Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Unlimited spending lets foreign corps sway elections

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Justice John Paul Stevens said in January of 2010 in a dissenting opinion following the US Supreme Court's 5-4 vote to allow unlimited corporate spending in elections: "Under today's decision, multinational corporations controlled by foreign governments" would have the same rights as Americans to spend money to sway U.S. elections, he said.[1]


Greg Palest. "Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections." OpEdNews. January 23rd, 2010: "I'm losing sleep over the millions -- or billions -- of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But under today's Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.