Natural Citizen
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,463
So you are against this ruling?
Here's what I don't support.
Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections
What's unique about the allegations is that Azano's money was funneled through a "Super PAC," a political fundraising vehicle born out of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010. The ruling paved the way for Super PACs to spend unlimited sums of money for candidates with only limited reporting requirements. Although Super PACs have been linked to other campaign finance abuses, a foreign national has never been accused of using one to hide his idenity. "We are not aware of another example of a similar case," Peter Carr, a public relations officer at the Justice Department, told FP. "Super PACs are a new vehicle for political spending."
For some critics of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, the San Diego case validates warnings about foreign contributions previously dismissed by supporters of the landmark court case.
The controversy dates back to 2010, when President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to lament that Citizens United would "open the floodgates" for foreigners and special interest groups to "spend without limit in our elections."
And, as I said previously here, what the Koch network is doing here just got geo-political in a major way. But this requires us to have a firm grasp on foreign policy in it's entirety. Not what we'd like to just cherrypick in order to hurry up and just get elected.
Last edited: