Show Me The Foreign Money

The Citizens United decision that may just buy Republicans control of the Senate (recent polls from West Virginia suggest that trend) as well as the House, thanks to all that corporate cash flowing into GOP coffers, may very well include some money from foreign sources, thus giving multinational companies a say in how American government is run. Although federal election laws bar foreign corporations from giving money to American election campaigns, some money from non-American companies funneled to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may have been "commingled" with donations for the Chamber to promote its agenda in various campaigns.

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) has asked on the Federal Election Commission to probe these allegations. "I am profoundly concerned," Franken said in a letter to the FEC chairman, "by recent reports that foreign corporations are indirectly spending significant sums to influence American elections through third-party groups."

Franken's concerns are based on a report from the liberal group Think Progress, which found that the Chamber of Commerce promoted fundraising efforts overseas by starting foreign chapters called “AmChams” to solicit money from non-American companies. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce insisted that these AmChams "are independent organizations that do not fund political programs in the United States We’re careful to ensure that we comply with all applicable laws. No foreign money is used to fund political activities. All allegations to the contrary are totally and completely false."

I trust the United States Chamber of Commerce. Why? It's not because I don't want to; it's because I have to. See, the Supreme Court's decision on campaign finance from January is the law of the land; it's the final say on the issue unless the nine justices revisit it (don't hold your breath). Congress can pass a law to mitigate it, and such a bill is under consideration, but the Senate Republican caucus has blocked it and my congressman isn't going to be any help. After I wrote Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) urging him to support this bill, he wrote back saying he could not do so in good conscience, as the disclosure sections making corporate campaign financing subject to shareholder review and public disclosure is a violation of "free speech."

In other words, money talks, the people walk, and we're stuck with it. I have to trust the Chamber of Commerce when they say foreign money is not being used to fund campaigns. I have to trust my former fellow West Caldwell, N.J. resident, Justice Samuel Alito, when he says it's not true that the Citizens United ruling opens the floodgates for overseas campaign contributions. Because short of anything else, I have no . . . other . . . choice.

I think I'll bang my head against something now. . . .

No Full Disclosure

I was not really surprised, but I was still disgusted when legislation intended to blunt the effects of the Supreme Court's odious Citizens United decision allowing unlimited amounts of corporate money (some of it from multinational companies!) into political campaigns was unanimously blocked in the U.S. Senate by Republicans from even coming up for a vote. The bill, sponsored by Democratic senators Charles Schumer of New York, Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, would require corporations (and, to be fair, unions, which also benefit from the Citizens United decision, though not nearly as much), to disclose the fact that they allowed money they have taken in to go to a political campaign. Under what's left of campaign finance regulation, Procter and Gamble could theoretically use the profits made from sales of toothpaste and pour that cash limitlessly into a campaign to have an incumbent legislator they don't like voted out of office. Dennis Kucinich, you're on alert.

Republican senators and their backers - not to mention my own Republican congressman, Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey - charge that this law would put new restrictions on free speech and would impinge on the right of advocates for a candidate to get their message across, thus limiting free speech. This is preposterous. This proposed law isn't about restricting anyone from speaking. It's about restricting anyone from shouting too loudly and drowning out everyone else. As long as this bill remains on the sidelines, I would advise the unions to take advantage of the status quo and raise as much campaign cash as possible.

Incidentally, I'm not surprised that occasionally independent GOP senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts sided with his party against this bill. Brown, benefiting from both a fantastic stroke of luck and a lousy opponent, was elected to fill Ted Kennedy's unexpired Senate term two days before Citizens United was handed down, and as a newly entrenched incumbent, this should ensure that he gets elected to a full term in 2012 . . . and 2018 . . . and 2024. . . .

Republican capitalist and William McKinley confidante Marcus Hanna said it best when he said, "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember what the second one is."

Money Swears

Got speech for sale?

The Supreme Court today overturned decades of laws restricting corporations from spending money on political campaigns. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the usual suspects, dismissed the overturned laws as tantamount to government thought control. The decision was a victory for the right-wing group Citizens United, which put out an infomercial masquerading as a documentary about - and making the case against - Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

A lower court ruled against Citizens United. It stated that the infomercial violated a provision in the McCain-Feingold Act, which forbids corporations, unions and other interest groups from using funds from their general treasuries for an airing of a television program that refers to a candidate for federal office during an election season, according to the Washington Post. The right-wing bloc on the Court expanded it to cover the constitutionality of campaign finance laws in general, and struck down laws dating back sixty years in the process. The ruling adds insult to injury against the American progressive movement, still reeling from the special Senate election loss in Massachusetts. In addition to health care on life support, liberals now have to face corporate America outspending them into political irrelevance.

The silver lining? Unions can spend as much money as they want, too.

President Obama criticized the decision, and New York senator Charles Schumer has vowed to push for new legislation that would, among other things, limit donations from government contracts and get shareholder approval for campaign spending, but trying to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling is like trying to avoid quicksand in the jungle; you have to tread very carefully, and you might still slip. Congress has to produce a law that passes constitutional muster according to the current Court's view. Good luck.

Corporate America won a victory for "free speech," which they can put a price on now.