Outrageous Result of Federal Campaign Law
By Ben DoubleCrossed
 
While the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does in fact guarantee an

unrestricted, free press to foreign citizens and corporations operating newspapers in these

United States, it [ does not ] guarantee the same rights to United States Citizens or political

organizations including the Democrat and Republican parties!

The outrageous paragraph above accurately describes the result of campaign regulations passed by

the US House of Representatives and the US Senate, signed into law by the President and upheld

by the Supreme Court. 

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing,

donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the

United States, either directly or indirectly.  -

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Prohibition   And foreign corporations are

considered foreign nationals -

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml#Who_Foreign_National

Nonetheless, foreign owned newspapers have more rights than US citizens because Congress does

not want to debate 1st Amendment questions raised by the Press Exemption. 

2 USC 431 (9) (B) The term "expenditure" does not include -
(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed
through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper,
magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities
are owned or controlled by any political party, political
committee, or candidate;

Members of Congress have been aware of this ‘oversight’ for seven years and chose not to discuss

it while deliberating the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act:

"Regarding the issue of foreign ownership of media, I am currently researching this issue. 
I appreciate your concerns that while the FEC regulates contributions and expenditures of

American citizens, newspapers owned by foreign individuals or corporations are not subject to

such regulation.  The problem is in limiting the freedom of speech of these newspapers.  Any

type of regulation of editorial comment would be unconstitutional."  From Congresswoman Ann

Northup’s letter to her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated June 11, 1997

http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann1.htm

Thank you for your calls regarding foreign-owned media.  I appreciate having the opportunity to

address your concerns.

As Juliane Carter of my staff discussed with you, the Congressional Research Service is

currently gathering research on this topic for me.  I look forward to seeing what information

they provide on the number of broadcast and print journalism organizations that are owned or

operated by international companies.  Excerpt from Congresswoman Ann Northup’s July 10, 1997

letter to her constituent Richard Lewis.  http://amendment10.tripod.com/ann3.gif

"Regarding print media, I understand your concern about foreign ownership.  Of the seven largest

newspaper companies, two—Thomson Newspapers (circulation 1.33 million, 65 dailies) and

Hollinger International (circulation 1.28 million, 105 dailies)—are Canadian.   However,

several questions arise as to how to implement any type of restriction.   While broadcasters are

regulated by the FCC, newspapers do not have any type of regulating agency.  Further, requiring

any type of regulation of the print media would draw serious constitutional problems.

However, I agree with you that media plays in incredibly important and powerful role in our

society.  As we discussed on the radio the other night, campaign finance reform proposals that

limit the ability of candidates to get their message out merely empower the control of the

editorial boards.  I agree with you that foreign ownership of newspapers could be very

dangerous.  One wonders what the effect would be if China bought most of the major newspapers in

this country."  From Congresswoman Ann Northup’s letter to her constituent, Richard Lewis, dated

September 4, 1997 http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann4.htm

"Mr. Richard Lewis, a constituent from Kentucky’s Third District, has grave concerns about

foreign ownership of media.

He raises the issue that while the media has brought campaign finance reform to the forefront of

public awareness, such proposals limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to get out a message.

 Meanwhile, two of the seven largest newspaper companies in the United States are owned by

foreign investors.  The ability of these foreign owners to influence elections through editorial

pages will be strengthened by increased limits on campaign finance."  Excerpt from Congresswoman

Northup’s September 4, 1997  letter to the Chairman William Thomas (Committee on House

Oversight), on behalf of her constituent, Richard Lewis http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann6.htm

From Congresswoman Northup’s September 4, 1997 letter to Chairman Charles Canady   (House

Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution), on behalf of her constituent, Richard Lewis  Same

letter as above. http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann7.htm

"Your inquiry about foreign ownership of the media and its influence over federal elections was

forwarded to me.  As Chairman of the House Committee which oversees federal elections, I thank

you for your concerns.

The points you raise are interesting.  Be assured that as the Congress considers the issue of

campaign finance reform or reviews the election process as a whole I will keep your questions in

mind.  Once again, I appreciate and thank you for your desire of the preservation of free and

unfettered elections."  Excerpt from Chairman William M. Thomas letter to Richard Lewis, dated

September 9, 1997 http://amendment10.tripod.com/Ann8.htm

Why isn’t the existing prohibition being enforced or why wasn’t the following language added to

existing exclusions in the Press Exemption during the debate over BCRA:

unless such facilities
are owned or controlled by any political party, political
committee, or candidate, or foreign national or foreign corporation;

Speculation

In the U.S., laws that limit media consolidation could be considered ’trade violations.’

policies that promote media localism, diversity, and pluralism could be classified as ’barriers

to trade.’ Multinational corporations could seek cash ’compensation’ - paid for by taxpayer

dollars - if tribunals of trade lawyers found our government’s public interest media policies to

be ’unduly burdensome’ to competition.

It is up to the American People?  Are you willing to sacrifice 1st Amendment rights to

globalization?  If so, the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitutional government will shortly

follow!

The solution is simple: Repeal the Federal Election Campaign Act and BCRA.  The Bill of Rights

granted freedom of speech, press and assembly to people and not corporations.
 

Conspiracy Theory

If the special interests are half as powerful as we have been led to believe why shouldn’t we believe they crafted the Campaign Reform laws?

Purpose of Campaign Laws

The need for Federal Campaign reforms hinge on the potential of big contributions to buy influence in public matters. As a consequence, candidates are limited in how much they can accept from any given donor and required to make public reports, at regular intervals, listing the names, occupations, addresses of donors and their amounts. Furthermore, the candidate must provide public reports stating how the funds are spent.

Who is Exempt

The preceding sounds like a reasonable and laudable public goal but who is exempted from contributions that influence public matters?

The Press Exemption:

2 USC 431 (9) (B) The term "expenditure" does not include -

(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed

through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper,

magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities

are owned or controlled by any political party, political

committee, or candidate;

Is Corporate Media Unbiased

A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper’s income... The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few...that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote...in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).

Fact or Fiction – You Decide

"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." -Alex Carey, Australian social scientist who pioneered the investigation of corporate propaganda (see Taking the Risk Out Of Democracy, Univ of New South Wales, 1995)

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process." Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, 1907

We all know that, as things actually are, many of the most influential and most highly remunerated members of the Bar in every center of wealth, make it their special task to work out bold and ingenious schemes by which their wealthy clients, individual or corporate, can evade the laws which were made to regulate, in the interests of the public, the uses of great wealth. (T. Roosevelt, 1905, at his Harvard Commencement address).

As we view the achievements of aggregated capital, we discover the existence of trusts, combinations, and monopolies, while the citizen is struggling far in the rear, or is trampled beneath an iron heel. Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters (President Grover Cleveland, 1888, quoted by Hughes, Jonathan, R. T. The Governmental Habit Redux: Economic Controls from Colonial Times to the Present, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991, p. 112, citing Swisher, Karl Brent, American Constitutional Development, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1954, p. 422).

"the Supreme Court ruled no such thing in 1886. The ’corporations are persons’ ruling was a fiction created by the court’s reporter. He simply wrote the words into the headnote of the decision. The words contradict what the court actually said. There is, in fact, in the US National Archives a note by the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the time explicitly informing the reporter that the court had not ruled on corporate personhood in the Santa Clara case."—Thom Hartmann, Dinosaur War, The Ecologist, December/January 2002 Issue

"[A U.S.] Supreme Court ruling in 1886 ... arguably set the stage for the full-scale development of the culture of capitalism, by handing to corporations the right to use their economic power in a way they never had before. Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech. Thus corporations were given the same "rights" to influence the government in their own interests as were extended to individual citizens, paving the way for corporations to use their wealth to dominate public thought and discourse. The debates in the United States in the 1990s over campaign finance reform, in which corporate bodies can "donate" millions of dollars to political candidates stem from this ruling although rarely if ever is that mentioned. Thus, corporations, as "persons," were free to lobby legislatures, use the mass media, establish educational institutions such as many business schools founded by corporate leaders in the early twentieth century, found charitable organizations to convince the public of their lofty intent, and in general construct an image that they believed would be in their best interests. All of this in the interest of "free speech."—(Bold Emphasis Added) Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), p.100

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the dollar power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -Abraham Lincoln

Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add... artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers—who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. (President Andrew Jackson, veto of national bank bill, July 10, 1832).