-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Funny how the president SUDDENLY cares about foreign donations. My colleague Kerry Picket has an absolute must-read of a rundown on the topic. Let’s just say she proves this is another pot-calling-kettle moment.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/29/on-foreign-donations
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dixie Pixie| 1.29.10 @ 6:58PM
Didn't Obama get the Gore Funding memo.
Foreign donations are legal unless there is a controlling legal authority.
(i.e. Al Gore and the Buddhist Nuns Affair )
jeff | 1.29.10 @ 7:24PM
If the GOP wins back either House in 2010 I expect there will be hearings on Obama's foreign donation from '08. He really should be careful what he wishes for.
martin j smith| 1.30.10 @ 10:15AM
Full transparency now !!!!!!!! for everyone
Liberal Reader| 1.30.10 @ 1:01PM
SCOTUS did not explain how we are to understand the CITIZENSHIP of the "person" we are now to consider a corporation.
If a corporation is a person, what are the criteria for its citizenship. (Notice the pronoun. Thanks to this decision, we now have persons accurately referred to as "it's".)
Still to be decided is if corporations -- as persons -- should have the same tax rates as persons.
Probably most readers of this blog pay a greater percentage of their earnings than Exxon, Bank of America, or Paramount Pictures.
As well, we have yet to consider whether corporate persons can be called upon to serve their country by means of the draft.
If corporations are persons, how can they be OWNED?
Does taking an action which bankrupts a corporation -- say the corruption and criminality of a Ken Lay -- now count as murder?
Mike| 1.30.10 @ 2:23PM
Liberal Reader,
You raise provocative questions. Just for fun, how about this one: Can a "person" who is defined as an "it" marry? Or is that what we will call a merger?
Liberal Reader| 1.30.10 @ 3:45PM
Mike --
As it says in Leviticus, when a corporation wishes to merge, it must be with a labor union that it merges, so as not to be an abomination before the Lord.
Corporation merging with corporation? What next? Legalized beastiality?
Mike| 1.30.10 @ 4:39PM
Liberal Reader
Is it time to consult Rick Santorum, an expert in such matters?
Sam| 1.30.10 @ 1:26PM
Liberal reader,
You go to far with your questions although I understand your point. However, what you must remember is that it is not the Supreme Court's job to "explain citizenship" of the corporations. Doing so would be far to activist and legislating from the bench.
It is up to Congress to decide these questions about companies. If you go to politifact.com (a factchecking, nonpartisan site), you'll see that there are already laws in the books designed to prevent foreigners from unfairly influencing our elections.
Liberal Reader| 1.30.10 @ 3:42PM
Oh I don't know, Sam.
SCOTUS overturned decades of legislation and three of its own precedents (one from just a few years ago) with this decision, clearly going against the intent of duly elected representatives of the people to limit (but not to silence) corporate speech.
"Activism" is no longer a word with any meaning whatsoever, and if this decision represents judicial restraint, then I'm an archbishop.
You advise Congress -- now by order of the Supreme Court the largest legalized whorehouse in the western world -- to begin legislating HOW it is to go about receiving the unlimited bribes of corporations. I don't have very high hopes for that legislation.
Mike| 1.30.10 @ 2:24PM
Quin,
Why do your posts keep disappearing while other remain?
Liberal Reader| 1.30.10 @ 3:51PM
There is a point to my exaggerations.
Constitutional rights, as we all know, derive from fundamental rights ENDOWED by our Creator (not purchased as shares).
The corollary to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is this:
Only something that is ALIVE can have rights.
To claim that a tool has rights is absurd, and a corporation is a tool -- something more like a machine than it is like a man.
If I claim that moose or that squirrel over there has a right to life, you may disagree and call me a fool. But you can't say my claim is absurd on its face.
However, if I claim a stone or a lawnmower has a right to life, a right to liberty, a right to pursue its own happiness, you can say my claim is on its face absurd.
ONLY a human being can be a PERSON; ONLY a human being can have RIGHTS.
It is impossible for the government legitimately to CREATE a person, as a government creates a corporation.
ONLY human beings are persons; only human beings have rights.
The "conservative" Dr. Frankensteins on the court who say different are WRONG.
Bill from WV| 1.31.10 @ 11:50AM
You are correct! The PETA people should save their money getting "rights" for animals. The environmentalists should stop trying to get "rights" for trees and insects to the detriment of humans!
And the terrorist asshole who rams whaling ships who thinks an act of terror is acceptable if it accomplishes his goals, should be picked up by Interpol and thrown into a prison cell forever !
You are RIGHT! Only humans can have inalienable rights endowed by THEIR creator!
Oldefarte| 1.30.10 @ 4:00PM
The essential point is that the Democrats lose [financially] by the SC's decision. Business corporations will donate ten times more money to Republicans [who are pro-business] than can labor unions and lawyers to Democrats [who are anti-business]. Clinton got most of his money from Chinese sources [and Obama from Muslim, middle eastern sources] because of corporate businesses contributing to Dole, McCain, etc. Oh, as to LIBERAL MORON'S imbicilic comments, corporations are not PERSONS, dummie, they are CORPORATE ENTITIES and are owned by PERSONS [ shareholders]----what an idiot!!!!
Liberal Reader| 1.30.10 @ 5:03PM
That the "Democrats lose" is the "essential point"???
I thought conservatives stood on "principle"!
I guess the "principles" of conservatism are that the Democrats should lose -- even if that means corporations owned by Saudi Arabians pick up the tab!
Yes please, Republicans! Tell us more about your principled love of country!
As for calling me a moron, you clearly have not read the SC's own decision, where in it terms corporations PERSONS.
I'd hesitate to call you an ass, if you weren't such a fool.
Oldefarte| 1.31.10 @ 11:06AM
Dictionary definition of a corporation: "A body of persons granted a charter legally recognizing them as a SEPERATE ENTITY having its own rights,privileges, and liabilities distinct from THOSE OF THE MEMBERS"-----now, who is the FOOL, DUMBASS??????
Oldefarte| 1.31.10 @ 11:20AM
.....And this, from Wikipedia. A corporation is LIKE A PERSON, but LIKE ACTUAL PERSONS, get it, FOOL????? [".....A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.[1] There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business.Corporations exist as a product of corporate law, and their rules balance the interests of its stakeholders: the management who operate the corporation; creditors who loan it goods, services or money; shareholders who invest their capital; the employees who contribute their labor; and the clients they serve. People work together in corporations to produce value and generate income. In modern times, corporations have become an increasingly dominant part of economic life. People rely on corporations for employment, pensions, goods, services, economic growth and cultural development.An important feature of corporation is limited liability. If a corporation fails, shareholders normally only stand to lose their investment, and employees will lose their jobs, but neither will be further liable for debts that remain owing to the corporation's creditors.Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[2] and they may be responsible for human rights violations.[3] Just as they are "born" into existence through its members obtaining a certificate of incorporation, they can "die" when they lose money into insolvency. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, such as fraud and manslaughter.[4]Although corporate law varies in different jurisdictions, there are five core characteristics of the business corporation:[5]...."
Oldefarte| 1.31.10 @ 12:22PM
Oh, and LIBERAL DUMMIE, I'd suggest you READ the following passage from that SC decision [which seperately defines PERSONS from CORPORATION that are associations of PERSONS]: ".....The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech, but Austin ’s antidistortion rationale would permit the Government to ban political speech because the speaker is an association with a corporate form. Political speech is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation.”......"
Pingback| 1.30.10 @ 4:02PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : On Foreign Donations Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mike| 1.30.10 @ 4:45PM
"Clinton got most of his money from Chinese sources [and Obama from Muslim, middle eastern sources] because of corporate businesses contributing to Dole, McCain, etc."
Oldefarte, if what you say is true, you are making precisely the point critics of the Supreme Court decision have been making. Do you really want foreign sources of money, channeled through international corporations, funding our political campaigns?
Oldefarte| 1.31.10 @ 2:54PM
Mike, no I'm not! These foreign sources of money were NOT 'channeled through international corporations'; but were instead given directly or indirectly [subdivided/shotgunned/laundered to thousands of foreigners living in the US, who then forwarded same to either Clinton's or Obama's campaign;and resulted in checks from ie Mickey Mouse]. This hue and cry from Obama/Democrats about the SC decision allowing foreign money via corporations is ludicrous and hypocritical, since their money is mainly from foreign donors [and not through corporate channels]!!!!
martin j smith| 1.30.10 @ 5:11PM
he SCOTUS ruling leaves free that which prohibits foreign money contributions. The issue is at least for me: Why should the MSM, 527s and other groups be permitted to be free to do their political thing and others not. I think it is interesting that it was the 4 Liberal judges and the Democrat party that was un happy. Bottom line Our nation is in a political mess. There are none to very poor checks and balances. So, I say let there be free speech. But, I also say: let there be complete transparency so we all know who gave what to whom. yeah, transparency seems hard to come by these days in anything but there you go.
Liberal Reader| 1.30.10 @ 7:36PM
The so-called "MSM" constitutes a constitutionally privileged class called THE PRESS.
The "MSM" is NOT like any other group of corporations.
Jeesh.
You know, you guys go on and on about your eternal worship and adoration of the Constitution and the Founders, but you just don't know or understand very much about them.
Patriot| 1.31.10 @ 1:25PM
We understand that it's not a "Living Document" as you clowns on the Left proclaim.
Everything you say is suspect, LibReader. Blah, blah, blah.
Liberal Reader| 1.31.10 @ 2:30PM
Well... Then reread your dead document. WHERE does it say corporations are persons, endowed with RIGHTS? I'd appreciate an answer, because I can't find it.
Patriot| 1.31.10 @ 6:15PM
It's not dead; you liberal morons just pretend that it is.
All you leftists care about are power and control.
Mike| 1.30.10 @ 5:19PM
Martin,
My preference is for free speech. I think Daniel Webster got it right when he said with free speech people can redeem their other rights.
"SCOTUS ruling leaves free that which prohibits foreign money contributions." My understanding that this is true of direct contributions, but what about money channel through international corporations doing business legally in the U.S.
martin j smith| 1.31.10 @ 10:43AM
Mike that too is still covered separately as a NO NO.
And, never the less think that transparency should prevail along with free speech. First, the mSM are not fair,balanced or objective. Mike i do not care if you agree with me on this or not. I havze enough proof by observation and reading that they are not. So if they have freedom to insinuate their views ( and by the way they too have foreign supporters ) then I think the opposition has an equal right to do so. Furthjer more, it is interesting is it not that the ruling is
supported or criticized along POLITICAL LINES--and this key. Thus sadly, but realisitcally the SCOTUS is part of our political system and must be viewed in that light now matter which side justices are on. They do take political position thru their rulings. Finally I think that all major donors and any foreign donors should be exposed to no matter who gets their money. I think the majority of American voters are tired of curruption and currupt elections and want to know whats going on. Perhaps transparency will solve the problem of foreign or other currupt donations in elections. But free speech should be free.