Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Comey fired

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Just a little research would clear up this contribution debate. US statutes include a "thing of value" as a prohibited contribution. Information might or might not be considered a thing of value. If can be a thing of value if, say, a foreign entity provides opposition research which a campaign later uses. The cost of the research in this example is "a thing of value." An example of something that is not a thing of value would be exchange of views, a newspaper article, etc etc.


    http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?r...dition:prelim)

    §30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
    (a) Prohibition

    It shall be unlawful for-

    (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

    (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
    (b) "Foreign national" defined

    As used in this section, the term "foreign national" means-

    (1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or

    (2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.

    (Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493 ; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354 ; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96 , 109.)
    Codification

    Section was formerly classified to section 441e of Title 2, The Congress, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
    Prior Provisions

    A prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 314, and is classified to section 30115 of this title.

    Another prior section 319 of Pub. L. 92–225 was renumbered section 318, and was classified to section 439b of Title 2, The Congress, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 96–187.
    Amendments

    2002-Pub. L. 107–155, §303(1), substituted "Contributions and donations by foreign nationals" for "Contributions by foreign nationals" in section catchline.

    Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–155, §303(2), added subsec. (a) and struck out former subsec. (a) which read as follows: "It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national."

    Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–155, §317, inserted "or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8)" after "United States".
    Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

    Amendment by Pub. L. 107–155 effective Nov. 6, 2002, see section 402 of Pub. L. 107–155, set out as an Effective Date of 2002 Amendment; Regulations note under section 30101 of this title.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • I wouldn't vote for Trump, but gravity and politics weren't invented the day he was elected. Democrats seem to be just as myopic as Republicans

      Go back to 1996 and Chinagate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_U...ce_controversy

      Foreign power influencing a presidential election. Foreign Nationals/lobbyist meeting the POTUS. Foreign money. Press investigation. The highlights wiki writes far better than I do.

      [QUOTE]"1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself."

      "The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations."[QUOTE]

      [QUOTE]Calls for an independent counsel[edit]

      FBI Director Louis Freeh
      President Clinton's FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in a 22-page memorandum to then Attorney General Janet Reno in November 1997 that "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an independent counsel."[46]

      In July 1998, the Justice Department's campaign finance task force head, Charles La Bella, sent a report to Janet Reno also recommending she seek an independent counsel to investigate alleged fund-raising abuses by Democratic party officials.[47] The media reported that La Bella believed there was clearly an appearance of a conflict of interest by Reno.[48] In his report to Reno he wrote: " [A] pattern [of events] suggests a level of knowledge within the White House—including the President's and First Lady's offices—concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort." Additionally, La Bella stated: "If these allegations involved anyone other than the president, vice president, senior White House or DNC and Clinton-Gore '96 officials, an appropriate investigation would have commenced months ago without hesitation."

      Robert Conrad, Jr., who later became head of the task force, called on Reno in Spring 2000 to appoint an independent counsel to look into the fund-raising practices of Vice President Gore.[50]

      Janet Reno declined all requests:

      I try to do one thing: what's right. I am trying to follow the independent counsel statute as it has been framed by Congress. If you had a lower threshold, then any time somebody said 'boo' about a covered person, you'd trigger the independent counsel statute — Janet Reno, December 4, 1997.

      Calls for an Independent council

      A CNN/TIME poll taken in May 1998 found 58 percent of Americans felt an independent counsel should have been appointed to investigate the controversy. Thirty-three percent were opposed. The same poll found that 47 percent of Americans believed a quid pro quo existed between the Clinton administration and the PRC government.[QUOTE]

      Some people went to jail, but it wasn't Bill Clinton. He would be impeached not for this . and like the other impeached POTUS he served out his term.. Clinton's approval rating actually improved after impeachment

      Comment


      • So given all that, and how much easier for influence in money to be hidden from view, then how would limiting campaign fund raising to $100 - $1000 donations, eliminating non-associated Super PACs, and using government funded Presidential campaigns be bad? Deep pockets, and in many cases incredibly deep pockets around the world, could funnel money into our elections out of sight of the voting public. How could that ever be considered good anymore and is guaranteed to probably get worse?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
          Just a little research would clear up this contribution debate. US statutes include a "thing of value" as a prohibited contribution. Information might or might not be considered a thing of value. If can be a thing of value if, say, a foreign entity provides opposition research which a campaign later uses. The cost of the research in this example is "a thing of value." An example of ...
          I would construe in this broad wording [§30121: 1-A] that "A contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" would be assets such as equities, realty, jewelry, antiques, collectibles and "things of value" as such.

          How can "knowledge" per se come under the statutes (regulations) above for campaign contributions?

          I well understand that "inside knowledge" has lucrative potential regarding financial dealings such as stocks, accounting irregularities or inventions (just to name a few topics) whereby one can manipulate, profit or or gain in advance of any public disclosure.

          Sure all 'knowledge' has value per se but that's a very fine line whereas in the campaign rules (statutes) above.

          Broadly interpreting in another context we know that Monica's blue dress helped bring down a President...what was the exact value one could place on a stained garment ?
          If the informant had lewd pictures of Hillary which could possibly have ended her campaign ...what would the monetary value of that be if they were handed over freely...and would freely disseminating those pics to media sources be a breach of campaign regulations ?

          ◇ Any decent lawyer can dissect and construe various meanings and inferences into many statutes that have not been legally challenged previously for further definitive clarification in and by the Courts.
          Last edited by PeeCoffee; 21 Jul 17,, 03:16.
          Real eyes realize real lies.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PeeCoffee View Post
            I would construe in this broad wording [§30121: 1-A] that "A contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" would be assets such as equities, realty, jewelry, antiques, collectibles and "things of value" as such.

            How can "knowledge" per se come under the statutes (regulations) above for campaign contributions?
            If the information is paid for, then it has value.

            Comment


            • Ifff it was paid for. ;-)

              One other way that this cat gets skinned would be foreign entities and individuals purchasing assets that are directly linked to a candidate. An intriguing development moving forward.

              I read that the Mueller investigation is in the midst of uncovering Russian investors (re: contributors) acquiring real estate (some transactions at excess market valuations) from Trump personally and Trump-related business holdings.
              Real eyes realize real lies.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dazed View Post
                I wouldn't vote for Trump, but gravity and politics weren't invented the day he was elected. Democrats seem to be just as myopic as Republicans
                Change the subject much?
                Trust me?
                I'm an economist!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PeeCoffee View Post
                  I would construe in this broad wording [§30121: 1-A] that "A contribution or donation of money or other thing of value" would be assets such as equities, realty, jewelry, antiques, collectibles and "things of value" as such.

                  How can "knowledge" per se come under the statutes (regulations) above for campaign contributions?

                  I well understand that "inside knowledge" has lucrative potential regarding financial dealings such as stocks, accounting irregularities or inventions (just to name a few topics) whereby one can manipulate, profit or or gain in advance of any public disclosure.

                  Sure all 'knowledge' has value per se but that's a very fine line whereas in the campaign rules (statutes) above.

                  Broadly interpreting in another context we know that Monica's blue dress helped bring down a President...what was the exact value one could place on a stained garment ?
                  If the informant had lewd pictures of Hillary which could possibly have ended her campaign ...what would the monetary value of that be if they were handed over freely...and would freely disseminating those pics to media sources be a breach of campaign regulations ?

                  ◇ Any decent lawyer can dissect and construe various meanings and inferences into many statutes that have not been legally challenged previously for further definitive clarification in and by the Courts.
                  If knowledge has value, as it clearly does in the case of insider trading, then the fact has been established to the satisfaction of the courts: knowledge has value.
                  Trust me?
                  I'm an economist!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                    So like I said before you're trying to equate giving information with a 'contribution" to a campaign, which you wish to mean anything of "value" despite the law explicitly referring to cash or cash equivalent assets. Quite the stretch of the law, which may as well be rocket science to you. Let me know when they find someone dumb enough to try to prosecute on this. Takes a particularly big pair of balls to try to make this argument despite nothing in the law supporting it and then make snide comments about reading comprehension...
                    (here we go again ...)
                    So, like I said,

                    Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
                    The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
                    • Corporations;
                    • Labor organizations;
                    • Federal government contractors; and
                    Foreign nationals.


                    Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:

                    •No one may make a contribution in another person’s name.

                    • No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.

                    In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

                    https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro...a_brochure.pdf


                    Then there’s this:
                    The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
                    https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml


                    And,

                    The Act prohibits certain contributions made in connection with or for the purpose of influencing federal elections. The prohibitions listed below apply to contributions received and made by political committees. Note that the prohibitions apply to all contributions, regardless of:
                    • What type of contribution it is (gift of money, in-kind contribution, loan and so on);
                    • Whether it is solicited; and
                    • How it is ultimately used (such as for advertising, office supplies or independent expenditures).

                    and finally,

                    Opposition research is valuable.
                    The FEC defines contributions to include both money and “in-kind.”
                    Contributions – aside from strictly personal volunteering – from foreigners and their governments are illegal.
                    Assisting foreigners to “solicit, receive or accept” contributions is illegal.
                    Soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions from foreigners, directly or otherwise, is illegal.
                    Trust me?
                    I'm an economist!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                      (here we go again ...)
                      So, like I said,

                      Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
                      The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
                      • Corporations;
                      • Labor organizations;
                      • Federal government contractors; and
                      Foreign nationals.


                      Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:

                      •No one may make a contribution in another person’s name.

                      • No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.

                      In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, [B][SIZE=3][COLOR="#FF0000"]


                      Then there’s this:
                      [B][SIZE=3][COLOR="#FF0000"]The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.


                      And,

                      The Act prohibits certain contributions made in connection with or for the purpose of influencing federal elections. The prohibitions listed below apply to contributions received and made by political committees. Note that the prohibitions apply to all contributions, regardless of:
                      • What type of contribution it is (gift of money, in-kind contribution, loan and so on);
                      • Whether it is solicited; and
                      • How it is ultimately used (such as for advertising, office supplies or independent expenditures).

                      and finally,

                      Opposition research is valuable.
                      The FEC defines contributions to include both money and “in-kind.”
                      Contributions – aside from strictly personal volunteering – from foreigners and their governments are illegal.
                      Assisting foreigners to “solicit, receive or accept” contributions is illegal.
                      Soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions from foreigners, directly or otherwise, is illegal.
                      Your interpretation of "in-kind" is a STREEEETCH.
                      Real eyes realize real lies.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                        (here we go again ...)
                        So, like I said,

                        Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures
                        The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
                        • Corporations;
                        • Labor organizations;
                        • Federal government contractors; and
                        Foreign nationals.


                        Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:

                        •No one may make a contribution in another person’s name.

                        • No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.

                        In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

                        https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro...a_brochure.pdf


                        Then there’s this:
                        The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
                        https://transition.fec.gov/pages/bro.../foreign.shtml


                        And,

                        The Act prohibits certain contributions made in connection with or for the purpose of influencing federal elections. The prohibitions listed below apply to contributions received and made by political committees. Note that the prohibitions apply to all contributions, regardless of:
                        • What type of contribution it is (gift of money, in-kind contribution, loan and so on);
                        • Whether it is solicited; and
                        • How it is ultimately used (such as for advertising, office supplies or independent expenditures).

                        and finally,

                        Opposition research is valuable.
                        The FEC defines contributions to include both money and “in-kind.”
                        Contributions – aside from strictly personal volunteering – from foreigners and their governments are illegal.
                        Assisting foreigners to “solicit, receive or accept” contributions is illegal.
                        Soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions from foreigners, directly or otherwise, is illegal.
                        Let me know when you can highlight the part that refers to the sharing of information as a campaign contribution. Until then, it's just wishful thinking from a desperate partisan.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PeeCoffee View Post
                          Your interpretation of "in-kind" is a STREEEETCH.
                          Nah, it's just part of the law.

                          ADD:

                          The following are from this source: https://www.justice.gov/sites/defaul...tbook-0507.pdf

                          The first actual law banning in-kind contributions dates back to 1925, and defines it as “anything of value.”

                          You might also be interested in the use of the term “in kind” in campaign law:
                          The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA)’s 2002 amendments to the 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits “contributions from foreign nationals” (2 U.S.C. § 441c). It says, “persons who are not citizens of the United States or lawfully admitted for permanent residence may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with any United States election, whether at the federal, state, or local level.” (22 U.S.C. § 441e).

                          The law also retains a prior ban on any one “knowingly soliciting or accepting a contribution from a foreign national.” The 2002 law extended this ban to include “expenditures, independent expenditures, contributions to any political party and electioneering communications.”
                          Provided additional criteria for what constitutes “coordination” between interest groups and candidates or political parties, and thus transforms the value of activities done on their behalf into an “in-kind contribution” to the candidate or political party. 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a) (7).

                          And, my personal favorite:

                          “Illegal transaction" means (A) any contribution, donation, solicitation, or expenditure of money or any thing of value, or any other conduct, prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 431 et seq;” (B) any contribution, donation, solicitation, or expenditure of money or anything of value made in excess of the amount of such contribution, donation, solicitation, or expenditure that may be made under such Act; and (C) in the case of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 607, any solicitation or receipt of money or anything of value under that section. The terms "contribution" and "expenditure" have the meaning give n those terms in section 301(8) and (9) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. § 431(8) and (9)), respectively.

                          Finally, from the Federal Election Commission Form 3 (Report of Receipts and Disbursements for an Authorized Committee), at this source: https://transition.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm3i.pdf
                          Contributions In-Kind
                          Contributions in-kind (i.e., goods and services provided to a political committee) are treated as any other contribution and must be reported and itemized under the appropriate category of receipts.


                          Treated as any other contribution.
                          Get it now?
                          Last edited by DOR; 21 Jul 17,, 16:20.
                          Trust me?
                          I'm an economist!

                          Comment


                          • How much does the NSA, CIA and FBI costs? Are they worthless? If not information has value.

                            I see he is looking at firing Mueller now and asking if he can pardon his family and himself... Panic is setting in. I mean pardoning yourself for colluding with Moscow - a hostile power - to distort the democratic process. To fire Mueller I am told he would have to replace Sessions or the Deputy Attorney General so I suppose that is what his interview criticising the lot of them was about. Trouble is the more he lies - and they have done little but lie about all the contacts with Moscow -and the more he fires people the more likely it is the US IC will be resolved to continue the investigation. Trump and his gang end in prison. They belong there.
                            Last edited by snapper; 21 Jul 17,, 16:29.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                              How much does the NSA, CIA and FBI costs? Are they worthless? If not information has value.
                              Does that still hold true in the fake news era?

                              :-)
                              Trust me?
                              I'm an economist!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                                Does that still hold true in the fake news era?

                                :-)

                                If it is misinformation it is worthless except as media fodder.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X