Foreign Lobbying is Okay - But Not This?

In Canada's cash, Tony Blankley, former press secretary to Newt Gingrich, acknowledges that foreign nationals are prohibited by law from contributing directly to a candidate for U.S. federal office or to the candidate's election campaign. Nonetheless, he finds it highly problematic that they might contribute to advocacy organizations which, in turn, support a particular political position which may weigh in a federal election:

Whatever the legality of these methods turns out to be, it is stunning that a major candidate for president would think nothing of being seen to raise foreign money. This lack of judgment is only compounded by the fact that we are at war, and the money is being solicited by the foreigners expressly to try to stop President Bush from carrying out our war on terrorism.

(Oh, those evil Canadians.) Blankley continues with this assertion - suggesting that any Canadians who provide indirect support for General Clark are "supporters of the enemy in time of war". Oh, really.

What Blankley fails to acknowledge is that foreign nationals and foreign governments already wield significant influence on Capital Hill, courtesy of their significant expenditures on lobbying. From Billy Carter to Neil Bush, foreign powers have not even hesitated to make significant contributions to the President's close relatives in the hope of influencing White House policy. Why does Blankley find it objectionable that foreign individuals might make small contributions to groups which advocate a particular political position, possibly indirectly supporting a candidate for federal office, but has no apparent problem with foreign lobbyists pouring cash into direct and overt efforts to change U.S. government policy? The answer seems obvious - Blankley recognizes that the individuals at issue are likely to contribute because they oppose present Republican policy, whereas foreign corporations and governments have a very different agenda. Foreign money is fine - but only if it advances Republican interests and if it helps keep Bush in the White House.

Blankley poses an interesting question,

What would be an appropriate cut-off date for permitting terrorism supporting Saudi Princes or multi-billionaire international currency manipulators from buying advertising intended to manipulate American public opinion and bring down a president?

Presumably, the members of the Bin Laden family with whom the President has a long, documented relationship, and the members of the Saudi Royal Family who routinely meet with President Bush in efforts to influence his policies are not "terrorism supporting"? (Wahhabism and support for terrorism, after all, emerge in a vacuum, despite the complete opposition of Saudi Arabia's opressive, totalitarian oligarchy. And the state-sponsored press never engages in rhetoric against U.S. interests or in support of terrorism.)

A footnote: In an observation worthy of idiotorial status, Blankley states,

It should be noted that the CanadaForClark Web site asserts that: "This site is not affiliated in any way with the official Clark campaign." But, of course, the official campaign Web site links to the "not affiliated" Web site.

I happen to run a sizeable Internet directory, primarily of expert witnesses, which links to a lot of sites and contains a similar disclaimer. And guess what - it's true.

Comments