[Peace-discuss] Fw: Supreme Court to OK Al Qaeda Donation for Sarah Palin?

[unionyes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG>
To: <PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:20 PM
Subject: Supreme Court to OK Al Qaeda Donation for Sarah Palin?


> Supreme Court to OK Al Qaeda Donation for Sarah Palin?
>
>     Ruling expected today to let corporations invest
>     in politicians
>
> By Greg Palast - for AlterNet
> Tuesday, December 15, 2009
>
> http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/
>
> I thought that headline would get your attention. And
> it's true.
>
> I'm biting my nails waiting for the Supreme Court's
> ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election
> Commission, which could come down as early as today. At
> issue: whether corporations, as "unnatural persons,"
> can make contributions to political campaigns.
>
> The outcome is foregone: the five GOP appointees to the
> court are expected to use the case to junk federal laws
> that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign
> coffers.
>
> Technically, there's a narrower matter before the court
> in this case: whether the McCain-Feingold Act may
> prohibit corporations from funding "independent"
> campaign advertisements such as the "Swift Boat" ads
> that smeared John Kerry. However, campaign finance
> reformers are steeling themselves for the court's right
> wing to go much further, knocking down all longstanding
> rules against donations by corporate treasuries.
>
> Allowing company campaign spending will not, as
> progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash
> into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have
> been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given
> through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual
> contributions from corporate pay-rollers.
>
> The court's expected decision is far, far more
> dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian
> candidates.
>
> I'm losing sleep over the millions - or billions - of
> dollars that could flood into our elections from
> ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from
> the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's
> Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction
> corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.
>
> Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through
> PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none
> of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal
> disclosure filing and see the name of every individual
> who put money into it. And every contributor must be a
> citizen of the USA.
>
> But, if the Supreme Court rules that corporations can
> support candidates without limit, there is nothing that
> stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the
> Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a
> cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.
>
> Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he
> would not have been heard, and certainly would not have
> won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations
> from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented
> uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the old fat-cat
> sources of funding.
>
> Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. If the
> Supreme Court votes as expected, progressive list
> serves won't stand a chance against the resources of
> new "citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National
> Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of
> Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and
> a billion- dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to
> invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation,
> whose owners remain hidden by "street names."
>
> George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued
> the case to the court on behalf of Citizens United, a
> corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary
> Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife died on
> September 11, 2001 on the hijacked airliner that hit
> the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I
> contacted Olson's office to ask how much "Al Qaeda,
> Inc." should be allowed to donate to support the
> election of his local congressman.
>
> Olson has not responded.
>
> The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns,
> not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens
> case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth
> Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to
> "mega- corporations" owned by foreign governments.
> Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be
> able to prohibit foreign corporations from making
> donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such
> restriction a bad idea.
>
> Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of
> Washington D.C., is biting her nails awaiting the
> decision. If Olson gets his way, she told me,
> corporations will have more rights than people. Only
> United States citizens may donate or influence
> campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind
> a corporate treasury, dump money into ballot battles.
>
> Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-
> people, as opposed to corporate-people, may only give
> $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund
> billionaires, for example, who typically operate
> through dozens of corporate vessels, could, should
> Olson prevail, give unlimited sums through each of
> these "unnatural" creatures.
>
> And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they
> could ante up for the best democracy money can buy.
>
> In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for
> President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in
> which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet.
> Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage
> on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of
> Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous
> Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White
> House for an opponent of government spending such as
> Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!
>
> The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains
> of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the
> source and control money from corporate treasuries
> (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who
> the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked
> Sundance, "Who are these guys?" We'll never know.
>
> Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is
> the new venom that the court could inject into the
> system by an expansive decision in Citizens United.
>
> We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt
> Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover of the Congress
> funded by a very strange source.
>
> Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing
> races, Democrats had fallen victim to a flood of last-
> minute attack ads funded by a group called, "Coalition
> for Our Children's Future." The $25 million that paid
> for those ads came, not from concerned parents, but
> from a corporation called "Triad Inc."
>
> Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the
> ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch Brothers and their
> private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the
> corporate connection been proven, the Kochs and their
> corporation could have faced indictment under federal
> election law. If the Supreme Court now decides in favor
> of unlimited corporate electioneering, then such money-
> poisoned politicking would become legit.
>
> So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the
> Polluter-Americans, Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and
> Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns while
> hidden behind corporate veils. And if so, our future
> elections, while nominally a contest between
> Republicans and Democrats, may in fact come down to a
> three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia and
> Goldman Sachs.
>
> ***
>
> Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times
> bestseller The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." Palast
> investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View
> Palast's reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at
> gregpalast.com.
>
> Support this ongoing investigation by making a donation
> to the non-profit Investigative Journalism foundation.
> By donating today you will receive a gift of your
> choice in time for Christmas: www.gregpalast.com/store
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Portside aims to provide material of interest
> to people on the left that will help them to
> interpret the world and to change it.
>
> Submit via email: moderator at portside.org
> Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
> Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
> Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
> Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
> Account assistance: portside.org/contact
> Search the archives: portside.org/archive