Election integrity has been a major issue for many years, but concern for the security and fairness of our electoral process has never been more under threat than it is now. Following the presidential election of 2020, nearly half of Americans have lost all faith in the election system after the massive and blatant misconduct and irregularities surrounding Biden’s supposed win.
Unfortunately, Americans who are concerned about election integrity have more to worry about, not less. Now, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has decided that foreign donors will be allowed to make financial contributions to American ballot initiatives.
This is in direct violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which prohibits foreign nationals from donating to American electoral campaigns. But that clear legal restriction didn’t even enter the conversation on Monday when the FEC made its ruling. Nevertheless, the FEC declared that foreigners may make direct donations to ballot initiatives that will affect the way in which elections are run and how they function.
The ruling states, “The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that the Act ‘regulates only candidate elections, not referenda or other issue-based ballot measures. Consistent with the Act and court precedents, the Commission has observed that spending relating only to ballot initiatives is generally outside the purview of the Act because such spending is not ‘in connection with’ elections.”
This story was broken by Axios.com. According to the news site, 61 referenda are already on state ballots this year. This decision by the FEC has the potential to drastically alter the mechanics of American democracy.
Issues like congressional redistricting are commonly debated and changed, and with this new ruling, foreign powers can have a direct hand in how redistricting can be carried out and finalized. What that means is foreigners can now have a direct say in whether you can vote on issues that matter to you, or if someone else’s vote outside of your community will affect you or not. Voters may lose the ability to vote on issues that affect the areas where they live.
With the motivation to vote based on the needs of one’s own community eliminated, people will vote on laws and regulations that affect people who don’t even live in their area. For example, someone living in New Jersey might vote on an issue affecting the cost of oil and electricity in Northern Delaware. Someone who lives 50 miles from a lake may decide what people who live right on its shore can do in their own backyards.
With the motivation to vote on one’s own immediate interests eliminated, the only motivation to vote in state level elections will be to virtue signal or to vote someone else’s tax dollars into one’s own pocket.
But, of course, this goes far beyond the problem of artificial gerrymandering. This is about a kind of international “redistricting” in which foreign corporations will have the ability to bear weight in state-level elections.
The ruling developed from the response to a complaint from the Montana Mining Association about a 2018 measure which they say was illegally funded by a Canadian ancillary of an Australian company.
The director of the FEC, Brendan Fischer, said the ruling “[…] reflects a big loophole in the federal ban on foreign money in U.S. elections.”
The consequences of this ruling will inevitably be that foreign non-governmental organizations will have the ability to influence American laws and regulations to give them the advantage in negotiations with American companies and customers.
This will weaken the buying power of the American consumer, it will hurt the profits and the productivity of American based companies, and it will allow foreigners to buy up American land at prices which they will determine.
The primary argument against this decision is the fact that foreign donations connected to elections are banned. It is also strongly connected to the ongoing issue of redistricting, which is always on the ballot and is always changing. Because these two issues were not addressed in the decision making process behind the ruling, it will likely be contested in upcoming debates at the FEC.
Clearly, these two primary arguments against the ruling are central to the issue, and should be obvious to anyone involved in this kind of decision making. It would be hard to argue that it isn’t obvious, which would mean that this is yet another direct attack on American sovereignty from within our own borders.
This can and should be considered to be the latest effort by the Biden administration to literally sell the freedoms of Americans to the highest bidding foreign interests.
Or just outright to the Globalists.