Of course, the logic only applies to abortions and contraceptives. You would never hear the same argument of "fungible" money when it comes to giving taxpayer dollars to Churches or religious charities for non-proselytizing purposes, which opens up other non-taxpayer resources for the religious charity which they can use to proselytize. But suddenly, that's not fungible money.
Neither is, it seems, the money flying around in the corporate world of multinational businesses. Rick Santorum's Super PAC just had to give back $50,000 to a financial multinational because the money was drawn "mistakenly" from the firm's foreign account.
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.Now, Liquid Capital Market has an office in Chicago. Sure, the PAC now claims that the American executive intended to donate the money from his personal account, and "mistakenly" drew it from the corporate account. Yes, because we are all idiots who believe people just draw 50-grand checks from their corporate accounts for personal purposes by "mistake." But here's the really scary part: had the check been drawn from the firm's American subsidiary's account, everything would be fresh and legal. In fact, foreign companies are already influencing our election - already raising over $5 million for the 2012 cycle.
Political Action Committees connected to foreign corporations have already raised over $5 million for the 2012 elections, continuing a trend of increasing contributions from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign interests. [...]This is all perfectly legal. It should also be apparent to the eyes of any reasonable observer to be perfectly fungible. Money serving foreign interests, supported by foreign interests, and wholly controlled by foreign interests is considered "American" simply because it's spent by an American subsidiary of a foreign company.
UBS, the Swiss financial services company, for example, is headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland, but its American subsidiaries are free to run a PAC (UBS Americas) to raise money for federal campaigns. UBS Americas is among Mitt Romney’s top 20 donors in the 2012 election cycle, having contributed almost $75,000. So is Credit Suisse, also headquartered in Zurich, whose U.S. subsidiaries have raised over $200,000. So is Barclays, headquartered in London, whose U.S. subsidiaries have raised over $150,000.
Consider in addition that had the Liquid Capital executive been given a $50,000 bonus by his foreign employer, which he chose to donate to this PAC, that would also have been perfectly legal.
Why isn't this considered "fungible" money? Why isn't anyone screaming about how the very fact that foreign companies are allowed to set up American subsidiaries or allowed to channel huge sums in American elections by the means of the paychecks of their US executives is making a mockery of democracy? Where are the money-purists speaking out against this fungible foreign money?
This is what the Supreme Court has done - opened up the floodgates for foreigners to influence American elections - which may not be all that different from opening up the floodgates for corporations and the ultra rich to influence American elections. After all, foreign and domestic, the loyalty of big money doesn't belong to America.