Campaign Financing - Foreign Dollars in play

Progressives were up in arms after the United States Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have the right to run ads for or against candidates as well as contribute money to Super PAC's. The Citizen's United case paved the way, and the recent ruling by the SCOTUS this past week, for a large influx of money and energy to be poured into every campaign in the United States. A prime example is the recent recall attempt of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

The recall election saw pro-Scott Walker camps outspending anti-Scott Walker camps nearly 8 to 1. Progressive pundits claimed that the large difference in money spent was the main contributor to Governor Walker remaining in office. Progressives are upset because their Union coffers no longer give them an advantage with the decision of Citizen's United.  One of the fears discussed after Citizen's United was the influx of foreign cash into campaigns.

To date the Democrat National Party has raised over $335M while the Republican National Party has raised over $320M. PAC's have raised, collectively, just as much as both parties. Unfortunately I couldn't find a breakout of the PAC's based on who they backed on the Federal Election Commission website (www.fec.gov). All this being said, George Clooney will be assissting President Obama in Geneva, Switzerland to raise "euro-cash" for re-election. http://www.fec.gov/disclosure/partySummary.do?cf=phome

First, Progressives rail against the lost monopoly of Union warchest with the upholding of Citizen's United. Now, Progressives are bringing in foreign dollars and influences which they said Conservatives would do with the Citizen's United decision. When will the Federal Election Commission rule that no money but a small stipend from the Federal Government may be spent on elections? Even though I contend that every American has the God given right to voice their opinion in favor or against a candidate, I do draw the line at foreign influences. I do acknowledge that both sides are guilty too.

Montana Supreme Court Uphold's Corporate Ban

The Supreme Court of Montana upheld a 1912 state law that banned corporations from spending money in "connection with a candidate or political party that support or opposes a candidate or political party". The original law in Montana was in response to Copper Baron's that had used their purse strings to purchase judges and legislators to do their bidding. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law by a 5-2 vote.

While many will see this as a great victory to encourage the United States to reverse their Citizen United case from last year, I see this as a state exerting their 10th Amendment Rights. The 1912 law deals with state and local elections and does not impact the national elections that come through town every four years. If Montana gets a chance to argue their case before the Supreme Court and make a valid case that the 1912 law only effects state and local elections thus doesn't fall under the Citizen United precedent; rather the 1912 law is protected by the 10th Amendment then it could have a ripple effect to other laws of the land.

The ripple effect would be seen first through commerce and actually be a means for states to Constitutionally opt out of Obamacare since their is no interstate commerce going on. Possible even see challenges to Roe v. Wade, Affirmative Action, DOMA and other social concepts that not all States may agree with. Which brings me back to may original point that many that don't agree with Citizen United see this as a possible victory, if it stands I see it having a larger impact on States being able to wrestle back the 10th Amendment that has been eroded since it's birth.