|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 18, 2010 15:33:02 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 13:36:41 GMT -8
But, legality is not the issue. Republicans defensiveness has nothing to do with whether Citizens United is legal. You don't get it at all do you? It is the perception of foreign influence. Americans, Republican, Democrat and Independent don't like the concept. The polls that indicate most Americans disagree not only with the Supreme Court decision, but also believe that foreign influence in our elections is an anathema. The issue would have no legs and the Republicans would not be defensive if all of this were a non issue. It is a fact that the polls say 9% of voters would vote for candidates using these contributions as the decision fulcrum. The voters think this stinks. Legal has nothing to do with it. The fact the the Supreme Court made a ruling that anyone with a 100 I.Q. can see is stupid reflects poorly on them, not us. (A suggestion. Break up your text a bit. Breaking it up makes it easier to read on a small screen.) He is telling you the law and not arguing the issue. Since the Chamber does not need to disclose its donor list, how do you know (not guess) anything? The law may allow this travesty to occur, but that is not why the Republicans are in a frenzy about it. It is not why you are in a frenzy about it. You guys are foaming because it makes you look bad. Citizens United was a horrible decision, because it has the effect of concentrating power into the hands of entities not granted free speech in the constitution-corporations. I looked and cannot find any reference to corporate rights anywhere in the constitution. I always thought corporations were an artificial legal construction created to limit liability and facilitate commerce. Legal or not legal, though, the issue of not knowing who contributes to a political campaign has created concern about how our political process has been abused. The controversy has legs not because of a question of legality, it has legs because it looks bad and saps confidence in the process from voters. People are concerned by these contributions. A full 80% of them don't like the ruling. I think Citizens United was a monumentally lousy ruling, one that will be mitigated by congressional action if the heretofore abuses continue. For a group of smart people, the members of the Supreme court are tone deaf to what worries people and immune to any conception of precedent. Sandiegopete may say the Court ruling makes the contributions legal, but I don't shive a git. Citizens United was an abortion. If Sandiegopete understands law, he knows how much precedent the Supreme Court gave the finger to and how badly they compromised the process when they ruled the way they did. I have less faith in the electoral process than I did before. Several other people feel the same way. Even some conservatives do. If less faith in the democratic process strengthens America, Alice and the Mad Hatter have taken over. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 20, 2010 14:57:28 GMT -8
There is a lot of discussion about the US Chamber of Commerce using money from foreign sources to fund political advertisements. The fact is, under the Citizens United v. FEC decision the Supreme Court found that corporations domiciled in the United States, regardless of ownership, are entitled to fund political advertisements in the United States. Remember, Federal laws regarding foreign nationals only apply to those corporations domiciled in countries other than the United States. So, a corporation such as Citgo which is domiciled in Texas and is 100% owned by a holding company which itself is 100% owned by a company 100% owned by the government of Venezuela is a corporation entitled to purchase advertising supporting specific political candidates in the United States. The contributors to the US Chamber are legally permitted to be held secret by the Chamber. There is no way to legally expose those secret contributors and the Chamber has no obligation to do so. However, some have publicly confessed their contributions. The News Corporation is one. A corporation is owned by its shareholders. The second largest shareholder of News Corporation is Saudi Arabian Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who is not a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United permits foreign nationals to contribute to United States Political campaigns through the United States corporations that they own. There is nothing illegal about the actions of the US Chamber, indeed its actions comply with the spirit of the majority of the justices on the United States Supreme Court. Sadly true.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 20, 2010 15:45:10 GMT -8
There is a lot of discussion about the US Chamber of Commerce using money from foreign sources to fund political advertisements. The fact is, under the Citizens United v. FEC decision the Supreme Court found that corporations domiciled in the United States, regardless of ownership, are entitled to fund political advertisements in the United States. Remember, Federal laws regarding foreign nationals only apply to those corporations domiciled in countries other than the United States. So, a corporation such as Citgo which is domiciled in Texas and is 100% owned by a holding company which itself is 100% owned by a company 100% owned by the government of Venezuela is a corporation entitled to purchase advertising supporting specific political candidates in the United States. The contributors to the US Chamber are legally permitted to be held secret by the Chamber. There is no way to legally expose those secret contributors and the Chamber has no obligation to do so. However, some have publicly confessed their contributions. The News Corporation is one. A corporation is owned by its shareholders. The second largest shareholder of News Corporation is Saudi Arabian Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal who is not a citizen of the United States. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United permits foreign nationals to contribute to United States Political campaigns through the United States corporations that they own. There is nothing illegal about the actions of the US Chamber, indeed its actions comply with the spirit of the majority of the justices on the United States Supreme Court. Sadly true. This all goes back to the unfounded and unprovable lie by Axelrod that is at the heart of this issue. You two really have the same concerns that I do about the law, but I am more incensed with that lying SOS Axelrod and how he is trying to cloud the issue. (SOS may be the strongest language you will see me use.) |
|
