Designer99
Sharpshooter
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.
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.