Alito & Obama:

[Designer99]

The Alito / Obama moment is one of the biggest stories to come out of the STOTU Address last night.

In researching this story almost 99% of the 1000 articles out there simply say they had a "showdown" without actually addressing the issue at hand whatsoever. These articles only help to inflame both sides and further the partisanship and divide. Way to go media.

So who is correct here?

Alito:
Those who say Alito is right sight the following:
[FONT=times new roman,times]The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making "a contribution or donation of money or any 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" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ." [/FONT]


Obama:
Those who say Obama is right sight the following:
During arguments for Citizens United, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens asked whether foreign interests would be able to funnel money into American elections through their U.S. subsidiaries if the court struck down 441b. One of the attorneys for Citizens United replied, “I would not rule that out.”


In its Opinion, the Court side-stepped the issue and refused to make a ruling on whether foreign corporations would be able to influence our political process by funneling money through US subsidiaries. Instead, the Court stated that there is no need to answer the question, and referred to the fact that 2 U.S.C 441(e) bans contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals.



Conclusion:
So, it appears that Alito is saying he is correct because there is a law on the books that prohibits Foreign nationals and corporations from donating to our political process.

But, the problem is that there is a loophole for Foreign corporations to funnel money in via US Subsidiaries and through companies that are 51% American shareholders and 49% Foreign shareholders.

Bottom line is there IS a loophole! This is a sticky situation, but the loophole needs closed.

Last time we discussed this, the consensus seemed to be that most people here didn't mind Foreign corporations funding elections and that you didn't mind Hugo Chavez funding a candidate via CITGO because (1) he does business in America (2) It was his right to influence his interests and (3) it is the American way.


So what's your take? And, please, spare me the "Obama Sucks" responses and just stick to the facts of the case.

 

[Joe Williams]

Obama sucks.

If you can keep starting exactly the same threads, I reckon I can keep repeating the mantra.

 

[Designer99]

Actually this is in regards to last night.

Thanks Joe. I've already gotten many messages from other members saying that YOU like to start fights with people. You bait people into calling you names, then you report them to the moderators for calling you names.

Face it. You are THAT GUY on this board and everybody knows it.

You are irrelevant to any intellectual discussion here.

Bye Bye.

Obama sucks.

If you can keep starting exactly the same threads, I reckon I can keep repeating the mantra.

 

[Joe Williams]

Actually this is in regards to last night.

Thanks Joe. I've already gotten many messages from other members saying that YOU like to start fights with people. You bait people into calling you names, then you report them to the moderators for calling you names.

Face it. You are THAT GUY on this board and everybody knows it.

You are irrelevant to any intellectual discussion here.

Bye Bye.

LOL can't handle the fact that some of us won't let you leftists speak non-stop without being challenged, huh? Face it, your constant posts on the same subject, with the same crap, and the same ole personal insults are nothing more than political spam.

 

[dustjunky2000]

Hard to say. I'm tempted to side with Alito until more investigating is done. Obama I know for sure is a liar, and Alito hasn't really made me hate him yet.

 

[Designer99]

Let me know if you find anything. The media is doing a horrible job of giving any facts either way.

Hard to say. I'm tempted to side with Alito until more investigating is done. Obama I know for sure is a liar, and Alito hasn't really made me hate him yet.

 

[hornadylnl]

Designer,

You are still focusing on the same legal mumbo jumbo and "loopholes" when you've already admitted that the solution that I gave earlier works.

Ignore the loopholes or how things currently work and focus your energy on eliminating the need for corporations to buy off politicians. Take away the governments ability to affect, tax, and regulate businesses and there would be no reason for corporate America, Chavez, et al to buy politicians. Politicians are opposed to that, not corporations. Why? Because who would they get their money from to remain in office?

The cHOSEN oNE (emphasizing the small letters c and o so not to confuse him with the real Chosen One) says he wants transparency. How do you do that? Hand the American people a true tax bill once a year. Don't let them pay it multiple times a day, every day of the year through increased product costs at the cash register. How much could businesses reduce the costs of their products and services if they didn't have to staff accountants and tax lawyers and funnel tons of money to politicians to keep the government off their backs? I'm sure your anti corporate bent forces you to believe that all money corporations save by this will remain in the board and CEO's pockets.

 

[dross]

Last time we discussed this, the consensus seemed to be that most people here didn't mind Foreign corporations funding elections and that you didn't mind Hugo Chavez funding a candidate via CITGO because (1) he does business in America (2) It was his right to influence his interests and (3) it is the American way.

.

You're mischaracterizing at least my position on the issue.

First, the Supreme Court is not the legislature. It is not their job to provide practical solutions to problems. Their job is to follow the Constitution. Congress must figure out how to solve practical problems with foreign money WITHOUT violating the rights of Americans.

Second, how would Hugo Chavez fund an election? Are you saying that because Citgo donates, and because his government owns a piece of that funded money, that he therefore is influencing elections? If so, that's weak. If you're saying that Hugo Chavez would use his influence as a partial owner to tell the Americans running the American branch of Citgo who to donate to, Alito's point is that there are already laws adressing that.

You're mixing up the legislative and judicial branches and their roles.

And I still submit to you, that the very first question that must be answered - the one the Supreme Court answered - but you have yet to answer, is, "Where in the Constitution does it allow Congress to regulate political speech?" If you can't answer that, all the other questions are moot.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I side with Alito.

 

[Designer99]

Hey man, I'm open to hearing new ideas like yours. But, until you get elected and submit your proposal to Congress, we can't do anything about it.

Until then, this mumbo jumbo / grey area rules the day. It needs to be cut through and clarified. It should be crystal clear and clarified so we know that foreign interests can't effect our elections. I just don't want the Chinese and Saudis to tell me what I have to do.

But they already kind of do. (Side note) Do you know who the biggest shareholder of FOX News is, second to Rurpert Murdoc? Freakin' Saudi Prince Alwaleed! I digress.

I agree, like you say, if we don't give corporations our money, they can't use it to vote. But for the time being, if we let them have too much influence over the current system, they won't need our money. They will use their mountains of international money. Your's & mine will be irrelevant.

Designer,

You are still focusing on the same legal mumbo jumbo and "loopholes" when you've already admitted that the solution that I gave earlier works.

Ignore the loopholes or how things currently work and focus your energy on eliminating the need for corporations to buy off politicians. Take away the governments ability to affect, tax, and regulate businesses and there would be no reason for corporate America, Chavez, et al to buy politicians. Politicians are opposed to that, not corporations. Why? Because who would they get their money from to remain in office?

The cHOSEN oNE (emphasizing the small letters c and o so not to confuse him with the real Chosen One) says he wants transparency. How do you do that? Hand the American people a true tax bill once a year. Don't let them pay it multiple times a day, every day of the year through increased product costs at the cash register. How much could businesses reduce the costs of their products and services if they didn't have to staff accountants and tax lawyers and funnel tons of money to politicians to keep the government off their backs? I'm sure your anti corporate bent forces you to believe that all money corporations save by this will remain in the board and CEO's pockets.

 

[rambone]

 

[Designer99]

You're mischaracterizing at least my position on the issue.

Very true. That was not specifically your position, as much as it was others.

First, the Supreme Court is not the legislature. It is not their job to provide practical solutions to problems. Their job is to follow the Constitution. Congress must figure out how to solve practical problems with foreign money WITHOUT violating the rights of Americans.

True. Congress needs to clarify this. Hopefully a solution both sides can agree on.

Second, how would Hugo Chavez fund an election? Are you saying that because Citgo donates, and because his government owns a piece of that funded money, that he therefore is influencing elections? If so, that's weak. If you're saying that Hugo Chavez would use his influence as a partial owner to tell the Americans running the American branch of Citgo who to donate to, Alito's point is that there are already laws adressing that.

That's exactly what I'm saying. We all know that corruption is all too common in Washington. More money in the system is not going to cure the corruption problem, only make it worse. Alito says this is addressed, but if you read the specifics, it's still a grey area.

During arguments for Citizens United, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens asked whether foreign interests would be able to funnel money into American elections through their U.S. subsidiaries if the court struck down 441b. One of the attorneys for Citizens United replied, “I would not rule that out.”

And I still submit to you, that the very first question that must be answered - the one the Supreme Court answered - but you have yet to answer, is, "Where in the Constitution does it allow Congress to regulate political speech?" If you can't answer that, all the other questions are moot.

There is none. They cannot regulate political speech. But, the Founding Fathers could have never in-visioned the modern system of multi-national corporations. If they could have, I'm sure they would have clarified that that foreign shareholders of corporations should not have any influence in our system.

(side note) I enjoy your discussion of topics dross. Even if we don't agree on this or that issue, you make thought provoking points. Wish there were more hear that did the same.

 

[Ramen]

There is none. They cannot regulate political speech. But, the Founding Fathers could have never in-visioned the modern system of multi-national corporations. If they could have, I'm sure they would have clarified that that foreign shareholders of corporations should not have any influence in our system.

You are using the same argument against freedom of speech that many people use to take away the right to self defense.

"The Founders could have never in-visioned the modern automatic firearms. If they could have, I'm sure they would have clarified that they only meant we could bear single shot hunting rifles."

Once you start walking down that road there is no going back, rights start getting taken away slowly and surely.

 

[jsgolfman]

To say that the founders could not have envisioned multinaitonal corporations is either being naive or deliberately obtuse. Are you trying to say that there was no such thing as a multinational at that time or that foreign nationals did not own businesses in the US?

 

[hornadylnl]

Hey man, I'm open to hearing new ideas like yours. But, until you get elected and submit your proposal to Congress, we can't do anything about it.

Until then, this mumbo jumbo / grey area rules the day. It needs to be cut through and clarified. It should be crystal clear and clarified so we know that foreign interests can't effect our elections. I just don't want the Chinese and Saudis to tell me what I have to do.

I won't get elected to congress or won't even bother try getting elected to congress. Why? Because you, and 90% of the rest of Americans think we are only 1 more regulation away from utopian bliss. Only a select few of us believe we need 1 million less regulations to be even remotely near a utopian bliss.

But they already kind of do. (Side note) Do you know who the biggest shareholder of FOX News is, second to Rurpert Murdoc? Freakin' Saudi Prince Alwaleed! I digress.

What exactly makes this pot shot at a "conservative" institution relevant to our discussion? You wonder why you are being labeled a lib here. The only cheap shots I've seen you make are leveled at traditionally conservative areas. Corporations, Walmart, Fox News, and I'm sure I'm leaving out a few others. Almost all of your arguments follow the populist mantra.

I agree, like you say, if we don't give corporations our money, they can't use it to vote. But for the time being, if we let them have too much influence over the current system, they won't need our money. They will use their mountains of international money. Your's & mine will be irrelevant.

You have this completely bass akwards here. I'm not saying "we" should withhold our money from corporations. I'm saying the government needs to get out of the business of being the mob boss of corporations. The government uses regulations, taxes, etc to keep the money flowing to their campaign coffers. The government are the criminals here, not CEO's and corporate board members. The government propaganda machine has been affective on you and millions upon millions here. You are blaming the poor mom and pop shop owner for the existence of the mob by their funding of it. The truth of the matter is that mom and pop are only trying to save their existence.

 

[jeremy]

tag

 

[jeremy]

To say that the founders could not have envisioned multinaitonal corporations is either being naive or deliberately obtuse. Are you trying to say that there was no such thing as a multinational at that time or that foreign nationals did not own businesses in the US?

Me thinks perhaps this person slept through History and Reading Comprehension....

 

[Designer99]

Ok, enough about me and what I personally think or say. That's not what this thread is about. Let's not start another dogpile here.

Anybody want to get back to the actual specifics of the case and it's potential effects on our election process?

 

[henktermaat]

You really are stuck on this!

Anyhoo, I side with Alito. More regulations, less freedom, and bigger government is not the answer, bottom line.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ok, enough about me and what I personally think or say. That's not what this thread is about. Let's not start another dogpile here.

Anybody want to get back to the actual specifics of the case and it's potential effects on our election process?

I think everyone who is going to weigh in on this already has. How many threads do we need about it?