Thursday's Supreme Court ruling clearing the way for corporations and unions to spend money in U.S. political campaigns will allow foreigners a greater role in American elections and could lead to a flood of foreign money into the system, analysts said.
On its face, the 5-4 ruling appears to permit the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies to take out or support ads for or against candidates, just as other U.S. corporations may now do.
In other words, even if Sony Corp. in Japan couldn't spend money directly for or against a candidate, the electronics company's American-based subsidiaries could. And that's got some conservatives upset, fearful of the influence of foreign money on U.S. politics.
"The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics," said Pat Choate, an author and former Reform Party candidate for Vice President. "It'll happen instantaneously. It'll happen in the 2010 elections….The Japanese corporations, the European corporations will do it instantly through American subsidiaries."
Several other analysts, however, cautioned that the fear was being overblown and that foreign companies would be reluctant to dabble in U.S. politics for the same reason some American companies steer clear, to avoid angering consumers.
"It is a plausible inference from the court's opinion that [foreign] money can't be restricted," said Michael Dorf, a Cornell law professor who has backed giving foreigners the right to contribute to U.S. campaigns. "For me, that's not such a terrible thing."
Dorf said it was unlikely that large multinational companies would want to weigh in in most elections. "If I'm the CEO of a major corporation, I'm going to be very leery of directly supporting or opposing a candidate….It's just not good business to alienate potential customers," he said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion suggests there could be an argument for "limiting foreign influence over our political process," but he concludes that is not an adequate reason to allow the government to impose an across-the-board ban on direct expenditures by corporations in campaigns.
However, the main dissent, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, argues that the majority's logic throws into question existing federal bans on political activity by foreigners.
"If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by 'Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders," Stevens wrote. "More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."
In an apparent dig at the originalists in the majority, Stevens said throwing U.S. political campaigns open to foreigners would have upset the Founding Fathers. "The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers, whose 'obsession with foreign influence derived from a fear that foreign powers and individuals had no basic investment in the well-being of the country,'" Stevens wrote, quoting a law review article from Fordham professor Zephyr Teachout.
Stevens also suggested some of his colleagues were refusing to address the green light the opinion could give to political activity by huge global enterprises. "The majority never uses a multinational business corporation in its hypotheticals," the justice wrote.
Another possibility raised by Thursday's ruling is that wealthy foreigners, who are currently banned by statute from spending "directly or indirectly" on U.S. elections, might start corporations in the U.S. solely or primary to funnel money in to spend on U.S. elections.
Some analysts said such fears are exaggerated. "If it is a situation with a shell corporation, you won't be able to do an end run around the rules," said Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission lawyer. "People are working overtime interpreting this opinion beyond its boundaries."
Today's Supreme Court opinion left in place the U.S. government's ability to require disclosure of donors-a requirement that might scare off some would-be foreign contributors.
The court's major move today towards deregulation of the campaign finance system also points up a divide in the conservative movement. While the lawsuit that led to the justices' decision was brought by a conservative group, Citizens' United, the loudest complaints about foreign donations to U.S. campaigns have often come from conservatives.
When Democrats were accused of taking millions in illegal donations from Chinese and Indonesian interests in 1996, Republicans warned of the dangers of foreign influence. In 2003, the liberal group MoveOn.org came under fire for efforts some foreigners were making to encourage donations to the group as part of efforts to defeat President George W. Bush. MoveOn later banned foreign donations, though it said such gifts were not illegal. In 2008, reports about alleged illegal foreign donations to Barack Obama's presidential campaign got extensive play on conservative sites like Newsmax.com.
Choate, who has long warned about the influence of foreign money in U.S. politics, believes conservative groups now face a moment of truth where they must decide whether they truly favor complete deregulation of political financing, including an end to all limits on foreign cash.
"It's one of the basic tenets of the conservative movement to want to keep the electoral process limited to Americans. You can't have it both ways," Choate said. He said he favors a Constitutional Amendment making explicit Congress's right to regulate political donations and hopes that Tea Party activists will take up the cause. Indeed, while the GOP establishment touted the court's decision as a triumph of freedom, some Tea Party figures sounded notably less enthusiastic about the court's vindication of the rights of corporations.
Regardless of today's ruling and any attempts to counteract it, those trying to keep foreign money out of American politics face an increasingly uphill battle due to rapid advances in technology.
"Because of the Internet all the traditional restraints on foreign involvement are out the window," Teachout, the professor quoted in the dissent, said in an interview. "You can do the hard work of door-to-door campaigning from India….It makes it all the more important to support structures that encourage citizen involvement."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31845.html 
Login
FAQ
Search
sooz06
~ Sooz
~