Bwwwwaaaaahhhhhh! Again, no shame or no memory?

But its been said on this site he is foreign ??????????????

so its american dollars that is foreign than

Rupert Murdoch obtained American citizenship back in the 80's. That allowed him to purchase US media outlets.

The presence of foreign money only buys them advertising. It does not buy votes.
Maybe its how we can balance our debt to the Chinese---they buy billions/ trillions worth of advertising; we still elect people we want, and the debt is solved.

As we all know, spending on advertising has no influence on voters. :rolleyes:

However, if someone else is spending on advertising, doesn't that free up campaign resources for other projects? Like haircuts and shopping sprees? :D

Pre-decision, spend as much as you want. Post decision, spend as much as you want. Big difference there.

Pre decision, cannot give money within 30 or 90 days. Post decision, give till the last minute. Small difference.

I never said there was NO effect. I do not believe the effect will be as dramatic as is feared.

So, more of the government needs to stop acting in the best interest of the government and instead in "our" best interests. Yeah, keep waiting...
Maybe there ought to be a private activation of people agreeing not to vote for people taking massive sums of corporate money. Doing things like watching polling sites, participating in the ballot counting, nullifying local and state laws, etc,etc. But then that's "kooky" and "quixotic", "utopian", some such nonsense.

I hjad told myself not to get involved, but here goes

(JR can call me an idiot again if he wants to)

I believe in the FIRST AMENDMENT. If corporations are given the same rights as individuals, which they are then the 1st applies to them as much as it does to JR or myself.

However, I also like the idea of us exercising OUR 1st Amendment rights to track the pols who get the big donations from corporations and 'outting' them. I like the idea of a grass roots watchdog group keeping everybody honest.

Oh and the source of this issue, the McCain-Feingold Law was written to counteract the influence companies, especially Chinese companies had exerted on President Clinton who never saw a dollar, yen, mark,euro, yuan, ruble, etc he did not like...

OK I will now go back under my rock, and haunt the Diesel Discussion...

:D

IIRC, by law, they HAVE TO display their backers, donors or whatever it is you call them on their website.

"All the news that's fit to print" NYT
 

The president appeared to have mischaracterized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn restrictions on corporate-paid political commercials by suggesting that the decision invited political advertisements by foreign companies, too.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Mr. Obama said.

“Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a member of the majority in that decision, broke with the justices’ usual decorum to openly dissent. He shook his head no and mouthed the words “not true.”

The majority opinion in the case, Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, specifically disavowed a verdict on the question of foreign companies’ political spending.

“We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

The court held that the First Amendment protected the right of American corporations to spend money on independent political commercials for or against candidates. Some analysts or observers have warned that the principle could open the door to foreign corporations as well.

President Obama called for new legislation to prohibit foreign companies from taking advantage of the ruling to spend money to influence American elections. But he is too late; Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1996, which prohibits independent political commercials by foreign nationals or foreign companies. - DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28check.html

Absolutely correct, you did not say that. Scroll up and you'll see that you said that foreign money does not buy votes.

Remember ABSCAM . . or perhaps Mister Abramhoff's representation of Pakistani interests might ring a bell. The real question might be better phrased . . . what does foreign money buy?

The problem with internet discussions....
The intent was to state that there was not a direct correlation of money to votes. They can spend all they like, and I vote my principles, as I expect many on here to do.
How much funding of political ads would it take for JollyRoger to become a Bush backer?
Rhetorical question--the answer is obvious. There is not enough money to buy enough ads to change JR's opinion. He has his principles, and viewing Geo Bush in the way JR does, JR will never side with him--in general.

Attempting to buy the votes at the fringes, if that's your analogy, is laughable. The financial horsepower is aimed at the fat juicy middle. Those are the votes that count, the votes that a candidate covets, right?

uh, you don't seem to be disputing the national review's roots, which, i might point out, were brought to light by mr. george will (that noted leftist) back in the seventies. need we even discuss the national review's eternal devotion to the wealthy, powerful and repressive?

anyway, it's important that others know the sources you choose.