Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal
campaigns, Murray Hill Incorporated, a diversifying corporation in the
Washington, D.C. area, has filed to run for U.S. Congress in the Republican
primary in Maryland's 8th Congressional District....
That will be the next step, get bakers and corrupt corporations to sit
in the senate and congress....
But it isn't like that isn't already true.
You need to do a bit more research! The Supreme Court had ruled, if I
recall correctly, way back in 1922 that "corporations are "People," who can
be sued in the courts.
The current Court simply REAFFIRMED that ruling, thus the law banning their
"RIGHT to political speech," was not Constitutional.
If you study election law you will discover only an "individual" can seek
You are wrong, do some homework before you chose to comment, search the
historical record, WBMA.
One can READ the Courts opinion on the net, that sites the "corporations are
People," in the majority ruling. It is also mentioned in the minority
One thing is for sure, BO nor the New York Times Editors, apparently did NOT
read the opinion that came down from the court or he and they would not have
made that goofy assertion that FOREIGN corporations can now spend money in
The law forbidding foreigners from participating in US elections is still in
effect. That fact is listed in the majority opinion, as well.
I just made a quick search found this, from the Law Review, in less than two
"President Barack Obama and other critics say the court's decision to let
corporations spend their money to directly influence elections opened the
floodgates to foreign involvement. In last week's address to Congress and
the nation, Obama asserted that the court had allowed special interests,
"including foreign corporations, to spend without limit on our elections."
That was a step too far, foreign corporations may NOT spend any money in
U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was UNTOUCHED
by the high court.
It's even sillier than that. US corporations still cannot directly
support politicians. They can express an opinion, even if they aren't
a "news organization". Free speech for others than the media, fancy
"...the more complicated question is how, under the new ruling, to treat
U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies or American corporations that are
controlled by foreign investors..."
High Court Allows Foreign Campaign Finance...
Hog wash, the ruling clearly let current law stand on contribution from
I.E. A first year law student would easily discover that although Toyota
has holding companies, incorporated in various states in the US, the Toyota
CORPORATION is Japanese and thus excludes the holding companies from
supporting candidates for ANY elected office, period.
I'd like to suggest that policical campaign contributions be taxable,
by all taxes applicable to the region or any part of it voting for
that office. This would include individual income tax, corporate
income tax, sales tax (for national elections, the sales tax of all
50 states), inheritance tax, property tax, all those odd taxes you
see on your phone bill, the SEC tax on stock trading, Social Security
taxes, Obama's health care tax if and when it becomes effective,
gasoline tax, etc.
The latest ruling that opens the gate for company "donations" to
political campaigns is just a way for industry (or other wealthy
interest groups) to BUY congress.
Now, surely enough, congress has pimped itself for years, but
this brings pimpdon to a holy acceptable status.
I dont need to learn anything about this bill, and I cant believe you
would respond in such an ignorant way. Now businesses can
donate to campaigns at essentially unregulated levels..
If you have a point, make it, but dont just spout crap.
But they can spend millions on TV commercials is my understanding. Same
thing the candidate would do with the money.
And if you can trash an opponent, true or not, this can influence an
election as people get their information from TV these days.
I recall that Nixon won an early election (not for President) by trashing
his opponent with untruths... (Detailed in one of the biographies on Nixon -
A book - Not on TV.)
Nope, its much less likely to be properly coordinated with them doing their own
But arent necessarily stupid enough to believe
everything they see in an election TV commercial.
Yes, those who wrote the consitution did not allow for that.
If you dont like that, amend the constitution again.
ALL the supremes said was that the CURRENT constitutional amendment
prevents the govt from controlling how corps advertise on TV.
This is the decision of the Court.
It is a bit broad, in a place or two, about expenditures of political
action committees. It IS couched in terms of free speech and
communication, and frees organized to spend in these areas - in
other words to get the candidate of advantage by the juridical
I still say it is a way for big money interests to buy a candidate.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.