This is How Citizens United Dies-Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence US elections

[kpete]

In the wake of the Citizens United case, critics of the ruling, which lifted prohibitions on direct campaign spending by corporations, raised the prospect of this allowing foreign nationals to influence US elections. Very serious people dismissed this trusting the our "robust" election laws would be up to the task of keeping foreign influence out of US elections. They were dead wrong.

Feds: Mexican tycoon exploited super PACs to influence U.S. elections

In a first of its kind case, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman funnelled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell companies. The alleged financial scheme is the first known instance of a foreign national exploiting the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in order to influence U.S. elections. If proven, the campaign finance scandal could reshape the public debate over the high court's landmark decision.

Until now, allegations surrounding Jose Susumo Azano Matsura, the owner of multiple construction companies in Mexico, have not spread beyond local news outlets in San Diego, where he's accused of bankrolling a handful of southern California candidates. But the scandal is beginning to attract national interest as it ensnares a U.S. congressman, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign firm and the legacy of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in a generation.

Matsura was able to evade US law by using a shell corporation in order to funnel the donations to US candidates. Pre Citizens United this would have involved finding a large number of US citizens willing to act as straw men. Now these shell games are able to be played by corporations, where determining ownership, let alone citizenship, can be a massive task.

..................

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 Rest Of The Story Here:
http://www.standard.net/stories/2014/02/12/feds-mexican-tycoon-exploited-super-pacs-influence-us-elections
and here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/13/1277252/-This-is-How-Citizens-United-Dies
behind firewall:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/02/11/feds_mexican_tycoon_used_super_pacs_to_influence_us_elections

[Armstead]

1. If we were smart that would rile people up of all ideologies

...but we're not, so it'll go unnoticed, or the billionaires will somehow convince the right-wing sheeple that this is a good thing

[kpete]

2. well, Armstead

Spread the word!!!

"Be Smart-Rile People Up"

Peace - (Through Action),
kp

[Armstead]

4. I try in my own little ways

but it sure seems like an uphill battle

[kpete]

7. just found this:

Liberalism means tolerance, but it doesn't mean silence.

If, like you, EVERYONE tried in their own little ways

we could at least begin that uphill battle





thanks and peace,
kp

[Armstead]

8. I like your spirit -- Refreshing counterbalance to my "discouraged old fart" tendencies these days

[navarth]

72. "Liberalism means tolerance, but it doesn't mean silence."

Oh I like that. Thank you for this. I would like to add it to my quotes collection, with your permission of course. Where did you find it?

BTW, regarding the OP: could this be the turning point I've been hoping for?

[aggiesal]

28. Democrats in San Diego received the money . . .

Nathan Fletcher ran for mayor of SD as a Dem but we was elected to the
state assembly as a Rep, voted with the Rep, and when running for mayor
had a fundraiser hosted by Karl Rove.

[kpete]

32. drip drip drip

thanks aggiesal

and peace to you,
kp

[Bucky]

46. I don't particularly care which party he supported.

If there are Mexican nationals supporting Democrats or Saudi nationals supporting Republicans or, for all I know, Swiss nationals supporting Libertarians, it doesn't matter. The problem is that aliens should not be engaged in domestic political decisions. The Founding Fathers specifically worried about this in 1787 and designed Congress and the Electoral College to withstand foreign interference. The EC has gone through some changes since then, but the concern is still just as valid and the principle just as important.

[aggiesal]

53. I don't care either . . .

I was responding to the comment "... billionaires will somehow convince the right-wing sheeple ..."
that dems got money.

Citizens United needs to be overturned

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. And so did Republicans.

It was quite bipartisan.

[aggiesal]

54. Do you have a link that shows that? . . .

Because the linked article only mentioned dems, Filner, Dumanis, and Vargas,
while Fletcher tried to pass himself off as a Dem during that election period.

Can you list the Rep.?

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Yup, Bonnie dumanis is republican

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Dumanis

Realize all are high level offices. Also the excuses from Bonnie, how was she supposed to know it was illegal, was the height of funny. We have not had a DA who is a dem that I can remember since I have lived in San Diego. Ever since this started she has been running adds to show what she is doing. She is up for election this coming cycle.

The objective was to develop downtown to inzunza's liking. So as I wrote somewhere else, the Filner scandal was about real estate after all, he just made it easy.

[jsr]

3. Citizens United: U.S. Politics with Chinese Characteristics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-lynch/citizens-united-us-politi_b_441936.html

Citizens United allows for the very real possibility of the Chinese government's direct influence in our elections through a Chinese corporation's U.S. subsidiary. While no official number exists about the number of Chinese companies with a U.S. subsidiary corporation, Dan Harris, a partner at the international law firm Harris & Moure and editor of the China Law Blog, believes that the number is substantial. "My small firm represents a number of U.S. companies that are wholly-owned by Chinese companies or by Chinese citizens and that convinces me there must be thousands of such companies in the U.S." While certainly not all of these Chinese companies with a U.S. presence are directly owned by the Chinese government, there are likely many more than just Haier, China Telecom and CSCE. And given China's vast currency reserves ($2.4 trillion, the world's largest), the Chinese government certainly has the money to spend on U.S. elections should it choose to do so. Corporations in other countries, particularly oil-rich ones like Saudi Arabia and Russia, also own U.S. subsidiaries.

[JDPriestly]

41. To say nothing of the trend in certain countries for people to come to the US specifically

to have babies that are born in this country.

Wealthy Chinese are hiring American women to serve as surrogate mothers, creating a small but growing business in American babies for China's elite.

Surrogacy agencies in China and the United States are catering to rich Chinese who either want a baby outside the country's restrictive one-child family planning policies, are unable to conceive themselves, or who are seeking U.S. citizenship for their children.

Emigration as a family is another draw - U.S. citizens may apply for Green Card residency for their parents when they turn 21.

. . . .

http://www.today.com/money/rich-chinese-seeking-american-surrogate-mothers-4B11231401

The US permits in vitro fertilization. Some other countries do not. So we may have Chinese-Americans of very wealthy people having the right to interfere in American elections in some years. Seems like a long way in the future, but is it really?

On edit: we need caps on election donations. We really do. I understand the argument about the First Amendment, but money does not equal speech. Citizens United permits a form of under-the-table purchasing of candidates, possibly even a form of tacit bribery.

[Vattel]

5. Actually, the Citizens United Ruling explicitly states

that it should not be interpreted to allow foreign nationals to influence US elections. What we need is a lawsuit to test that sort of issue.

[Armstead]

9. With this court?

They're the ones who let the horse out of the barn despite their pretty words.

[Vattel]

12. I am confident this court would say no to corporate speech where foreign nationals are the source

of the speech. Well, pretty confident anyways.

[Armstead]

13. I wish I shared your optimism....Time will tell I guess

[Nay]

29. Even a successful lawsuit won't stop this. All the foreign corps will do is form

another shell corp to do the same thing -- there's no way to keep prosecuting all the shell corps that will be formed and, frankly, they will get prosecuted AFTER the damage is done, and even if they pay a fine, it will just be "the cost of doing business." The courts have never forced a corporation to pay a stiff enough price in the courts to stop their antics.

[Vattel]

31. The relevant court remedy would not be a fine but an order that stops the message

from being broadcast. The Citizens United case was about just such an order.

[Nay]

47. I looked at the filing that was entered in CA and saw that the Mexican corp. was

accused of funneling the money sometime between 2011 and 2013. IOW, the political message that was bought and paid for was for the 2012 elections and has already been broadcast. That's part of my point. By the time you find out about the illegality, the damage has been done. And the penalty doled out by the court will just be "the cost of doing business."

Only absolutely draconian fines will have an impact, and, by the way, how do you collect those fines from overseas corporations? Do you think that those corporations' lawyers haven't protected their employers with shell corps, etc., to minimize any such ability to collect damages?

[Vattel]

59. I see your point. If you can't find out about it until the election is over,

you are outta luck. Hmmmm. Not sure what the solution might be.

[skepticscott]

40. CU also did not do anything to change the existing laws

regarding campaign contributions to candidates. Those laws are still in place. CU was only about restrictions on what corporations were allowed to do and spend themselves on political speech.

[Vattel]

60. Not sure why this post is addressed to me.

[okaawhatever]

6. You know, I hate to say it but sometimes you have to use people's irrational fears against

them. I don't know if a Mexican national or even a Chinese corporation can influence the Republican party into fighting against Citizens United, but I'm fairly certain a Kenyan national or a Muslim corporation would.

Shall we start a rumor that some of the contributions have come from socialists? I don't think we would even have to identify a country to freak out the right wingers on that one.

[gwheezie]

10. Well Adelson tried to buy a justice dpt

He backed Mitt to get a new AG so doj would back off any investigations into his China bribery issues.
Multinational companies have no country, they have no allegiance. They answer to shareholders all over the world, they do not have the best interest of the american people foremost, if they can make a buck killing a few of us off, they do it. I have no problem with a business making a profit but this nutty idea that a business is patriotic, that it is american, that it is a citizen makes no sense to me. Why would sane people think that any industry that's main goal is to make profit for shareholders make decisions to improve our country and our people, or any people. Private industry does not solve national problems, they make money for shareholders all over the world.

[Romulox]

11. So what? Why would US based corps. have more of a right to buy election than foreign ones?

Everyone legally present in the US has the same basic Constitutional right to "free speech". If US based corporations have that right, then so do corporations legally present in the US.

[starroute]

18. The Supreme Court already ruled against foreign corporate donations

http://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2012/Advisories/1584-0112-NAT-GOV/index.htm

January 13‚ 2012

Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Campaign Contributions and Independent Expenditures by Foreign Nationals

Foreign citizens who are legally living in the United States have no constitutional right to spend or contribute money in connection with U.S. elections for any government office, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in a one-sentence order this week. Without elaboration or any noted dissents, the Supreme Court upheld the lower-court decision of Bluman v. FEC that it is constitutional for Congress to bar foreign citizens legally living in the United States from monetarily participating in the campaign process. In so doing, the Supreme Court made clear that Citizens United v. FEC, the Court’s controversial opinion from January 2010, does not extend beyond United States citizens (including corporations).

In Bluman v. FEC, Ben Bluman, a Canadian lawyer working in New York, and Anaseth Steiman, a Canadian-Israeli dual citizen doing a medical residency in New York, challenged the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the “BCRA”), which expanded the prohibition on foreign nationals’ financial influence on U.S. elections by banning foreign nationals from making express-advocacy expenditures (often called independent expenditures) or campaign contributions to political parties, candidates, or PACs. Before a three-judge panel of the District Court for the District of Columbia, Bluman and Steiman argued that foreign citizens lawfully residing in the United States have a First Amendment right to contribute to candidates and political parties and to make express-advocacy expenditures.

The D.C. District Court disagreed. Relying on Supreme Court precedent denying foreign citizens certain rights and privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens (including voting, serving as jurors, working as police or probation officers, or working as public school teachers), the court concluded that “it is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.” For this reason, the court found that “the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.”

[Romulox]

20. That ruling is not consistent with either Citizens or previous Free Speech jurisprudence.

I would expect the Court will be forced to revisit this issue. At any rate, your bolded language is simply wrong. An affirmation of a lower court's ruling, without any attached opinion, is a weak form of precedent, to be sure. But it does not, legally, rise to the level stating "the Supreme Court made clear that Citizens United v. FEC, the Court’s controversial opinion from January 2010, does not extend beyond United States citizens (including corporations)."

[jeff47]

30. Non-US persons (and companies) do not have constitutional rights.

A foreigner (or foreign company) located outside US jurisdiction does not have first amendment rights.

Though it's trivial to get around this - have the foreigner create a US company. Foreigner pays the company an outrageous amount of money for "executive consultation". Company uses the proceeds to influence US elections.

[Romulox]

35. People present in the US have virtually all the rights of citizens. Certainly 1st Amendment rights.

[Flying Squirrel]

61. They don't have the right to vote.

So why should they have the right to influence elections with money? Money is not speech, and corporations are not people, for the kazillionth time. Fuck the Orwellian "Citizens United", which is really Corporations United.

[hughee99]

75. In the US, anyone with a green card can legally donate to candidates,

even though they can't vote. Should this be outlawed as well?

[Flying Squirrel]

77. Sure.

Corporations are gonna use 'straw men' to try and get around it anyway, it's a lot easier for an individual with a green card to give a donation to a friend who can donate to a candidate than it is for a corporation to give donations to thousands of different donors without being caught. Laws will be broken, that's just human nature but it's better to have a law that will make it more difficult for corporations to break it than individuals when it comes to campaign finances.

In reality the system is so corrupt I'd go much further and ban all campaign contributions altogether, give each candidate a set amount financed by taxes and prohibit spending above that amount.

[Romulox]

80. And corporations are "anyone" ('persons'). nt

[jeff47]

74. That's why I said "Located outside US jurisdiction".

And used the term "US person", which means the person is a US citizen or a non-citizen within US jurisdiction.

[Romulox]

79. Then form a "straw man" US subsidiary. Problem solved. nt

[starroute]

33. There's also this FEC case

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-07-19/news/9707190089_1_paul-hendrie-thomas-kramer-fec

July 19, 1997

A Florida developer has been fined a record $323,000 for funneling illegal contributions to Republican and Democratic campaigns, the Federal Election Commission announced Friday. The donations from Thomas Kramer were illegal because he is a German citizen.

The FEC also imposed a fine of $82,000 against Florida's Republican Party, which initially refused to give back most of Kramer's $205,000 in donations. That fine is a record for a party committee, according to the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics.

More than a dozen politicians received the illegal funds during the 1994 campaign season, including Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), Republican gubernatorial candidate Jeb Bush, U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), former state comptroller Gerald Lewis, former state Senate President Pat Thomas and many local candidates in Dade County. They were sent letters of admonishment but were not fined.


http://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/19/us/fec-fines-german-citizen-for-us-campaign-donations.html

Mr. Kramer, a German citizen who runs businesses in Florida, made more than $320,000 in campaign contributions in the 1994 elections to both Republicans and Democrats, either directly or through his secretary, other intermediaries or through 17 businesses that he owned. Of this amount, $287,600 came through Mr. Kramer's businesses, at his direction.

Federal law prohibits foreign nationals, except those who hold registration cards granting them permission to live and work in the United States, from making contributions to elections in this country, or from directing others to do so. It is also unlawful for anyone to make campaign contributions in someone else's name.

[Romulox]

38. I appreciate the feedback. Wasn't Citizens United about making a movie, though? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Yes, produced by the fine folks of the Lincoln Club of Orange County

A finer group of well dressed...well...complete that thought

[Romulox]

81. So it seems anyone legally present in the US can spend unlimited money on such activity. nt

[Romulox]

21. I would also add that it is trivial for a foreign corporation to form a subsidiary in the US. nt

[djean111]

14. Let's see- between Citizens United enabling corporations worldwide to buy our

government, and then the TPP and other "trade" deals enabling global investor states and corporations to override our laws and regulations - game, set, match.

It is awfully nice, though that we can still have pep rallies, er, conventions and primaries and general elections, that give the illusion that we are making our own choice of politicians and government!
The thing about being told to work our little asses off at the local level - generally, if the big money doesn't want a progressive, the DNC aint gonna put their money and influence behind the progressive. We are fighting on a few fronts for more progressive candidates, and one of them is Us, to borrow from Pogo.

[Ilsa]

15. This is when we all send telegrams to

Chief Justice Roberts telling him, "Told you so."

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. "That's not true" ...

No foreign national would be able to influence US elections ... Justice Roberts said so, during President Obama's SOTU Address, immediately following the Citizens United Decision.

[Liberal_Dog]

36. Actually...

that was Justice Alito.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. No ...

I'm pretty sure it was Roberts.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/09/john-roberts-scene-at-oba_n_492444.html

Now, Alito may have said that at a different time ...

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. According to this article, it was Alito. This article reflects Roberts' reaction to the issue.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. Your are correct ...

I was wrong.

Sorry liberal dog and HBS.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

65. That's OK. I thought I was wrong once but I was wrong.

Besides, I remember Alito's mealy mouth making that face. And I remember his mother answering the door for a reporter basically saying 'of course my son is against abortion' .

[NorthCarolina]

17. Trading votes for gold...

it's the American way.

[blackspade]

19. Inconceivable!

Imagine that! The 1% rigging the system in their favor.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Proving Chief 'Justice' Roberts to be wrong yet again.

He very aggressively claimed this was impossible. Made a mime act out of it during the State of the Union. What a raving idiot he is.

[UncleMuscles]

23. Is it bad because Mexicans are doing it?

I don't get it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. The Tea Party will be outraged no doubt, and feel vindicated

Finally proof that Mexican non citizens are illegally trying to participate in our elections

[KansDem]

25. Let's see: Mexican money is welcome to enter the US...

Mexican people are not.

Do I have that right?

[kpete]

37. KansDem

Mexican money is welcome to enter the US...Mexican people are not.

That is perfect.




peace & thanks,
kp

[AngryAmish]

26. He should do it like Carlos Slim

Just buy a newspaper.

[Fred Sanders]

27. Cons and the tea party type believe it is fine to hide your sources of campaign funding and

have unlimited funding because the unions have just as much influence and because George Soros and because Obama is a dictator.....and these people vote.

[Firebrand Gary]

34. We all knew this was going on, it's nice to see the truth rolling out. K & R

[kimbutgar]

39. Remember Alito shaking his head and mouthing no when the president brought this up in the sotu

After he ruled in favor of citizens united. These supreme court puppets followed the Koch's marching orders. I hope we can overturn this and replace those Koch owned puppets.

[lark]

42. Hello Harry Reid, where are you?

You need to be holding hearings on this and need to come up with a bill that requires transparency in donations so things like this are prevented. Watch the Repugs try to squirm out of that one and if they do, what a great advertising campaign that would make. Repugs want to allow foreign nationals to buy American elections!

[Coyotl]

43. See, corporations really are people.

Corporations certainly don't act except by the actions of people. Suddenly, corporations and people are having to compete for their political interests. "We the People" is now "We the corporations and all our money vs. the poor people" who can barely afford to eat.

[Kurovski]

44. K&R. (nt)

[Hekate]

45. Kick

[DallasNE]

49. This Could Be The Tip Of The Iceberg

This Mexican individual didn't try that hard to hide his identity by using a Super-PAC where disclosure is a requirement. Just think if he would have instead contributed this money to Karl Rove's 501(c)(4) group where donor disclosure is hidden from the public meaning massive amounts of foreign money could be corrupting our elections. Citizens United simply legalized this corruption.

[Vox Moi]

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

That was in the majority opinion.
Hogwash!
Corporations are not merely associations of individuals.
The are entities created under law for the express purpose of doing business for profit. Corporations enjoy many privileges individuals and other types of associations cannot claim, including the right to cause economic loss to its membership for any reason or no reason at all (employee-at-will).
People employed by or who own Corporations already enjoy the right of free speech and they are free to join or create associations to further exercise that right.
Asserting that a Corporation is entitled to rights under the First Amendment is contrary to the most basic premise of democracy: that each person has an equal opportunity to be heard. A person speaking as an individual or a person speaking for an association made up of people who join that association freely (a political party or interest group) is at the heart of the democratic process.
A Corporation is most often made up of people who joined out of economic necessity. Most members have no rights of free speech within that corporation nor do they have any way to participate in the decisions as to what the political stance the Corporation might make. which is restricted to a small number of corporate officers or board members. In short, this ruling allows Corporations to gag or coerce its own membership into compliance under pain of economic loss. It allows the use corporate profits, which arise from the Corporation as a whole, to be used at the discretion of a small elite. This type of political entity is entirely contrary to the most fundamental tenets of a free society.

Bonus question for Mitt "Corporations are people" Romney:
If a corporation is a person, how can it be considered an association of individuals?
If a corporation is a person, how can it be owned?

[Wounded Bear]

52. I'm kinda of flip-flopping here...

somewhere between "DUH!!!" and "told you so."

Perhaps I feel both.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

56. I'm surprised Nadin didn't post about this

Being that it started out as San Diego local nooz.

[msanthrope]

57. I await the Greenwald column on this. nt

[questionseverything]

63. palast has done the work for justice dept on kochs/christy

so where is dept on it?

http://truth-out.org/news/item/21258-gov-christie-and-david-koch-in-cahoots-its-time-to-subpoena-the-committee-for-our-childrens-future

There's Still One Law Left to Break
Despite the Supreme Court stripping naked almost all restrictions on political expenditures, the Justices did firmly secure a critically placed fig leaf: "Independent" organizations may not, in any way whatsoever, plan with, secretly coordinate with, make or take suggestions from, nor consult with, a candidate.
The question is, did the Kochs and Christie drop the fig leaf? The answers are a hell of a lot more important than Sopranos-style score-settling like backing up a bridge.
Let's look at the evidence. The hidden funnel of funds into Our Children's Future followed on undisclosed meetings: the first, a two-hour rendezvous between Governor Christie and David Koch in New York in January of 2011. Just the two of them, no one else allowed in.
This concealed chat with Christie was unwittingly disclosed by David Koch himself: He blabbed about it to his billionaire buddies at a closed gathering he organized with his brother Charles. Koch did not know he was being secretly recorded. (Thanks to investigative reporter par excellence Brad Friedman for making the recording public.)
And this was the second secret meeting: The Kochs' closed confab in Vail, Colorado, on June 26, 2011. The guest of honor at the bash: Governor Chris Christie.
But you're not supposed to know that.

[indepat]

66. Surely the felonious ones could never have dreamed their majority decision opened

the doors for foreign interests to buy US elections.

[WillyT]

67. HUGE K & R !!!

[tclambert]

68. Aren't they all foreign corporations now, headquartered in the Bahamas or Caymans?

You know, to avoid paying taxes.

[blkmusclmachine]

69. DEMS won't let it die...they benefit, too.

[emsimon33]

70. K&R

[yellowwoodII]

71. Sheldon Adelson

What about Sheldon Adelson? His primary interest isn't the welfare of American citizens.
http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/10/24/casino-billionaires-support-romney-linked-israel-position

[drm604]

73. K&R

I just posted this story on FB. This needs large scale attention. This should enrage people across the political spectrum.

[uponit7771]

76. +1

[idendoit]

78. I thought that this was part of the arguement put to SCOTUS.