Can someone explain to me how, with the relaxation of the campaign finance rules, you can prevent some major international corporation from influencing elections? Let’s say Siemens, for instance, would like a certain person elected. Couldn’t they just flood the campaign with money through one of their US affiliates?
Please share widely!
As I read the decision, the Supreme Court did not overturn the ban on direct corporate contributions to campaigns. The decision overturned the limitations on independent expenditures (e.g. making a movie about a candidate) as long as those expenditures were not coordinated with a campaign. Corporations are still not allowed to make direct contributions.
<
p>The question of money coming from a foreign source was not before the Court. However, the Court made this comment:
<
p>
.
<
p>I read this to mean that there is still a valid law on the books that would bar a foreign company from making independent expenditures to influence a U.S. election.
<
p>Does anyone read it differently?
In his dissent in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens cautioned that the decision “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
<
p>If the right-wing knew that Hugo Chavez via Citgo could run attack ads or pump money into political campaigns, their heads would explode. Welcome to the International Corporate States of America!
could spend through CITGO or purchase any American corporation.
Banana Republic here we come.