Supreme Court Lets Foreigners Influence American Elections! Or, Not

Take what you hear with a grain of salt.

That's good advice.

Case in point: that Supreme Court decision that will let those foreigners influence American elections? Not everybody sees it the same way.

"Obama Misrepresents the Citizens United Decision"
Shannen Coffin, The Corner, National Review (January 28, 2010)

"The Supreme Court is not — and certainly should not — be above criticism. President Bush made it a point not to criticize the Court's detainee decisions in Hamdan and Rasul — and probably missed a political opportunity. But he apparently considered it unpresidential to attack Court rulings.

By contrast, President Obama displayed an utter lack of tact in his criticism of the Court's decision in Citizens United. Obama preened for political applause while members of the Court had to sit stoically on their hands. That Justice Alito betrayed his feelings in a minor way is understandable — and not simply because he's from New Jersey, as my South Jersey wife said. In his preening, Obama flatly misrepresented the ruling. Citizens United is a 57-page opinion that most Americans wouldn't have a good reason to read – and, quite frankly, I wouldn't blame them for not reading it. Obama understands that most Americans are susceptible to misleading comments about the decision. In claiming that the Court had opened the floodgates to foreign corporations' spending without limit in our elections, he sought to take political advantage of that susceptibility. Brad Smith, who has forgotten more about campaign-finance law than I'll ever know, explained the applicable statutes in his post last night.

"But you needn't take Brad's word for it. The Court itself made clear that its opinion did not address the question of whether the government can regulate improper foreign influence over our electoral process. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy expressly stated: 'We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation's political process.' In support of that carve-out, the Court acknowledged the statute Brad discussed, 2 U.S.C. section 441e, which bans contributions and expenditures from foreign nationals. So Obama's attack was a blatant misrepresentation of the holding of the case. And given that his top White House lawyer is a seasoned campaign-finance attorney, it is hard to believe that it was not an intentional misrepresentation...."

Yes, Shannen Coffin has a particular point of view. And it's not unconditionally laudatory toward the first Hawaiian president.

I've seen and heard what President Obabma said.

I'm inclined to agree with much of what Coffin said.

Like I said: 'Take what you hear with a grain of salt' is pretty good advice. Particularly if it comes from an American subculture with a track record for - remarkable - statements.

Related posts:

• "The Manhattan Declaration: Hateful? - Who Knew?"
  (November 21, 2009)
• "John Holdren Quote Could be Accurate: That Bothers Me"
  (October 30, 2009)
• "Barack Obama, 'Safe Schools' Czar's Oopsie, and Prayer"
  (October 1, 2009)
• " 'I Hate Barack Obama' - Maybe Not the Best Message from a Pulpit"
  (September 1, 2009)
• "Notre Dame, Obama, and 'Outside Agitators' - a Blast From the Past"
  (May 17, 2009)
• "Fear of Right-Wing Extremism: Commie-Hunting in Reverse"
  (April 19, 2009)
• "Pro-Life? You May be a Dangerous Domestic Terrorist! MIAC Says So"
  (March 23, 2009)