Do you actually think that under current law foreign nationals can participate in US elections? That's the big change. During the Clinton years you righties thru a fit over ONE chinese guy who got caught donating to the DNC, and now we see this - a grotesque hypocrisy, where the floodgates are opened for the wealthy of the world to join in with the wealthy of the US in looting this country. And you don't see that as much of a change? Why bother having a country, if that is the way you feel, heck let's just open US elections up to anyone who wants to vote, from Austria to Zimbabwe, come on in and have at it.

And I suppose you were part of the righties or more likely one of the lefties that gave him a pass.

All that rethoric and fear mongering and yet, not one simple answer to EXACTLY what has changed and the impact.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Try this: Go to the bathroom. Stick your head in the porcelain megaphone you see on the floor. Keep shouting "massive foreign money pouring into campaigns" until skull penetration ensues.

Ah, there we have it. Now we know where you get your material to sink in.

One more time in plain english. Compare and contrast the difference between BEFORE the judgment and NOW. Even you have mentioned that Clinton received foreign money as Prez and perhaps even now as Mrs Clinton gets money via Mr Clinton. So one more time, what has changed and how?

Or do I have to draw you pictures?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind.
— Bradley A. Smith is Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTVkODZiM2M0ODEzOGQ3MTMwYzgzYjNmODBiMzQzZjk=

They have always been here. But this court ruling will NOW remove almost all restraints.


Going to make it a LOT more easy, and more obvious.


So tell us please: Is that what you LIKE, to see the USA become even *more* like such places as the Phillipines, Peru and Nigeria?


In Peru for example, about 25 years ago, had a working, viable, Social Security system. The President personally looted it, down to the last centavo, and it collapsed. My then (and now -ex) wife's cousin, who was a nurse, Julia, told me personally, she was a nurse in the country, and lost everything she had put into the fund, as did millions of other Peruvians.

30+ years later, the guy said he was "sorry" and begged forgiveness, when he ran for President again.

They believed his apology and he is NOW the president of Peru.

But he never paid back ANYTHING, of what he stole. Nothing

Look it up, if you don't believe me. His name is Alan Garcia Perez, President of Peru since 2006. He stole the Social Security fund dry when he was president before, 1985 - 1990.

You want this kind of thing to happen * here *?


Th US Supreme Court's decision has now opened the floodgates for naked influence peddling, a close cousin to this kind of thing.


So, are you ok with it?

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Murdoch's Wall Street Journal is. Time to get on the bandwagon, they say, and has Fox New's addition of a Saudi director show:

Globalizing the Boardroom

Companies World-Wide Add Foreign Directors, but Boards In U.S. Are Slow to Follow

By Joann S. Lublin
Staff Reporter
The Wall Street Journal

When Paul Anderson took the helm of Duke Energy Corp. in late 2003, the Charlotte, N.C., company had only one foreigner, a Canadian, on its 11-member board of directors. Mr. Anderson soon persuaded Roger Agnelli of Brazil, who runs a big mining concern in that country, to accept a seat. Duke has invested $2 billion in Latin America since 1999.

"It strikes me as foreign to not have foreigners on a major U.S. corporation's board," explains Mr. Anderson, who previously led BHP Billiton Ltd., an Anglo-Australian resources conglomerate. He diversified Billiton's all-Australian board to encompass five nationalities offering "a world view," he recalls. Mr. Anderson is now the sole American citizen on the board of Australia's Qantas Airways.

Around the world, corporate boards are going global. Driven by a surge in cross-border takeovers, the clamor by shareholders world-wide for improved corporate governance and a rising pool of senior executives with overseas experience, multinational businesses increasingly are tapping directors from outside their home countries.

Advocates say the broadened geographic reach brings new perspectives to the boardroom. Yet many U.S. companies haven't gotten the message. A 2005 survey by recruiters Spencer Stuart found that only 35% of 149 large U.S. businesses have at least one non-American director, a modest rise from 31% in 1999.

By contrast, about 90% of Europe's largest concerns by market capitalization boast one or more directors from outside their home country. At about 49% of those 99 companies, there is at least one American on the board, up from about 35% in 1999, according to an analysis for The Wall Street Journal by search firm Heidrick & Struggles International Inc.

That may put U.S. companies "at a disadvantage in the global marketplace," says Gavin Anderson, president and chief executive officer of GovernanceMetrics International, a governance ratings and research service in New York. Any major American company with significant sales abroad needs "at least one individual on the board who represents the views of the rest of the world," Mr. Anderson says.

The lack of foreign directors also means management "may make bad decisions" about international expansion, suggests Stephen Mader, head of the board and CEO practice for recruiters Christian & Timbers in New York. He cites Walt Disney Co., which had an all-American board until this year, as "a dramatic case of failure." EuroDisney SCA, 40%-owned by Disney, has struggled to make money since the first of its two French theme parks opened in 1992. Disney officials "totally misestimated the kind of reception they would get for an American entertainment institution in France. It took them years to re-engineer that." A Disney spokesman declined to comment beyond saying he couldn't confirm whether the board previously had a non-U.S. citizen.

The long list of U.S. companies with all-American boards includes many that reap substantial revenue abroad, such as Hewlett-Packard Co. The Palo Alto, Calif., high-tech giant derives nearly two-thirds of its $80 billion in annual sales from outside the U.S.

H-P's board recently hired a search firm to find a non-U.S. director "who has lived and spent the bulk of [his or her] career overseas," says Robert Sherbin, a company spokesman. He adds that H-P does have "international knowledge" on its board, from executives who have managed U.S. businesses with overseas operations.

Some recruiters say overseas work experience can be equal or more important than the country on an executive's passport. "I would rather have a director who ran a business in France who may be American than someone who just happened to be born in Paris and has a French surname," says Dennis Carey, a Philadelphia partner at Spencer Stuart.

But global-minded governance advocates disagree. Anne Simpson, executive director of the International Corporate Governance Network, believes it is misleading to label a director "international" for working a stint overseas or for a company to regard its board as international if it is 99% American. The London-based network represents investors responsible for more than $10 trillion of assets world-wide.

The sole foreign citizen on Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s board is Australian Douglas N. Daft, a former Coca-Cola Co. CEO who resides in New York. The world's largest retailer by revenue, which derives 20% of its sales from outside the U.S., is "actively searching" for another non-U.S. director, says spokeswoman Mona Williams.

"U.S. companies in general have much more homogenous boards" because their huge home market stands "in the way of internationalizing," says Daniel Vasella, chief executive of Novartis AG, a big Swiss pharmaceutical maker. Novartis has five nationalities represented on its 12-member board, where the seven foreigners outnumber the Swiss. The diverse views "enrich" the board debates, observes Dr. Vasella, who is Swiss. "Group think is not a good thing."

Dr. Vasella believes so strongly in the idea that he sought, and won, an exemption from a Swiss regulation that a majority of directors be Swiss citizens. And he is already looking for some other foreign nationals to become directors in 2008, when five incumbents leave. "I need people who have a world-wide outlook" because Novartis operates globally, Dr. Vasella told the Swiss government.

Many European concerns adopt the strategy by necessity, because their home markets are relatively small. Novartis, for example, derives only about 1% of its revenue from Switzerland; Europe as a whole accounts for 36% of its revenue.

Others recruit Americans as they expand geographically. Two years ago, former investment banker Maria Richter joined another American on the board of British utility National Grid PLC. Thanks to three U.S. takeovers in five years, National derives about one-third of its revenue from the U.S. The American directors' knowledge about the U.S. market and regulatory trends is "very valuable to us," says Sir John Parker, National's nonexecutive chairman.

American directors say that when they try to globalize their boards, they often face resistance from foreign candidates worried about scheduling conflicts, time-consuming travel and legal risks. International directors must also quickly grasp different accounting rules and securities laws. "It's really hard," says H-P's Mr. Sherbin, noting that other big U.S. companies are competing for the same "small pool" of foreign candidates.

These days, many U.S. companies are seeking board expertise on China, as they try to tap that huge market. But not all insist on giving seats to Chinese nationals who live in China. Some are willing to settle for Chinese expatriates in the U.S. or executives of any nationality who have worked in China. Yet they still often come up empty-handed.

Last summer, a Chinese man in charge of a $3 billion Chinese operation for a multinational agreed to be the first non-U.S. board member at a large Midwestern manufacturer with a booming Asian business, according to a person familiar with the situation. The Beijing-based candidate promised to attend the company's eight board sessions a year. Nevertheless, officials feared he might miss several sessions and postponed the offer until after his 2006 retirement, the person says.

European companies looking for foreign directors encounter the same obstacles but sometimes employ innovative strategies to surmount them. At Novartis, Dr. Vasella eases the stress of repeated foreign travel by letting directors hitch rides on a corporate jet. The Novartis board convenes 11 times per year, most often at its Basel headquarters.

Some non-American companies also have boosted the fees they pay directors to lure foreign candidates. In 2002, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Richard Breeden became the first non-Spanish director of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, Spain's second-largest bank by assets. His director fees totaled about $362,000 last year -- nearly five times the average for outside directors in Europe.

Mr. Breeden's appointment was part of the bank's efforts to bring governance in line with international standards following a hidden-accounts scandal. Since he arrived, BBVA has begun to disclose top-management pay and bought two U.S. banks.

Still, Mr. Breeden says he typically misses one or two of the 12 board meetings each year. He sits on no board committees. Chief Executive Francisco Gonzalez doesn't mind, calling Mr. Breeden "a very involved director." When there is another vacancy on BBVA's board, Mr. Gonzalez adds, "I would like to have another foreign director."

What restraints? I see the 30 day or 90 day limit going. What other restraints are going? I wish people like you would not speak in general terms but more specific. If I can see what you are talking about, I might understand better. Can you cite what restraints are being removed?

As I see it, all it can do is change the way I give you money. Instead of having to give you the last donation 30 days or 90 as the case may be, I can give you money up to the last second. Like I said, is there a difference to the voter as to whether I give my candidate $200 donation 30 days before the election or do I now give you $100 and a week before $100? After all, the limits are not being changed. If the limits were $100K and now they are removed altogether, I would agree with you.

More obvious is good. I'd rather have 5 people in front of me than 1 behind.

Gee, and people wonder why I always tell them "I don't forgive nor do I forget those that crossed me".

Again, besides the rhetoric, how? Cite me something specific that I can do today that I could not do 2 weeks ago.

Of course not! But show me something concrete and not with just words.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Sen Russ Feingold speaks, aklim needs to listen:

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC has opened the floodgates to corporate money in federal campaigns in ways we haven’t seen for nearly a century. While for decades corporations have been able to set up special accounts, called PACs, to accept contributions and spend them on political activities, they have not been allowed to spend money from their vast corporate treasuries in connection with federal elections. Citizens United v. FEC has changed all that.

In this case, the Court took a narrow campaign finance issue and decided a much broader one-- whether a century of laws protecting against corruption in government, laws which have been repeatedly upheld as constitutional, should suddenly be overturned. While the core of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often known as McCain-Feingold, isn’t affected by this decision, the decision does eviscerate longstanding campaign finance law.

Below are some key points about the decision, and how the Court’s move to overrule Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1991) and portions of McConnell v. FEC (2003) will undermine our democratic process...

How Unlimited Corporate Spending on Advertising May Impact Campaigns

Corporations have huge war chests that far exceed current spending in our political system. During the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 500 companies alone had profits of $743 billion. By comparison, spending by candidates, outside groups, and political parties on the last presidential election totaled just over $2 billion. That is a lot of money, but it’s nothing compared to what corporations and unions have in their treasuries.

The Supreme Court has now allowed unlimited corporate spending on campaigns. That means, for example, that Wall Street banks and firms, having just taken our country into its worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, could spend millions upon millions of dollars on ads directly advocating the defeat of those candidates who want to prevent future economic disaster by imposing new financial services regulations.

Congress Acted to Curb Corruption for a Reason

Congress long ago placed reasonable limits on corporate spending in order to preserve the importance of individual citizens’ votes and to curb corruption, and the appearance of corruption, in government. Congress struck back against the power of the trusts with the Tillman Act, and passed the Federal Election Campaign Act in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Then, after many other scandals in the years that followed, including the controversy surrounding overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and exclusive White House coffees for big donors, it passed the BCRA. The Court’s decision, while it does leave the core of McCain-Feingold intact, in many ways takes us back to the era of the robber barons in the 19th century.

The Court Ignored Longstanding Legal Principles

In its ruling, the Court ignored several time-honored principles that have served for the past two centuries to preserve the public’s respect for and acceptance of its decisions. This decision runs contrary to the concept of “judicial restraint,” the idea that a court should decide a case on constitutional grounds only if absolutely necessary, and should rule as narrowly as possible. Here, the Court did just the opposite-- it decided the constitutionality of all restrictions on corporate spending in connection with elections in an obscure case in which many far more narrow rulings were possible.

The Court also ignored stare decisis, the historic respect for precedent, which Chief Justice John Roberts termed “judicial modesty” during his 2005 confirmation hearing. It’s hard to imagine a bigger blow to stare decisis than to strike down laws in over 20 states and a federal law that has been the cornerstone of the nation’s campaign finance system for 100 years.

Finally, the Court ignored the longstanding practice of deciding a case only after lower courts have fully examined the facts. Here, because the broad constitutional questions raised in the recent reargument of the case were not raised in the court below, there is no factual record at all on which the Court could base its legal conclusions.

Just a little over six years ago in the McConnell opinion, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’ The only thing that has changed since then is the composition of the Court. It is deeply disappointing that this Court, and particularly its newest members, had so little respect for precedent. This decision will surely undermine public confidence in the Court as well as damage our nation’s political system.

aklim's not talking to Russ. aklim doesn't trust a word Russ or any politician says.

IOW, they can spend as much as they want. Just one more hoop they have to jump thru that has been removed. As I said, how has this impacted the SUM of money going to the politician?

OK. Fair enough. What was the previous limit? AFAIK, it was unlimited. Just that you have to send it thru different channels. $500 in Money Orders, Traveler's Checks, cash, credit cards spends about the same.

Yeah, right. Congress is as pure as the driven snow. Sure. Should have told me that tomorrow. Would have been a good weekend joke.

THAT, I can believe.

Specifically what restrictions on the amount of money spent? Again, no answer.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

They can't. Read the case. Then explain it to Obama.

__________________
MB-less

The administration's rhetoric on this is matched only by the rhetoric here. The decision seems to be clear as to how much change it actually makes re: McCain Feingold.
Still seems to be much ado about nothing.
All the emotion makes me wonder, "What is the REAL fear behind all this?" Does it somehow reduce the power of the democrat party, or democrat party special interest groups, or what?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

I think it is just a "I'm on your side" thing. Much like what Congress does. Kick the can down the road and when it comes due, job security again

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

How is that any different from other landmark cases like RvW for example?

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

They can't? Do you have a clue about US business law? Do you think it is illegal for a foreign corporation to simply buy up a majority stock position in a US firm, and then install it's own management? It is not. Do you think it is illegal for a foreign national to start his own US corporation? It is not. Do you think it is illegal for foreigners to sit on the boards of US corporations? It is not. You guys amaze me, you want so much for the obviousness of this ruling not to be true, you'd buy that kind of assinine hair-splitting argument. This is a granting of power in the US political system to foreign nationals. Tell me how it is not.