E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA super political action committee supporting Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has refunded a $50,000 donation from a London-based securities firm.
A spokesman for the group said Tuesday that the action was taken because the contribution could have violated a U.S. law that guards against foreign money in American political campaigns.
Al Goldis / AP
A political action committee supporting Rick Santorum has refunded a $50,000 donation from a London-based securities firm.
The donation returned last month was the first acknowledged evidence of foreign money surfacing in the 2012 presidential race. The concern has worried political observers following a landmark 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that removed restrictions on corporate and individual donations to political committees supporting presidential candidates.
See related: Michigan voters prefer Santorum to Romney
Stuart Roy, the spokesman for the Red, White and Blue super PAC, said the $50,000 donation made in January by Liquid Capital Markets Ltd. originated with an American executive at the firm. The money was returned, Roy said, because the donation was mistakenly drawn from the foreign firm's accounts.
Under U.S. law, foreign corporations, individuals and governments have been prohibited since 1966 from providing funds for national elections — a ban the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.
But the court's earlier ruling in the case of Citizens United enabled U.S. corporations and other well-financed donors to give money to political committees that avoid direct coordination with individual campaigns. Later rulings gave these super PACs more latitude by allowing donors to make unlimited donations with minimal disclosure, which spurred alarm about hidden donations from foreign sources.
The Associated Press reported less than two weeks ago, before the disclosure about the $50,000 refund, on growing concerns among election law experts about the prospect of illegal foreign donations because of the massive amounts of money flowing to the super PACs and lax oversight of disclosure. One Federal Election Commission member, Cynthia L. Bauerly, warned of the potential for circumventing existing rules.
Roy said the $50,000 donation was proposed by an American executive at Liquid Capital Markets in London. Roy said the executive informed super PAC officials he intended to make the donation then mistakenly provided the money from the firm's accounts — which would have violated the ban on foreign money.
Red, White and Blue's officials noticed the discrepancy and quickly returned the donation, Roy said.
"We had spoken to one of the executives there who's an American citizen," he said. "But instead of sending the money himself, he sent it from the company."
Roy did not identify the executive, but Liquid Capital Market's website describes its CEO, Chris Siepman, and his brother, Gregg Siepman, a co-founder of the company, as Americans. There was no immediate response to attempts by the AP to reach Chris Siepman or other Liquid Capital officials.
Leave a Comment:
How much foreign money Obama get in 08?
None, that could be traced.
However, when done properly, it can't be traced. That's why groups like Carl Rove's two organizations exist. One takes donations and does not have to disclose its donors, then the money is contributed to the second which runs the political ads. All perfectly legal. Not ethical, but since when did ethics have anything to do with politics.
So the donor said Oops! and immediately put the money in a plain envelope and sent it directly to Santorum's home address, as instructed... All politicians are on the take. Politicians on the take will take from anyone - highest bidder wins. This can't be a surprise to anyone.
We'll see a lot of this. It's easy, just have your foreign corporation cut the American member a big check and voila.........
It seems that this company is having trouble with staff bonuses lately when I google them. What is Santorum's point of view on staff bonuses on wall street. This business does most of its stuff through their Chicago office.
When asked about his position on the Citizen's United ruling, which now allows unknown influence on our elections--including possible foreign donations--Santorum replied:
"So we went to the donar and we said, ‘look, we would love to have the money, but if anyone finds out...I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake. We can’t have money from illegals, I mean foreigners!"
@elliot-3020456
ZERO Dollars.
BTW, these foreign corporations should funnel in money like how Carl Rove got from China in 2010 - create a shell corporation in the US, transfer money from foreign accounts to the shell corporation account, donate from that and then close the shell corporation. How hard is it to understand.
Romney even got donation from a US citizen via shell corporation which was created just for this purpose.
How much money did he get in 08.
Nibor--You don't have an answer but like to sow the seed of suspicion. How McCarthyite of you.
@ 1.6
I believe it is your party i.e. Clinton/Gore that are the kings of Chinese money influence , you may want to "clean your own doorstep" before playing with the big boys...hahaha...isn't it cool?
haha...McCarthy tried to warn us about the "progressives" , yes...that is what the communists in America called themselves...sound familiar?
donation made in January by Liquid Capital Markets Ltd. originated with an American executive at the firm.The money was returned because the donation was mistakenly drawn from the foreign firm's accounts.
surely there is another way the americans can safely make a donation?
From the article : "The donation returned last month was the first acknowledged evidence of foreign money surfacing in the 2012 presidential race."
Total LIES.
Obama's campaign returned a donation they got caught taking from a mexican national who has an arrest warrant out for him in the US for drug trafficking. Seems he was trying to buy a pardon.
MSN ran an article about it, so they know about it.
That means they are being DELIBERATELY deceptive. In plain english, they are LYING.
Say, did you know that Ron Paul correctly predicted the citizens united decision....in 2006?
True story. He even proposed legislation to try to stop it from happening. Oddly enough, a total liberal Toasty McGrath pointed this out to me. Of course, he was trying to discredit Ron Paul but had not read the bill, just other peoples opinions of it. Anyhoo.....
It's a very simple bill, hj res 78. Here is the entire text of it:
`Section 1. Nothing in this Constitution shall prohibit Congress and the States from imposing content-neutral regulations and restrictions on the expenditure of funds for political activity by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity, including but not limited to contributions in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office.
`Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.'.
Liberals for Ron Paul 2012
No more dead soldiers for oil.
eliot - NONE Try again with your hatred
FIRST: Sanatorum is supposed to have nothing to do with the PAC so he "had nothing to do" with the contribution or its return. SECOND: The contribution was illegal and should have been refused. THIRD: It was returned only after it was uncovered. FOURTH: What Santorum was supposed not to know, but obviously did, in fact, know are two different things -- "moral values". BTW: The contributor could well have been trying to get Santorum the GOP nomination so as to insure Obama's reelection.
Barbara,
Funny how you equate a simple question with "hatred". It was a question, that while answered with "zero" without even researching it would lead one to believe that you have blind allegiance to someone.
Barbara et al: How about citing some authority -- just because you like Obama doesn't make his actions anymore legal than Santorums As to Romney and Rove, they acted w/i the law. If you don't think the Democrats use the same "loop hole" go back to kinder garden. BTW: I vaguely remember Obama in 2008 breaking a promise not to take contributions from one place or another. Anyone remember that?
I guess foreigners arent people too.
Corporations and one percenters are allowed to own our politicians, why not foreigners.
Super PACs are so damn corrupt. Why are they allowed again?
Because superpacs are people too according to our esteemed supreme court.
As yes, our esteemed SCOTUS. Appears even they aren't above government corruption these days.
The Citizens United decision struck down part of McCain-Feingold, giving birth to the SuperPAC.
On one side, they were right in saying that the First Amendment rights should not be infringed by limiting political speech. But the implications of it are horrible.
Soon enough we'll have the "modern" Gettysburg address: "government of the money, by the money, for the money..."
the Repuicks wanted it
Citizens United was, without question, 100% a republican brainchild. Came straight from the GOP lobbyists on K Street.
If it is found that foreign money has gotten in to our political campaigns as a result of Citizens United, then I would hope that Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia have enough humility to resign.
Whats ina Name
I think you are correct, but what may have precipitated this is the decision by Pres. Obama to forgo the government funded campaign in '08. After his decision to finance his run, it was Sen. Feingold who said that campaign finance reform is now dead. The flood gates of big money opened up with that election and the money spent was amazing. People may try to argue that the Pres. got a lot of money from small donors and they would be correct, but he also got a huge amount of money from cooperate donors, and now we all pay.
I would suggest that we now have the technology to list every person that writes a check to have that name and information on line as soon as the check is cashed. Let people see exactly who is putting up the millions of dollars for these campaigns.
Yeah, but Obama's moves in campaign finance have been reactive, not pro-active. He challenged McCain to go at it with public funding only. McCain refused, so they both went with private funding.
Same thing is sort of happening now. He was opposed to Super-PACs, but every single possible contender will have one (they all already do). It is only fair that he gets one too.
As commendable as it would be to stand on principle, I can't blame the man for playing by the same rules as the other team; as messed up as the rules are.
At the end this is a foundation and an ethics problem. Who really rules the rule makers?
Feingold was on the Daily Show the other day, he said something that is very true: [The rules will only change when a scandal breaks]. And at this rate, the scandal is probably brewing or already happened and we just have not found out yet.
IMO, SuperPACs need to go, it's obscure. Individuals and companies can run their own smear if they want under the same free speech principle, but as long as they disclose every time who paid for the ad. Say: "Paid for by Walmart", or "Paid for by Apple", etc
How would this PAC have known that the money was foreign unless the donor brought it to their attention? Simple, they wouldn't have. The voluntary refund of the money highlights that there is very lax regulations controlling the source of this money. They could have hung onto it and nobody would have been the wiser. Anyone who thinks there aren't foreign sources of influence on our election is living in a dream world. Thanks Supreme Court!
Aren't PACs supposed to keep records of donors?
How would Santorum know is the real question, especially if he cannot coordinate with his PAC.
Sure, but there are loopholes. Many PACs choose to file donor lists on a quarterly basis, however this may not be until after the money has been spent and politically damaging negative ads have had their effect. This may also not be until after an election. Donors can also list an LLC instead of their own name, making the source difficult to trace. Then there is the problem with independence. If anyone believes that candidates cannot communicate with their supporting PACs they need their head examined.
PACs are just cover for candidates who want to go negative while saying that they don't support negative ads.
because only the Democrats pick up cash in paper bags from Buddhist temples.
nibor - You sir are one sick puppy - are you getting paid enough to sell your soul?
Sick puppy is right that's what he gets for riding on top of Romney's car!
The only way to avoid this problem is to have the SCOTUS overturn the Citizens United ruling based on the Montana case, and for Congress to pass a law on campaign finance reform.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse its opinion, since it would be essentially admitting that they were wrong and President Obama was right in his SOTU.
Luckily, it's not the only way. There is a petition to add a Constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people and do not have all the same first amendment rights. Obviously, a Constitutional Convention is a long shot, but more and more people on both sides of the aisle are seeing what a disaster unlimited donations is in politics.
Here is a link for anyone who defends the notion that corporations are people. It is a telling bit of historical fact that the founders of our nation severely distrusted corporations and made their engagement in politics a crime. It is an eye opener.
What the Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
This is a gem. It would better if you gave the source.
If you click on the text "What the Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations", it takes you to the source:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/13/what-the-founding-fathers-thought-about-corporations/
What about returning the other millions in attempts to purchase influence and an election?
The money-centric right-wing political mobs in this country are the most corrupt in our nation's history.
THAT is the true culture of the right-wing political parties, the TRUE Reagan legacy - corruption as an art form.
political p:
What hurts us more is not corruption but leaders who do not knwo their stuff and elctorate that do not elect people to manage Goverfnment and elect them for their agendas that has nothing to do with capability to efficiently manage.
We elected Obama over Clinton and now many wants Santorum over Romney. Americans like pomp and pizzaz, prefer priest like candidate instead knowledge wise, prefer speaker over doer, fall for issues that has nothing to do with solving nations problem liek Santorum Bible. We also mix up religion and politics while our dominant religion's founder clearly said not to do so.
What hurts us is we do not know what we are doing and do not have leaders who are more into coutnry rather than themsleves.
I do not think this is such a big deal. It is more of a semantics. With Internationalization of corporation this things are not worth the discussion.
We as a country and our citizens pour hundreds of millions of dollars into foreign countries in gues of democracy or religious and charitable funds. Recent arrest in this regard in Egypt drew criticism from American Government and groups. If we are going to indulge in foreign countries to advocate our culture or philosophy or politics, foreigners should have same right. Alternately we should not do same in foreign countries.
I do not mind them doing it since they do have interest and they pay taxes,
I can see it now.....across this great nation many liberal headstones with the words........ SCOTUS SUCKS! Im taking it to my grave.
"Mistakenly" drew the funds from the corporate account instead of his personal account?! Yuh huh.
"I just stole $50,000 from the company I work for. Oops!"
If it's that easy for an employee to "accidentally" withdraw funds from the company account, chances are you'll probably want to find a different securities firm to manage your accounts....
Only Americans could make elections so crooked. Giving every banana republic a run for it's money. Good on ya.
That is not fair. It got Obama into office didn't it.
Good for Santorum. I hope they all follow his example.
Super PACs are just trying to keep up with the big labor donations.
I think Super PACS have a lot more resources but the intent is the same.
Neither should be allowed.
Only in the fantasy land, dream world where radical right wingers live. In the real world, labor donations are a small fraction of corporate donations.
Santorum didn't give it back it was a superpac that is not suppose to communicate at all with him. careful with your come back as you will have to say later that he did not communicate when it no longer sounds good for him
Liar,
Union donations bear no resemblence to corporate donations. Union are composed of hundereds of thousands of individuals who elect their officials and pay their dues. Donations made by a union are made in the name of all the members this is not remotely the case when the Koch brothers or other wealthy executives donate money. The superpacs are simply a way to funnel huge contributions to politicians via 3rd parties to avoid individual donor laws.
jkh
It's just the membership has no choice in the donation or where it goes but it sounds nice.
nibor--Of course, all stockholders in a corporation have a choice in the donation or where it goes.
And one share, one vote, sounds so much more democratic than one man, one vote.
That's right, Jim; this is what the money looks like:
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c
Obamas campaign finance people are going to be busy with money not funneled through the SEIU.
You have no evidence to show that, but it's nice to get in the ignorant dig. Makes you feel better.
Old,
I've seen enough posts of yours that are purely ideologically driven and have little of no facts to base them on. What is most telling about posts like yours is that you will completely ignore post 17 because it fits into "your" views. If people really believe what new moon writes, it is sad. If you don't, why don't more people, from both sides, call him out. How does anyone think they are going to help anyone else change their mind when all they do is call each other names?
I wonder how many donations come from foreign individuals that can't be traced...
Doesn't really matter ... Obama will slide right in ... notice he has no 'hidden surprises' the way the ENTIRE RePublican Field Does.. this is why you have gay sherrifs threatening deportation to thier boy-toys,,, because once you adopt a republican mindset, you have to become an empty vessle...a vapid wasteland of decietfulm=ness and pretending .. never allowed to be who you really are... becasue most republicans are Window Dressing phonies .... who need to create alternate realities
Mr. Santorum, you need an enema ! good golly molly, you are full of it.
Do you really believe people believe all your spewing?
Left or Right I think people believe he believes in what he is saying. What effect this has one way or the other, is open to speculation.
A super political action committee supporting Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has refunded a $50,000 donation from a London-based securities firm...
with a note: Hey, hey guys, you gotta launder this so it looks legit! Sheeesh, you can't buy my influence if you're gonna be that stupid!
You don't want to hire a London security firm that can't understand that the foreign money is supposed to go to the super pac .
So now interested parties will simply give a citizen the money to donate thus allowing foreign governments to influence elections. Thanks republican Supreme Court!
Well here again is an area where mr grover, the gop, & the rushbo will tell you that people are honest & they are to be trusted. That no police are needed for the speed limit to work. But i tell you most people think otherwise. That to have a law, you need to have a way to enforce it.
as like anyone of either party....just get it donated someway
It seems there are a lot of words being tossed around about big money in politics. The accusations come from both sides of the aisle - so it is obvious (to me at least) that a good majority support the notion of restricting corporate contributions to political campaigns.
But! If this government of ours is truly 'representative' - then where are said representatives in passing legislation to stop the practice? I mean, if 7-11 has the right to refuse service to anyone- then surely our upstanding representatives could do the same!?! Can none of them say "NO!"
BUT! NO! Our representatives are busy feeding at the trough of whores. They are more than willing to perform for the right price for anyone willing to pay it. They have no conviction, no ethics, nor a shred of integrity that would move their status from former ambulance chaser to US Congressman or Senator. Their disrespect for at least the spirit of the laws of our government - repeat - OUR government - is beyond shameful and disgusting.
WE, the People, need to demand this practice be stopped - once and for all. And yet, I doubt one single person would petition their rep to push legislation to neuter Citizens United.
Don't be discouraged or, heaven forbid, disillusioned. Just promise yourself to at least try and follow the money:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?ql3