Sammy Finkelman: Mark Levin on is radio show mentioned this.

“Mark Levin” and “law” in the same paragraph is an oxymoron.

Cheers,

jukeboxgrad:

[zuch]: And the campaign would never get a dime off them from MasterCard…. I guess I fail to see the problem.

Exactly. The people who are beating this drum don’t understand how credit cards work, and they don’t understand how campaign-contribution accounting works.

Oh, they do [at least I hope so; they're the freakin' RNC]. They’re just playing to the rubes. It’s politics.

Cheers,

wooga:
Source.Obviously partisan, but facts are facts.

I guess James O’Keefe was otherwise unavailable to comment today. Something about having been grounded. “Facts” through the Geller/Breitbart lens are hardly reliable.

MFH: Off the beaten path, but would an international NGO (nongovernmental organization) or sovereign wealth fund enjoy protection under Citizens United to make independent expeditures in American election campaigns?

Or put more broadly: As regards “associational [political] speech,” must the speaker have a pre-existing nexus to America (for example, doing business in America) or is it sufficient merely to attempt to engage in political speech in America to warrant protection?

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDcxNjNjNTlhNmQxZDYwYjNkOGJjZjkxZTZiMjI0NTg=

Mark Levin on is radio show mentioned this. He said presidents had criticized supreme Court decisions before in state of the Union messages (I am not sure what examples he may have had in mind) but never so dishonestly. He claimed what Obama said was totally false or words to that effect, but actually, the New York Times Caucus blog that is linked to here indicates there’is actually an argument. Except that Obama kind of misrepresented the argument. He left something out.

A dissent in the case, and some bloggers since, have claimed that the decision allows, or the principle behind the decision would allow, foreign corporations to contribute to political campaigns. The majority evaded the issue of how far this might carry (which is actually kind of traditional in Supreme Court decisions) but it definitely didn’t rule that way now.

I think no one in the Supreme Court minority wanted to rule that Citizens United or similar non-profit corporations should be free to run political ads but for profit corporations could be prohibited, but Justice Stevens said the majority should have ruled that way.

The response from the majority, if I have it right, was there was no principled way to make a distinction. The majority also said that you were very strongly burdening speech if you would require people to get a campaign lawyer (this might have been in response to the argument: “well, they could always set up a PAC”)

Eric Rasmusen: I actually approve ofPresidents vigorously condemning the Supreme Court and its opinions. That isn’t the problem here. The problem is thatit shows real ignorance of the fact that Congress can’t reverse a constitutional decision by statute. See http://rasmusen.dreamhosters.com/b/2010/01/879/

Oh, Obama knew that. They do have an idea as to how this can reversed (securities law may allow prohibitions that in general might not be allowed)

What Obama was doing however, was attempting to disguise from the public that the Supreme Court had overturned the law on Constitutional grounds. He was leaving out inconvenient details but it is not all that wrongheaded

As for Lincoln, that was his Inaugural Address, not a State of the Union Address (where representatives of the three branches of government are all present in an institutional manner on the floor of the House) in which he addressed “fellow-citizens,” not the members of the Court.

I don’t really see the distinction. The justices were all there; at least Taney was — he had just sworn Lincoln in.

Moreover, his criticism was of those who held a particular view of the role of the Court (which undoubtedly included members of the Court but was a broader group), which he explicitly denied was “any assault upon the court or the judges.”

Lincoln was more delicate, but Obama did begin by saying “With due deference…” And his criticism was indirect. He made a prediction of a potential future consequence and he asked Congress for legislation to prevent that consequence. That’s what SOTUs are for.

MFH: Off the beaten path, but would an international NGO (nongovernmental organization) or sovereign wealth fund enjoy protection under Citizens United to make independent expeditures in American election campaigns?

Or put more broadly: As regards “associational [political] speech,” must the speaker have a pre-existing nexus to America (for example, doing business in America) or is it sufficient merely to attempt to engage in political speech in America to warrant protection?

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDcxNjNjNTlhNmQxZDYwYjNkOGJjZjkxZTZiMjI0NTg=

Mark Levin on is radio show mentioned this. He said presidents had criticized supreme Court decisions before in state of the Union messages (I am not sure what examples he may have had in mind) but never so dishonestly. He claimed what Obama said was totally false or words to that effect, but actually, the New York Times Caucus blog that is linked to here indicates there’s actually an argument. Except that Obama kind of misresented the argument. He left something out.

A dissent in the case, and some bloggers since, have claimed that the decision allows, or the principle behind the decision would allow, foreign corporations to contribute to political campaigns. The majority evaded the issue of how far this might carry (which is actually kind of traditional in Supreme Court decisions) but it definitely didn’t rule that way now.

I think no one in the Supreme Court minority wanted to rule that Citizens United or similar non-profit corporations should be free to run political ads but for profit corporations could be prohibited, but Justice Stevens said the majority should have ruled that way.

The response from the majority, if I have it right, was there was no principled way to make a distinction. The majority also said that you were very strongly burdening speech if you would require people to get a campaign lawyer (this might have been in response to the argument: “well, they could always set up a PAC”)

And the campaign would never get a dime off them from MasterCard…. I guess I fail to see the problem.

Exactly. The people who are beating this drum don’t understand how credit cards work, and they don’t understand how campaign-contribution accounting works. This was all discussed in detail at VC over a year ago. See here and here.

Obama did not get to collect any money from anyone unless the name that was entered matched up properly with the account records at the bank. The fact that the initial data-entry form allowed phony names does not indicate that Obama was ever able to actually get money from anyone who entered a phony name in the data-entry form.

wooga:

why did Obama’s campaign affirmatively disable the verification?

Because it makes the system faster. This is explained in more detail in the threads I cited.

Anything else and I get to scream YOU LIE!

Jacob Berlove: Orin,
I think Obama’s point is that Citizens United,in striking down corporation spending rules, automatically left the law unenforceable even as to foreign corporations.

The problem is:

1) He said that the Court had done that, when in reality this is only a possible – *possible* – corollary of that ruling. And even if you were to think there’s no way to avoid it, it still is something arguable. More important, maybe, that’s not the current state of the law immediately aftr the Supreme Court decision. Obama wasn’t interesting in clarifying for people the way the law actually works. He wants to make the law sound simpler and more obvious and less open to interpretation than it really is. (That way it is easier to portray decisions they don’t want as obviously wrong)

Obama also didn’t bother to explain how Congress could correct this if this really was a Constitutional ruling. Obama of course didn’t bother to inform the public that the court had ruled on Constutional grounds or First Amendemnt grounds. That mght cause people to support it, or at least want to know more. And he wanted people to be against it as much as possible,

(The idea for passing a law is that if corporate expenditures on political ads, couldn’t be prohibited as part of campaign finance law, they could be as part of securities regulation or regulation of public companes.)

On top of that he was deliberately confusing people about the distinction between independent spending and contributing to a campaign – or rather pretending that the distinction did not exist.

Now actually if independent expenditures weren’t so independent. If a candidate could attempt to intercede with some people NOT to run an ad or attempt to alter the wording. People at large probably in general assume the candidate had something to do with it, unless he really tries to dissuade them, which by law he cannot do.

And one thing almost no politician in Washington wants to talk about is something that some people had an Op-ed about in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. It’s actually being done in certain states and STILL is not talked about: Dollar for dollar tax rebates for political contributions.

ShelbyC: Huh? I already spewed out all I know about credit cards a while ago. I’m just wondering how voting works for US citizens who reside overseas and not in a state. Jeff Walden cleared most of it up, but he still says it depends on the state.

I live abroad so I can comment on this. In most states, you are eligible to vote by absentee ballot in the last state in which you had residence as long as you maintain some tie (e.g. a physical address) to that state. If you want to register or vote in a different state, you would have to meet whatever that state’s residency requirements are. Many states tend to consider a former resident who lives abroad as a resident for the purposes of voting.

As far as credit cards are concerned, it’s actually fairly difficult in practice in many countries for a foreigner to get a credit card issued by a local bank. You are a blank slate when you leave the country as far as banks are concerned with respect to your credit rating and many have a somewhat legitimate fear that a foreign resident could run up a large amount of debt and then skip out on it. Unless you have permanent resident status or something similar, your chances of getting approved can be slim in many places.

Many Americans who live abroad, in my experience, keep their American credit cards. Again, all you need is a physical address in the U.S. and a social security number to get one. American credit card companies, as we all know, aren’t very picky about who they issue cards to.

wooga: Without verification, he can reuse the same numbers, make up names on the spot, and so on.

And the campaign would never get a dime off them from MasterCard…. I guess I fail to see the problem.

Cheers,

Right now, one German can pretend to be a 1,000 people, and make 1,000 donations of $100 each. 

zuch:

With a thousand credit cards?Hell of a FICO score…If you’re talking about 1000 phony cards with fictitious donor names, how would they ever actually get any money from the credit card company?Cheers,

Without the verification system, there is no comparison of names or numbers. That’s the problem. If you had the verification process, it would require our hypothetically sneaky German to create a 1,000 fake identities. Without verification, he can reuse the same numbers, make up names on the spot, and so on. Or, he could have a 1,000 cards in his own name (very easy to do without a credit check – just create a thousand charge cards), and just put random names on the Obama web form.

The point remains: why did Obama’s campaign affirmatively disable the verification? There is only one answer I’ve seen, and that’s to facilitate fraud.

zuch: And so do people temporarily abroad. And foreign service workers, and such. Do you really think they can’t or don’t have credit cards issued over there?

Huh? I already spewed out all I know about credit cards a while ago. I’m just wondering how voting works for US citizens who reside overseas and not in a state. Jeff Walden cleared most of it up, but he still says it depends on the state.

ShelbyC: Soldiers, either on military bases in the US or overseas, have a home of record that is their legal residence.

And so do people temporarily abroad. And foreign service workers, and such. Do you really think they can’t or don’t have credit cards issued over there?

Cheers,

wooga:

[zuch]: Huh? How would the credit card verification software prevent illegal foreign donations?

Right now, one German can pretend to be a 1,000 people, and make 1,000 donations of $100 each.

With a thousand credit cards? Hell of a FICO score… If you’re talking about 1000 phony cards with fictitious donor names, how would they ever actually get any money from the credit card company?

Cheers,

zuch: This might come as a surprise to the soldiers overseas….

Soldiers, either on military bases in the US or overseas, have a home of record that is their legal residence. Keep in mind that when you vote, you are voting for your states electors, so voting when you’re not a resident of a state doesn’t make sense.

ShelbyC:

zuch: But AFAIK, U.S. citizens in foreign countries are allowed to vote, not just contribute

 
I’ve never been sure how that worked. Don’t you have to be a resident of a state? For example, residents of DC and Peurto Rico can’t vote.

This might come as a surprise to the soldiers overseas….

Cheers,

ShelbyC: Well, that’s how it works. When the other side does it, it’s politically motivated whining and insinuation. When your (or my) side does it, its legitimately calling the other side out.

In complaints to the FEC?!?!?

Cheers,

Samiam: I voted for Obama and really believed that he was classy, smart, and wise. He has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is the polar opposite. His speech and behavior last night was embarrassing, particularly his attack of the Supreme Court. I may not have the legal training most of the posters here claim to have, but I do recognize class, or the lack thereof, when I see it. The Justices were Obama’s and congress’ guests. Our President deliberately insulted these guess and invited Congress to jeer them. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

We got rid of our kings over here over two hundred years ago.

If you’re worried about a little [perceived] incivility, you might be best advised to avoid turning to the Tea Party folks and the Republicans … and don’t attend Supreme Court oral arguments; you might get upset. Hell, they interrupt and talk over people all the time there.

<*concern troll alert!!!*>

Cheers,

Prosecutorial Indiscretion: The existence and identity of the cardholders aren’t necessarily the issue — it’s whether or not a campaign can legally accept their donations. A legitimate German cardholder could use his Visa to give to the Obama campaign without any hassle, and with no verification on the online credit card contributions, enforcing the laws to prevent foreign influence on campaigns (which is apparently, at least according to the President, an urgent threat against the United States political system) was effectively impossible.

How does any verification scheme actually determine if the person is, not a valid credit cardholder, but actually eligible to contribute? Keep in mind that some in the United States are not eligible to contribute even if they hold valid credit cards here, and some overseas are eligible to contribute even using credit cards held overseas.

Cheers,

zuch:
Huh?How would the credit card verification software prevent illegal foreign donations?Cheers,

Right now, one German can pretend to be a 1,000 people, and make 1,000 donations of $100 each. Without verification, each of those donations is, according to the Obama campaign, a different individual and thus outside of public disclosure rules (i.e., each ‘person’ gave under $200). With verification, however, the guy would be seen as just one donor, and all of his $100 donations would be pooled, and the Obama campaign would have to disclose that the donor gave $100,000. Whether or not the Obama campaign identified him as German is not as important as making sure his name is publicly reported, since somebody (e.g., a McCain campaign volunteer) would be watching and could figure it out. Right now, the secret is safe inside the Obama campaign.

ShelbyC: Don’t you have to be a resident of a state?For example, residents of DC and Peurto Rico can’t vote.

It’s a state decision. I believe there was a VC post about that topic several months back, about the definition of citizen and all.

Aha: http://volokh.com/posts/1250278992.shtml

zuch: But AFAIK, U.S. citizens in foreign countries are allowed to vote, not just contribute

I’ve never been sure how that worked. Don’t you have to be a resident of a state? For example, residents of DC and Peurto Rico can’t vote.

zuch: All in all, a bunch of politically motivated whining and insinuation.

Well, that’s how it works. When the other side does it, it’s politically motivated whining and insinuation. When your (or my) side does it, its legitimately calling the other side out.

zuch:
I thought it was too for a long time, but discovered recently that it is not.U.S. permanent residents who are not U.S. citizens may legally contribute to campaigns.Cheers,

Ah, I see. That is news to me. Makes sense.

wooga: Can you clarify this? Who is allowed to donate, but not allowed to vote? I can think of US felons, and US corporations (per the new case), but not another example. You do understand that it is illegal for foreigners to donate, right?.

US Corporations are not given the right to donate to campaigns by Citizens United. It is simply a free speech case. Corporations can do things like air documentaries such as ‘Hillary’, which is what was at issue.

You mean credit card companies don’t verify the existence and identity of the people applying for usable credit cards?

The existence and identity of the cardholders aren’t necessarily the issue – it’s whether or not a campaign can legally accept their donations. A legitimate German cardholder could use his Visa to give to the Obama campaign without any hassle, and with no verification on the online credit card contributions, enforcing the laws to prevent foreign influence on campaigns (which is apparently, at least according to the President, an urgent threat against the United States political system) was effectively impossible.

wooga:

[zuch]: AFAIK, U.S. citizens in foreign countries are allowed to vote, not just contribute (I am allowed to contribute but not vote).

Can you clarify this? Who is allowed to donate, but not allowed to vote? I can think of US felons, and US corporations (per the new case), but not another example. You do understand that it is illegal for foreigners to donate, right?.

No. Actually, I don’t. Because it isn’t true. I thought it was too for a long time, but discovered recently that it is not. U.S. permanent residents who are not U.S. citizens may legally contribute to campaigns.

Cheers,

wooga: My point is that Obama’s campaign actively encouraged and facilitated this fraud by modifying the credit card verification software. There was no purpose for Obama’s campaign to take that step, except to facilitate fraud.

Huh? How would the credit card verification software prevent illegal foreign donations?

Cheers,