MANCHURIAN CANDIDATES: Supreme Court Allows China and Others Unlimited Spending In US Elections -- The SHADOW: Issue #54

Manchurian Candidates:
Supreme Court Allows China and Others Unlimited Spending In US Elections

By Greg Palast

[Thursday, January 21, 2010] In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the
same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to
next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign
coffers, 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 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 under today's Supreme Court ruling 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. Under the Court's new rules, 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. says corporations
will now 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, may now 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 has
injected into the system by its 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. As of today, such money-poisoned politicking has 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]

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