Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Question about the supreme court corporate free speech rule?
I have been confused a bit by this article which was sent to me by a “libertarian”: Napolitano says “Alito was right”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-n...
I am having a bit of trouble sorting this out. As far as I can tell, the ruling means that any entity – corporation or labor union or group of whoever – can not directly contribute to a political campaign, but can set up a separate satellite ‘campaign’ that orbits outside the existing candidate and buys advertising to support that candidate. Am I reading this correctly?
Furthermore, the Napolitano article states that
“…the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. ”
Which would technically be correct if the satellite campaign idea is correct.
However the article goes on to say:
” The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling.”
And this would mean that foreigners and foreign-owned corporations can not participate in any satellite campaign organization. Is that correct?
Finally, what constitutes a foreign-owned corporation? Does that mean 100% foreign owned? Or just partially foreign owned – like say News Corp. which is 5.7% owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia?
2 Answers
- STEVEN FLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
The ruling has NOTHING to do with contributions directly to candidates. Corporations have been prohibited from making such contributions for decades and the issue was NOT addressed by the ruling.
The ruling stated that Corporations, like EVERYONE ELSE, have the right to spend there own money to state there own positions on political issues.
The claim that foreign corporations would be able to spend money on US political campaigns is NOT true in ANY sense. Foreign corporations AND individuals are prohibited from involvement in US politics and this was NOT changed by the ruling.
ALL corporations, regardless of ownership, are Incorporated under the laws of ONE country. If that country is not the US, the corporation is a foreign corporation.
The president LIED in the State of the Union speech when he claimed the ruling would allow foreign corporations to participate in US elections. He KNEW his statements were not true.
