....that millions and millions of dollars are being contributed to the super PAC's that are doing most of the advertising in this presidential campaign, are coming from foreign countries?

I'm sure both candidates are getting foreign money--they can because of the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling. But I saw a report this morning on Politico.com that the Romney super PAC has gotten huge contributions--something more than $10 million--from interests in Macau. Macau is one of the two administrative regions of the People's Republic of China.

The super PAC's have no requirement to report their sources of contributions. In this case, the donor is thought to be Sheldon Adelson, owner of the parent company of Venetian Macao Casino, a huge casino being developed in China.

I guess our Supreme Court believes that the rights of free speech applies to anyone or any organization, private or sovereign, who chooses to "speak" in the United States. So foreign interests will likely have an awful lot of influence on who is elected as POTUS in November. Moreso than any individual or group of American voters. I can't imagine that the framers of the Constitution had this in mind.

I am sure the framers of the Constitution - that document always being touted as sacred by the conservatives - had no idea of any advertising money being spent on elections, much less PACS and Super PACS. Yet, here we see Republicans (yep, those pesky conservatives again) going overseas - to incude China - for their Super PACS to try and buy the election. What are they promising in return as we know the Chinese are not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts and to promote democracy in the USA?

It's interesting that the Mormon church forbids Mitt Romney to gamble, but it's allright for him to accept money made from gambling.

As I have stated previously, we need massive campaign reform IMO. Not only super pacs, but ALL influence money should be banned. Get all of the people and organizations who want a piece of a candidate or party's hide the hell out. If I were in charge, I would even ban campaign ads altogether, allowing candidates a certain number of network appearances and debates to explain thier positions. Now that will never happen, obviously, but what have we EVER really honestly learned about a candidate from an ad? I would severely limit campaign length, mandate a single countrywide presidential primary, and fund the limited campaigns publicly. Our current political process has in large measure, given us a great deal of the mess we find ourseves in.

doesn't bother me - i think it does a bit to level the field with the contributions made by unions. would be interesting to see if super pacs try to mobilize a 'people force' to match the get out the vote effort of unions.

Originally Posted by njbchbum

doesn't bother me - i think it does a bit to level the field with the contributions made by unions. would be interesting to see if super pacs try to mobilize a 'people force' to match the get out the vote effort of unions.

It is totally amaxing how some are beholden to their political party !

Kudos to eweissenbach for not using his post to try and impress all readers how wonderful and clean the one party is and how corrupt and terrible the other is.

Now eweissenbach may have forgotten to do that, but for this moment I applaud him as someone who addressed the question about super pacs. I realize this is a political forum but there are some issues that all Americans should agree on.

To those who absolve and one party from this action and mention the other as the only bad guys, I suggest that you are extremely naive and ill informed

campaign reform and term limits might get us back our government.

What's bothered me is that key politicians have led people to believe that the Citizens' United decision is only about permitting unfettered campaign spending by "evil corporations" and PAC's, when in fact, it is about a whole lot more. It is not as simplistic as opponents make it sound.

Most people don't know what this case was actually about, nor what the Supreme Court's decision actually addressed.

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions.

The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.

The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from spending on "electioneering communications".[2]

..........The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.


---------
Justice Kennedy's opinion for the majority also noted that since the First Amendment (and the Court) do not distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.

The Court overruled Austin, which had held that a state law that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court also overruled that portion of McConnell that upheld BCRA's restriction of corporate spending on "electioneering communications". The Court's ruling effectively freed corporations and unions to spend money both on "electioneering communications" and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates (although not to contribute directly to candidates or political parties).

The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals as well as individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker.

Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment.

Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money unconstitutionally limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues.

The majority overruled Austin because that decision allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity..... In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, however, the majority argued that the First Amendment purposefully keeps the government from interfering in the "marketplace of ideas" and "rationing" speech, and it is not up to the legislatures or the courts to create a sense of "fairness" by restricting speech.[21]

The majority also criticized Austin's reasoning that the "distorting effect" of large corporate expenditures constituted a risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption. Rather, the majority argued that the government had no place in determining whether large expenditures distorted an audience's perceptions, and that the type of "corruption" that might justify government controls on spending for speech had to relate to some form of "quid pro quo" transaction: "There is no such thing as too much speech."

The public has a right to have access to all information and to determine the reliability and importance of the information. Additionally, the majority did not believe that reliable evidence substantiated the risk of corruption or the appearance of corruption, and so this rationale did not satisfy strict scrutiny.

The majority opinion relied heavily on the reasoning and principles of the landmark campaign finance case of Buckley and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, in which the Court struck down a broad prohibition against independent expenditures by corporations in ballot initiatives and referenda.[21] Specifically, the majority echoed Bellotti's rejection of categories based on a corporation's purpose. The majority argued that to grant First Amendment protections to media corporations but not others presented a host of problems, and so all corporations should be equally protected from expenditure restrictions.

The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311, provisions requiring disclosure of the funder, were valid as applied to the movie advertisements and to the movie itself......."

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

As I have stated previously, we need massive campaign reform IMO. Not only super pacs, but ALL influence money should be banned. Get all of the people and organizations who want a piece of a candidate or party's hide the hell out. If I were in charge, I would even ban campaign ads altogether, allowing candidates a certain number of network appearances and debates to explain thier positions. Now that will never happen, obviously, but what have we EVER really honestly learned about a candidate from an ad? I would severely limit campaign length, mandate a single countrywide presidential primary, and fund the limited campaigns publicly. Our current political process has in large measure, given us a great deal of the mess we find ourseves in.

I agree, Coach. But with the Supreme Court's "free speech" decision in Citizens United, the cat is out of the bag. All the rules you suggest might come from Congress or the political parties. We could even have a Constitutional amendment prohibiting or severely limiting campaigning or campaign advertising. The candidates themselves could even agree to only take government campaign financing, with no private fund-raising. But the Super PAC's would be unaffected. Their negative, nasty TV ads have been deemed to be free speech. Even those paid for by money from foreign countries, special interests, unions, any moneyed interest--arguably even those unfriendly to the U.S. could fund efforts to manipulate our government. I hate to say it, but I can't think of a way whereby we're ever again going to avoid the kind of advertising we're seeing right now.

The individual American voter, even groups of voters, will have little influence over elections. It's been proven that voters can be manipulated by advertising, particularly negative , attack ads. And the special interests all over the world can pour unlimited amounts of money into Super PACs to buy it.

It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time.

Excellent example of DaleMN's post is the Goobernator of Florida, Rick Scott. A billionaire who spent millions of his own money to buy the office. You remember the hospital group CEO who did not know anything about the millions and millions being charged to Medicare and finally being caught and paying the highest fine in history?

"Citizens United" was caused by "McCain-Feingold" which restricted any organization, no matter how small, from runing ads against a candidate by name close to the election. (A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH> Every new campaign funding mechanism had been developed to get around a restriction. If these small restrictions had not been made, we in all liklihood not have had 5023c's and SuperPACS. Remember, Federal money is available for the Presidential campaigns, but the candidates have to use only that money. There is a spending race, no one will abide by the restrictions unless all do. Remember, in 2008, BHO said he would except Federal Funds, then he started getting the big bucks from Wall Street and Hollywood.

Ideal would be no restrictions, but complete disclosure. Easy to do now with the INTERNET. ( Developed by DARPA for use in DOD.)

Originally Posted by DaleMN View Post
"...It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time...."

And from across the aisle:

It bothers us a lot that money could buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Democrat.....maybe around 1% of the time.

btk

Originally Posted by Bavarian

"Citizens United" was caused by "McCain-Feingold" which restricted any organization, no matter how small, from runing ads against a candidate by name close to the election. (A RESTRICTION ON FREE SPEECH> Every new campaign funding mechanism had been developed to get around a restriction. If these small restrictions had not been made, we in all liklihood not have had 5023c's and SuperPACS. Remember, Federal money is available for the Presidential campaigns, but the candidates have to use only that money. There is a spending race, no one will abide by the restrictions unless all do. Remember, in 2008, BHO said he would except Federal Funds, then he started getting the big bucks from Wall Street and Hollywood.

Ideal would be no restrictions, but complete disclosure. Easy to do now with the INTERNET. ( Developed by DARPA for use in DOD.)

That may well be the case. But I still admire both John McCain and Russ Feingold for taking a stand and pushing some legislation thru on a bi-partisan basis. Bi-partisan efforts on anything have been totally missing in this Congress. We can hold out hope for future Congresses, but at this point any kind of change doesn't look too promising.

[

QUOTE=DaleMN;509039]It bothers me a lot that money can buy an election. Nothing to do with most qualified regardless of party. Yes, there can be a more qualified Republican.....maybe around 1% of the time. [/QUOTE]

Hi DaleMN: I happen to agree with your above-mentioned post as we have had the misfortune of living that nightmare for the last 3.5 years.

I also agree with "Old Coach". However irrespective of Citizens, et al, the fact is no one is going to stop men of power from inserting their preferences for many of the politcial/public offices involved in local, state or federal election. Whether by utilizing dollars,bartering favors, etc anyone who believes such influences can be stop might be accused of being naive.