American Politics Journal - Foreign Contributions and the Supreme's Ove... http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2671&...

Home Commentary Contact Us Links Newswire Mailbag search...

Home Commentary Politics Foreign Contributions and the Supreme's Overdue Decision on Campaign Funding

Main Menu Foreign Contributions and the Supreme's Overdue Decision on

Campaign Funding
Home
Written by Michael Collins
Commentary Saturday, 07 November 2009

Newswire
Michael Collins asks: will the Supremes open the door to contributions to U.S. elections by
Blog foreign entities? Will John (Roberts) and Ted (Olson) hoist a tall one if they do?

Mailbag The Supreme Court of the United States will soon

announce a major decision on our lightly controlled
Links
system of campaign funding. Will it retain some
Search limitations on corporate influence or will the court blow
the lid off and cause a perpetual flood of unrestricted
Contact Us
corporate contributions?
Old Home Page
An additional outcome may surprise and shock the public.

If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court's

Latest News
Headlines: Editors' Picks
Foreign Contributions and
the Supreme's Overdue
Decision on Campaign
Funding
Game Day 2009
Failure by Design: The
"Public" Option and the
Triumph of the Money
Party
A Modest Proposal for the
New Economy
Breaking: Scozzafava drops
out of NY-23 special
election
Joan Walsh Dares Say It
A Censored Headline and
Why It Matters: German
High Court Outlaws
Electronic Voting
Could Hamid Karzai Be
Funding the Afghan Army,
the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or
himself?
Cro-Magnon Mail: "sll of it"
[sic]
Fraud and Death Trump
Citizen Health
"Deficit Neutral" Health Care
Reform: Absurdity upon
Absurdity
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize:
What Larisa Said
Cheney Gets Mooned
Barack Obama Making a
Muddle of It — Why?
decision, foreign nationals, corporations, and
governments with partial ownership of U.S. corporations
will, in effect, end up contributing to and influencing U.S.
candidates in federal elections.
The Supreme Court surprised many when it agreed to
hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that enforced key
sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
(McCain-Feingold) -- Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (FEC).
In January 2008, the Federal District Court, District of Columbia upheld an FEC action that
barred Citizens United, a right wing nonprofit corporation, from airing an extended attack on
Hillary Clinton called Hillary: The Movie. Citizens United is headed by David Bossie, a well
known political enemy of the Clintons. Citizens' lead counsel, Ted Olsen, is an alumnus of the
infamous 1990's Clinton bashing Arkansas Project.
The lower court found The Movie violated provisions of McCain-Feingold since some funding for the
movie came from the general treasury of Citizens United, rather than a segregated account for
political action, e.g., a Political Action Committee (PAC). The Movie had the sole purpose of
convincing viewers that Clinton was unfit for office, making it an example of electioneering
communications -- the overriding purpose of which are to advocate for the election or defeat of a
candidate. And The Movie was planned for broadcast both 30 days prior to Democratic primaries
and 60 days prior to the general election (had Clinton won the nomination), blackout periods for
electioneering communications.
In its appeal, Citizens argued that broadcast restrictions in McCain-Feingold should be overturned
to allow unrestricted electioneering communications funded directly from corporate treasuries.
But the appeal also served as a vehicle for lifting virtually any ban on corporate giving. In 1990,
the Supreme Court ruled that corporate funding of campaigns from general funds could be
restricted. The heart of the decision is found here:

1 of 3 11/10/2009 11:52 PM
American Politics Journal - Foreign Contributions and the Supreme's Ove... http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2671&...

Most Popular
Susan Lindauer Blows the
Whistle Again
Enough of Everything but
Dollars: The Money Party
at Work
Throw the Bums Out — All of
Them!Senate Tycoons Kill
Mortgage Aid for Main
Street
The Big "Con": Holbrooke,
Taliban, and… "Another
9/11"?
Finally, A President Able to
Use His Mind
Former Accused Iraqi Agent
Susan Lindauer, Secret
Charges and The Patriot
Act in Action
Iranian Election Fraud 2009:
Who Was the Real Target...
and Why?
The Binary Fallacy and the
End of Both Political
Parties
Cheney is Duping Reporters
with These New So-called
"Leaks"
Glenn Beck: America’s
Dunce du Jour
Magazine Covers We'd Like
to See
John Ensign, Tom Coburn,
Megyn Kelly, FOX News All
Owe America an
Explanation
A Matter of Trust: Mexico's
July 5 Legislative Elections
Is Senator Jim “Demented”
DeMint a Right Wing
Lunatic?
The Lynching of Michael
Jackson
©
[T]hey (the Michigan laws) are justified by a compelling state interest: preventing corruption or the appearance of
corruption in the political arena by reducing the threat that huge corporate treasuries, which are amassed with
the aid of favorable state laws and have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's
political ideas, will be used to influence unfairly election outcomes. — Justice Marshall, Austin v. Mich.
Chamber of Comm., 1990
Lead counsel for Citizens United, Ted Olsen, argued that "Austin was wrongly decided and should
be overruled." He counters with another case that claimed,"First Amendment’s protection against
governmental abridgment of free expression cannot properly be made to depend on a person’s
financial ability to engage in public discussion.” Ted Olsen, Merits Brief, p. 30, Sept. 9
This challenge to the Austin decision is the true threat within the Trojan horse argument over
broadcast restrictions on political hit pieces. The goal of this appeal is nothing less than the legal
treatment of corporations as the equal of individual citizens and lesser groups in the political
process resulting in an even greater advantage for corporations to control elections.
"We are the World"
During oral arguments before the court, Olson argued that McCain-Feingold unlawfully restricts
the First Amendment rights of U.S. corporations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had this exchange
with Olson:
MR. OLSON: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, Rose Jean
v. Associated Press, and over and over again, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under
the First Amendment.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include --
MR. OLSON: Now, Justice --
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Would that include today's mega-corporations, where many of the investors may be
foreign individuals or entities?
MR. OLSON: The Court in the past has made no distinction based upon the nature of the entity that might own a
share of a corporation.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Own many shares?
MR. OLSON: Pardon?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Nowadays there are foreign interests, even foreign governments that own not one
share but a goodly number of shares.

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Oral Arguments, pp. 4, 5, Sept. 9, 2009

Archive
Justice Ginsburg created a poison pill by putting on notice any Supreme Court majority that
November, overturns the lower court decision: your actions will allow foreign funding for U.S. campaigns.
2009 Any foreign entity could simply exercise an existing or newly acquired ownership position in a U.S.
October, 2009
corporation to demand services from that corporation's latest wholly owned candidate.
September,
2009
August, 2009 The current bans on direct corporate contributions and contributions from foreign entities would
July, 2009 become meaningless. The influence of the "corrosive and distorting effects of immense
June, 2009 aggregations of wealth" obtained through the control of puppet politicians would submit all of us to
May, 2009 the vicissitudes of balance sheets and the salary and bonus demands of board chairmen all over
April, 2009
the world (to an even greater degree than we now experience).
March, 2009
February,
Supremes Green Light Foreign Money in U.S. Elections! How well will that fly with citizens in the
2009
January, current political climate? Does the Supreme Court even care?
2009
December, Class of 2000 Reunion
2008
November, Two alumni of the Bush effort to stop the Florida 2000 recount, freeze in place various voting
2008 rights violations, and prevent any real judicial review of a flawed election are reunited in this
October, 2008

2 of 3 11/10/2009 11:52 PM
American Politics Journal - Foreign Contributions and the Supreme's Ove... http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2671&...

September, case. Chief Justice Roberts was recognized for his contributions to election chaos as then
2008
Florida Governor Jeb Bush's legal advisor. His contributions were less than helpful. Ted Olson
August, 2008
July, 2008 represented George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case that stopped the recount. He also served
June, 2008 as a key strategist for George W. Bush's Florida 2000 recount efforts.
May, 2008
April, 2008 How coincidental that Chief Justice Roberts reached out to his Bush campaign 2000 alumnus Olson
by agreeing to hear a case that surprised many when it was selected for the Supreme Court
docket.
Podcast
How ironic that the case presents the opportunity to bring corporate funding into U.S. politics in a
way that would end any pretences of democracy as we know it. History waited just nine years to
Full Feed repeat itself.

N.B. Wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that Fox News violates the McCain-Feingold Act on a
regular basis? Link

Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. He is the publisher of
the web site The Money Party. His Scoop Independent News articles can be found here.

Next >
[ Back ]
2009 American Politics Journal | Data development and implementation ©2002-2009, Gaudette ITA LLC
APJ uses the Joomla content management system.
John McCai n, John McCai n, John McCai n, John McCai n, John McCai n, G ene G audette, Eugene G audette, Jeff K oopersmith, Jeff K oopersmi th, Ed G i l lespi e, Herpes, Mi serabl e Fai l ure, V enereal Di sease, Stupi d, B ri an B uckl ey, Ji m Robi nson

3 of 3 11/10/2009 11:52 PM