Yesterday, I wrote that one of the main election issues Democrats have against Repubs and the Citizens United case, is the loophole that US Corporations owned partly or fully by foreign interests including governments like Iraq or Venezuela.
The meme has certainly hitting a nerve in Right Wing Nutterland as Bradley A. Smith of the National Review Online, correctly points out that "Foreign Corporations" cannot contribute to elections:
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."
But his point is pointless as the President was talking about Foreign Subsidiaries who own US Corporations, although the President used imprecise language. Once a Foreign entity gains a charter to incorporate within that particular State, that entity is considered a US Corporation.
And this From Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin.
And this from Breitbart.
This has truly touched a nerve, as they are terrified that if the MSM gets a hold of this and starts asking questions. Like I said yesterday every candidate, Republican, Democrat, and Tea-bagger should be asked the following questions:
As you know mr/mrs candidate, the Supreme Court decision allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for candidates. Some of these corporations are foreign owned subsidiaries of Terrorists States like Iran, North Korea Venezuela, or Al Quaeda affiliates...What is your stance on this?
Are you For or Against Terrorists sending unlimited amounts of money into US elections?"
Should Congress pass a law that prevents Terrorists and State sponsors of Terrorists, from sending unlimited amounts of money into US elections?
Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo is starting to get it also and is getting on board with the meme also:
I just saw Jordan Sekulow, who seems to be right-wing legal commentator Jay Sekulow's son, claiming that the president was wrong in pointing out that the new Supreme Court decision opens the flood gates to foreign money in American campaigns. That's wrong. The president is clearly correct. And it's only a highly tendentious argument that claims otherwise. But what stands out to me is how sensitive Republicans seem on this point -- Alito included. This is an important tell.
My emphasis
Also, Doug Kendall at the Huffington Post calls out Alito:
The Court ruled that the First Amendment makes no distinction among speakers -- that the identity of a speaker makes no difference for purposes of government regulation of speech.
To make matters worse, the Court dramatically redefined the meaning and standard of "corruption," ruling that only the strictest and most direct forms of corruption -- e.g. bribery -- are prohibited, and not, as was previously the standard, any "appearance of undue influence." This critical component of last week's decision redefined the boundaries of what constitutes corruption and made influence by special interests significantly more difficult to prove. More important, the ruling, as Obama precisely indicated and as Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) fervently reiterated this morning on the Senate floor, appears to sweep away vital barriers that were keeping foreign special interests, such as Toyota, from manipulating American elections. If all speakers are treated equally under the First Amendment, and the only corruption Congress can prohibit is direct vote-trading for money, then there is no reason why foreign companies with a U.S.-presence couldn't spend endless amounts of money to influence U.S. elections. Under the logic of the Supreme Court's decision, just as Exxon can now spend millions to oppose a candidate who, for example, supports the climate bill, so, too, could Toyota or other foreign companies.
Or so could Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, or Osama Bin Laden for that matter.
The Democratic messaging machine needs to make this one of its wedge issues for 2010. We need to really push this to the MSM, our Representatives, and Senators.