Obama Demagogues Campaign Finance and Disclose Act

August 25, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

In his weekly radio address President Barack Obama called on the Republicans to allow a vote on a campaign finance bill written in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the landmark Citizens United case.

Trying to energize populist sentiments in support of the bill, Obama once again held out the specter of “foreign-controlled corporations” buying millions of dollars in television ads designed to influence the electorate “as special interests take to the airwaves.”

Either the president--who formerly served on the faculty of a U.S. law school and is supposed to be some sort of constitutional scholar--has misread the decision or is deliberately and obviously speaking about it in ways that are designed to mislead the electorate.

As Brad Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission explained recently, “Federal law already prohibits any corporation that is not incorporated and headquartered in the United States from making any political expenditures.”

The continued reliance on the idea of foreign contributions being made to U.S. elections as a talking point by Obama and by the Democrats who wrote and support the Disclose Act is nothing more than a straw man. As Smith also notes, current FEC regulations “prohibit any foreign national from being involved in political spending decisions” while any funds spent in the political process must come from “U.S. earnings.” This was the law before the Citizens United decision was handed down and, of equal importance, it remains the law today.

Leaving aside the many discrepancies that were uncovered by the media but left uninvestigated by the FEC in Obama’s own presidential campaign, the effort to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in this case runs counter to the oft-repeated mantra that the court’s word is and should be the last on matter of constitutional importance. The Disclose Act is, as others have written, little more than an effort by the current majority party to make it harder for the minority to find the funds they need to run effective and winning campaigns. It’s an exercise in raw political power, not constitutional governance, and the GOP is right to resist it.

Tags:
Congress,
2010 Congressional elections,
Republican Party,
campaigns,
Federal Election Commission,
Supreme Court,
Democratic Party,
Barack Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Trying to cloak foreign money in our elections by prefacing it as 'foreign-controlled' is a phony misrepresentation, and all foreign money trying ti influence our elections can hire hire a few flunkies to suggest its domestically controlled.

We all know know its the money dictates any corporation, and Fox News is being funded to the tune of billions of Saudi Royalty money to influence our elections.

Of course foreign corporations are financing our elections because of the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision, which essentially eliminated financial disclosure of corporations giving money to influence elections.

We have eliminated transparency in election financing and basically its free-or-all in election spending, including foreign corporations who funnel money through domestic subsidiaries

Larry of OK 6:55PM August 27, 2010

BP is a foreign company. I have never seen them involved in politics. Are you sure ? I see their ads about Gulf and ads on their multiple energy company. But not politics.

Foreign corporations can not finance our elections. Fox is American company.

Bill Hedges of MO 9:22PM August 25, 2010

“The Supreme Court opened the door to foreign corporations financing our elections.”

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Read the article::

“ Either the president--who formerly served on the faculty of a U.S. law school and is supposed to be some sort of constitutional scholar--has misread the decision or is deliberately and obviously speaking about it in ways that are designed to mislead the electorate.:

So what about Prince Alwaleed bin Talal ownership 7 % ? I believe there are limits on ownership by single foreigners.

If legal then what is wrong with donation from Fox. Fox is a American company. Companies with public stock have stock holders from around the world. Shareholders do not run day by day activities.

Key term is___“foreign-controlled corporations”

I did not know Fox donated. Thanks for informer me.

Bill Hedges of MO 8:54PM August 25, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement