Judge strikes down ban on corporate campaign donations

By Muriel Kane

A federal judge has struck down a 1905 law which prevented corporations from making direct donations to political campaigns. Although the case is likely to wind up in the Supreme Court, there is already speculation that it could completely upend a campaign funding system already in disarray as a result of last year's Citizens United decision.

According to the New York Times, the decision arose out of the criminal trial of two Virginia businessmen accused of illegally using using company funds to reimburse their employees for making $186,600 in donations to Hillary Clinton in 2006 and 2008.

Federal Judge James C. Cacheris drew upon the Citizens United decision to find that if corporations enjoy the same free speech rights as citizens to make outside expenditures on behalf of candidates, then the "logic is inescapable" that they also have the same right to make direct donations, up to the $2500 limit imposed on individual donors.

"(F)or better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech," Cacheris wrote. "Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within (the law's) limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing."

The Times speculated that the effect might be even more far-reaching, noting that "some election lawyers said that the decision, if upheld, could lead to the collapse of all legal limits on campaign donations, whether from corporations or individuals."

Legal experts consulted by the paper, however, pointed out that the decision ignores a 2003 Supreme Court case which upheld the ban on direct corporate contributions and was not explicitly overturned by Citizens United.

“The District Court is acting way outside of its bounds,” Tara Molloy of the Campaign Legal Center toldBloomberg News. “Not only it is a bad decision, but it’s a fairly shocking decision as well.”

Prosecutors are reviewing the ruling and may decide to appeal. Meanwhile, the two individuals accused in the case are awaiting trial on the remaining charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and causing false statements.

Lobbyists For Foreign Corporations Begin Fight To Ensure Foreign Money Can Influence American Elections

By Lee Fang Last week, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision invalidated a sixty-three year-old ban on corporate money in federal elections. The ruling gives corporations essentially the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. One consequence of this decision is that foreign corporations with U.S.-subsidiaries are likely to be able to now spend unlimited amounts on American elections.

Congressional Democrats, led by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are drafting legislation to curb the influence of foreign corporations and foreign governments following the decision. However, the National Journal reported today that corporate lobbyists representing foreign corporations are already organizing to defeat such a proposal. The Organization for International Investment, a trade group representing foreign banks, oil companies, and other foreign corporations operating in the United States, “lashed out” at Van Hollen’s proposals. “The concern over foreign influence in our political system is a red herring,” said Nancy McLernon, the head of OII.

McLernon — who previously worked for Citizens for a Sound Economy, a stealth “grassroots” corporate lobbying group now known as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks — is wrong to assert that the danger of foreign lobbying is simply a distraction. For instance, Saudi Arabia has already signaled that the progressive effort to build a clean energy American economy is its “biggest threat”:

Saudi Arabia’s economy depends on oil exports so stands to be one of the biggest losers in any pact that curbs oil demand by penalizing carbon emissions. “It’s one of the biggest threats that we are facing,” said Muhammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation to U.N. talks on climate change and a senior economic adviser to the Saudi oil ministry. [...] Climate talks posed a bigger threat, Sabban said, and subsidies for the development of renewable energy were distorting market economics in the sector, he said.

Presumably because of the Citizens United ruling, Saudi Arabian-owned subsidiaries operating in the United States can now spend unlimited amounts advocating the defeat of candidates who support clean energy legislation. According to a ThinkProgress investigation, foreign-oil backed lobbyists in America are already instigating efforts to kill clean energy legislation. Fortunately, President Obama is expected to address the issue of foreign corporations influencing American elections in his State of the Union address tonight.