"it would be overbroad even if the Court were to recognize a compelling governmental interest in limiting foreign influence over the Nation’s political process."
That sounds like the Court has left this open to a challenge and looks like they might support allowing foreign companies to spend freely in elections in the United States. I guess this would be the corporate globalization of the U.S. electoral system.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother on Nov. 8, 1954
2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."
yeah it help prove my point...441 doesnt acknowledge multinational corporations where it has US subsidaries....for example if a corporation operated solely within foreign borders it can not donate to our elections...BUT if it has a US subsidary, such as TOYOTA...it can
That was the headnote originally, commentary that has no legal status, the court reporter was a man by the name of J.C Bancroft Davis. He also happened to be a former railroad president. Which this case was ruling on...coincidence? I think not...
Corporate lawyers started using it as a way to prove their case... soon the SC began quoting it (the headnote) in subsequent cases...thus making it law...without EVER issuing an opinion on it or having as open debate on the issue itself.
majority opinion
ReplyDelete"it would be overbroad even if the Court were to recognize a compelling governmental interest in limiting foreign influence over the Nation’s political process."
That sounds like the Court has left this open to a challenge and looks like they might support allowing foreign companies to spend freely in elections in the United States. I guess this would be the corporate globalization of the U.S. electoral system.
There are laws against that already, in fact the law is still in place and preceeds Mccain Feingold.
ReplyDeleteshow me the law that you are referencing
ReplyDelete"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
ReplyDelete-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother on Nov. 8, 1954
To anon 8:51
ReplyDelete2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."
Hope that helps.
yeah it help prove my point...441 doesnt acknowledge multinational corporations where it has US subsidaries....for example if a corporation operated solely within foreign borders it can not donate to our elections...BUT if it has a US subsidary, such as TOYOTA...it can
ReplyDeleteToyota motor corporation was organized under the laws of Japan. Toyota's principle place of business is japan. SO yes it does.
ReplyDeletenope, wrong again
ReplyDelete10% of FOX NEWS is owned by Saudi Arabia
ReplyDelete10% of FOX NEWS is owned by Saudi Arabia
ReplyDeleteprincipal place of business. Is that hard to understand?
Whats hard to under stand is that you defend corporations giving freely from their general funds to buy ads for/against candidates
ReplyDeleteThe Bill of Rights and the constitution is for individual freedoms not multi national, state created entities
ReplyDeleteThe Bill of Rights and the constitution is for individual freedoms not multi national, state created entities
ReplyDeleteAn 1886 supreme court decision disagrees with you.
That was the headnote originally, commentary that has no legal status, the court reporter was a man by the name of J.C Bancroft Davis. He also happened to be a former railroad president. Which this case was ruling on...coincidence? I think not...
ReplyDeleteCorporate lawyers started using it as a way to prove their case... soon the SC began quoting it (the headnote) in subsequent cases...thus making it law...without EVER issuing an opinion on it or having as open debate on the issue itself.