Friday May 25, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Critics fear foreign influence in U.S. elections

Commentary Jan. 31, 2010 - 12:50PM JST ( 11 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

11 Comments

0

888naffJan. 31, 2010 - 07:54AM JST

Had to read a long way down to find the passing bit about Japan.
0

biglittlemanJan. 31, 2010 - 08:33AM JST

It is no surprise the political system is turning into a circus run by Corporations or as conservatives call it the "Free Market." Well, it was mostly the Conservative Republicans in the Supreme court who just voted for Corporations to use unlimited funds to advertise for or against candidates. Foreign entities including Corporations are just the next step. It has always taken place but now it so blatant it is just disgusting.
0

bdiegoJan. 31, 2010 - 09:09AM JST

This is what happens when you nominate and confirm liars and traitors into the Supreme Court.
0

lostrune2Jan. 31, 2010 - 06:47PM JST

Heh, some of the wealthiest "corporations" in the world now are invested from oil-rich Arab states. While Europe could be overrun by Arab immigrants, the US could be overrun by Arab investors. Who would had foreseen this is how it's gonna happen, the Islamization of America, heheheh.
0

WeaselFeb. 01, 2010 - 01:44AM JST

If you have the most money, and you can get the vote. What's new about that fact?
0

aj2o1Feb. 02, 2010 - 02:51PM JST

But the US never had any qualms about influencing elections in other countries.
0

amerijapFeb. 03, 2010 - 04:29AM JST

Still, the bottom line is..., money is speech.

The most disgusting and ugly culture of Capitalism people see in American society today.
0

m5c32Feb. 03, 2010 - 01:57PM JST

Critics fear foreign influence in U.S. election.

The problem, to me, is evidenced in the headline itself. They key there being "foreign," as if local/domestic corporate influence "is A OK". Democracy is/was/should be about people --not artificial entities masquerading as if they were actual people. If they go this far, why not "allow" dead people to vote in perpetuity? I mean, what the hell, what would be the difference? Both being non-entities.

In my mind, since all people who would work in a corporation/business entity, etc. can already donate -unless they are felons, foreign nationals etc., that fact obviates the need for the "corporation" made up of those same people necessitating this right.

What they did, to me, was a gross misinterpretation. I only hope it gets reversed legislatively.
0

OdogmaFeb. 03, 2010 - 02:03PM JST

Democrat hypocrisy at its most brazen. Obama broke all kinds of campaign finance laws and had no problem accepting millions from foreign donors.
0

lostrune2Feb. 05, 2010 - 02:43AM JST

Odogma,

Obama did get million$$ including from foreign donors but did not break campaign laws. He declined accepting government money, so he was free to accept from private entities as much as he wants but at $2k cap per entity though. A lot of people donated, and that's how he outspent the Republicans, who usually receive the most money in elections.