Foreign Influence
August 3, 2016 2:42 PM   Subscribe

President Obama:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
The Intercept: A series exploring how money from abroad has entered the 2016 presidential election thanks to Citizens United.

Part 1: The Citizens United Playbook: How a Top GOP Lawyer Guided a Chinese-Owned Company Into U.S. Presidential Politics
Six days after the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on corporate money in U.S. elections with its January 21, 2010, ruling in Citizens United, President Obama warned in his State of the Union address that it would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

But as unlimited contributions have coursed through the election system, no one has been able to point to a specific example of foreign money flowing into U.S. presidential politics as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Until now.

The Intercept has determined that a corporation owned by a Chinese couple made a major donation to Jeb Bush’s Super PAC Right to Rise USA — and it did so after receiving detailed advice from Charlie Spies, arguably the most important Republican campaign finance lawyer in American politics.
Part 2: Power Couple: Meet the Chinese Husband-and-Wife Team Whose Company Spent $1.3 Million Trying to Make Jeb Bush President
Following that call, Tang telephoned Yu directly in Hong Kong. Speaking with her in Cantonese, Tang was alternately threatening and cajoling, asking Yu to prevent The Intercept from referencing unverified claims on Chinese-language websites that he had been accused of smuggling, tax evasion, and bribery in Shantou. If she did, Tang said, when he came to Hong Kong the following week he would give her “a red packet of 200,000 dollars, so we can be friends,” adding, “I don’t even know why you want to be a reporter, reporters make so little money.”
Part 3: Cracks in the Dam: Three Paths Citizens United Created for Foreign Money to Pour Into U.S. Elections
One foreseeable effect of this was that the question of whether a campaign contributor was foreign or not went from a yes-or-no question to something altogether hazier, where even experts in campaign finance law can’t say for certain whether the government has grounds to sanction the donor.

This would matter less if the Federal Election Commission, the body charged with overseeing campaign finance law, were a well-resourced, ferocious watchdog, developing rules for such things and enforcing them. But it’s exactly the opposite, with inaction built into its structure by Congress: There are six commissioners, but no more than three can be members of the same party. These days, with the Republican commissioners adamantly opposed to enforcing even existing laws, crucial votes often tie 3-3. The commission has a difficult time just deciding to open inquiries into potential violations; it conducted 36 investigations in 2005, but only four in 2013.
Part 4: A “Desperate” Seller: Gary Locke, While Obama’s Ambassador to China, Got a Chinese Tycoon to Buy His House
Two years into his ambassadorship, Locke was speaking openly with businesspeople about eventually moving back home, says Wilson Chen, an executive with APIC. Locke was “desperate to sell” and was looking for buyers for the suburban Maryland house he had purchased in 2009, while serving in Obama’s cabinet. Chen added that he and an associate met with Locke in Beijing and heard that Locke’s “broker didn’t do a good job” and the house had languished on the market for several months. So Chen’s family became involved.

In September 2013, five months before completing his stint in Beijing as ambassador, Locke sold his home for $1.68 million to Huaidan Chen, a Chinese citizen and the wife of Gordon Tang, the Singapore-based Chinese businessman in control of APIC. Wilson Chen is Huaidan Chen’s brother.

Three months after Locke’s home sale, Wilson Chen was invited to an exclusive meeting convened by Locke in the ambassador’s Beijing residence to discuss real estate opportunities in the U.S. with other developers.
Reporting by Lee Fang, Jon Schwarz, and Elaine Yu.
posted by kyp (67 comments total) 29 users marked this as a favorite
 
So is CU a way for foreign money to influence American elections, or a new crop of rubes to be fleeced by Republican campaign consultants?
posted by fatbird at 2:51 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Both?
posted by kyp at 2:53 PM on August 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


Let us not forget that when Obama made the State of the Union speech quoted at the top, cameras cut to Justice Alito sitting in the audience mouthing 'not true'. Alito was wrong. Again.

This Court is out of touch with reality in ways that are devastating.
posted by Frayed Knot at 2:54 PM on August 3, 2016 [25 favorites]


Citizens United was really a shockingly, unforgivably bad ruling. Such a gut punch to American Democracy.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 2:59 PM on August 3, 2016 [10 favorites]


"This is fine."
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:09 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


If The Intercept wants to persuade me that foreign money is having a powerful effect on US politics (and as someone who hates CU, I'm sympathetic to the proposition), they shouldn't lead with "the family who tried to make Jeb Bush president."
posted by belarius at 3:13 PM on August 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


I feel like the Jeb Bush angle could be a way of sort of backing into the subject. People are already talking about Russia and Trump. But making the article about Russia and Trump is more complicated and might lead to it getting dismissed as just a hit piece on Trump. If you make it about someone else who lost in the primaries, then you can show how huge amounts of money are entering the system this way without it supposedly being about the current general election.
posted by Sequence at 3:19 PM on August 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Let us not forget that when Obama made the State of the Union speech quoted at the top, cameras cut to Justice Alito sitting in the audience mouthing 'not true'. Alito was wrong. Again.

Citizens United didn't overturn the ban on icky foreigners expending funds to influence elections. What the article discusses is a failure of enforcement, not a failure of the law.
posted by jpe at 3:44 PM on August 3, 2016


What the article discusses is a failure of enforcement, not a failure of the law.

What the article discusses is the law becoming more or less unenforceable.
posted by Francis at 3:48 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Any problems could be fixed through disclosure. If we're going to abrogate constitutional rights, the least restrictive means must be used.
posted by jpe at 3:52 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


jpe, I feel like you're arguing a certain aspect of it that's not obvious. Rules prohibiting foreigners from spending cash on candidates are about preventing direct foreign influence on candidates and avoiding conflicts of interest at the national scale. Are you saying that foreigners' first amendment rights trump those concerns, or does anti-CU feeling seem to you to be xenophobic?
posted by fatbird at 3:55 PM on August 3, 2016


BTW, assuming the company followed the memo - and, given that they doubtlessly spent thousands on it, it would be odd if they didn't - then what happened is that a US individual made a contribution to a superpac out of US derived earnings.

On its face, that's underwhelming.
posted by jpe at 4:06 PM on August 3, 2016


Rules prohibiting foreigners from spending cash on candidates are about preventing direct foreign influence on candidates and avoiding conflicts of interest at the national scale

We already know that motivation is insufficient, constitutionally, to prohibit speech by US persons. Why would foreigners' speech be any different unless it derived from their ickiness?

So yeah, there's certainly xenophobia informing this particular line of attack.
posted by jpe at 4:08 PM on August 3, 2016


Why would foreigners' speech be any different unless it derived from their ickiness

Because you don't agree that money is speech, and you're trying to limit their money, not their speech?

From CU establishing that foreigners do have a right to freedom of speech wrt contributions to American politicians, it doesn't follow that the motive of those worried about foreign influence over American leaders is xenophobia. You're demanding consistency between concerns. Curtailing the role of foreign influence in a direct quid pro quo setting is a competing interest.
posted by fatbird at 4:20 PM on August 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


I think it's because unless you totally reject the notion of sovereignty and the State (which OK, I am at least in the same room with you still but that's a pretty radical argument and it probably needs some lead-up) it undermines a people's ability to self-govern if outside actors are influencing the political process. The idea behind a democracy is that it is run by and represents its citizens, not just anybody. Once you start allowing people from outside the State to influence elections, the whole enterprise begins to fall apart.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 4:22 PM on August 3, 2016 [19 favorites]


My friends, foreign governments are people!
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:25 PM on August 3, 2016 [8 favorites]


No, jpe: you are directly advocating for foreign influences in US domestic affairs.

And that is wrong, damaging and dangerous on so many levels.

Let's start with this one: you equate money to speech. The more money, the more speech. Which means the richer you are, the more of a vote you have.

Now isn't that the very definition of un-american?

Hell, any foreign government has money. They should be able to spend that to influence another government's elections, surely!

Then we get into the fact that a sovereign nation's fate should be determined by it's inhabitants. And here's you saying 'hey, it's xenophobic to not allow a foreigner to influence another countries workings!'?

A democratic republic has to be run by it's own citizens or it becomes a protectorate, a dependancy, a vasal state.

And you are fine with that.

Bring on the strawman of 'free speech'. But that one only works because you eqaute money with speech. And that, frankly, is disgusting. It is called corruption.

I know this is the Blue, and civility and discourse is the foundation of this community. But, sorry:

You disgust me, jpe. You are directly advocating corruption and foreign influence on a sovereign nation and that is diametrically opposed to any justice or self-rule.

I find the current state of US politics equally disgusting. But your thin veneer of 'oh, that's xenophobic and anti free speech' is just ... it's actually quite amazing.
posted by MacD at 4:32 PM on August 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


Obama's statement would have had more moral weight if the US didn't try to influence foreign elections. E.g.:
US funds aided 2015 campaign to oust Netanyahu, Senate probe finds

Basically, the US-funded One Voice organisation prepared for an Israeli election using US grant money, and then dissolved itself and turned its organisational assets over to V15, an "anyone but Netanyahu" political group. In doing this it was guided by US strategists including Jeremy Bird, Obama's 2012 National Field Director, who was (self?) described as Obama's grassroots ambassador in Tel-Aviv. You should read the whole report, it's pretty damning and gives a lot of details that the news reports omit.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:41 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


ecause you don't agree that money is speech, and you're trying to limit their money, not their speech?

If money isn't speech, then we could ban any expenditures that newspapers make on political endorsements. More generally, if money isn't an instrumentality by which we exercise rights, we could, say, ban any use of money for purchasing guns or the procurement and performance of an abortion.
posted by jpe at 4:41 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


But that one only works because you eqaute money with speech.

The ACLU:

Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.
posted by jpe at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2016


Seems like it just comes right back to the central question of whether money is, or can be in some circumstances, speech.

I don't think many people would argue that foreigners and foreign governments do not have the right to speak about US elections. I mean, it certainly happens here (and threads on non-US elections/governments get plenty of Americans commenting in them too).

If money is protected as speech, then it seems like that should carry over as well. If not, then that would be true inside the US as well.

I do think the issue is a little complicated, while my heart says money is not speech (and obviously in a literal sense it is not), the issue of how precisely you regulate that does get complicated, since you can use money to buy the ability to speak louder.
posted by thefoxgod at 4:58 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Oh, and here's what the US State Dept had to say about a new Israeli law that requires financial declarations from NGOs receiving more than half their funding from overseas governments:
“We are deeply concerned that this law can have a chilling effect on the activities that these worthwhile organizations are trying to do.”
Obama's administration (like earlier ones, I presume) wants to have things both ways: it wants the freedom to secretly influence things overseas, but it's concerned about foreign governments doing the same thing at home. I can understand why it wants that, but it's an unjustifiable position that creates an impression of underhandedness and paranoia. Let the State Department and foreign individuals/agents do what they want, IMO, but let there be full disclosure.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:59 PM on August 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Clearly, gross foreigners shouldn't have the privilege of free speech.

Trust me, there are more than 144 Chinese people.
posted by srboisvert at 5:59 PM on August 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


If money isn't speech, then we could ban any expenditures that newspapers make on political endorsements.

Ok, but this doesn't speak to whether the motive for opposing foreign contributions to politicians is xenophobia.

if money isn't an instrumentality by which we exercise rights

While I think that the practical possibilities of exercising ones rights are material to having that right, it doesn't follow that a useful instrumentality must be unlimited, only not curtailed unnecessarily.

... and how much political speech is appropriate...

Here I disagree with the ACLU.
posted by fatbird at 6:08 PM on August 3, 2016


So yeah, there's certainly xenophobia informing this particular line of attack.

oppostion to foreign oligarchs buying our elections is xenophobic. peak fucking metafilter.
posted by p3on at 6:36 PM on August 3, 2016 [27 favorites]


P3on, I'm a non-US person with US relatives. I don't want Trump to win for that and other reasons. Is there a good reason I can't donate to Hillary's campaign?
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:22 PM on August 3, 2016


Is there a good reason I can't donate to Hillary's campaign?

Because allowing you to donate as an individual creates an easily exploited loophole that's difficult to investigate because it occurs outside of U.S. jurisdiction.
posted by fatbird at 7:36 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


P3on, I'm a non-US person with US relatives. I don't want Trump to win for that and other reasons. Is there a good reason I can't donate to Hillary's campaign?

for the same reason you shouldn't want putin being able to invest state funds into the trump campaign. it's fucking incredible to me that this has to be spelled out.
posted by p3on at 7:41 PM on August 3, 2016 [13 favorites]


like by all means cheer for the side you identify with internationally, a lot of people do that, but thinking you have the right to interfere in our political process directly is offensive to me on a personal level. the first amendment doesn't apply to non-US citizens.
posted by p3on at 7:46 PM on August 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


for the same reason you shouldn't want putin being able to invest state funds into the trump campaign

Only if you agree with the idea that companies/governments are the same as people (as Citizens United argued). Otherwise, there's a huge difference between individuals giving money and companies/governments doing so. I think most people here see that difference.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:48 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


the first amendment doesn't apply to non-US citizens

Thats absolutely not true.
posted by thefoxgod at 7:48 PM on August 3, 2016 [2 favorites]


Only if you agree with the idea that companies/governments are the same as people (as Citizens United argued). Otherwise, there's a huge difference between individuals giving money and companies/governments doing so. I think most people here see that difference.

ok, then putin personally. if we allowed for one it would be impossible on a practical level to bar the other. i seriously can't believe we're having this discussion right now.
posted by p3on at 7:49 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


"foreign donors should be able to interfere with our sovereignty and undermine our democratic process" is an extremely high level of woke i admit i am unprepared for
posted by p3on at 7:55 PM on August 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


citizens united was bad, but you know what would make it better: what if instead of just shadowy unaccountable domestic donors impressing undue influence on our elections, we let everyone in the whole world do it
posted by p3on at 7:57 PM on August 3, 2016 [5 favorites]


On the 1st Amendement issue, to be fair it is far from firmly decided in Supreme Court history. The closest actual decision I can find is from Bridges v. Wixon: “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country”. So it clearly applies to some non-citizens.

(Also note that you do NOT have to be a citizen to contribute! Permanent residents have been allowed to contribute to campaigns since well before CU).

There is debate amongst lawyers as to how much of the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens or non-residents. Volokh Conspiracy talks about it here, you can find tons of discussion on Google in both directions.

I don't buy that foreign contributions from individuals, if subject to the same restrictions as citizens and residents of the US, undermines democracy. I might buy that it is harder, as fatbird suggests, to actually enforce those laws in the case of non-citizens/non-residents. Of course, by the same logic, there's very little we can do about foreign individuals/companies/governments spending money in foreign media (that is still available/seen in the US) to influence US elections. And of course the US has no qualms about intervening in other countries governance.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:04 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


This is all a bunch of over-blown, sky-is-falling nonsense. Citizens United wasn't a revolutionary change, it was just a continuation of a 2 century trend in American democracy.

It's only a problem if you subscribe to the (silly) idea of democracy as a zero-sum game. Just because someone else has the equivalent of 1,000 votes doesn't mean your one vote doesn't count. Your vote is still valuable, and your voice will be heard.

Just because some people have more democracy than others doesn't mean democracy is broken or a bad idea. In fact, one person: one vote is really closer to Socialism than a healthy marketplace of ideas.

My neighbor on the right has a much nicer car than me. My neighbor on the left has an older, jankier car. Neither of these facts affect how much I like my car or how well my car drives. I worked hard for my car and I like it a lot, and take great care of it.

What if we were all forced to have the same car? How would we decide what car to get? Can my other neighbors even drive a stick shift? Would my less well off neighbor be able to properly care for a more expensive car?

We should be allowed to buy and sell as much democracy as we need/can afford.
posted by Anoplura at 8:13 PM on August 3, 2016


ok, apologies, i was using shorthand. what i meant to say with that sentence was "if you aren't a citizen you aren't entitled to anything in the US besides a fair trial by our standards" -- certainly not the right to influence elections. that said, it is extremely, definitely illegal for foreigners to donate to political campaigns, for reasons that i hope are obvious by now.

I don't buy that foreign contributions from individuals, if subject to the same restrictions as citizens and residents of the US, undermines democracy.

non-citizens are not invested in the results in the same immediate ways as citizens. democracy is basically the opposite of foreign entities making our political decisions for us. self-rule is like the single most fundamental characteristic of democracy. i don't understand why you wouldn't find some party appartchik in china or oil mogul in russia having a role deciding who should be our president alarming

And of course the US has no qualms about intervening in other countries governance.

okay
posted by p3on at 8:14 PM on August 3, 2016 [4 favorites]


Why do we even need an American to be president? Don't we have like...webex and shit now?
posted by oceanjesse at 8:42 PM on August 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Mod note: Let's move this away from performance art, please. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 10:36 PM on August 3, 2016


I have difficulty distinguishing between my right to free speech-as-speech and my right to expenditure-as-speech. Surely nobody would say that I can't write a pro-Hillary letter to a US newspaper. But if I can do that, why couldn't I hire a billboard with a pro-Hillary message? And if I can do those things, why shouldn't I be able to send her $27?
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:46 PM on August 3, 2016


my right to free speech-as-speech and my right to expenditure-as-speech

your right?
posted by p3on at 10:54 PM on August 3, 2016


Well, yes. Surely you acknowledge that non-citizens have rights; I thought we were just discussing their extent.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:56 PM on August 3, 2016


§ 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 434(f)(3) of this title)

foreign nationals explicitly do not have a right to expenditure-as-speech in the context of political contributions
posted by p3on at 10:57 PM on August 3, 2016 [6 favorites]


Yes, that's what we're discussing. Is that law a good one? Is it Constitutional? It might be unconstitutional, you know, in which case it is no law at all. But even if it is Constitutional, perhaps I should have a right to send $27 to Hillary, particularly since I would apparently have a right to send $1.3 million to Jeb Bush via a corporation.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:23 PM on August 3, 2016


do non-americans not understand the idea of foreigners interfering with our elections is infuriating no matter what side it's on? like is it that difficult to extrapolate it to your own country and think about how you would feel?
posted by p3on at 11:25 PM on August 3, 2016 [7 favorites]


Firstly, the US has interfered with elections in many countries, possibly including Australia.

But secondly, can we agree that you'd be cool with me writing a letter to (say) the New York Times, urging voters to support Hillary?
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:57 PM on August 3, 2016 [1 favorite]


Seriously p3on do you not have ANY idea just how much the US meddles in the affairs of other nations? The reason that we're irritated is that the US already does exactly this thing that you are talking about.
posted by the existence of stars below the horizon at 12:38 AM on August 4, 2016 [2 favorites]


Sorry I should say that I'm not advocating that outsiders should be allowed to intervene in US elections. Just gently trying to suggest that it would be nice if the US would refrain from intervening in our domestic affairs too? And that perhaps a certain amount of annoyance at our end might be justified?
posted by the existence of stars below the horizon at 1:05 AM on August 4, 2016


do non-americans not understand the idea of foreigners interfering with our elections is infuriating no matter what side it's on?

Very much so, so I'm sure you're finding it just as infuriating that the US are interfering with other elections, and I'm happy to say we can close this argument, we are in agreement on that.

Now, what I keep being baffled about is that money equals speech, simply because money is used to actually express that speech (either by buying a stamp to post your letter full of speech, or by buying that soap-box you're standing on in the corner of the park), and when following that line of thought, concluding that just spending the money without doing anything else, like opening your mouth, is thus free speech too. That's a step I have great difficulty taking, and from what I see that step is at the core of this whole thing.
posted by DreamerFi at 1:43 AM on August 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


I don't think the US government should be directly interfering in foreign elections any more than foreign governments should be interfering in ours. It's one thing to go on the teevee and say "candidate X sucks" and another thing entirely to give money/things of value to candidate X.

In the former case the attempt to influence is open and obvious and people can take it or leave it. The latter is..not. Especially if the money is actually going to some dark money SuperPAC that is ostensibly independent but in reality coordinates with a candidate.

Same reason I think money=speech is stupid. Money can sometimes enable speech or make speech more effective, but is not itself speech. Money buys things, it does not say things.
posted by wierdo at 1:43 AM on August 4, 2016 [3 favorites]


Money as speech. What is this world becoming.

The upside is that even by that rationale, if we agree that politicians should have equal exposure (since their free speech rights are equal, yes?), then spending should still be equalized, i.e. limited.

There is such a deep hypocrisy in this that I wonder if it isn't why "free speech" has been vociferously and vigorously invoked. As a distraction from the flaming pile of hypocritical poo that anyone and everyone can see.

Foreigners: Citizens United don't want 'em in the US, sure as hell don't listen to immigrants, but foreign money? Oh yeah, THAT'S free speech. Uh-huh. Yeah. Right.

Money is free speech? Well then what about voting? Oh that's right, they don't want US residents without citizenship expressing their voices in how their country of residence treats them. Note that in France, legal residents who don't have citizenship are allowed to vote in local and regional elections (but not presidential elections). Pretty sure there are other countries that allow it as well.

Likewise, most other democratic countries have much stronger limits on spending, as well as equalized time constraints on campaign publicity. This is one way smaller parties get an equal voice, for instance.

I now predict that negative reactions to this will turn on it being tantamount to listening to foreign ideas about how US elections are run.
posted by fraula at 4:58 AM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


But secondly, can we agree that you'd be cool with me writing a letter to (say) the New York Times, urging voters to support Hillary?

Ooooh, make sure to condescend as much as possible and mention that you don't even live here.
posted by indubitable at 5:51 AM on August 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Just because someone else has the equivalent of 1,000 votes doesn't mean your one vote doesn't count. Your vote is still valuable, and your voice will be heard.

This has been litigated to hell and back in this thread, but I just want to point out that this is one of the most profoundly horrifying and undemocratic things I've read all morning, and I've been clicking a bunch of links out of the election thread.

Any policy that gives one voter more than one vote is an attack on the principles upon which the country is founded. It should be treated as a direct assault on democracy.
posted by Mayor West at 6:48 AM on August 4, 2016 [13 favorites]


Never mind the fact that the reason that these folks have disproportionate power is because they are using their power to get even more power. So it's worse, since those 1000 votes will be put toward ensuring 10,000 votes the next time and so on until there is no actual democracy left.
posted by Zalzidrax at 7:03 AM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


Just because someone else has the equivalent of 1,000 votes doesn't mean your one vote doesn't count. Your vote is still valuable, and your voice will be heard.

I'm 94% sure this was intended to be satire meant to illustrate the problems with making democracy subordinate to capitalism, but it's hard to tell.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:18 AM on August 4, 2016 [7 favorites]


There's plenty of anti-populist sentiment in the election threads to feed my disgust towards capitalist apologetics. We're definitely in crisis of legitimacy territory.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 10:18 AM on August 4, 2016


Obama's statement would have had more moral weight if the US didn't try to influence foreign elections. E.g.:
US funds aided 2015 campaign to oust Netanyahu, Senate probe finds

Basically, the US-funded One Voice organisation prepared for an Israeli election using US grant money, and then dissolved itself and turned its organisational assets over to V15, an "anyone but Netanyahu" political group. In doing this it was guided by US strategists including Jeremy Bird, Obama's 2012 National Field Director, who was (self?) described as Obama's grassroots ambassador in Tel-Aviv. You should read the whole report, it's pretty damning and gives a lot of details that the news reports omit.


That's a pretty one-sided and not-entirely-accurate representation of what happened: Netanyahu’s claim that ‘tens of millions’ in foreign money was aimed against him: (two Pinocchios)
Even under Netanyahu’s count, it’s difficult to get much past $10 million when examining groups confirmed to have engaged in election campaigning. Clearly, claiming “tens of millions” appears to be an exaggeration — one that he tried to take back in his NBC interview. He would be on more solid ground to claim “millions,” but the actual number may not be known for a while, if ever.

By adding in the groups backing a peace settlement that are supported by European governments and American donors, Netayahu gets closer to his figure. But, as we noted, the line is very blurry in Israeli politics. Whether all such funds were devoted specifically to the election is debatable. Moreover, Netanyahu opens himself to charges of hypocrisy given the in-kind support he received from Adelson.
Also, it should be noted that Adelson is connected to Israel Hayom, a paper that even many Israelis consider a Netanyahu mouthpiece, and yet has been unabashedly pro-Trump while remaining pretty much silent on his anti-Semitism and especially that of his supporters.

Rubio’s claim that Obama sent his ‘political machine’ to Israel to defeat Netanyahu (three Pinocchios)
[A]s yet there has been no documented evidence that Obama had any involvement in Bird’s association with V15, let alone he “sent” Bird and his “entire political machine” to Israel in an effort to influence the election.

Certainly, Obama would have been happy to see Netanyahu lose—and clearly the reaction to the Netanyahu’s victory suggests the White House is unhappy that Netanyahu won so convincingly. But that does not support Rubio’s conspiracy theories, which as far as we can tell is based on the activities of a single former Obama campaign operative.
Blog claims U.S. funded anti-Netanyahu election effort in Israel: (mostly false)
First, there is the matter of the dollar amount. If any U.S. money was used to mobilize anti-Likud voters, it would have been in Israel. A more accurate figure would be $233,500.

Next, there is a matter of the blog’s tense. "Has been sending" says the action is continuing. In this case, the money stopped flowing in 2014, before elections were called in Israel.

Finally, the allegation that the money was spent to fund anti-Likud, anti-Netanyahu groups in Israel for the election is based on speculation. Yes, Obama sent money to OneVoice, a group that promoted a two-state solution. And yes that group partnered with a different group V15 that wanted Netanyahu defeated. But there is no paper trail that the money given to OneVoice was spent on an electoral ground game. It would be naive to ignore that OneVoice’s policy positions mesh well with V15’s voter mobilization, but that’s different from saying that American taxpayer dollars were spent by V15.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:37 AM on August 4, 2016


ZombieFlanders, did you read the Senate report? It's a year later than the Politifact article you quote and it makes specific criticisms.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:40 AM on August 4, 2016


None of which match the implied accusations that either Obama, the US government, or State Department officials were guilty of trying to influence the election; nor that Jeremy Bird or indeed anyone with his group was directly involved (let alone instrumental) in hatching or perpetuating said non-existent plot. It's "damning" in that, despite what happened being 100% legal under current regulations, it believes the guidance for State Department's grants process is flawed and has been for some time, and that the most blame that could be laid at any American official's feet was that a regional diplomat gave rubber-stamp approval. In other words, there is nothing there that says this scenario was, by a very long shot, either the first or the worst time where those issues have come up.

The US directly trying to influence foreign elections is definitely a thing, but it's not true in this case, and in any event the accusation coming from Netanyahu and the US GOP is extremely hypocritical. This is a bad example using a bad caricature of Obama and his administration.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:07 PM on August 4, 2016


like what is the end point for that argument? americans should cede our sovereignty and democratic system to apologize for state department propaganda programs?
posted by p3on at 1:07 PM on August 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


The end point is asking you to dial down the rhetoric by a very large factor. When it comes to matters of "people from country A meddling in the domestic affairs of country B" Americans are kind of obligated to show nuance, don't you think?
posted by the existence of stars below the horizon at 4:00 PM on August 4, 2016


i'm not a fan of foreigners interfering with domestic democratic affairs no matter where it happens, including incidents of the state department interfering overseas. i'm not going to dial down rhetoric for something i actually personally care about because contrarian liberals feel reflexive guilt by association for radio free europe or whatever. it's possible to hold the same position about both situations. demanding deference to nuance is some meaningless drivel when we're talking about literal subversion of our elections.
posted by p3on at 4:04 PM on August 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


You do know that MetaFilter isn't an exclusively American website, right? And so what you're demanding here is the right - as a member of the single most powerful nation in all of human history - to be outraged at any hints of foreign interference in your elections, while dismissing any pushback from members of less powerful nations, including pushback from people from countries whose elections your country has actively interfered with in the past? Is that really what you want to be doing here? Frankly, my view would be that "deference to nuance" is the bare minimum you can do if your goal is to behave like a civilised member of an international community.

But look, it's your call in the end - I agree with your sense of annoyance that your elections might be compromised by outside influence. I share it because that's pretty much standard fare for most people in most countries. As weaker nations we don't have the luxury of pretending that our domestic affairs are purely our own to manage. It's just how it works. But in any case, I think I might walk away because I'm not sure we're having a terribly productive discussion.
posted by the existence of stars below the horizon at 4:12 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


And so what you're demanding here is the right - as a member of the single most powerful nation in all of human history - to be outraged at any hints of foreign interference in your elections,

i don't care about 'hints', i care about flouting of laws intended to keep foreign money out of american elections. lines have to be drawn somewhere. i don't see anyone in here demanding the ccp be more receptive to american lobbying.

As weaker nations we don't have the luxury of pretending that our domestic affairs are purely our own to manage. It's just how it works.

this defeatism is probably not a healthy attitude or conducive to productive change. demand accountability from your representatives if you feel your elections have undue foreign influence instead of demanding everyone else roll over as well.
posted by p3on at 4:16 PM on August 4, 2016 [1 favorite]


while dismissing any pushback from members of less powerful nations

He's not dismissing the pushback, he agrees with their complaints about America doing it to them. The pushback is misdirected. He's not defending American interference.
posted by fatbird at 4:29 PM on August 4, 2016 [5 favorites]


Again, I really don't disagree with that position. I'm asking, as gently as I can, to dial back on grossly condescending statements like "do non-americans not understand the idea of foreigners interfering with our elections is infuriating"... because obviously we do understand this. Foreign nations do this to us all the time, the US being one of the most notable meddlers. It sucks. I sympathise with Americans on this one.
posted by the existence of stars below the horizon at 5:53 PM on August 4, 2016 [4 favorites]


Yesterday's Democracy Now! broadcast (at about 50 minutes, alt link) covers this story from The Intercept.
posted by XMLicious at 9:50 AM on August 5, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older Kim Jong Il: The man who brought love to North...   |   Missouri governor appointed as a public defender... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments