manu1959
Left Coast Isolationist
it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....
Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?
Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....
Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?
it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....
Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?
Just as I thought...It's no concern to you when the law is actually broken.Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?Whose law, ours? Do you really think that would stop someone even IF it were detected? Do you then think the US would be able to obtain extradition?
It's past your bedtime..the street light are on...
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.
Stevens continued: The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.
Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
it is against the law for a foreign citizen to give money to a campaign.....
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.
Stevens continued: The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.
Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.
Just as I thought...It's no concern to you when the law is actually broken.Why don't you ask Bubba Clintoon, Algore the Monk, John Huang, Charlie Trie and/or Roger Tamraz?
It's past your bedtime..the street light are on...
You'd rather screech about imaginary booger men hiding under your bed.
Stooge.
Bradley A. Smith (born 1958) is a former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio
Post-FEC career
After leaving the FEC, Smith returned to teaching at Capital University, and founded a non-profit organization, the Center for Competitive Politics, to promote deregulation of campaign finance.
LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.
It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.
Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.
Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.
HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama
Lets see......
We can have the Saudis help determine our energy policy
China can help establish our export policy
Mexico can set our immigration policy
Thanks Supreme Court
Bradley A. Smith (born 1958) is a former Commissioner, Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and currently serves as the Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio
Post-FEC career
After leaving the FEC, Smith returned to teaching at Capital University, and founded a non-profit organization, the Center for Competitive Politics, to promote deregulation of campaign finance.
LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.
It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.
Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.
Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.
HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama
LOL no wonder he's spouting off about campaign funding instead of what the decision is actually about.
It's about the ability for a corporation to spend unlimited amounts of money advertising for or against a candidate.
Previously they were allowed to do this advertising for or against an issue. Like the way the Mormon Church (yes religious entities are included in this ruling too) spent millions on ads against gay marriage in California. That was funding an issue. Now they can do this for a candidate too.
Hey maybe the Taleban and Al Qaeda can spend money advertising for a candidate. Won't that be awesome.
HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama
Really? From the Hollow Moon?
No site listed, assumed to be a fact pulled out of your ass.
As dilloduck stated, the left doesn't have a problem with Soros doing it ....
HAMAS had phone banks operating for Obama
Really? From the Hollow Moon?
No site listed, assumed to be a fact pulled out of your ass.
Don't you have some temperature numbers to manipulate ? .........
As dilloduck stated, the left doesn't have a problem with Soros doing it ....
Come on, dumb ass, Soros is as much a citizen as you are. In fact, probably more of one, since he is naturalized, and had to pass tests that you probably could not.
A senior administration official told POLITICO on Thursday morning: There is a loophole that we need to address and are working with Congress to address. There are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations that could influence our elections because of this ruling."
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.
Stevens continued: The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.
Read more: White House: Obama is right about Supreme Court decision - Mike Allen and Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
Barry lied. He didn't even read the decision.