Jophiel wrote:
Of course, test cases don't come through until someone is actually doing it and then it takes its sweet while to wind through the court system. It's better, if we agree that this shouldn't be happening, to settle the matter now legislatively.
Yes. But the "test case" would be whether it is constitutional to bar foreign owned businesses from influencing US political campaigns, not the other way around. The fact check quote said that current law prohibits this, and the court did not address that aspect of the issue, meaning that unless someone challenges this on some kind of constitutional grounds, your concerns are unwarranted.
Oh. And since I didn't see a followup. The GDP grown/loss figures in the chart on that link from earlier are adjusted for inflation. The growth numbers you found in the article are presumably not. The growth (according to the same article) was due largely to the stimulus money, but since that money was borrowed, it has an inflationary effect. We can only speculate as to whether or not that effect outweighed the growth, but it's clear that the after inflation adjusted growth is negative, so draw your own conclusions...
seems to appropriately sum up his debate tactic.
