The six members of the Federal Election Commission found unusual common ground Thursday in a discussion of foreign money in U.S. politics, informally agreeing to move forward after Republican commissioners have had more time to consider the subject.
This is noteworthy because the FEC’s three Republican commissioners have long voted against almost all initiatives to curb the political power of money, causing repeated 3-3 deadlocks.
“I was pretty pleased to see that [the GOP commissioners] received my specifics pretty warmly,” said Ellen Weintraub, one of the FEC’s Democratic members. “Even if you don’t believe the entire system needs reform, it’s hard to argue that, for example, it would be OK for U.S. corporations totally owned by foreign governments to make unlimited expenditures in U.S. elections.”
The FEC did not vote today on Weintraub’s new proposals. Instead, Matthew S. Petersen, one of the Republican members of the FEC, said he would “noodle through some of these a little bit more, see if … there might be areas of agreement, see if there are counter proposals and get a little bit of a better understanding of the nature of some of these proposals.”
Under current law, any company incorporated in the U.S. is considered to be a U.S. national — even if it is 100 percent owned by foreign individuals, corporations or governments. This quirk unexpectedly gained significance after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections (as long as the expenditures are theoretically “independent” from political campaigns).
During President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, he predicted Citizens United would therefore “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Recent reporting by The Intercept demonstrated that Obama’s concern was justified: A California corporation owned by Chinese nationals donated $1.3 million to a Jeb Bush Super PAC while following advice from Charlie Spies, a top GOP campaign finance lawyer.
Citing the publication of The Intercept’s series, Ann Ravel, another Democratic member of the FEC, proposed in early August that the FEC rescind a 2006, pre-Citizens United advisory opinion that dealing with two U.S. companies that were wholly-owned subsidiaries of a Canadian corporation. The FEC opinion allowed U.S. companies owned by foreign corporations to set up political action committees that receive legally-limited donations from individual American citizens. Spies’s legal advice extended the logic of the advisory opinion to argue that wholly-owned U.S. subsidiaries could now, thanks to Citizens United, make unlimited donations to Super PACs directly from their corporate treasuries.
Weintraub proposed at a meeting two weeks ago that the FEC vote to begin the process of writing new regulations to deal with the overall issue of foreign money in U.S. elections post-Citizens United.
The FEC deadlocked 3-3 on votes on both proposals.
At Thursday’s meeting Weintraub submitted a revised proposal, asking that the FEC begin the process of writing regulations on more narrow aspects of the issue. In particular, Weintraub asked that the FEC decide whether there is a certain threshold of foreign ownership — 5 percent, 20 percent or something else — at which corporations should be considered to be foreign nationals.
Even if the FEC does move forward on the issue of foreign money, it generally takes at least a year to promulgate new regulations.
Top photo: Protesters hold up signs during a Democracy Spring demonstration in Washington, DC on April 13, 2016, calling for changes in voting laws and campaign finance.
These sort of things make me laugh: fighting over points that shouldn’t even be part of the equation. Firstly, in a democracy I would think only the ELECTORATE should be able to influence the ins and outs of campaigns; i.e. the individual people within a country as its legally-entitled voting entities. Since when are corporations legally entitled to vote? And even if they were in some crazy world, do they get one vote, regardless of size, is it weighted by turnover or profitability, or does each individual subsidiary or sector get a vote? It is a ludicrous idea.
And so since when are Chinese or Saudi Arabians allowed to vote in US elections, let alone their corporations? And how is this configured? It goes to show the utter farce that is US Democracy that it is even being discussed.
Secondly, and kind of more importantly I think, is that it is just gross hypocrisy on the part of Americans to make and issue of foreign influence on their democratic processes when they stick their noses into more people’s business around the world than everyone else combined. You Americans are like habitual fiddlers constantly sticking your hands into the world’s pants to get whatever action you crave. It’s disturbing. Then to say you don’t like it when it happens back is hypocrisy.
But then I have spent the last 10 years listening to Americans bickering about what news channel is best to watch, rather than facing up to the reality that the USA is a crumbling, utterly corrupted, debt-laden empire hijacked by its monopolistic mega-corporations and its bully military, van and incapable of listening to or taking pointers from the outside world that leaves ordinary people with no voice whilst still endlessly beating the old Land of the Free drum. And STILL doesn’t even have a proper universal Health Care system!
Getting foreigners with some new ideas that want America to join the Rest of the World and stop thinking of itself as “exceptional” to pay for your politicians might not be such a bad thing after all…
Al least some hope of sanity at last? Although it will likely br watered down to meaningless.
Q&A
– So how is this going to work?
We first have to determine what percentage of True Americans are needed to determine whether you are a True American Company. The obvious answer is 100%, but they are going to say less than 100%, which as a 100% American, this doesn’t sound very American to me at all. Branding anything less than 100% American as American is exactly what the Chinese want.
Ask yourself, if someone tells you we have to brand “80% American” as “Real American” and the reason why we have lie like that is to protect America from foreigners–well then I’m going to have to ask to see your papers because no real American would call less than 100% American–American.
– Are we going to have a database of the nationality of everyone that owns stock in a company? Yes and Good.
– When you buy stock do you have to declare under penalty of perjury that you are a real American? Yes and Good.
At least we can keep illegals out of the American Dream that is stock ownership. We are building a Wall around Wall Street. (To keep people from getting in obviously, not as an “Escape from NY” style jail. Just wanted to be clear.)
– Will the government issue quarterly reports publishing the official determination of which companies are real American companies, or will we have an up to date searchable database available on the web?
Obviously, a web interface is the best because stocks are traded in heavy volume all the time, and companies ‘on the border’ (this is what we call companies that are in danger of either losing their American citizenship due to dilution, or becoming an American citizen because of race mixing or intermarriage or wherever the fuck it is that they do) may be American one day and Chinese or Russian the next–so that’s something a little more time sensitive than a quarterly report.
– Will I lose my American citizenship if I own too much stock in foreign corporations?
Oh..God..no! In fact, Silver Level Citizenship is based almost completely on total dollar amount of productive foreign assets.
– I am an American and I own 100% of my company, but I don’t want to employ Americans, can I still be an American Company?
Fuck and Yes! This is America.
LOL! That’s funny!
Of course, given that corporations have been given personhood status, discriminating against one on the basis of national origin would be unconstitutional in the eyes of some of the SC judges.
And, as long as the percentage of domestic ownership needed to be seen as domestic is less than a majority, the control remains foreign. Even if the percentage of domestic ownership is raised to majority, issuing nonvoting shares could preserve foreign control.
There is also the matter of tracing control/ownership of a corporation. Between shell games, money from behind secrecy walls, and all the other financial industry shenanigans already in place for tax avoidance and money laundering purposes, it is already a nightmare to trace ownership. Add another motive to hide ownership/control to the situation, and it’ll only get worse.
How and why is the “Federal Election Commision” composed of the the very criminal parties it is there to regulate. Shouldn’t it be composed of citizens independent from either?
Federal Officials are suppose to work for the citizens of the USA. Allowing Foreign money into US elections is Sedition.
Corporations are not citizens and voters. They should not be allowed to donate money to campaigns or make issue ads. They can advertise their product or service, but it should stop there.
“…Matthew S. Petersen, one of the Republican members of the FEC, said he would “noodle through some of these a little bit more, see if … there might be areas of agreement…”. And by noodle around he means “how can I take advantage” of this situation in order to better serve the elite and dupe the masses.
And then… “Weintraub submitted a revised proposal, asking that the FEC begin the process of writing regulations on more narrow aspects of the issue.” Weintraub immediately set the Dark Trojan Horse of Comprise right where it needs to be in order to ensure that the foolish masses bring it through their gate so it can ultimately do them the most damage.
We must end our foolishness by recognizing the trickery of their ploy of compromise as we need not give them what is ours in order that we are granted less of what was completely ours after the American Revolution.
We need revolution with and end game in mind and that revolution cannot end with any room for campaign finance corruption, campaign foreign influence, or the tyranny brought from corporate personhood.
Another bootload of crap from a dysfunctional government occupied by privateers and foreign policy terrorists. Splitting hairs again. Remember, a camel is a horse made by comittee. Would you like some arsenic with your wine?
Yes, barabbas our answer to; “to begin the process of writing new regulations” should only be there needs to be no regulations relating to foreign campaign financing in our politics other than foreign money cannot be part of it in any way, shape or form.
As I was walking by 5th and Arch Street in Philadelphia tonight I think I heard Benjamin Franklin mutter the same answer only with “you dummies” at the end.