupts that one division of it.

[Kablooie]

37. So, how do you define foreign corporations?

[ClassWarrior]

3. Contributions by foreigners are illegal, correct? By what authority? The Constitution?

Perhaps this is the wedge we need to shatter this horrid decision.

NGU.

[starroute]

28. It's not in the Constitution -- it's the Federal Election Campaign Act

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

The ban on political contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals was first enacted in 1966 as part of the amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an "internal security" statute. The goal of the FARA was to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals. These included registration requirements for the agents of foreign principals and a general prohibition on political contributions by foreign nationals. In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (the FECA), giving the Federal Election Commission (FEC) jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation. . . .

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." . . ,

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. . . .

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.

[Kablooie]

38. Ah. And this law hasn't been overturned by SCROTUM so it still stands.

[Sandrabbit]

7. What is it about ““Congress shall make no law… ” that you people don't understand?

The First Amendment, states that “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble…”

The problem is that Congress has made laws abridging the
freedom of speech. The SC recently corrected that problem by
sweeping away some of those laws. The Constitution did not say
that Congress could make laws abridging the free speech rights
of certain parties or groups of people (such as unions or
corporations). Rather, it said “Congress shall make NO law…”

It also explicitly guarantees the right of the people to
assemble. In essence what many in this forum are arguing is
that the same Amendment that guarantees the right of the
people to assemble, takes away their free speech rights if
they do assemble. At least if they assemble into a
corporation. Keep in mind, a corporation is simply a group of
people (stockholders) that assemble for the purpose of running
a business and making a profit. Until corporations are
outlawed, there is no constitutional reason to deny them free
speech rights. 

[Captain Hilts]

10. If corporations were people, this would be fine...nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. Money does not equal speech. Corps is not a person. If a PERSON wants to air TV ads, let em.

[Sandrabbit]

17. Where does the First Amendment limit free speech rights to "persons"?

Does a group of persons lose their free speech rights?

[DFW]

16. No one here is objecting to corporations running a business or making a profit

What we object to is when they use those profits to buy political influence. When the press (today: media) is bought by
the interests of a very tiny privileged few, then it IS NO LONGER FREE, and thus nor are the people who consume what is
disseminated by such outlets.

Also: when the elected representatives of a state or district lose their voice in Congress due to that voice having been bought
by a tiny elite moneyed few, then the system of representation set up by the Founding Fathers has been perverted and polluted.

Any true conservative should abhor the prospect.

[sandnsea]

20. But we can make laws to prohibit two "gang members"

from peacefully assembling on the streets - but a corporation buying an election? Nah, we can't make laws against that.

The Bill of Rights was written to protect living breathing people. The individual members of a corporation have the freedom to assemble. They have the freedom to write checks to their favorite candidate. The corporation, as an entity, has no Constitutional rights. It can't vote, can't serve on a jury, can't run for office. It isn't a citizen and consequently can't have any of these rights.

[Sandrabbit]

27. Groups of people have no Constitutional rights?

That's nuts. An individual worshiper has rights but churches
don't? An individual Democrat has rights but the DNC has none.
If the FBI wanted to raid/search offices of the DNC, they can
do that without a warrant? That's silly. 

[sandnsea]

29. Those are groups of people

associating under a free assembly clause granted in the Constitution.

Corporations are businesses with rules regarding association, not the same thing at all. I can't associate with any corporation I want to, just show up and say "I'm here", where do I vote!

If you can regulate the association of teen-agers on a street corner, surely you can regulate the association of a bunch of thugs who consistently gamble away our collective fortunes while exploiting workers all over the world to get it.

[doc03]

32. I doubt there is one Dow company that doesn't have

non-US citizens or foreign governments owning their stock. So this ruling is giving foreign entities direct influence in our political process.

[alfredo]

36. A member of the Saudi Royal Family is the 2nd largest shareholder of News Corp

Fox's parent company. He's going to up his investment too.

[doc03]

39. Wow is that right, besides Faux being like our version

of Pravda it is also owned by the Saudi Royal Family.

[alfredo]

41. Let's nail their asses to the floor on this. The Saudi Prince invests a lot of money

in American companies.

It may not make much of a difference, but it may dampen the enthusiasm some have for their agenda. It may make some really question Fox's motives.

[doc03]

44. As long as the money goes to give Republicans control

I don't think they will care.

[alfredo]

47. We will fight back by pointing out who owns what politician. The corporate world

will get tired of being a politicians ATM.

Politicians started shaking down CEO's almost immediately after the ruling.

[treestar]

53. a muslin invasion!

:rofl:

Fear, freepers, fear!

[Chef Eric]

43. Stop putting words in people's mouths. People are not saying that warrantless searches are O.K.

People are merely saying that corporations should not have all of the rights that individuals have. They should not be able to vote. They should not be able to hold office. And they should not be able to contribute to political campaigns.

[sandnsea]

49. The only reason a search would need a warrant

is if an individual were suspected of a crime. We keep talking as if these corporations are self-propelled. They aren't. Humans make and implement decisions. If there's been a crime committed, a human decided to commit it. Send the fuckers to jail. If an employee at the local level commits a crime related to work, the sole proprietor business owner is liable. Make corporations the same way.

[Kablooie]

35. So you, Sandrabbit, believe this was a correct decision that will be good for the country?

[doc03]

46. Seems funny this sandrabbit dude suddenly shows up with three

f---g posts taking the Repug side of the discussion.

[Ian David]

9. Can't wait to see the Freepers start freaking-out over Hugo Chavez's Citgo politicking. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

15. BINGO!!!!!!!!!

[Ian David]

18. Those guys in that Iranian military unit we supposedly hate run a bunch of corporations. n/t

[old mark]

11. Well, I guess this will soon eliminate all those pesky "elections", and "voting"

and all those other bothersome infringements on our free time, so we can all become more voracious consumers and nice, quiet, docile corporate citizens.

mark

[Forkboy]

14. That's not the part that bothers me.

x(

[Captain Hilts]

19. We're trying to make conservatives oppose this ruling. nt

[Forkboy]

26. I know.

:)

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

21. Just follow the money...

[bvar22]

22. Not just foreigners,

but Communists in China.
AND
Muslim Kings in Saudi Arabia.
.
.
.
.
just sayin

[Captain Hilts]

24. Excellent! Keep 'em coming, folks! nt

[Captain Hilts]

25. And - don't forget - those sneaky countries that speak English are also foreigners!

This means you England (and Liz Windsor), Canada, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand - we're NOT FOOLED!

[Kablooie]

50. So... who's a forenner, eh?

[Captain Hilts]

51. Canadians are THE sneakiest of them all!

[classysassy]

30. One world government

Emperor Limbaugh,our great leader,all hail the emperor.A dittohead dream,a world nightmare.

[Kablooie]

31. We lift our lamp beside the golden -- extremely golden --- gate.

And welcome them in.

They won't be illegal aliens then. Just legal aliens.

[alfredo]

33. Source Watch

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Foreign_ownership_of_U.S._corporations

A partial list:

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%

[doc03]

42. That is frightening, this POTUS ruling actually

is the New World Order the Art Bell tin foil hat crowd has been talking about for years.

[alfredo]

45. Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss, and Mussolini are smiling somewhere.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. K&R

[Shanti Mama]

40. and foreign corporations are run by Americans, though seldom owned anywhere

Let's get our terminology straight.

A US corporation is one that is registered in the US. It could be a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign corporation. The majority of ownership could lie with non-Americans.

The same holds true elsewhere, though sometimes not so liberally. A company registered in, let's say, Egypt, might be owned by an American corp or individuals. I don't know the laws of Egypt, specifically, but I'm just trying to make a point.

And I object to the capitalization of foreigners. Perhaps even the use of the word. Our ancestors were pretty much all 'furiners' and the us vs them attitude is good for no one. Particular people or organizations in particular countries are what concerns most of us. So let's not be like many republicans and lump them all together, like some kind of racial profiling.

I realize the OP's intent was to show a way to inflame conservatives, but I'd prefer not to do so by using a tactic they use in such ugly ways.

[doc03]

48. Exactly, I work for the American subsidiary of a Russian

company that is 95% owned by one Russian citizen. Now he has the right to put whatever he wants into his favorite political race in the US through his American subsidiary.

[cascadiance]

52. And arguably even "American" corporations are *multinational* and foreign too!

Since they hire many of their workers and people overseas. So that's more "foreign" investment in our government.

[polly7]

54. But, does anyone care how many U.S., Canadian, etc. companies own businesses

in other countries?