Well, it might be possible for a US corporation to become a conduit of foreign influence. There aren’t any laws saying that a US corporation has to be wholly or even largely under control of US citizens, and its owners can be expected to speak in their self interest.
But when did Bummer start caring about that anyhow?
RedNeck has a point:
“Well, it might be possible for a US corporation to become a conduit of foreign influence.”
Before the election goes into full swing, we conservatives need to get this right.
I don’t know the specifics myself on their ruling. But it seems to me that where the corporation invests would be a strong indicator of its interests.
I found this:
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-campaigns/13824764-1.html
[Zero’s state-of-disunion rant] was a step too far. At the moment, foreign corporations may not spend any money in U.S. elections under a provision of federal election law that was untouched by the high court.
The court’s majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically left for another day “whether the government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our nation’s political process.”
But Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissenting opinion that the reasoning underlying the ruling “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
The more complicated question is how to treat U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies or American corporations that are controlled by foreign investors. [snip]
The article goes on. It appears to me that the McCain/Feingold was ruled unconstitutional [rightly so] and that so much legislation has been tied in the convoluted mess that the only way to prevent foreign influence is to draft CONSTITUTIONAL law.
Whiny rats are trying to blame the Supreme Court for the current confusing mess.
Only when he started to consider that an opponent might attract more foreign money than he has.