Isn't it illegal for foreign companies and governments to buy their way into American political elections?

No.

Also, this.

Any private interest can contribute to the campaign funds of congressmen that they support. Further they can (and do) hire lobbyists to tend to the wheeling and dealing that goes along with getting any legislation passed.

In short, not only is it not illegal, it is an integral part of how the system works.

I find it interesting that in the 2008 election it was perfectly fine for Obama to use hundreds of millions in soft money donations to buy the election but now when he and the Dems are facing stiff opposition they are crying foul. Waaaaah!

the sword cuts both ways and this time it’s cutting in favor of the Republicans, more or less. It’s a tough election for incumbents and the Dems are in power. This is what happens when the voters are pissed off. There is no rule that says the Dems can’t also take advantage of this situation. If the doners were there for them, (Dems) ,they would be flush with cash too.

I find it interesting that the same people who railed for a flag burning amendment now find it there patriotic duty to wear the flag all over their body.

I find it interesting that the same people that decry socialism live off medicaid and social security.

I find it interesting that the same people who rallied for jeffesonian constitutionalism would fight so strongly for Hamiltonian principles.

I find it interesting that the same people that funded our wars with tax breaks want to continue doing so despite it’s lack of funding.

I find it interesting that the same people who cried for our national debt want to raise it another 800 billion so 2% can get a tax break.

I find it interesting that the same people who are screaming about jobs are holding the GOVERNMENT responsible, while the corporations continue to pile up profits at the expense of the unemployed.

And finally I find it interesting that the same people who scream that they are great Americans would ship our jobs overseas and destroy Americas middle class.

@thekoukoureport I like your answer, except the word flag burning should have anti in front of it and it doesn’t answer the question

@yarnlady I know but when cruiser “Found it interesting” my mind went off on a tangient. sorry but I had many more and I forgot to put;

I find it interesting that the same people who want to know the money trail for the muslim community center in Manhattan could care less that BP is helping fund their campaigns.

@kevbo, & @YoBob I am aware of the Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court. However, the Ban on Political Contributions by Foreign Nationals was put in place in 1966 and still stands. It’s just that now, with the recent SCOTUS travesty, nobody is allowed to look at who gave what, so there is no way to enforce the 1966 law. The Mexican and Colombian drug cartels could even set up puppet non-profits to run advertising. Maybe they could convince enough Americans, and make all drug activity in the US legal, giving them a beautiful safe-haven to ship drugs here and worldwide.

@Cruiser The flow of money has tripled due to the new court decision in Citizens United. But I don’t think this is a partisan issue. The money is going to flow to the party poised to win. If Republicans get control this election and screw things up, right-wingers will have a rude awakening as to why this unlimited money is a problem corrupting our political process. The voters deserve to know who’s behind attack ads and what they might stand to gain by pushing a given position. What’s wrong with transparency all of a sudden?

@woodcutter That is my point. The winners are not the Republicans, or the Democrats. The winners are the special interests that could care less about the needs of the US citizens as long as they can buy enough power in Washington to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars and turn back the clock on any form of meaningful regulation. What’s at stake is not this or that party, it is American Liberty as we have always know it. Do we really want to live in a Corporatocracy instead of a Democratic Republic?

@thekoukoureport Ha! I find it interesting you said so much without answering the question at hand, but what you said was eloquent enough I can live with it. GA. In fact, you might have added I find it interesting that the same people who constantly cried judicial activism suddenly see nothing wrong with 5 justices completely reversing over 100 years of case law.

@ETpro Do you have links for this “tripling” you cite? Again, the shoe is just on the other foot and the Dems don’t like the fit. It was all fine and dandy for them to run amok with the corporate donations 2 years ago.

@Cruiser Soft money spending was actually down a bit, from $400 million in 2008, down from $486 million in 2004. http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/02/soft-money-donations-down-in-2.php. Bear in mind both these were Presidential Election years. This year the SEC estimates spending to close out at over $1 billion, and it’s an off year. http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=z7uj6akn9r5zjz

@YoBob No, it’s not legal.

@Cruiser You’re comparing Apples and apostrophes there. Two years ago there was a limit to corporate contributions and their ability to run political ads. This year there isn’t. To argue that the shoe is on the other foot is either grossly ignorant or intentionally misleading. This is the first election in American history that allows corporations to spend without limit on political ads.

The Supreme Court still holds that it is not legal for foreign corporations to directly influence American elections (even to the point of mumbling it in the middle of the State of the Union Address), but they’ve effectively removed any hope of enforcing that law.

@ETpro Yes, it definitely violates US law, but it can’t be proven because nobody is under any obligation to disclose the source of their financing. Probably the worst Supreme Court decision of the last century.

@crazyivan Great answer.

@Cruiser Here’s an update. With the latest numbers in, this election’s spending will hit $2 billion, 5 times as much in an off-year election as we saw in 2008 in a Presidential election. I apologize for having estimated so low as to suggest it was only 3 times as much.

That’s how much the Supreme Court’s no-holds-barred

so it is assumed then, that corporations/ foreign doners do not support Democrat candidates? I wonder if George Thoros is giving this time.

@woodcutter George Soros? Yes, he is. I just saw a news release today about him putting in $1 million to back prop 18 passing in California. But his money pales in comparison to all the corporate money avaialable to support deregulation, reduction of fair trade laws, etc. Look, as much as both sides seem to want this to be a partisan issue, it really is not. THe corporate money will flow just as heavily to Democrats when they are poised to make gains. The issue is do we want to know who is behind political attack ads, and what they stand to gain, or do we just not care. Is American government for sale to the highest bidder.

well we all have the option to not believe negative ads. Anyone who is thoughtful enough to vote should be able to sift through the noise and research facts. it always gets nasty and way overblown at this stage. The other day I caught a snippet of a debate where one candidate was slamming the other because he was reprimanded at one his past employers for using a company computer on his lunch break for personal reasons. Really? that’s the reason a person would not be a good candidate for office? See how silly it gets. And don’t forget shrill…..I luvs shrill. My point here is as well as other members is; would the left really be talking about this right now if the donations for them were coming in hand over fist from anonymous doners? Would any of them care? Really? No, they would pay lip service to the situation of course for the pc angle but they certainly would not be sending any of that money back, not in any election year. For a second there I was thinking there are still some out there holding out for the existence of democracy. That train left the station decades ago

@woodcutter If you believe the American electorate is that thoughtful, then you aren’t very thoughtful yourself. :-)

@ETpro you reeeeally know how to hurt a guy

@woodcutter The fact that you on your own have turned this into a partisan issue is indicative of why this country is in the shape it is. What a stupid point to make. The problem isn’t which party they’re donating to, it’s a matter of decreasing the voice of American people. Unions give to democrats, corporations give to republicans. Doesn’t matter, it corrupts both of them. That’s why nobody is on your side. That’s why neither party listens to the American electorate. Their corporate/union overlords have more money.

And this nonsensical notion that we should all just overlook the ads and do our own research is woefully ignorant. I guess we could use that same assanine argument to justify only letting one party run political ads at all, huh? The fact that foreign corporations now have more influence in your hometown conrgressional elections is a problem and if you’re thick-headed enough not to accept that because the majority of the money is going to your party, you’re an idiot, a menace and a danger to your nation.

@crazyivan re -read ALL my posting on this thread, do it. Can you really find anywhere in all that text where I agreed with what’s going on? No. No you can’t. Because there is nothing in there that dictates what I believe. I’m just stating the obvious. The same obvious that most people past the age of 40 have known for a looooong time. You just need to be patient and grow up a little and please dispense with the name calling it makes you appear stupid.

@woodcutter Two points:

#1) I never said you said that you agreed with what was going on. How about reread the post immediately above yours before responding to it, eh? I responded only to what you said.

#2) There is also no name calling in the previous thread. Notice the word “if”.

The fact that you can point out that you never said things I never said you said is not particularly impressive. One might go as far as saying it makes you look stupid.

@crazyivan nice save?