Print

[LetsGoWings]

It's my money and I can do what I want with it. Even if that is to buy out all the competition in my field of work so I can charge exorbitant prices after I close them down?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Just because something is "legal" doesn't make it right.

And who cares if they are a foreign corporation or foreign national right? It's their money, they can do whatever they want with it.

Even if it means selling off our personal freedoms to someone overseas evidently.

I'm sure the Chinese will love your point of view.

That would not be legal you would violate Antitrust laws by exerting monopolistic powers, and be forced to break up into different entities so that argument has littler or no value. Hence the Sherman Antitrust act and other Antitrust laws.

If it is legal how can you blame someone for exercising their rights granted by the law? You can do the same thing as them, if you want to donate every single dollar you make for the next 10 years to any party that is your right by law to do that.

Again, how is it selling off our personal freedoms? We all have the right to make decisions in the voting booth by ourselves. It is the voter who choses who gets elected not the money spent. Republican/Democrats could spend billions advertising and I am still going to research the candidates I can vote for and base it off the information I research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act ---- You would be in violation of this.

[Baby Hitler]

That would not be legal you would violate Antitrust laws by exerting monopolistic powers, and be forced to break up into different entities so that argument has littler or no value. Hence the Sherman Antitrust act and other Antitrust laws.

Again, how is it selling off our personal freedoms? We all have the right to make decisions in the voting booth by ourselves. It is the voter who choses who gets elected not the money spent. Republican/Democrats could spend billions advertising and I am still going to research the candidates I can vote for and base it off the information I research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act ---- You would be in violation of this.

But it's my money and I can do what ever I want with it. Isn't THAT what you said?

[LetsGoWings]

But it's my money and I can do what ever I want with it. Isn't THAT what you said?

As long as you are not in violation of any laws or are not planning to violate any laws by your purchases such as exert monopolistic power on the field, and that is what you said in your argument. now if you want to buy all your competition and not raise the prices to exert monopolistic power or not insert high barriers to entry then by all means do that, but the moment you exert monopolistic power you are in violation of the law and be penalized accordingly.

[Baby Hitler]

As long as you are not in violation of any laws or are not planning to violate any laws by your purchases such as exert monopolistic power on the field, and that is what you said in your argument. now if you want to buy all your competition and not raise the prices to exert monopolistic power or not insert high barriers to entry then by all means do that, but the moment you exert monopolistic power you are in violation of the law and be penalized accordingly.

Like I said, you can't do whatever you want with your money, and just because something is legal (for now) doesn't make it right.

[LetsGoWings]

Like I said, you can't do whatever you want with your money, and just because something is legal (for now) doesn't make it right.

Never said you could do whatever you want regardless of legality, but I did say you could do whatever you want as long as it is a legal and your example of buying out competition would be legal, may get investigated, but most likely determined legal, but once you start exerting monopolistic powers over the market that becomes a different act than buying them out.

It may be ethically wrong, but it is legally right and last time I checked the only thing that really matters is that it is not an illegal activity, and they are well within their right to do this. If you have a problem start writing your congressmen to have them change this until then talking on a forum will not do much for this issue because the activity they are engaging in is legal and nothing can be done.

[Baby Hitler]

Never said you could, but I did say you could do whatever you want as long as it is legal.

But it is their money and should be able to do with it what they want.

I don't see anywhere in there where you stated that it had to be legal.

My point is, I do believe it is ethically wrong and SHOULD be illegal.

But go ahead and continue to play devils advocate. I have made my point. I'm done.

[LetsGoWings]

But it is their money and should be able to do with it what they want. If Bill Gates wants to spend 5 billion dollars to favor a president for the Democratic Republic of Congo he should be able to, and not have to explain or tell people why or who he donated to. Also, they should not have to report who is donating what because the laws as they are written allows them to avoid disclosure. If they make a law banning this then they will have to abide by it and I will support it 100%, but currently they are not doing anything illegal, or at least that can be proven illegal.

Also, what do you consider a foreign corporation? Is BP a foreign corporation, even though they have BP America with a HQ in Houston?

Right there they will have to abide by it of they change the laws, but currently their are no laws so they can do whatever they want with their money as long as it is legal. Do you want me to put they whole legal part on their after every time I say it?

Also, it should already be implied I meant legal, but why would I advocate engaging in illegal activities?

Well you can think it should be illegal, but currently they are not in the wrong by engaging in these activities so I will support their decision until/if it becomes illegal.

I think marijuana should be legal, but if I go outside and light one up I will still get arrested and I doubt if I go to court and say it is an ethically right decision so it should be legal to do I will win the case.

People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they have not violated any laws.

[sawdust]

This thing is getting way out of hand.  It is a whole lot simpler than folks imply.   

The Chamber of Commerce receives funds from foreigners...govts and corporations...lots of it.  They deposit into their general fund.  They then turn around, and write checks to bash Democrats from the very same account.   OK...so they are not paying a politician to vote a certain way, but they are (through their donations and advertising) highly influencing how our legislators vote.   It might not be "buying" directly, but it is mighty close, in my humble opinion.  Also, since they are co-mingled funds, US donations are tainted by the foreign money.   

It has nothing to do with whether someone has the right to put their money wherever they see fit.  Instead, it has all to do with ANYONE from another country, contributing to the campaign of ANY US candidate, period.  Unfortunately, our illustrious Supreme Court made it perfectly legal.   And then made it impossible (legally) for anyone to find out where the money came from. 

Yep, gives me all sorts of warm fuzzy feelings.

[ducksoup]

Last night in his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to enact legislation to correct the problems caused by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The President said that the decision "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections."

Some have argued that this will not happen because there remains a separate federal law that prohibits contributions and expenditures to be made by any "foreign national" in connection with any Federal, State or local election. The Court in Citizens United did not review this separate law - section 441e - and it remains in effect.

Section 441e prohibits contributions or expenditures by any "foreign national" - which is defined to include any corporation "organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign corporation."

Thus, a corporation organized in Germany, or with its headquarters in China, remains subject to a ban on spending in U.S. elections.

But there are domestic corporations - those organized under state law in the United States - which are and can be controlled by foreign interests.

Those kinds of corporations - domestic corporations owned by or controlled by foreign governments, foreign corporations or foreign individuals - are not in any way prevented by section 441e from spending corporate treasury funds to influence U.S. elections.


Prior to the Citizens United decision, these corporations were prevented from spending their funds on expenditures to influence federal campaigns by the general prohibition on corporate campaign spending. But now that that prohibition has been struck down, these foreign-controlled domestic companies are free to spend their treasury funds directly to influence U.S. elections.

Thus, there is no statutory prohibition against foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making expenditures to influence federal elections, following the Citizens United decision.
http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={9F48E82B-F88F-4262-9927-06FB90F00B36}

[LetsGoWings]

Last night in his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to enact legislation to correct the problems caused by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The President said that the decision "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections."

Some have argued that this will not happen because there remains a separate federal law that prohibits contributions and expenditures to be made by any "foreign national" in connection with any Federal, State or local election. The Court in Citizens United did not review this separate law - section 441e - and it remains in effect.

Section 441e prohibits contributions or expenditures by any "foreign national" - which is defined to include any corporation "organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign corporation."

Thus, a corporation organized in Germany, or with its headquarters in China, remains subject to a ban on spending in U.S. elections.

But there are domestic corporations - those organized under state law in the United States - which are and can be controlled by foreign interests.

Those kinds of corporations - domestic corporations owned by or controlled by foreign governments, foreign corporations or foreign individuals - are not in any way prevented by section 441e from spending corporate treasury funds to influence U.S. elections.


Prior to the Citizens United decision, these corporations were prevented from spending their funds on expenditures to influence federal campaigns by the general prohibition on corporate campaign spending. But now that that prohibition has been struck down, these foreign-controlled domestic companies are free to spend their treasury funds directly to influence U.S. elections.

Thus, there is no statutory prohibition against foreign-controlled domestic corporations from making expenditures to influence federal elections, following the Citizens United decision.
http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC={91FCB139-CC82-4DDD-AE4E-3A81E6427C7F}&DE={9F48E82B-F88F-4262-9927-06FB90F00B36}

What if a Corporation has a HQ in multiple places? If BP America donates money is it legal or Toyota North America?

[ducksoup]

Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not a corporation.  It is a lobby group soliciting funds to sway Congressional votes AND ELECTIONS.

They reportedly use U.S. politics to solicit foreign donations to lobby against those proposed policies/laws.

In short... It is NOT their money to spend any which way they want.  The co-mingling of funds into the general fund is a big problem.

Right now the right is benefiting from this.  But, can you hear the screams if Hugo Chavez donated 1 million to defeat a Republican Governor?

[ducksoup]

What if a Corporation has a HQ in multiple places? If BP America donates money is it legal or Toyota North America?

It was in the text...

"but there are domestic corporations - those organized under state law in the United States - which are and can be controlled by foreign interests.

Those kinds of corporations - domestic corporations owned by or controlled by foreign governments, foreign corporations or foreign individuals - are not in any way prevented by section 441e from spending corporate treasury funds to influence U.S. elections."

I have no clue if Toyota incorporated a separate company in the U.S.  If it did... there's your answer.  IF not, they are forbidden by law.

[LetsGoWings]

It was in the text...

"but there are domestic corporations - those organized under state law in the United States - which are and can be controlled by foreign interests.

Those kinds of corporations - domestic corporations owned by or controlled by foreign governments, foreign corporations or foreign individuals - are not in any way prevented by section 441e from spending corporate treasury funds to influence U.S. elections."

I have no clue if Toyota incorporated a separate company in the U.S.  If it did... there's your answer.  IF not, they are forbidden by law.

So are you sure everyone in your article has no corporation in the US? If they want to get away with the law start up a small corporation in the US provide it with capital and then have that corporation LEGALLY donate money where they please.

[ducksoup]

So are you sure everyone in your article has no corporation in the US? If they want to get away with the law start up a small corporation in the US provide it with capital and then have that corporation LEGALLY donate money where they please.

I don't know first hand.. no.  I said what I heard, that most foreign donations ARE NOT U.S. incorporated.  Being as the Chamber actively asks for donations IN THOSE COUNTRIES, and not just here, says that it probably is so though.

[LetsGoWings]

Then if they are indeed doing something illegal they will be caught, but until then I do not see anything illegal that they are doing, and as long as they are not doing anything illegal they should be allowed to do what they want with their money.

Also, the bashing of the Supreme Court has no merit, they are the final ruling body over constitutional issues.

Another also, Corporations do not have the same rights as people, they were set up as a separate entity to protect the owners and investors of the corporation, if there were not corporations there would be a lot less businesses because some people would be turned off by the massive amounts of liabilities they would take on by being a sole proprietorship or a partnership.