Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that's the sort of legislation Obama was suggesting in his State of the Union Address.
The definitions already are covered by the existing laws. As far as I remember, any association with foreign companies or peoples would make it illegal for donating to political campaigns in the US. Only US corporations based in the US are legal. But regardless of being legal or not, the Supremes decided on the McCain-Finegold bill, and only that.
It's up to Congress to create constitutional laws that deal with political campaign donations. If these laws are constitutional, then the Supreme Court can't strike it down. The McCain-Finegold bill was called "unconstitutional" right from the beginning, and the Supremes agreed with the plaintiffs.
(a) “Foreign power” means— (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
Nothing either in the definition of "United States person" or in the exclusion of a "foreign power" excludes a foreign corporation from being a United States person.
I copied the entire section, which included the subsections you just pasted, so obviously I read it. I thought it was plain enough to you, i even highlighted it in red a foreign corporation would be one that is NOT a US (domestic) corporation, and one that was NOT "incorporated in the United States' under our laws.
According to the IRS a foreign corporation is defined as:
"Foreign Corporations
A foreign corporation is one that does not fit the definition of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation is one that was created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States, any of its states, or the District of Columbia."
Why was Justice Alito the only member of the Court to do this? Have you had a lot of experience around Judges? This may be why you see no problem with what he did. Judges are not political appointments. The President of the United States is a politician. Judges must always appear to be impartial, period. As I stated in another post as a member of the Bar I and most lawyers I practice with hold judges to a higher standard because they are the "umpires" of our system. If the people think that President Obama is "unprofessional" and not getting the job done their voices will be heard in the next presidential election.
Alito was not trying to be disrespectful, it was a measured response after what 0bama did. I'm thinking if a man shot a Catholic Nun in the chest with a shotgun, but she rolled over on her back to flip him off, you'd be all upset at the Nun for acting socially improper.
The definitions already are covered by the existing laws. As far as I remember, any association with foreign companies or peoples would make it illegal for donating to political campaigns in the US. Only US corporations based in the US are legal.
and as Brown said to the court:
"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."
The conservative members of the Supreme Court need to be thrown off on their heads and have their arses kicked. They really bring down the quality of the Court and the decisions. The conservative ideology stinks.
President Obama is absolutely right in his assessment.
What I don't see any one talking about is that, the big thing that's been shot down is the McCain-Feingold bill....a bi-partisan bill....campaign reform was something McCain had been pushing for, for a long time.
Well, clearly, Obama was wrong. And for him to criticize the Supreme Court that way, is pure arrogance.
Obama didn't have a clue. Or he lied on purpose.
The Supreme Court upheld free speech. This was a victory for all Ameicans, when we have a President, and his administration, who are tryig to limit free speech. Obama would like to silence talk radio, for example. I think the Supreme Court just made it clear that he cannot. That is why Obama is "pissed".
Too bad "Barry". Go back to Kenya. Have a nice life. You aren't welcome here. Poorest excuse for a "president" I have seen in my lifetime.
The definitions already are covered by the existing laws. As far as I remember, any association with foreign companies or peoples would make it illegal for donating to political campaigns in the US. Only US corporations based in the US are legal. But regardless of being legal or not, the Supremes decided on the McCain-Finegold bill, and only that.
It's up to Congress to create constitutional laws that deal with political campaign donations. If these laws are constitutional, then the Supreme Court can't strike it down. The McCain-Finegold bill was called "unconstitutional" right from the beginning, and the Supremes agreed with the plaintiffs.
Can't a corp chartered in the US have a foreign influence in it? Maybe the board, majority of share holders, etc.? So I'm not asking about corporations chartered in foreign countries, I'm asking about countries chartered here but internally containing a large foreign influence.
Citgo is one I think might fit the mold, although maybe it was you that said there were two Citgos... one refinery and one something else. Doesn't Venezuela have a large interest in one of those Citgos?
Can't a corp chartered in the US have a foreign influence in it? Maybe the board, majority of share holders, etc.? So I'm not asking about corporations chartered in foreign countries, I'm asking about countries chartered here but internally containing a large foreign influence.
Citgo is one I think might fit the mold, although maybe it was you that said there were two Citgos... one refinery and one something else. Doesn't Venezuela have a large interest in one of those Citgos?
I agree about corporations like Citgo, you and I know is really owned by dictator wannabe Hugo Chavez. So now the ball is in Congress' court, and they need to narrow the definition of a US corporation.
The corporations that should be of even more concern are the media corporations. These corporation own TV, radio and printed media, which are influencing public opinion on a daily basis. Newspapers routinely endorse political candidates.
Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu owns 9 million shares of New York Times stock, which gives him a 6.4% stake in the New York Times Co. He also own shares in the International Herald Tribune, the Boston Globe and 16 other daily newspapers.
The rub here, is we don't want to discourage foreign investments in American enterprises, but we do not want any one foreign investor to gain too much of a controlling interest in our US corporations
Looking forward to the Revenge of the SCOTUS. Anyone, no matter their high or low station in life, has the right to call out a LIAR. If we had more "Joe Wilson moments", maybe we wouldn't be plagued with the present Crud&Thugs in the WH.
"Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court's precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates." (taken from The Washington Post)
Kudos to Alito for his shaking his head and saying "Not true" as Obama stood there chastising the Supreme Court last night. We need more Alitos who will be clear on their stand in disagreement rather than the bobble heads who agree with Obama REGARDLESS of what comes out of his mouth.
Indeed a very classy man. Obama is the first president ever to attack the Supreme Court like this, other president's have mentioned that the Supreme Court have been backed up with cases, but nothing like this.
It seems this president is great in making enemies and being disliked and lying. If he didn't agree with what he said he should do more due diligence on the words that come out of his mouth!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
