Quick Fact: "Fox News brain room" claims Obama statement on Supreme Court ruling is "wrong"

From the January 28 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

MacCALLUM: There's new information now about the State of the Union moment that's getting a lot of attention this morning. It started with the president criticizing the Supreme Court decision last week on political advertising. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who was there in the audience with the others on the bench, agree apparently -- openly disagreed with what the president was saying. Watch this moment.

OBAMA (video clip): Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. [edit] I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

MacCALLUM: All right, let's take a look at the other side of the shot there. There is Justice Alito. He sort of shook his head and he appeared to mouth the words "not true." A lot of media outlets have written that the justice was just unhappy with the White House criticism, but our Fox News brain room has been digging into the specifics of the president's statement. And they dug out the Supreme Court decision itself, and the president's reference to foreign corporations' participation in this change is what is wrong here. Now, the court specifically wrote that it was not overturning restrictions on foreign dollars. Those will stay in place. It is possible that that is what caused that reaction from Justice Samuel Alito.

Fact: Four justices stated that logic of decision would appear to protect "multinational corporations controlled by foreigners"

Stevens: Logic of decision "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans." From Justice John Paul Stevens' opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in Citizens United v. FEC -- an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor (footnotes omitted):

If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by "Tokyo Rose" during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could " 'enhance the relative voice' " of some ( i.e., humans) over others ( i.e. , nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49). Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.

Stevens: Decision will "cripple" government's ability to prevent "corporate domination of the electoral process." Stevens also wrote:

The Court's blinkered and aphoristic approach to the First Amendment may well promote corporate power at the cost of the individual and collective self-expression the Amendment was meant to serve. It will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the States to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process. Americans may be forgiven if they do not feel the Court has advanced the cause of self-government today.

Fact: Other experts say Citizens United decision might lead to campaign money from foreign corporations

Several experts argue that decision opens door to campaign money from U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. As Media Matters for America has detailed, experts on campaign finance law stated that that the Supreme Court's ruling does not prohibit foreign-controlled companies operating in the United States from spending money to elect or defeat political candidates.