Publisher’s Note: Who is funding our elections? Allowing multinational corporations to meddle in U.S. elections is a dangerous precedent to set. Our modern campaigns are fought on TV and radio. Those with the most money have the best chance of winning. And one thing multinational corporations are not short on is money. Or the desire for power and influence, for that matter. U.S. elections should be funded by U.S. citizens and businesses only.

Despite the near certainty of its defeat because of unanimous Republican opposition, Senate Democrats forged ahead yesterday with a piece of legislation that would enact spending limits on the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations in American elections.

The Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections, or DISCLOSE Act, is a response to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year in Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission. In that case the door was opened for foreign corporations to engage in electioneering through independent expenditures funneled through U.S. subsidiaries.

Previously, foreign corporations could legally spend money on American elections only through their political action committees. Now, however, U.S. subsidiaries of multinational corporations can spend directly on advertising for and against candidates and issues, although foreign individuals are barred from being involved in the spending decisions.

“The court has, in effect, legalized foreign governments and foreign corporations to participate in our electoral politics,” said Pat Choate, an author and former Reform Party candidate for vice president, told Politico. “It’ll happen instantaneously. It’ll happen in the 2010 elections. … The Japanese corporations, the European corporations will do it instantly through American subsidiaries.”

The DISCLOSE Act would seek to close the loopholes created by Citizens United by banning electioneering by any corporation when foreign nationals control 20 percent or more of the voting shares, a majority of the board of directors are foreign nationals, or if a foreign national runs the U.S. subsidiary.

But with united Republican opposition and holding only 59 seats, Democrats did not have the votes to break a Republican filibuster and bring the measure to the floor for a final vote. The final tally in a straight party-line vote was 57 to 41, three votes short of the three-fifths majority required to defeat Republican stall tactics. The House passed the measure earlier this year with only two Republican votes.

While some dispute the fact that the court’s ruling paved the way for foreign electioneering, the four Supreme Court Justices comprising the minority in the case seem to believe it did just that.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that “it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

Judging by their furious lobbying against the bill, foreign corporations seem to feel as through Citizens United provided them a unique opportunity that they do not want to have taken away through the DISCLOSE Act. As soon as Democrats announced they would be introducing legislation to counteract the effects of the court’s decision, 160 major foreign corporations formed The Organization for International Investment to lobby against the measure.

“Talking about restricting foreign influence in elections may sound like good politics, but when you peel back the layers, it could have a wide spectrum of unintended consequences,” Nancy McLernon, who heads the organization, told The Wall Street Journal. “There is no reason to distinguish a Nestle from a Hershey’s.”

Except that there is. Foreign influence in American affairs has been a major concern since the founding of the nation. No area is foreign influence more dangerous than in the nation’s elections, the very foundation of a vibrant democracy. And while Nestle’s influence may be mostly benign, that is not to say that Venuezuela-owned Citgo Petroleum Corporation, China’s sovereign wealth fund or an Iranian company’s intentions would be as harmless.

“The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers, whose ‘obsession with foreign influence derived from a fear that foreign powers and individuals had no basic investment in the well-being of the country,’” Stevens wrote.

Print PDF