Al Franken Drops a TRUTH BOMB On The Senate: CITIZENS UNITED IS MONEY LAUNDERING

[Segami]

As the Senate continues to debate final passage of a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) came to the Senate floor and called Citizens United money laundering that was made legal by the Supreme Court. During his remarks on the Senate floor, Sen. Franken said,

This is real, M. President: spending by outside groups more than tripled from the 2008 presidential election to the 2012 presidential election, when it topped a billion dollars – that’s billion with a “b.” What happened in the interim? Well Citizens United was decided in 2010 – the floodgates were opened.

And, worse still, the middle-class isn’t just being flooded; it’s being blindfolded, too – because these wealthy special interest groups often can spend the money anonymously, so voters have no idea who’s behind the endless attack ads that fill the airwaves. Here’s how it works: if you have millions of dollars that you want to spend, you can funnel it through back channels so that it ends up in the hands of a group – typically one with a generic and benign-sounding name – that uses the money to buy ads, often without disclosing the source of its funds.

This whole thing looks to me a lot like money laundering – except that it’s now perfectly legal. And, again, this is real: a study just came out which showed that, in the current election cycle alone, there’s already been over 150,000 ads run by groups that don’t have to disclose the source of their funding.

And get this: things are only getting worse. Earlier this year, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court was at it again, recklessly doing away with a law that prohibited people from giving more than $123,000, in the aggregate, directly to candidates in an election cycle. One-hundred-and-twenty-three-thousand-dollars. Who has that kind of money lying around to spend on elections? The super-rich, maybe. But the middle class sure doesn’t. The folks I meet with in Minnesota – who are trying to make ends meet, pay off their student loans, train for a new job, save some money to start a family – they sure don’t. And those are the folks who most need a voice here in Washington.

….

So the way I see it is this: there are two ways that we can go from here. On the one hand, we can continue to let Citizens United be the law of the land. We can perpetuate the fallacy that corporations have a constitutional right to flood our elections with undisclosed money; we can let deep-pocketed special interests buy influence and access – and then set the agenda for the rest of the country.

Or … Or, we can say, enough is enough. We can restore the law to what it was before Citizens United was decided – and, more to the point, we can restore a voice for millions upon millions of everyday Americans who want nothing more than to see their government represent them.

http://www.franken.senate.gov/?p=news&id=2936

The majority of Senate Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, voted with Democrats yesterday to advance a constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United. The vote was not a vote on final passage. It was a vote to move towards debate and vote on passage. By not filibustering the bill yesterday, Senate Republicans have given Democrats a platform this week to discuss the attempts by right-wing billionaires and special interests to buy the government. Senate Republicans tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people yesterday by casting a vote to move legislation forward that they have no intention of voting to pass. Republicans are hoping that you won’t notice when they vote against the constitutional amendment later this week.




cont'

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/09/al-franken-drops-truth-bomb-senate-citizens-united-money-laundering.html

[WillyT]

1. K & R !!!

[RKP5637]

2. K&R !!!!!!!!!! n/t

[Cleita]

3. Good for him. We need a lot more honesty about the shenanigans

and politics that our pols perpetrate to cheat on elections.

[BrotherIvan]

4. This is where he can shine

Be fearless, Senator Franken.

[a kennedy]

5. I live in Mn and haven't seen any polls for Al's senate race......

Sure hope the folks of Mn know he's a good man and vote for him.

[BrotherIvan]

6. I was hoping he would be more outspoken

But perhaps he was getting the lay of the land so to speak and has chosen this as an issue to speak out on. He will be helping the whole country by doing all he can to push this through. It's definitely worth the fight.

[underpants]

13. 1st term Senators as a rule keep quiet

Tim Kaine, Franken, even Hillary in her first term do not rock the boat. If they do their proposals get shut down and a matter of "learning their role"

Flipside - Cruz and Rand Paul - they have bucked this and are, in the larger picture, burning themselves out -- in terms of IN the US Senate. If they don't make the next move they are in trouble in the Senate. There are still LIONS in the Senate but the alpha males all left at the same time due to retirement and death in the last few years.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. Tell it to Liz Warren.

[BrotherIvan]

20. It's usually smart to learn the ropes

But these times call for bold measures. I think that's why Senator Warren is so revered. It's good to see Franken finding his confidence.

[geardaddy]

40. I love him

and will vote for him.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

41. He is ahead by 8-9 but McFadden is closing ...

... by mostly picking up undecideds/undeclareds, according to the RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/mn/minnesota_senate_mcfadden_vs_franken-3902.html).

He has, IMO, certainly been a head-down policy wonk in the first term. I appreciate having someone as serious as he representing us.

[Mister Ed]

7. Alright, that does it.

I'm gonna quit procrastinating and send him a campaign contribution.

What's the best way? ActBlue? Directly through his campaign website? Other?

[ANOIS]

21. I just sent him one on Sunday.

I used Act Blue. No particular reason why I went that way.

He is a serious guy, no matter what his detractors say. I think he's doing a fabulous job.

[pennylane100]

24. I always use act blue.

[DFW]

35. I give him money on a regular basis. I just send him a check.

Credit cards still take out a cut, even if it's 3%. If Al gets a total of $1 million in contributions, that means the credit card companies still take out $30,000, which is money he can put to better use than Citibank.

As for Act Blue, I sometimes use them if I'm in a hurry, but they have this annoying habit of "flagging" my contributions for review when they are made from overseas, which, in my case, is just about always.

[rickyhall]

8. Just wondering

What keeps a foreign government or other entity from financing election ads now?

[Demeter]

11. Nothing

[Segami]

12. Foreign Money in U.S. Elections

Laws and Regulations Regarding Foreign Money in U.S. Elections

The abundance of political cash in the 2012 presidential election due to the rise of the super PACs in the wake of the Citizens United decision is causing concern about campaign donation disclosure. Whether super PACs are an obstacle to democracy or a manifestation of First Amendment rights, it is clear that donor disclosure is blatantly absent.

Since 1966, foreign nationals have been prohibited from donating money to American campaigns; recent legislation and Supreme Court decisions have only reinforced this principle. However, the lack of disclosure in the new super PACs means that foreign donations will be harder to detect, and American elections may be vulnerable to foreign influence. The following is a history of regulations regarding foreign campaign contributions, and current analysis regarding the potential role of foreign influence in the 2012 election.



FARA

Efforts to curb foreign financial involvement in US elections began with the 1966 amendment of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. FARA was originally intended ensure regulation and disclosure of Nazi propaganda in the 1930s.

“In 1966, FARA was significantly amended to focus on the integrity of the United States Government decision-making process, and to emphasize agents seeking economic or political advantage for their clients. The amendments were prompted by the excesses of lobbyists struggling over their share of the "sugar quotas" legislatively determined after trade with Cuba, the principal sugar producer, was prohibited. It required any person engaged in "political activities", as defined, as an agent on behalf of a foreign principal, to register. This is substantially narrower than the original act, which did not require that the activities be "for or on behalf of" the foreign principal.”



FECA

In 1974, the FARA prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Federal Election Campaign Law: § 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election; (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 304(f)(3)) (2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3)); or (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national. (b) As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means— (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22 except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8 22 U.S.C. § 611(b) provides: (b) The term “foreign principal” includes— (1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party; (2) a person outside of the United States, unless it is established that such person is an individual and a citizen of and domiciled within the United States, or that such person is not an individual and is organized under or created by the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its principal place of business within the United States; and (3) a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.
Foreign Nationals Brochure



The “Foreign Nationals” Brochure,

published by the Federal Election Commission, explains the prohibitions on foreign involvement in US elections.

The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition: Foreign governments; Foreign political parties; Foreign corporations; Foreign associations; Foreign partnerships; Individuals with foreign citizenship; and Immigrants who do not have a "green card." An immigrant may make a contribution if he or she has a "green card" indicating his or her lawful admittance for permanent residence in the United States. A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if: The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or Individual foreign nationals: Participate in the operation of the PAC; Serve as officers of the PAC; Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure. 11 CFR 110.20(i). (See also AOs 2000-17, 1995-15, 1990-8, 1989-29, and 1989-20.) Additionally, a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may not donate funds or anything of value in connection with state or local elections if: 1. These activities are financed by the foreign parent or owner; or 2. Individual foreign nationals are involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.[1] In AO 1989-32, the Commission concluded that although foreign nationals could make disbursements solely to influence ballot issues, a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate's re-election campaign. In AO 1984-41, the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media. The Commission found that these ads were not election influencing because they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.[3] Under Commission regulations it is unlawful to knowingly provide substantial assistance to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. 11 CFR 110.20(h). "Substantial assistance" refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. 67 FR 69945-6 (November 19, 2002) [PDF]. The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person: · Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national; · Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; · Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national. Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include, but are not limited to the following: A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address, makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad. Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national. 11 CFR 110.20(a)(7).



http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Foreign_Money_in_U.S._Elections

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. Like the Saudis?

[freshwest]

36. Nothing and it was what Obama warned people of when Citizens United passed and urged citizens to

begin a movement to get the momentum to amend and overturn it. This has been a national effort since then and garnered support from all sides. I suspect, as Al says, that the GOP who voted for it are only looking to ease some ill-will from their voters for November. And will add poison pills in the House. If we want this we have to GOTV.

[lordsummerisle]

9. K&R n/t

[Demeter]

10. I think he meant "influence buying" or "bribery"

No one has proven that this money was tainted by being the result of a crime...it's what it's buying that is criminal.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. But couldn't it be money laundered from foreign sources?

Like, if the Saudis wanted to buy our election, they wouldn't be able to do it directly, but they could give huge anonymous amounts to these organizations that would then use it to buy the elections. That would seem to me to be a variety of laundering.

I guess I would use the term "laundering" whenever the original source is concealed, whether or not that source was a criminal one.

[closeupready]

45. Of course, it's bribery - in an untraditional form, however.

This is highly illegal in even Third World countries - yet, in our 'modern' society, it's all good.

[yourout]

14. And bribery.

Probably even more so bribery.

[ailsagirl]

16. Franken ROCKS IT!!!!!

[cantbeserious]

18. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

22. YES, YES, YES, YES!

Now, if we could just get the lobbyists out of Washington, we could really "take our country back!"

[Uncle Joe]

23. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks the thread, Segami.

[UTUSN]

25. K#79 & K n/t

[AuntPatsy]

26. Facts are out there? Why do these crimes continue?

[freshwest]

33. Voters who stay home, or even worse, don't care because for several reasons:

They must stop:

Gay marriage, Abortion, the NWO, regulations, taxes and Obama the Kenyan muslin.

Others that they won't talk about:

Desire to go to Heaven, (believe God wants them to vote for Republicans), Racism, Fossil fuel jobs and Cronyism.

Most important of all:

Freedumb!

They show up at every single election from the school board to mayor to state election offices, state houses and federal offices on those issues.

[AuntPatsy]

51. freedumb Perfect

[Ilsa]

27. They should also consider that our govt could be bought

By foreign interests whose objectives conflict with US objectives and policies. The money is too well laundered to know for certain that this is untrue.

On edit: Just saw the comprehensive reply on this upthread. Thank you!

[longship]

28. Franken is all we could hope him to be. R&K nt

[EEO]

29. He is such a smart guy. A sober liberal.

[spanone]

30. politicians no longer have any need for the truth. their lies get them elected.

mr franken is a rare exception.

[ailsagirl]

48. Al Franken definitely is an exception

It's hard to believe that this hard-working, soft-spoken, self-effacing man was one of
the powerhouses behind the original SNL. Outrageous humor and irreverent wit-- I was
surprised when I saw that he is not a flippant joke machine.

Quite simply, Senator Al Franklin rocks.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. Thanks for stating the obvious. Organized crime can fund a candidate now.

Pass the money through a casino--and Sheldon Adelson-- and they are home free. Same for China. Or the Koch Brothers who almost certainly are not the real source of all the money they claim to have given. I am getting that the Kochs take a percent off the top for laundering money from anyone---foreigners and criminals.

[freshwest]

32. Yes, it is money laundering. Just like the Iraq War was. Greatest transfer of wealth ever.

[Todays_Illusion]

34. I appreciate that Senator Franken has kept a low profile as a new Senator and I am glad to see him

get some national exposure, and talk about Citizens United.

[valerief]

37. Bravo!

[Xyzse]

38. Wish I could vote for him.

[navarth]

46. You could if he was running for prez.......

...sigh......if only.

[Xyzse]

47. Yeah, I know.

[fleur-de-lisa]

39. K&R - n/t

[Maineman]

42. YES! MONEY LAUNDERING ... made legal by the worst Supreme Court in history.

The Roberts Court. A bunch of white Catholic men and one black scoundrel out voting three honorable women.

[Maineman]

43. Franken might be the best senator in DC, him and Elizabeth Warren. Imagine if we had a hundred

senators like those two!!!

[NorthCarolina]

44. So is AIPAC.

That's what Congress is best at, finding ways to launder taxpayer money into their own pockets.

[JanT]

49. Great post

Wish we had a few more like him.

[samsingh]

50. he's right! and it is shocking

that as much as we want to believe that we are in a just society, that the supreme court could pass such ill thought out legislation for what seems to be a gift for the repug party.

this one ruling has so many different implications, and it was thrust before the last election seemingly so that Obama would not win another election.

it is completely money laundering and makes a further mockery of all the laws intended to weed out the proceeds of crime.

[99Forever]

52. That why Al is our Senator.

We will keep him in office as long as he'll stay.