Skip to main content

When Justice Sam Alito showed his cards last night at the SOTU, he wiped out another 100 years of precedent and decorum by showing his disdain for the President's rebuke of the insane, Citizen's United decision to potentially allow foreign subsidiaries of US Corporations to influence our elections.

What the Supreme Court did, needs to become one of the top campaign issues for Democrats in the 2010 midterms.

This could be the Mother of All Wedges for 2010. If Democrats can stop the incessant bitching at each other and start training their fire on Republicans, this will work.

Let me walk through how.

If we can get a coordinated media campaign from OFA, MoveOn, and other groups pushing the meme, that Foreign subsidiaries based in the US, could possibly be shell companies for Al Quaeda, North Korea, Iran, and other terrorists regimes and groups hellbent on destroying the US. We need all of the Left Wing Televangelists to start pushing this meme in at least one segment of their shows, similar to what Olberman did with the Iraq war. We could also have each one recite the number of days since the ruling, calling it the number of days Terrorists have been given the ability to influence our elections. We need this on all of the Sunday shows, cable news, MSM national news, all of them!

The President has laid the groundwork, it is up to those progressives and left-leaning Televangelists with large megaphones to take up the fight and keep it going.

Republicans will of course defend the Supreme court decision, because they can't help themselves. But if Democrats keep pounding away at the Possibility that Terrorists regimes and groups could influence our elections, public sentiment will swing our way. We have those on the right already trying to downplay this fact already. We need congressional Democrats to have a very long debate on this issue. We need campaign ads, we need a coordinated effort to put Republicans in the box. Every Republican candidate needs to be asked this question in their local markets, in debates, etc.

"As you know mr/mrs candidate, the Supreme Court decision allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for candidates. Some of these corporations are foreign owned subsidiaries of Terrorists States like Iran, North Korea, or Al Quaeda...What is your stance on this? Are you For or Against Terrorists sending unlimited amounts of money into US elections?"

Should Congress pass a law that prevents Terrorists and State sponsors of Terrorists, from sending unlimited amounts of money into US elections?

I know its a bit xenophobic, but it is good politics. We need to blow up this issue politically and expand what could happen...The Terrorist are Coming, Run For the Hills!

Originally posted to vinkeith on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:20 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (7+ / 0-)

    Don't fight it, understand it!

    by vinkeith on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:20:27 AM PST

    •  I'd Think Rank & File Catholic Righties Would Not (0+ / 0-)

      want the Mormon church incorporated being a political party and having campaign rights, which as a domestic entity they are doing now.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:40:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And it could be tailored to very evangelicals (0+ / 0-)

        as well by using the Vatican as well.  "Do you want pedophile priests determining the laws of our country?"  Harsh, but effective.  And that push poll only needs to be used once before it's all over cable TV

        "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

        by zenbassoon on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 09:55:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've got a better move (0+ / 0-)
      1. Find a guy named "Al Cada"
      1. Put him in a bunch of ads for Republicans
      1. Only mention his name in voiceover, never in writing.

      There is no goal in the "War on Drugs" that couldn't be more effectively met by legalization & regulation.

      by EthrDemon on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 10:55:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, but the problem is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rock the ground

    ...this isn't true.

    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

    by The Navigator on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:23:05 AM PST

    •  It very well may not be true today, but it is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soms

      certainly possible that it can happen. There is nothing that stops a foreign shell group from duping a sponsor in the US into helping them get a US charter. Here is a link to a story yesterday http://thinkprogress.org/... ...you think these guys are going to stay out of our elections?

      Don't fight it, understand it!

      by vinkeith on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:30:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wel true (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gooserock, rock the ground

        And I agree, they have to be kept out of elections.  And I happen to disagree w/ the SC ruling.  I just think that it's important to stick w/ the facts on these things.

        As the law currently stands, foreign owned corporations cant participate in electioneering activities.  We need to make sure it stays that way.

        I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

        by The Navigator on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:32:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How Could a Corporation NOT Be Foreign Owned? (0+ / 0-)

          Aren't stockholders owners?

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:39:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, a foreigner owning stock in a corporation.. (0+ / 0-)

            ...doesn't make it "foreign owned", at least for legal purposes.

            I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

            by The Navigator on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:47:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  From the Dissenters... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jfromga

          cited from a previous comment by skrekk...not addressing the foreign ownership question (pages 46-47):

             

          We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to "foreign national[s]"). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominately by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Government has a compelling interest in limiting foreign influence over our political process.

          The Stevens dissent notes on page 33:

             

          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. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could "enhance the relative voice" of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49).51 Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.

          the majority didn't want to touch this issue, and the dissent knows it will be a problem.

          Don't fight it, understand it!

          by vinkeith on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:42:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Indeed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jfromga

            the majority didn't want to touch this issue, and the dissent knows it will be a problem.

            Because they didn't touch, it's one thing that can be straightened via legislation.  At the moment I'm just as concerned about how to curb the influence of American owned corporations.

            I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

            by The Navigator on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:46:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  but al jazeera (0+ / 0-)

          could produce and air on US television a 2 hour documentary on American abuses overseas and then advocate voting for someone who supports withdrawal of all troops from the mideast.  They give no money to a campaign, they just express a point of view.

          They can use a front corporation so their name doesn't even appear.  I bet they have some great footage that would be upsetting to the American public.   Not who the conservatives thought would buy the time, but just as possible. If they started now with the films, but no political message, they might have a vocal minority who would follow if the added the political message 18 mos. from now.  You could see an antiwar movement grow.

          The point is that opinions on current affairs, even if they include support for a party or candidate isn't electioneering.

          •  Hmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...you're talking about two different things.

            It's OK for a corporation (foreign or otherwise) to express an opinion on current affairs that's designed to influence an election.  

            What wasn't OK up until this ruling is to explicitly endorse a candidate via that message.  Now, under this ruling, that is allowed.  The question is whether foreign companies can do this. As it stands now, a  foreign owned corporation explicitly endorsing a candidate via media IS considered electioneering under current Federal law.

            I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

            by The Navigator on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 09:21:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You Should Write A Diary Instead Of Making Inane (0+ / 0-)

      ....comments at the top of every one elses diaries.

  •  Have you noticed since Susan Boyle (a self (3+ / 0-)

    proclaimed virgin) has had alot of air time on the TV that suicide bombings are down. I guess the terrorists didn't know what a virgin looked like.

  •  Left Wing Televangelist? Never Heard of One (0+ / 0-)

    But I suppose there's a first time for everything.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 08:38:24 AM PST

  •  This is your brain on greed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Predictor

    Just so you know the symptoms.

    "Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all" Andrew Carnegie

    by pantherq on Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 09:39:16 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site