In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS basically completely deregulates campaign finance

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

What this means is that multi-national foreign corporations that used to need to hide their donations can do so freely now. i.e. the republic is over.

Politicians are officially for sale. China has lots of U.S. dollars to support whatever congressmen or senator of their choosing now. This decision of the Supreme Court transcends ideologies and the left/right paradigm. It's just plain evil.



http://files.abovetopsecret.com/imag...6333567125.jpg

What is that bell with the circle around it and that star symbol? I am too young to know

[Mo]

Why is the Adidas logo on there?

[Future Boy]

Thats Illinois bell which became Ameritech then SBC and is ATT now. The other one is Chrysler.

Adidas- Idk, why are Internet explorer and windows both there. Burger King got snubbed.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Thats Illinois bell which became Ameritech then SBC and is ATT now. The other one is Chrysler.

I think the bell symbol was the logo for all the Bell divisions. On the East Coast that was the symbol for Bell Atlantic before it became Verizon.

[Future Boy]

You're right Im sure. Then they broke it up into the baby bells I think. Im in Chicago so it was always just Illinois Bell to me. As a kid. Not too young, but youngish.

edit: oops, no those were the baby bells. Guess I was too young.

Cingular & AT&T Merger Explained

this got pulled from youtube so gametrailers it is.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

What this means is that multi-national foreign corporations that used to need to hide their donations can do so freely now. i.e. the republic is over.

Politicians are officially for sale. China has lots of U.S. dollars to support whatever congressmen or senator of their choosing now. This decision of the Supreme Court transcends ideologies and the left/right paradigm. It's just plain evil.

I've been doing a little reading on this lately, particularly after Obama made similar claims in the SOTU, and I can now say that your fears are completely unfounded.

2 USC 441e - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other 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;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title);
...
(b) “Foreign national” defined
As used in this section, the term foreign national means
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611 (b) of title 22, except that the term foreign national shall not ******* any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101 (a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8.

22 USC 611 - Definitions

As used in and for the purposes of this subchapter
(a) The term person includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of individuals;
(b) The term foreign principal includes
...
(3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.

None of this was affected whatsoever by the decision in Citizens United. That case was limited to striking down parts of 2 USC 441b. Section 441e is still good law. So no, foreign corporations were not given free reign to pour money into our system. It was illegal before. It's illegal now.