RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates

[hortysir]

so it is or is not a violation?

Of course not.

well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.

Link????

 

[Care4all]

Not quite a contribution... they are buying broadcast rights...

broadcast rights of WHAT though....? of political speech....

if it was selling broadcast rights of Bambi meets Santa Clause, then to me, that could be different...

So because Rush Limbaugh, Glenn beck, Sean Hannity, not to mention other people sell the broadcast rights to their political speech, their distributors are now violating the law for providing donations?

Who exactly do you think owns the broadcast rights to the debate as of now? And why do you think it wouldnt have some monetary value to someone?

i don't understand your point...can you be clearer on it, and how shan glenn and the others have anything to do with the RNC selling Political Candidate's Debates?

How is this any different then selling tickets to see Al Gore? Aren't those tickets considered fund raising monies and aren't they held to campaign finance laws?

A station can pay for this if they want, but they would be held to campaign finance laws imo, which would LIMIT what they can pay/donate to the RNC cause for this....

 

[Avatar4321]

so it is or is not a violation?

Of course not.

well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.

The law that was recently found unconstitutional?

 

[Oddball]

so it is or is not a violation?

Of course not.

well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.

Shouldn't be.

However, I don't see where selling broadcast rights is analogous.

 

[Avatar4321]

broadcast rights of WHAT though....? of political speech....

if it was selling broadcast rights of Bambi meets Santa Clause, then to me, that could be different...

So because Rush Limbaugh, Glenn beck, Sean Hannity, not to mention other people sell the broadcast rights to their political speech, their distributors are now violating the law for providing donations?

Who exactly do you think owns the broadcast rights to the debate as of now? And why do you think it wouldnt have some monetary value to someone?

i don't understand your point...can you be clearer on it, and how shan glenn and the others have anything to do with the RNC selling Political Candidate's Debates?

How is this any different then selling tickets to see Al Gore? Aren't those tickets considered fund raising monies and aren't they held to campaign finance laws?

A station can pay for this if they want, but they would be held to campaign finance laws imo, which would LIMIT what they can pay/donate to the RNC cause for this....

You are objecting to selling the rights to political speech. Pundits sell their political speech all time. The fact that it's political speech doesn't mean that selling the rights to said speech is illegal in and of itself.

Al Gore does charge for his speeches.

 

[8537]

Of course not.

well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.

The law that was recently found unconstitutional?

No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.

 

[Oddball]

well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.

The law that was recently found unconstitutional?

No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.

How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?

 

[8537]

The law that was recently found unconstitutional?

No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.

How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?

It's not in-kind.

And how does selling tickets and dinner amount to an in-kind contribution?

It doesn't. But the contribution limit still applies.

 

[Avatar4321]

well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.

The law that was recently found unconstitutional?

No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.

Yeah but this isnt a contribution.

I don't know why there is a disconnect here.

But then I am not convinced there should be a limit in donations at all. Id rather see full disclosure of contributors and allow them to contribute all they want. These games they are playing nowadays is just a way to get the common people out of politics.

 

[Avatar4321]

No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.

How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?

It's not in-kind.

And how does selling tickets and dinner amount to an in-kind contribution?

It doesn't. But the contribution limit still applies.

It's a fundraising event. How is it not in-kind contribution?

 

[editec]

Wow... just wow.

RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates - CNN.com

That's to make up for the fact that they don't get to impose a POLL Tax.

 

[Oddball]

No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.

How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?

It's not in-kind.

And how does selling tickets and dinner amount to an in-kind contribution?

It doesn't. But the contribution limit still applies.

It doesn't and shouldn't.

BTW, where's a link to the applicable law here?...What's its applicability in relation to the Citizen's United decision?

 

[Care4all]

So because Rush Limbaugh, Glenn beck, Sean Hannity, not to mention other people sell the broadcast rights to their political speech, their distributors are now violating the law for providing donations?

Who exactly do you think owns the broadcast rights to the debate as of now? And why do you think it wouldnt have some monetary value to someone?

i don't understand your point...can you be clearer on it, and how shan glenn and the others have anything to do with the RNC selling Political Candidate's Debates?

How is this any different then selling tickets to see Al Gore? Aren't those tickets considered fund raising monies and aren't they held to campaign finance laws?

A station can pay for this if they want, but they would be held to campaign finance laws imo, which would LIMIT what they can pay/donate to the RNC cause for this....

You are objecting to selling the rights to political speech. Pundits sell their political speech all time. The fact that it's political speech doesn't mean that selling the rights to said speech is illegal in and of itself.

Al Gore does charge for his speeches.

you are missing the point....even if SHAWN speaks on behalf of this money going to the RNC, it is covered under the laws for campaign financing and all the money collected for the RNC, and all the people or one person or one corporation or one union that pays this money to the RNC, ARE subject to campaign finance laws.....

is that really too hard to get? to understand?

so... I do not see why one would think this would not be held to the same laws and limits in donation amounts? If it is a 35k a year cap for any entity, then this is the limit whatever tv station can pay...

 

[8537]

How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?

It's not in-kind.

And how does selling tickets and dinner amount to an in-kind contribution?

It doesn't. But the contribution limit still applies.

It's a fundraising event. How is it not in-kind contribution?

Fundraising event? Not at all. It's an entertainment event - people are paying to come watch Obama and Gore speak. Just like they'd pay $100 to see U2 play.

Just so happens that Obama and Gore can charge more than Bono.

 

[DiamondDave]

Wow... just wow.

RNC considers selling TV rights of presidential primary debates - CNN.com

That's to make up for the fact that they don't get to impose a POLL Tax.

Yeah... that's ll in the same ballpark

 

[8537]

How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?

It's not in-kind.

And how does selling tickets and dinner amount to an in-kind contribution?

It doesn't. But the contribution limit still applies.

It doesn't and shouldn't.

BTW, where's a link to the applicable law here?...What's its applicability in relation to the Citizen's United decision?

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure

 

[Two Thumbs]

All this cuz some liberal jack wagon said a rep said something at a meeting, then some douchbag doesn't read an entire link but posts it up with nothing but assumptions.

Everyone

The Reps at the meeting didn't take the idea serously.

You're getting wound up for nothing.

 

[Oddball]

It's not in-kind.

And how does selling tickets and dinner amount to an in-kind contribution?

It doesn't. But the contribution limit still applies.

It doesn't and shouldn't.

BTW, where's a link to the applicable law here?...What's its applicability in relation to the Citizen's United decision?

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure

There it is....Right at the top...

Note: Portions of this publication may be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Essentially, the Court's ruling permits corporations and labor organizations to use treasury funds to make independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering communications. The ruling did not affect the ban on corporate or union contributions or the reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Commission is studying the Court's opinion and will provide additional guidance as soon as possible.

 

[8537]

It doesn't and shouldn't.

BTW, where's a link to the applicable law here?...What's its applicability in relation to the Citizen's United decision?

The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law Brochure

There it is....Right at the top...

Note: Portions of this publication may be affected by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Essentially, the Court's ruling permits corporations and labor organizations to use treasury funds to make independent expenditures in connection with federal elections and to fund electioneering communications. The ruling did not affect the ban on corporate or union contributions or the reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Commission is studying the Court's opinion and will provide additional guidance as soon as possible.

I underlined the important part.

 

[Oddball]

Right...Yet there's nowhere that any of that says the selling of broadcast rights is an in-kind donation.

But never mind all of it, because it's not going to happen anyways.