This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1391315
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1391315
1 Like
Hmmmmm…interesting. Will be interested in hearing what our esteemed legal eagles think about this one.
5 Likes
GQPSCOTUS = Dam Busters?
The Roberts court opened the door to unlimited political spending. That didn’t help matters one bit.
However, I remember Roberts himself saying that the court would support laws written to require that all donors and their donations be made public. There’s lots of money sloshing around that nobody knows where it came from. Dark Money. At least we should have an accounting of where the money comes from.
5 Likes
So when can Obama expect Alito’s apology?
4 Likes
“In the California case, a foreign pornographer spent in an LA election about mandated condom usage in porn. (He was against it.) He and his foreign company spent illegally in that LA election. California went after him and he had to pay a $61,500 fine. Then in the 2016 election a foreign company called American Pacific International Capital spent illegally $1.3 million in support of Jeb Bush’s failed effort to become president. The FEC issued a civil fine to the corporation of $550,000.“
I feel that fines should be double or triple the illegal donation.
10 Likes
Yeah, but can they still run “issue” ads?
2 Likes
First off it was a 5 to 3 decision with the Republicans in the majority, Ginsberg was still on the court and Kagan recused herself.
Secondly, the issue deals with funding to fight AIDS/HIV abroad.
Thirdly, the result of the ruling limits the ability of America to fight AIDS/HIV in foreign countries.
My conclusion is that there is no way in hell that the Republicans on the Supreme Court appointed with the help of Moscow Mitch voting to limit America’s ability to fight AIDS/HIV abroad will apply this ruling to foreign interference in American elections.
2 Likes
Meanwhile, states also have Senators like Ron Johnson, and Congressmen like Tom Tiffany, absolutely depend on nonresident contributions because they sure as shit aren’t helping people who live here.
1 Like
I thought that the foundation of Citizens United was twofold, first, that corporations are people, and that freedom of speech includes spending money.
So if corporations are people, how can foreign corporations have “freedom of speech” to donate/spend on elections when foreign people can’t donate?
2 Likes
The ruling being sited in the article applies to foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations helping to fight AID/HIV in foreign countries. You really think the current Supreme Court will apply the ruling to domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations helping Republicans win elections in America?
If you do, I have a bridge to sell ya.
1 Like
The Supreme Court in United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (“ Open Society II ”), a case completely unrelated to elections, decided that “[i]n short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights.”
Um, what about foreign organizations operating in the United States? I think a rather large leap was made in using that quote.
2 Likes
LOL! It’s adorable that people think the Fascist 6 give a fucking hoot about precedent at this point.
1 Like
Excellent overview of the issue.
The FEC issued a civil fine to the corporation of $550,000.
I wonder where the corporation gets the money. Oh, right…
Us.