SUPREME COURT TO OK AL QAEDA DONATION FOR SARAH PALIN?
Ruling Expected Today to Let Corporations Invest in Politicians

By Greg Palast

[Tuesday, December 15, 2009]

I thought that headline would get your attention. And it's true.

I'm biting my nails waiting for the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, which could come down as early as today. At issue:
whether corporations, as "unnatural persons," can make contributions to political
campaigns.

The outcome is foregone: the five GOP appointees to the court are expected to use
the case to junk federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign
coffers.

Technically, there's a narrower matter before the court in this case: whether the
McCain-Feingold Act may prohibit corporations from funding "independent" campaign
advertisements such as the "Swift Boat" ads that smeared John Kerry. However,
campaign finance reformers are steeling themselves for the court's right wing to go
much further, knocking down all longstanding rules against donations by corporate
treasuries.

Allowing company campaign spending will not, as progressives fear, cause an
avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have
been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and
"bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The court's expected decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think:
Manchurian candidates.

I'm losing sleep over the millions -- or billions -- of dollars that could
flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation's U.S. unit; or from
the maker of "New Order" fashions, the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Or from Bin
Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks
(Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC's federal disclosure
filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every
contributor must be a citizen of the USA.

But, if the Supreme Court rules that corporations can support candidates without
limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the
Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a
corporate alias.

Candidate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, and
certainly would not have won, without the astonishing outpouring of donations from
two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming the
old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. If the Supreme Court votes as
expected, progressive list serves won't stand a chance against the resources of new
"citizens" such as CNOOC, the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS
(United Bank of Switzerland), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution and a
billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As
would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by "street names."

George Bush's former Solicitor General Ted Olson argued the case to the court on
behalf of Citizens United, a corporate front that funded an attack on Hillary
Clinton during the 2008 primary. Olson's wife died on September 11, 2001 on the
hijacked airliner that hit the Pentagon. Maybe it was a bit crude of me, but I
contacted Olson's office to ask how much "Al Qaeda, Inc." should be allowed to
donate to support the election of his local congressman.

Olson has not responded.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media
chat about the Citizens case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign
governments. Olson offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit
foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any
such restriction a bad idea.

Tara Malloy, attorney with the Campaign Legal Center of Washington D.C., is biting
her nails awaiting the decision. If Olson gets his way, she told me, corporations
will have more rights than people. Only United States citizens may donate or
influence campaigns, but a foreign government can, veiled behind a corporate
treasury, dump money into ballot battles.

Malloy also noted that under the law today, human-people, as opposed to
corporate-people, may only give $2,300 to a presidential campaign. But hedge fund
billionaires, for example, who typically operate through dozens of corporate
vessels, could, should Olson prevail, give unlimited sums through each of these
"unnatural" creatures.

And once the Taliban incorporates in Delaware, they could ante up for the best
democracy money can buy.

In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held
diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet.
Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised
concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous
Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of
government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an
adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries
(unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real
stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?" 

We'll never know.

Hidden money funding, whether foreign or domestic, is the new venom that the court
could inject into the system by an expansive decision in Citizens United.

We've been there. The 1994 election brought Newt Gingrich to power in a GOP takeover
of the Congress funded by a very strange source. 

Congressional investigators found that in crucial swing races, Democrats had fallen
victim to a flood of last-minute attack ads funded by a group called, "Coalition for
Our Children's Future." The $25 million that paid for those ads came, not from
concerned parents, but from a corporation called "Triad Inc."

Evidence suggests Triad Inc. was the front for the ultra-right-wing billionaire Koch
Brothers and their private petroleum company, Koch Industries. Had the corporate
connection been proven, the Kochs and their corporation could have faced indictment
under federal election law. If the Supreme Court now decides in favor of unlimited
corporate electioneering, then such money-poisoned politicking would become legit.

So it's not just un-Americans we need to fear but the Polluter-Americans,
Pharma-mericans, Bank-Americans and Hedge-Americans that could manipulate campaigns
while hidden behind corporate veils.  

And if so, our future elections, while nominally a contest between Republicans and
Democrats, may in fact come down to a three-way battle between China, Saudi Arabia
and Goldman Sachs.

[Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Best Democracy Money 
Can Buy." Palast investigated Triad Inc. for The Guardian (UK). View Palast's
reports for BBC TV and Democracy Now! at gregpalast.com.]

[Support this ongoing investigation by making a donation to the non-profit
Investigative Journalism foundation.  By donating today you will receive a gift of
your choice in time for Christmas:  www.gregpalast.com/store] 

GLOBAL OUTLOOK is one of the very few 

great investigative journals that exposes 

not only the truth behind mainstream media's 

lies and propaganda, but the methods by 

which the media and gov't operate, from 

disinformation to false-flag operations.

You can get the latest issue (Annual 2009) 

through the SHADOW for only $6.00 + $2.00 

postage (the cover price of this 296 page 

Collector's Edition is $14.95!) Send payment 

by money order to: SHADOW Press, 

P.O. Box 20298, New York, NY 10009