Special interests have NO limits in elections.

[Skyhunter]

That is a distortion of the facts.

Please explain and provide an example.

And that is hyperbole.

Is it?

The transcript is right in front of you.

Here is a http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913"

And it’s not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston’s Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM’s PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government’s Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore’s APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.

And what is

 

[mheslep]

Please explain and provide an example.
Is it?

The transcript is right in front of you.

Indeed, and it does not support your China, Saudi Arabia statement. The Chinese or Saudis may own shares in US flagged corporations. It is a distortion to then say they "are free", by themselves, "to air political ads" in US elections.

Here is a http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1913"

The misnamed CPI is a left wing think tank.

 

[Skyhunter]

Indeed, and it does not support your China, Saudi Arabia statement. The Chinese or Saudis may own shares in US flagged corporations. It is a distortion to then say they "are free", by themselves, "to air political ads" in US elections.

I never said they were free "by themselves", nor did I imply it. If you read the context it is clear I was talking about the corporations these counties control. Please refrain from constructing strawmen arguments.

The misnamed CPI is a left wing think tank.

Wrong on both counts. It is not left-wing and it is not a think tank. Irregardless, this is an ad hominem attack, also an argumentative fallacy.

 

[mheslep]

I never said they were free "by themselves", nor did I imply it. If you read the context it is clear I was talking about the corporations these counties control. Please refrain from constructing strawmen arguments.

You posted some nuanced background material from the court decision and then made an over simplified statement that is unjustified.

Wrong on both counts. It is not left-wing and it is not a think tank. Irregardless, this is an ad hominem attack, also an argumentative fallacy.

That's a misunderstanding of those fallacies. You brought a source into our discussion, claiming it was expert and non-partisan. I disagreed. CPI is a left wing organization funded by George Soros, Bill Moyers, etc, even if it doesn't directly endorse candidates. Ad hominem requires a personal attack on you, the presenter of the argument. I've not done that, nor will I. Ad hominem certainly doesn't include refutation of no bias claims about third parties presented as references.

 

[mheslep]

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877" . Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for - (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make - (A) a contribution or donation of money or other 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; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3) of this title); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

[...] the term "foreign national" means - (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22,[...]

The http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fara/links/indx-act.html#611b"definition of foreign principal includes pretty much foreign anything: governments, partnerships, and corporations.

As discussed above, this part of US code remains untouched by the recent decision.

 

[edpell]

What the court did was not open the special interest floodgates... it has demolished the dam itself.

It is pure capitalism. Nationality does not count for anything it all boils down to how many dollars you have.

 

[BobG]

http://vlex.com/vid/contributions-donations-foreign-nationals-19137877" . Contributions and donations by foreign nationals



The http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fara/links/indx-act.html#611b"definition of foreign principal includes pretty much foreign anything: governments, partnerships, and corporations.

As discussed above, this part of US code remains untouched by the recent decision.

But a corporation creates a separation between the people and the corporation.

If the corporation is created in the US by Americans, but a foreign government buys over half the stock, the corporation is still an American corporation?

And does having any foreign stockholders mean they're indirectly contributing to a campaign when the corporation donates money?

Neither question is resolved by the decision, by the way (which is why Obama was only given credit for "Barely True" in his comment about the decision). The court didn't say there couldn't be regulations or laws dealing with foreign ownership of an American corporation. They said a blanket ban on all corporate contributions was an overbroad restriction, even if the BCRA was intended to prevent foreign influence over elections (which it wasn't - it was designed to restrict contributions of all corporations, period).

 

[edpell]

It seems clear to me that any corporation that has any ownership by any non-American is prohibited from giving money directly to a political campaign. But there is no restriction on the free (hardly it costs lots of money to buy TV ad time) speech of foreign entities of any sort. So they can buy ads that say candidate X is good/bad/whatever.

 

[edpell]

Since IBM domiciles its patent portfolio in the Cayman Island and since the 100% owned foreign subsidiaries (like IBM Japan) pay patent royalties to IBM Cayman so allowing IBM to pay zero federal tax on the money. In what sense would you say IBM is an American company?

 

[Al68]

They said a blanket ban on all corporate contributions was an overbroad restriction...

I would note that a big part of the issue addressed by SCOTUS was that it wasn't a blanket ban. Any corporation that government determined to be a media outlet was exempt, even if that was only part of their business.

Government got to pick and choose which corporations were permitted to speak, and presented no significant argument for the ban that wouldn't apply equally to the exempt (media outlet) corporations.

The corporations most likely to mislead people, by claims of non-bias or fairness, were the ones exempted by the law.

Does anyone have an argument for that law that wouldn't equally justify government suppressing Fox News, ABC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Democrat Gazette, etc?

 

[BobG]

I would note that a big part of the issue addressed by SCOTUS was that it wasn't a blanket ban. Any corporation that government determined to be a media outlet was exempt, even if that was only part of their business.

Government got to pick and choose which corporations were permitted to speak, and presented no significant argument for the ban that wouldn't apply equally to the exempt (media outlet) corporations.

The corporations most likely to mislead people, by claims of non-bias or fairness, were the ones exempted by the law.

Does anyone have an argument for that law that wouldn't equally justify government suppressing Fox News, ABC, CBS, Wall Street Journal, Democrat Gazette, etc?

Yes, even if TV and radio stations aren't literally the press, as in newspapers, they perform the same function with a different media and are usually included as falling under the same protection of the press, which is specifically given protection under the First Amendment (completely separate from the freedom of speech protected for individuals).

It is true that a literal interpretation of the First Amendment would protect only newspapers and allow the government to regulate what can be said by TV and radio station and on the internet, but that's going to be a really tough sell. (Newspapers should probably start lobbying for that interpretation - it might help save them.)

 

[edpell]

Since the largest share holder of IBM stock is the Abu Dhabi Trust in what sense would you call IBM a U.S. company? The trust is managed by seven independent managers and Abu Dhabi has a letter of intent on file with the S.E.C. promising never to acquire 51% of the stock. So the S.E.C. allows them to use their number of shares divided by seven in determining if they must be listed publicly as one of the five top holder (as all public stock must disclose their top five holders) and so they do not show up on the offical list of top five holder. Some people are special ;) but not American.

 

[mheslep]

But a corporation creates a separation between the people and the corporation.

If the corporation is created in the US by Americans, but a foreign government buys over half the stock, the corporation is still an American corporation?

And does having any foreign stockholders mean they're indirectly contributing to a campaign when the corporation donates money?

I'm fairly sure the moment a joint stock corporation cedes more than half its shares to a foreign entity, US chartered or not, it becomes foreign owned. Still those are good points. Certainly influence can be exerted by minority owners, and I expect there are other what-if cases regarding corporations. But I argue we had these kind of problems with individuals prior to Citizens United. Corporate influence was banned, but the door was wide open for billionaires like Soros. So I argue for a more targeted fix, if needed, against foreign influence, and not a blanket shut down given the burden falls on the vast majority of US corporations which are mom and pop operations.

 

[WhoWee]

Again, GM is owned by the Gov't and banks (and possibly insurance companies) are largely under it's control.

That is a MUCH bigger concern.

 

[edpell]

The Supreme Court said Congress has the right to regulate corporations. It only said that congress has not bothered to do so yet.

 

[Al68]

Yes, even if TV and radio stations aren't literally the press, as in newspapers, they perform the same function with a different media and are usually included as falling under the same protection of the press, which is specifically given protection under the First Amendment (completely separate from the freedom of speech protected for individuals).

Then what is the argument for denying "freedom of the press" for the other corporations in question?

This aspect of the issue addressed by the court was about government picking and choosing which corporations to suppress, instead of suppressing them all during the election period.

 

[BobG]

Then what is the argument for denying "freedom of the press" for the other corporations in question?

This aspect of the issue addressed by the court was about government picking and choosing which corporations to suppress, instead of suppressing them all during the election period.

There never was one. Any corporation has been free to buy any radio station, TV station, newspaper, magazine, etc. Or they could start their own newspaper.

I think that could be perceived as a minor loophole in the original McCain-Feingold bill. A corporation could easily circumvent the restrictions by deciding that having a political voice was more important than turning a profit.

There would certainly be instances where a corporation bought a media organization, but their primary motivation would almost always be to turn a profit by giving their customers what they want - which may be accurate news and objective analysis or maybe their customers just want to hear biased crap. I have a feeling that there aren't many corporations so committed to making a political statement that they'd buy the Fox newschannel just so they can air left wing shows.

But all of those issues play into whether the bill was a good idea, whether it can actually work in practice, whether it's enforceable, whether it solved an actual problem vs an imaginary problem and so on. There's nothing unconstitutional about passing a bad law.

And just to be clear - freedom of the press and freedom of speech aren't the same thing. They are each protected by the same amendment. So is freedom of religion, which isn't freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Freedom of the press applies to news media. Freedom of speech usually applies to individuals (even though the BCRA decision seems to stretch that a bit).

And freedom of speech applies to both the speaker and the receiver. I think the receiver's rights were where the emphasis for the decision was placed and were the individuals whose right to free speech were denied. A corporation has no inalienable right to free speech, but unreasonable restrictions can obstruct listeners from obtaining information they want. Burning books of dead authors is still a violation of free speech since readers are denied the opportunity to read those books.

 

[Skyhunter]

You posted some nuanced background material from the court decision and then made an over simplified statement that is unjustified.

That is your opinion. I linked the entire transcript, and copied the relevant portion that supports my argument. I did not take it out of context, and as for nuanced... uh that is the point I am making. This ruling creates a huge gray area that will not be sorted out till after the 2010 election.

That's a misunderstanding of those fallacies. You brought a source into our discussion, claiming it was expert and non-partisan. I disagreed. CPI is a left wing organization funded by George Soros, Bill Moyers, etc, even if it doesn't directly endorse candidates. Ad hominem requires a personal attack on you, the presenter of the argument. I've not done that, nor will I. Ad hominem certainly doesn't include refutation of no bias claims about third parties presented as references.

You are the one who made the argument that foreign nationals are free by themselves to air political ads, not me. That is the definition of a strawman argument since you both constructed the argument and debunked it with no aid from me whatsoever. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it is my argument, it is still a strawman.

Perhaps poisoning the well is a more accurate description than ad hominem. But the simple fact is, you attacked the source instead of addressing the substance.

CPI is nonpartisan. They do not support or endorse parties or candidates. It is a non profit foundation dedicated to investigative journalism. Saying they are a left-wing think tank because they get money from Georg Soros and Bill Moyers is nothing more than a projection of your own political bias. Which is just your opinion and irrelevant to the argument.

CPI interviewed legal experts and then wrote a report based on those interviews. It is not their fault that reality has a liberal bias.

The legal definitions you posted are for "contributions and donations." Which are irrelevant to this ruling since it only addresses uncoordinated political spending by corporations, not direct contributions or donations. In other words, as your post shows, the laws governing contributions and donations remain unchanged. But that was never a part of my argument, nor was it the subject of this case. The law preventing corporations from airing their own political ads, so long as they are not coordinating with party or candidate, in order to influence elections and policy decisions has been struck down. This means that unless Congress passes a law in the next few months, the airwaves are wide open for any corporation formed under American law. Regardless of who owns it.

 

[edpell]

Maybe it is time to admit that the government in Washington D.C. is the world government. It should be staffed (draft world wide for enforcement) and funded (taxes) by the world. We in America need a national government to promote our local national interests.

 

[mheslep]

That is your opinion. I linked the entire transcript, and copied the relevant portion that supports my argument. I did not take it out of context, [...]

Yes, in my opinion, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2554394#post2554394":

[...]China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads in the 2010 election.[...]

is not a justifiable summary of the oral argument.

Re CPI:

Perhaps poisoning the well is a more accurate description than ad hominem. But the simple fact is, you attacked the source instead of addressing the substance.

CPI is nonpartisan. They do not support or endorse parties or candidates. It is a non profit foundation dedicated to investigative journalism. Saying they are a left-wing think tank because they get money from Georg Soros and Bill Moyers is nothing more than a projection of your own political bias. Which is just your opinion and irrelevant to the argument.

CPI interviewed legal experts and then wrote a report based on those interviews. It is not their fault that reality has a liberal bias.

The logic of your argument distils down to obligating me and others to accept or engage any reference you happen to link only by carefully reviewing all the claims in the reference, without regard to reputation or conflict of interest. It doesn't work that way. CPI apparently has a distinguished staff, and their analysis may even be correct. But I also have good cause to suspect they have an agenda to push, and so I am not inclined to spend time running down all the sources on their claims to verify their so called 'expert' opinion. In addition to their funding sources, many of the CPI advisers or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodding_Carter_III" of Democratic administrations.

 

[Al68]

There never was one. Any corporation has been free to buy any radio station, TV station, newspaper, magazine, etc. Or they could start their own newspaper.

So, the respective TV station involved should have been free to air the program which was suppressed, then?

Yes, the court addressed several issues here, including the right of the public to "hear", but this picking/choosing between corporations was significantly addressed, too.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, in my opinion, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2554394#post2554394":

That is the only part of the transcript that addressed the issue directly. It is left for Congress to determine if there is a "compelling interest,". and if so, provide a "narrow remedy."

That leaves the question of which corporations formed under US law are permitted to air political ads this election cycle open to interpretation.

My statement was hyperbolic, but it was not entirely unjustifiable. What I should have said was that American companies owned by China, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela are free to air political ads this election cycle.

Re CPI:
The logic of your argument distils down to obligating me and others to accept or engage any reference you happen to link only by carefully reviewing all the claims in the reference, without regard to reputation or conflict of interest. It doesn't work that way. CPI apparently has a distinguished staff, and their analysis may even be correct.

Nonsense. I obligate you to accept nothing. You are free to refute the claims made by the source, and provide other sources with counter claims.

You are also free to dismiss a claim based solely on it's source. But at the same time, I am free to point out that doing so is a logical fallacy.

But I also have good cause to suspect they have an agenda to push, and so I am not inclined to spend time running down all the sources on their claims to verify their so called 'expert' opinion. In addition to their funding sources, many of the CPI advisers or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodding_Carter_III" of Democratic administrations.

Here again you re offering up a red-herring.

What does the fact of Harold Williams being appinted to the SEC by Jimmy Carter have to do with the CPI article about the SCOTUS decision?

Nothing. That is why that point is just an irrelevant distraction to the dialogue. A Red-Herring.

 

[Skyhunter]

I disagree on establishing the bona fides of a source, as apparently know. Do you have any idea of how many times funded-by-'Exxon' accusations comes up on a search of your posts?

Once again you ignore the subject and offer up another fallacy. This time an ad hominem attack against me.

I am through with this conversation!

 

[mheslep]

Once again you ignore the subject and offer up another fallacy. This time an ad hominem attack against me.

I am through with this conversation!

Not ad hominem, but I was needlessly argumentative and apologize. Deleted.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Then what is the argument for denying "freedom of the press" for the other corporations in question?

This aspect of the issue addressed by the court was about government picking and choosing which corporations to suppress, instead of suppressing them all during the election period.

There is a difference between reporting on candidates and campaigning for or against them. There is also a difference between a corporation being used to provide a service and one being used as a soapbox.

 

[Al68]

Then what is the argument for denying "freedom of the press" for the other corporations in question?

This aspect of the issue addressed by the court was about government picking and choosing which corporations to suppress, instead of suppressing them all during the election period.

There is a difference between reporting on candidates and campaigning for or against them. There is also a difference between a corporation being used to provide a service and one being used as a soapbox.

Of course there is, but did you misunderstand my post? Under the law in question, many corporations were free to do both, including coming right out and endorsing a candidate. Others were suppressed. That was part of the issue addressed by the court.

Of course, the endorsement of and campaigning for candidates has been done throughout U.S. history by corporations/companies. At least in that case no one is being mislead, since there is no pretense of non-bias.

On the other hand, "reporting on candidates" in many cases serves the same purpose, except many people are being mislead by a pretense of non-bias, so is much more dangerous in my view, but still protected by the First Amendment.

 

[BobG]

Maine is very rural, with poor access to cable, and satellite TV is priced beyond the reach of most of our citizens, so broadcast TV is very important to us. Unfortunately, corporations can now block all citizens groups from the air-waves with a minimal investment. When you figure how much power 100 senators have, and that even sparsely-populated rural states like Maine have two, you can see what a ripe target our senatorial races will be. Olympia Snowe has come out firmly against the SCOTUS decision, and for good reason. As a moderate in the GOP, she is a prime target for the neo-cons.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to not run the ads. Running the ads costs money, plus disclosure of who paid for the ads was upheld by the SCOTUS. They could suffer some bad PR for attacking an incumbent politician that at least 50% of the people liked at one time.

They should just threaten to blanket the airwaves with anti-Snowe ads (preferably in private to save face for both them and the Senator). With the threat of eminent defeat, maybe she'd change her vote(s) to save her job. The corporation could get the desired effect without having to pay out any money and without any backlash for interfering in a Senate race. There's no disclosure necessary if the ad never runs.

 

[Skyhunter]

Wouldn't it be more efficient to not run the ads. Running the ads costs money, plus disclosure of who paid for the ads was upheld by the SCOTUS. They could suffer some bad PR for attacking an incumbent politician that at least 50% of the people liked at one time.

They should just threaten to blanket the airwaves with anti-Snowe ads (preferably in private to save face for both them and the Senator). With the threat of eminent defeat, maybe she'd change her vote(s) to save her job. The corporation could get the desired effect without having to pay out any money and without any backlash for interfering in a Senate race. There's no disclosure necessary if the ad never runs.

This is why I think we need to do something before the mid-terms get into full swing. It will take a cycle or two for the players to figure out how to best exploit this ruling.

I expect that Massey Coal will be very active in West Virginia this election cycle.