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.
Of course Alito was right because this regulation was not overturned by the current decision as Obama alluded to. In fact, as you state, it was not addressed by the recent decision because it was not what was under consideration.
The current decision was whether McCain/Feingold from 2002 was constitutional, and it was decided that due to it's nature, it would put a chill factor on free speech.
So constantly alluding to a regulation that was not even under consideration is a red herring.
Now to your question of whether an American owned company or a foreign owned company can donate to campaigns where foreign owned companies are banned, then if the definition making a company American owned is 51% is still law and still on the books, then it is still "legal", no matter how much ownership is foreign. If you are going to start defining only public companies that have no foreign ownership can contribute, which in most cases is stock ownership, you will by that reasoning, ban almost all publicly owned companies from being able to donate under the rules of 441, as stock ownership is open for any investor. That would also mean that you would have to determine if there is any foreign ownership of any mutual fund that may have a percentage of the portfolio of a company.
There is a reason for the 51% ownership is that the 51% ownership has the controlling interest; thereby, making any public company that is 51% American owned and still controlled by American interests.