Do you see any problem with foreign corporations and governments being able to fund political advertising in US Elections?

Here is just one real-world example of what can go wrong if the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision isn’t mitigated.

The US Chamber of Congress is running $75 million in attack ads supporting Republican candidates who oppose, among other things, ending tax breaks for US Corporations that off-shore our jobs. The Chamber has been sending out fundraising requests to foreign companies, many government owned, in China, India, Russia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. These fundraising requests warned that Democrats might limit off-shoring, which would hurt these foreign interests.

The Chamber is a 501C6 Non-Profit and as such, can and does keep the sources of funding for its political advertising secret. The Chamber claims that even though it solicits and receives funding from foreign interests, it complies with Federal Election laws by not using foreign funds in its political ads. But it admits the foreign money goes into the same general fund they use for the attack ad buys. Money is fungible. If the general fund grows by $50 million foreign dollars, how do you tell where one of those dollars came from when you write a check on that account? If the fund is suddenly $50 million fatter, obviously it can buy more advertising because other expenses are now covered by the increase in the available money in the account.

We might have a whole separate discussion about the glaring question of why the US Chamber of Commerce should be supporting the off-shoring of US jobs. But the real question here is a more important issue. How can we expect to remain a free country when corporate and special interest groups are free to spend unlimited amounts of money hiring psychologists and crafting issue advertising to bend government to their own financial benefit instead of the nation’s best interests. The real question was framed beautifully by cartoonist Al Capp way back in the depths of the Great Depression. Is it true, Capp asked, that,“What’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA!”? How does the USA fare as a nation when General Bullmoose owns it all, and sets policies that make sure all money flows to him alone?