It is not quite a cut and dried as that article presents. The law may be but enforcement is another thing.
Both the specific law, and the enforcement of it, are different issues than the court decision. The court decision did not strike down or restrict the law against foreign contributions.
The problem is that for the rich laws are not enforced sometimes.
To the extent that's true, Citizen's United going the other way wouldn't have changed it.
Citizens United created an environment in which it is perfectly legal for a shell non-profit corporation to engage in election-related spending on behalf of a hidden interest.
As the article I posted said
--
So what is left? Well, conceivably a group of foreigners could form a U.S. corporation, then hire some permanent legal resident aliens (“green card” holders) to make decisions about spending its money. That doesn’t seem to likely to be a successful strategy (and remember, wealthy aliens who live in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents are already able to make personal expenditures, and even direct contributions to candidates), but suppose it is — suppose a few corporations slip through the cracks?
If this were really a worry, it could be addressed legislatively simply by broadening the definition of foreign national to include corporations with majority foreign ownership. Such a law might also be challenged on Equal Protection or Due Process grounds (aliens located in the United States do have certain rights) but if such a challenge were successful, it would be that case, not Citizens United, that opens the door to foreign money, and that case has yet to be filed, let alone decided.*
--
The "election related spending", in the case of Citizens United was producing a movie. If a foreign company wants to produce a political movie, at least as an election approaches, its probably illegal, but I don't see anything wrong with it. It's as likely to backfire as to produce any serious change in US politics along the lines of what the foreign interest is trying to push. Its more likely to do just about nothing, than it is to influence American politics much in either direction. To the extent it has any influence it would be through convincing people, not buying off politicians. I'm not afraid of more speech, not even more foreign speech. And in any case the decision in questions doesn't allow for the "more foreign speech". |
