Have US companies ever influenced or affected foreign elections?

Murdoch seems to have been doing a terrific job of that on behalf of the Chinese for more than a decade now.

The irony! The Republican Supreme Court opens the door to a One World Government, except that government would only rule one nation - the USA. Way to go!

Suggest some "poster children" for this: Citgo, Saudi companies, etc, etc.

Really, this decision is no less than a key stroke for a corporate coup. They're taking over.

The Supreme Court decision is dangerous and insidious. It is a destructive blow to democracy as we know it. It is clear that the conservative, right-wing members of the Court are bought and sold by corporate America.

Petition to Impeach.

"Due to blatant Judicial Activism and uncaring display of political partisanship in the performance of their assigned constitutional duties.
Justice, John G Roberts.
Justice, Antonin Scalia.
Justice Clarence Thomas.
Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Justice Samuel Alito
We, the undersigned demand the impeachment of the above named judges.

Print name of voter Signature Telephone number.

And so I ask, and this is to all here, where is the anger? We have been sold out at the highest level. They have betrayed us to the fullest extent. Where is the anger?

What do you suggest? How do you get a mass movement when the corporations control the media outlets and have the masses convinced that the problem is big government 'socialism'?

How many times have you read something here or elsewhere on a progressive site exposing misbehavior and it never, ever breaks thru to the mass media?

How many times have you written, called, emailed your congress critter or the local paper? How many times have you had anything other than a canned response? How often did you get published? How many elections have you called, canvased, licked envelopes? How many candidates or issues won?

Short of torches and pitchforks, what would you have us do?

Face it, dude - democracy is dead.

This is something that a populist party could really make something out of. Too bad we don't have one.

This SCOTUS decision is not as big of a deal as it first seems. I mean, think about it - if you see an ad "Elect Congress-critter X, paid for by Corp. Y", are you really going to vote for critter X? Highly unlikely, since it would be clear to you that critter X will represent Corp. Y and not you. In other words, it is really, really bad optics for corporations to directly advocate for/against politicians. More likely, the corporations will continue their current practice of using lobbying arms (Chamber of Commerce) to their bidding...

The Supreme Court had this case most of last year. Either Obama expected the court to decide a different way, in which case, he lacks an understanding of simple math. Or, it isn't such a big deal. Or, Obama did not know what The Supreme Court was working on.

In his Editor's Blog, Josh said, "If the Democrats are smart they'll see that smart policy and smart politics come together in this case," resulting in legislation blocking a foreign money infusion into our elections.

There's a major flaw in that reasoning. Hint: It begins with, "If the Democrats are smart...."

I've heard, though not read, that Thomas Jefferson and others of the founding "fathers" had warned against corporations, and that therefore in those days, corporations were limited to operations in one state only.

(This might actually have been from a Bircher. Not exactly who you think they were. Equated corporations with communists. I'm about there, too.)

Anyhow, here's where the rubber hits the road. "Corporations" have free speech, but distinguishing between foreign and domestic "corporations" could be the key. As friggin' BOUGHT as they are by money, I still don't think you could get 5 of the SCOTUS to say "foreign" corporations should be able to influence American elections.

Here is the wiggle room Congress can drive the wedge through. Just HOW "American" does a "corporation" have to be to get "free speech" abilities to affect our elections?

We'll see. But THIS is the wedge Congress can use. And under the rule of unintended consequences, it COULD cause corporations to move BACK here from, say, Turks and Caicos. Or Dubai (I'm talkin' to YOU Halliburton, or KBR, or whoever you are.)

Number ONE bill? No campaign spending by "foreign" corporations.

Let's see Scalia and his clone Thomas vote that a corporation "incorporated" in Dubai can spend unlimited money to advertise against an American.

Or better yet, a corporation incorporated in Venezuela. How about Hugo Chavez having unlimited ability to advertize against a Congressional candidate. How does THAT sound to you, Tony?

I've heard, though not read, that Thomas Jefferson and others of the founding "fathers" had warned against corporations, and that therefore in those days, corporations were limited to operations in one state only.

(This might actually have been from a Bircher. Not exactly who you think they were. Equated corporations with communists. I'm about there, too.)

Anyhow, here's where the rubber hits the road. "Corporations" have free speech, but distinguishing between foreign and domestic "corporations" could be the key. As friggin' BOUGHT as they are by money, I still don't think you could get 5 of the SCOTUS to say "foreign" corporations should be able to influence American elections.

Here is the wiggle room Congress can drive the wedge through. Just HOW "American" does a "corporation" have to be to get "free speech" abilities to affect our elections?

We'll see. But THIS is the wedge Congress can use. And under the rule of unintended consequences, it COULD cause corporations to move BACK here from, say, Turks and Caicos. Or Dubai (I'm talkin' to YOU Halliburton, or KBR, or whoever you are.)

Number ONE bill? No campaign spending by "foreign" corporations.

Let's see Scalia and his clone Thomas vote that a corporation "incorporated" in Dubai can spend unlimited money to advertise against an American.

Or better yet, a corporation incorporated in Venezuela. How about Hugo Chavez having unlimited ability to advertize against a Congressional candidate. How does THAT sound to you, Tony?

Makes me think of a line Katherine Hepburn voiced in the Philadelphia Story. When James Stewart says "You're a goddess," she says, "No. I'm a human. A human being."

Time to get back to that.

The HUMAN Revolution. I'm on the bulwarks.

Others are already taking that issue on. But I do look forward to dems in congress bringing it up, especially given Hillary Clinton, B-HO, John Kerry, and so many others illegally taking foreign money during the past few election cycles.. and you know how B-HO hates having to make full financial disclosure.

Cal Gal, Chavez has already been funneling money to dems in congress, including through their relatives, after all he does control the Hess Oil and Gas company. What's the matter, were you not paying attention when it was exposed in the last election how B-HO had received Chavez money, and then he had to give it back? Of course, there's lots of illegal foreign money he took, especially from his friends from India. He's still refused to talk about that, but we can always demand an independent investigation into "dear leader's" indiscretions. :) I'd love that.

In an interview with Terry Moran on This Week, George Will stated the following: Vindication, because the court recognized the obvious, which is that you cannot disseminate political speech without money. And, therefore, to restrict money is to restrict the dissemination of speech.

I believe Will's interpretation of the Supreme Count decision is correct. However, the First Amendment to the Constitution bars infringing on the freedom of speech. By equating money as speech the Supreme Court has infringed on the freedom of speech of a substantial percentage of american citizens that have no money.

It seems to me that if you break the link between money and speech we are back to what the founding fathers intended and everyone is on an equal footing because we can then regulate the spending of money in conjunction with speech.

Proposal:

What do you think of having a TAX, that I would gladly pay in which canidates could only use - no outside donations. After-all, it would be our money. Require a written contract of what the canidate would do .... goals, programs etc. and post to the internet. Require 5 debates where each ask the other questions, require x number of free hours on television for each canidate to explain their written contract. Have 2 television showings where reporters would ask the questions.

Possibly, for each contract item not sought or exchanged for another, their party pay a 10,000,000 fine to the other party and reduce their term 3 months.

Right now, Scaife and the Hunts and David Koch and Pat Robertson et al are forming corporations whose only purpose is to get republicans elected. Sadly I bet no one on the other side will ever do so. America, RIP. If this stands it is truly the end of representative democracy. This SCROTUM I mean SCOTUS will live in infamy, and it all basically started with Bush v. Gore.

For me, this latest decision only reinforces a long held view of these people as a bunch out completely out of touch, fucking assholes.

Foreign-owned and foreign corporations are already spending millions of dollars through some first-amendment loopholes. Ever heard of Fox News?

Yeah the Supreme Court was testy because they were wrong on the ruling. Give me a fucking break. They were testy because Obama acted like a petulant dick and insulted them on national TV in front of millions, while all they could do is sit there.

As for the law on the issue, you are clearly wrong, not Sekulow. The law states:

" foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or INDIRECTLY participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee." (emphasis mine)

So please, spare us the spectacle of claiming you are more knowledgable than Antonin Scalia and the others, because the nuts in his shit know more about Constitutional law than those running this site.

The conservative meme about campaign finance reform is already being spread in the MSM. I would also like to point out that Obama is a Constitutional lawyer. He knows a thing or two about Constitutional law.

Newt Gingrich was on NPR after the decision saying it was a "great victory for the middle class."
And nobody challenged that assertion.

Intended, or unintended consequence? That is the question.

From the back-pedaling going on from Alito on down, seems the right doesn't even know how to interpret the consequences, let alone settled law.

By the way, at what trimester does a corporation as person become biologically viable?

The ownership of public corporations in this country is open to both citizens and aliens. So, it doesn't matter if the corporation is as American as apple pie. Foreign individuals and corporations and sovereign trusts own TONS of American shares. And you don't have to be even a majority stockholder to wield immense influence in corporate decisions. Many owners win seats on the Board of Directors with far far less than majority ownership. And this foreign ownership will only increase. Truly frightening. This issue of corporate personhood is at the core of what is wrong with our political system.

For the life of me I don't understand how this can be.