Non-US participation in the coming US presidental election

Great Debates
41

You know, baiting other poster is not an, um, good thing, on this board. You might want to watch that, especially admitting it. :slight_smile: However, I’m a fairly laid back guy, so…no harm, no foul.

No idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you retranslate this or give subtitles?

From Stoneburg

Whats “(I assume with Saudi Arabia nd Kuwait you mean the Gvt) were doing “issue advocacy” in the US” this mean?

From Stoneburg

Um…that was kind of MY point. lol.

From Stoneburg

Sure. :slight_smile: And if you were argueing the world was flat and I was saying its a sphere, you’d probably think YOU were right there too…after all, looking out your window it sure LOOKS flat. You must be right. lol.

Maybe the people advocating this thing (I’m assuming you mean the folks that put up the website and are attempting this) wouldn’t be too upset if the private US groups did the same thing in their backyards…and maybe they would. I’ll conceed that maybe they would think thats just peachy if a group of Americans barged in to their elections because they didn’t like their stances on, say, steel tarrifs (just an example…I don’t like steel tarrifs either, but I can see some US industrialists doing something like this). However, just because THESE guys might not mind (or you perhaps), doesn’t mean that the average joe citizen back home would feel the same way.

At a guess, depending on the country, they would either be offended, irritated, or basically ignore the whole thing, depending on how deeply the effort by these hypothetical Americans get on their national radar screen. And surprise…thats exactly what MY fellow citizens will think of this. As I said earlier, I seriously doubt this thing will even get ON our radar screen over here. At a guess, people will simply yawn and move on, if they even notice at all. If it DID get on our radar screen (i.e. if it was large enough and pervasive enough to catch our national attention, and was seriously effecting the election) then I can practically guarentee you that the howls will be loud and long. And it won’t just be the 'Pubs screaming either.

BTW, time to call you on something. Where do you get "“Well it’s ok for us to try to influence them but come on… we can’t let them influence us” this from?? Want to back this up? Mainly my fellow citizens don’t GIVE A FUCK about politics outside of the US. THEY don’t meddle in other countries politics, so THEY would be the ones fairly offended. Where do you get that we, as private individuals, think its ok for us to meddle in other people affairs but that the reverse is not ok, or that any but the smallest percentage of us would even consider such a thing?? Do you have some cites of specific private US groups doing the same thing in other countries? If so, they will be very helpful…we can compare how they fared in real world settings, and maybe you can get some feel for how it will fare here. Why don’t you bring them out so we can examine them?

-XT

42

Coming in a bit late in this thread… but I would like to add something which comes from my experience.

Several of the articles in the past attacking the mismanagment and the destruction of the Amazon were paid for by US agencies or through them by using NGOs. I heard of an offer being made by US officials of stopping these articles from the chief Brazilian negotiator of that time.

During elections overt support for certain candidates all over the world have been common by the US and other big countries. Even Lula openly supported one argentinian candidate against Menem.

This sort of meddling is quite common... now certainly influencing directly elections does sound ethically dodgy. In the USA example though... why not ? I understand why US citizens would be none to happy about it. Still if the US can meddle... others can to. If it involves only private citizen donations so much the better. Now if it were someone else ... not Bush... I might be reluctant to defend the same thing  :)
43 
Sorry to hit you on this one xtisme... but would approval ratings for Bush and approval ratings for the Iraq War count ? That certainly would seem like "we can influence". Its not exactly the same thing... but the result is the same. If you support your leader's actions... then your consent is part of it. So they are "considering such a thing".

I agree that your “fellow citizens don’t give d fuck”… the main difference of course that the US GOVERNMENT is the one meddling about… not the citizens. Whilst in contrast the OP mentions a private group wanting to participate.

44

From Rashak Mani

I’m not understanding your point…what are you getting at here? The US government certainly interviened in Iraq, no question there. Its debatable (I suppose) whether thats good or bad. However, we are talking about private groups of citizens attempting to directly influence the election process in another country. How does this relate? Could you amplify your points…I’m not following you to be honest.

From From Rashak Mani

But we aren’t talking about the US government here. If we were, then we could find cases for EVERY major government to fuck with another countries internal processes (both direct military intervention and through ‘influence’), couldn’t we? No major power is innocent of such things IMO.

What we are talking about here is private citizens trying to influence another countries political process, and what effect that will have on the citizens of the country being ‘influenced’. As I said, I can’t think of ANY countries citizens (except Sweden who would love having their political process subverted by outsiders…they are a very tolerant people :)) that would be happy knowing that another countries citizens are campaigning actively for one party/candidate or another. Of course, it actually DOES happen in the US (and probably in other countries too), but its more behind the scenes stuff, like Special Interest Groups for, say, Israel or such. In other words, its not on the radar screen, as these people aren’t ACTIVELY campaigning with the citizens…they are merely giving money to the candidates. Aren’t politics grand?

However, if it DOES hit the radar screens, as this group would (if they were big enough, had enough money, etc, to actually influence anything), then there will be an almighty stink. You are from Brazil. Say a group of American industrialists came down and started very actively and publically campaigning for one candidate or another in your country…and you KNEW they were doing it not in YOUR best interest, but in their own. How would YOU feel about that? Would you be calm about it, or pissed off…especially if you thought they might actually influence the election in THIER favor (i.e. have the candidate that would do whatever THEY wanted to do win)? Maybe Brazil is like Sweden and you and your fellow citizens wouldn’t care. What do you think?

-XT

45

Hehe, some amusing misunderstandings here, obviously I need to work on my communication skills.

Neurotik mentioned that Saudi Arabi and Kuwait had some “issue advocacy” activities in the US, I was unaware of that and noted it. I have no further knowledge of it other then that.

Oki… now you said that the group who’s trying to influence the election (no wait, I ment subvert, no, sabotage… hell, they’re trying to assasinate Bush and launch nukes at the US, who am I kidding :wink: )… anyway, that those people would be ‘upset’ if a simmilar attempt was made on their soil. I pointed out that that would be ridiculous of them with the “Well it’s ok for us to try to influence them…” remark. I really think you’re wrong there, if you’re for this sort of thing you’re for it, they might disagree with the issues but they can hardly turn around and condemn a tool they’re using themselves. So far I have seen nothing that would indicate that this group is neither stupid or hypocritical, quite the opposite.

That example about Brazil by the way, I would be extremely surprised if that hasn’t happend a few times already, considering economical interests in the region. You have it in the US with special interests, no reason to believe they confine themself to US soil if their interests are international.

Oh, and a note about Swedes, we’re not tolerant, we’re flegmatic.

46

The main difference is WHO is acting upon other countries… on one side private citizens and another the US govt. Now who elected that US govt ? That was my point. Are US citizens indirectly through their govt. doing more or less the same thing as this private group ? By approving Bush are they just as “guilty” ? (If they didn’t approve Bush it would be different… we all can regret voting for certain people…)

  As for your last example... they are AGAINST Bush... not for their own interests. So the American Industrialists example is not a good example. Call it a information campaign ?
47

From Stoneburg

Um…I never said THOSE people would be upset…I said average joe citizen would be upset in a turn around. YOU said THOSE people…I don’t care about THOSE people (i.e. the few individuals who are doing this thing, running the web site, doing the campaign against Bush, etc) or what they do or don’t think…and if they would be upset or not is irrelevent. How many could it be? 10? 100? Hell, they are irrelevant to the point.

However, if the folks back home…the huddle masses, etc etc, get a wiff, I’m betting THEY might be a touch pissed off. THOSE are the people we have all (except you :)) been talking about Stoneburg. Understand now? Just to clarify once more…I’m talking about the average citizens in other countries, not the people running this campaign. I’m talking about joe citizen in France and how HE’D react if a US group (or any other country for that matter) did exactly what you are saying these folks are proposing…except in France. Are you with me?

Obviously you don’t agree, so we’ll simply leave it at that. I’m assuming you couldn’t find any cites on individual or groups of Americans doing the same thing in other countries so we could compare?

From Rashak Mani

Let me expand on my example a bit RM…see if I can at least make YOU understand my point. Ok, so say our hypothetical industrial group is pissed at Europe over steel tarrifs (this is totally hypothetical, just to make a point btw). And say that they target, oh, France, as being the biggest pain in the ass on the thing. And say that they look at Mr. C and decide that HE is the real problem…but several of Mr. C’s running mates might be more tractable on the subject. With me so far?

Now, say that these industrialist decide to blatantly go into France and campaign AGAINST Mr. C…they aren’t breaking the laws or anything by campaigning FOR any of Mr. C’s running mates, but simply campaigning against him. And say that this effort captures the publics attention, i.e. its big enough to actually make a difference and change the election. And say, for instance Mr. C does the smart thing and TELLS the people of France that a US group is campaigning against him, to change Frances trade policies towards the US. Basically he does what any good politician does…he makes political hay from the thing, because HE see’s that its effecting his campaign and he might actually lose because of this thing.

Now…what do you suppose the reaction of the public will be when he starts yammering about it?? How would YOU react if a US group tried to do something like that. Even if you disliked Mr. C, you STILL might be pissed at the perception that outsiders were trying manipulate your political system. Or maybe you wouldn’t be…I don’t know. Maybe if a US group tried to do something similar in Brazil you would be either neutral or happy about it. If so, then you make the case for ole Stoneburg.

In a nut shell, thats my entire arguement on this subject…take it or leave it. I think I can guess how MY fellow citizens will react though, if the right circumstances come up on this thing.

-XT

48

Got it Xtisme… I agree totally that these tactics can backfire badly. Certainly these groups must make an evaluation of these risks. If Bush gets close to election time with bad polls and a likely defeat… these guys should lay low and stay low.

Now if Bush is winning the polls with a comfortable margin (likely due to Democratic bungling more than anything else) then why not risk it ?

Overall I think its a risky proposition and certainly has dodgy element in it. I am not in favour of direct influence… but if they channel small amounts of money to American NGOs ? It seems reasonable. The key word being American NGOs.

Now if people prefer only US interest groups and big companies to dominate their politics its understandable. (not joking). National pride and all...
49

What is an “NGO”?

50

Non Governmental Organization = NGO

51

Non-Governmental Organization. Can refer to a corporation or a group like Greenpeace or the Red Cross.

52

From RM

Agreed. Thats how I’d play it, were it me. They didn’t ask me though. :slight_smile:

-XT

53

From the OP:

How many votes did Kofi Annan get? Or Valery Giscard d’Estaing?

54

The implication of the OP is that US foreign policy has a direct impact upon peoples of other nations; therefore, why should people so affected not have a voice in electing US presidents? Put another way, the US is constantly meddling in the affairs of others. How would US citizens react if the situation were reversed?

XT hits upon the key distinction: governmental action v. private action. Our foreign policy is conducted by our representative government which (in theory) speaks with one voice. Democracy Now (DN) is a private institution and, as such, its actions are of an entirely different nature.

With this distinction in mind, I’d like to address 3 points (bear with me – I’m building to something):

A) How would US citizens react to such actions?

B) Would DN’s action be legal?

C) Why is it OK for the US to do this, but not vice versa?

A) They would react negatively, but it would have no impact on the election. Our election laws require ads to identify sponsors. Whether via the ads themselves or “outing” by the media, voters would be aware of the foreign sponsors, they would resent the intrusion, but I doubt it would turn them for or against any particular candidate.

B) It would not be legal. Claiming to advocate an issue (opposition to GWB) as opposed to advocating a candidate (GWB’s Democratic opponent) is a distinction without a difference that would not evade election statutes. Judging from the many issue ads we’ve seen here, they must be carefully crafted NOT to come close to mentioning a candidate and are in fact sometimes so obtuse it’s hard to pin down who or what they?re advocating.

C) Why is it OK for the US to do this, but not vice versa? The answer is that it ain’t. As a matter of fact, it is not even legal. A private organization in the US could not do what DN proposes.

In 1934, FDR banned sales of arms to Bolivia and Paraguay who were at that time at war. A US company was indicted for selling arms to the belligerents. The Supreme Court upheld the presidential ban. Why? Because US foreign policy is the sole province of the president. I’m no constitutional scholar, but I believe taking an active role in a foreign election constitutes foreign policy.

We can debate the influence American corporations and non-governmental entities have overseas, but that’s a question for another thread.

The easy criticism is that I’ve created my own distinction without a difference which (naturally) I would disagree with. I believe there is a world of difference between actions that are appropriate for private groups and for governments. Just as I believe it is inappropriate for the Swedish Green Party to invade Poland, I believe it is inappropriate for the US government to fund a “grass-roots movement” in Sweden.

Please note: This argument does not rest on whether I approve or disapprove of my government’s actions. It is premised on the fact that there are proper and improper actors in each sphere. DN is an improper organ to implement any country’s or group of countries’ foreign policy. The proper way for DN members to exert influence is via their own governments, the EU, and the UN. DN’s plan of action is simple-minded, ill-conceived, and ludicrously unrealistic.

(Yes, I’m a lawyer. Forgive me – I made a deal with the devil, aka student loan corp).

55

From rthendrix

This thread appears to be dieing, but I would be interested if you have a cite for this. The assumption throughout this thread, posed by the OP, is that American private interests DO this already. Though he was challenged on it, I think most posters (including me) assumed that it did happen from time to time. If its in fact illegal, it would shed a different light on things. As I said, it appears this thread is dieing, but if you have the time and a handy cite, I’d be very interested in reading through it.

Reguards,
XT

56

Gah! It’s still not Democracy Now (a US radio station) that is doing this, it is Democracy Aid, a grass-root Swedish organisation.

No matter what the cause (I agree with it) or result (none), I find it inspiring optimism that such a step is taken. Globalising democracy or whatnot, it’s a cool phenomenon.

The current “correct procedure” of the members would of course, as stated, be to try to influence via their local government, but I think this sort of international action is perhaps an indication of that the old way of doing it is changing. Maybe in teh future, the US president will go “Well I don’t know if we can do X, seems like the Swedish people aren’t too fond of that idea even though the Polish farmers has stated their support”. Well, one can dream… :wink:

57

You’re forgiven. That was a very well thought out and presented post. I’d like to offer you a belated “welcome aboard”, rthendrix. :slight_smile:

58 
 The problem is getting through to american voters... after all Bush and most voters seems deaf to foreign reactions and have a media block on them. I have seen plenty of comments on SDMB about a 1 million march in London as being... "the other 6 million must approve of us then".  duh.

So to properly "exert influence via their own governments, the EU, and the UN." is kind of pointless isn't it ? Especially Spaniards and Italians for example where the majority clearly oppose the war... but their governments support it. Until these asses get elected out... Bush will be reelected and its no good taking down Berslusconi. It might be the proper way... but it won't do anything. Especially in an election. 

 Even if these governments did put pressure... Bush is notoriously uncaring for foreign opinion... prefering his coalition of the willing and paid for. So even though in theory I agree its not the best of ideas... I can't blame them from trying. The important factor now is the USA voter. This voter is the one who will decide if we continue this stupid "lets fuck foreign relations" routine... or start anew and restore US prestige.

I agree its a strange precedent... still compared to Bush's campaign funds getting fatter by the minute with who knows what money... its a minor issue.
59

The case I referred to was US v. Curtiss-Wright, 299 US 304. Upon reflection, I believe I over-stated its application. It stands for the proposition that the president has the authority to issue a ban on interference in foreign affairs, not that such a ban exists upon all such interference.

However, Perez v. Brownell, 356 US 44 (1958), states: when a citizen of one country acts politically in another country there is a danger of serious embarrassment to their home country, and evidenced an allegiance to another country inconsistent with American citizenship and the remedy was denationalization.

This case hinges on a law allowing a person to be stripped of citizenship for political action in another country and, according to this case, such a law is constitutional. I see no reason why this would not apply to US organizations and corporations as well.

So the upshot is that there is at least one punishment for foreign political participation, which is as it should be.

As far as the UN, EU, et al. being ineffective, well welcome to democracy. I didn’t vote for Bush and he’s doing things I disagree with. My remedy is campaigning and/or voting against him in the future.

As noted, this thread is dying. It was my first (on any site). I thoroughly enjoyed it and I am glad to finally find a site that is not ruined by the idiot factor. I look forward to disagreeing with you all in the future.

60

Thanks for the cite, rthendrix. I think you’ll find this board to be pretty good. Look forward to hearing more from you in future. :slight_smile:

-XT