hortysir
In Memorial of 47
Link????Of course not.so it is or is not a violation?
well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.
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.
Link????Of course not.so it is or is not a violation?
well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.
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?
Of course not.so it is or is not a violation?
well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.
Shouldn't be.Of course not.so it is or is not a violation?
well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.
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....
Of course not.
well, under current campaign finance law it very much IS a violation.
The law that was recently found unconstitutional?
How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?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?The law that was recently found unconstitutional?
No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.
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?No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.
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.How does selling broadcast rights amount to an in-kind contribution?No. Under current law the maximum contribution is $30,800 per person.
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.
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.
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?
That's to make up for the fact that they don't get to impose a POLL Tax.
It doesn't and shouldn't.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.
BTW, where's a link to the applicable law here?...What's its applicability in relation to the Citizen's United decision?
It doesn't and shouldn't.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.
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
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.
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.