H: FYI: ANY FOREIGN NATION OR LEADER WITH A FRONT COMPANY BECOMES A "PERSON" UNDER US LAW. S
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773243 Date: 08/31/2015
RELEASE IN PART
B6
From: H
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 4:15 PM
To: 'sbwhoeop
Subject: Re: H: FYI: Any foreign nation or leader with a front company becomes a "person" under
US law. S
Not sure there is a legislative fix. Haven't read the opinion yet. May require constitutional amendment.
Original Message
From: sbwhoeop
To: H
Sent: Sat Jan 23 16:08:34 2010
Subject: Re: H: FYI: Any foreign nation or leader with a front company becomes a "person" under US law. S
Getting a legislative fix might be a good initiative for SOTU. Let the Republicans try to oppose it. S
Original Message
From: H
To: 'sbwhoeop
Sent: Sat, Jan 23, 2010 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: H: FYI: Any foreign nation or leader with a front company becomes a "person" under US law. S
This is unbelievable. Or maybe totally so given the forces at work.
Original Message -----
From: sbwhoeop
To: H
Sent: Sat Jan 23 09:26:25 2010
Subject: H: FYI: Any foreign nation or leader with a front company becomes a
"person" under US law. S
http://coloradoindependent.corn/46462/hugo-chavers-state-owned-petroleos-corp-set-to-spend-on-your-u-s-election
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773243 Date: 08/31/2015
Hugo Chavez's state-owned Petroleos Corp set to spend on your U.S. election
Digg
Tweet
By John Tomasic 1/22/10
3:58 PM
Slogging on the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling is more of what we love
about the web. It's the kind of typical collective dissection we have now come
to expect but that never really existed before: serious, speculative, arcane,
funny, brilliant, baked, etc. The Sunlight Foundation blogging
is predictably good. Paul Blumenthal dips into the multinational dimension of
the new "corporation as full citizen-person" framework, drawing on blogging
going on at Newsweek
spend-money-on-u-s-political-candidates.aspx
and the Center for Public Integrity
"Looks like [the Court] might support allowing foreign companies to spend freely
in elections in the United States. I guess this would be the corporate
globalization of the U.S. electoral system." So you gotta ask yourself: Who does
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773243 Date: 08/31/2015
Hugo Chavez want for President?
Blumenthal excerpting the Center for Public Integrity:
The Center for Public Integrity looks at this closer and shows what kind of
foreign influence we are looking at:
One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company — once the
American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan
government-owned Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could
conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized
both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an
American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his
target.
And it's not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston's Saudi
Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM's PC
assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government's Chinese Academy
of Sciences. And Singapore's APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations.
A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S.
could also have significant sway in American electioneering.
I really can't see Americans being too happy about this.
Dahlia Lithwick reported for Slate from the
Supreme Court as the opinions were being read. She offered this aside:
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05773243 Date: 08/31/2015
While Stevens is reading the portion of his concurrence about the "cautious
view of corporate power" held by the framers, I see Justice Thomas•chuckle
softly.
Was it a disdainful chuckle at the impotence of his colleague? Was it merely a
chuckle of disagreement, of good-natured exasperation? Was it a chuckle at an
anachronistic vision of the framers set beside today's modern corporate silicon
and steel behemoths? I doubt he was thinking about Hugo Chavez.
What you don't know is destroying you.
