• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which circumstance(s) constitute a contribution to support a campaign? (1 Viewer)

Which circumstance(s) constitute a contribution to support a campaign?

  • Biased reporting in favor of the democrat and against the republican

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • Biased reporting in favor of the republican and against the democrat

    Votes: 2 25.0%
  • The campaign value gained from biased news isn't a campaign contribution

    Votes: 6 75.0%
  • Biased news doesn't provide value to any campaign or party

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    8
"Page not found

Sorry, we couldn't find the page you're looking for."

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm not sure you can consider that a campaign contribution.

That's odd - the link was working a few minutes ago.
 
The link does not work. I doubt that publishing biased news, news analysis or an opinion piece, even with a clear political bias, is considered to be a campaign contribution.

EDIT: After viewing your corrected link, this appears to be the closest to applying to publishing a "biased communication" yet requires coordination with the campaign:

Coordinated communications

When a committee, group or individual pays for a communication that is coordinated with a campaign or a candidate, the communication is either an in-kind contribution or, in some limited cases, a coordinated party expenditure by a party committee.

Absent any clear evidence of such coordination publishing such would appear to be completely outside the scope of FEC jurisdiction. Wasn't that the basis for the Citizens United SCOTUS decision - that the movie, although clearly about a political candidate, was not connected to any particular political campaign?
 
Last edited:
For the purposes of this poll, assume that the biased reporting occurs in an election year and contribution is defined as "anything of value given to influence a federal election":

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

Anyway, to answer the question, if the campaign or the candidate paid for such reporting to help the candidate, I assume that would be a "campaign contribution." It would then be incumbent on the campaign/candidate to report that contribution, or else they would be breaking the law.
 
Last edited:
For the purposes of this poll, assume that the biased reporting occurs in an election year and contribution is defined as "anything of value given to influence a federal election":

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

Editorials and op/eds have long been allowed and not counted as campaign contributions. Defining biased reporting in a concrete enough manner to make laws around is a near impossibility.
 
Link worked fine for me.

Great thread topic.

It comes down to, IMHO, a bifurcation of political support by biased reporting which obviously meets the definition the FEC gives versus the press being protected by the First Amendment.

Short answer, I don’t know. It is a great topic to discuss and one I’ve thought about at length numerous times over the years.
 
For the purposes of this poll, assume that the biased reporting occurs in an election year and contribution is defined as "anything of value given to influence a federal election":

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

Based on my personal opinion, I would select the option you didn't provide: All biased reporting is a campaign contribution.

Based on the link you provided, it's hard to say. The only part of the rules that might apply is this:

Coordinated communications

When a committee, group or individual pays for a communication that is coordinated with a campaign or a candidate, the communication is either an in-kind contribution or, in some limited cases, a coordinated party expenditure by a party committee.

Proving such coordinated communications might be hard to do, though.
 
The link does not work. I doubt that publishing biased news, news analysis or an opinion piece, even with a clear political bias, is considered to be a campaign contribution.

EDIT: After viewing your corrected link, this appears to be the closest to applying to publishing a "biased communication" yet requires coordination with the campaign:



Absent any clear evidence of such coordination publishing such would appear to be completely outside the scope of FEC jurisdiction. Wasn't that the basis for the Citizens United SCOTUS decision - that the movie, although clearly about a political candidate, was not connected to any particular political campaign?

The press is presumed to be reporting honestly and in the public good. But there is no way to enforce it other than for certain people to sue them libel. But the left wing news is holding on by it's fingernails and is now mostly owned by conglomerates and billionaires.

Today's problem is it is so one sided it is worthless to anyone who can fact check.
 
The link does not work. I doubt that publishing biased news, news analysis or an opinion piece, even with a clear political bias, is considered to be a campaign contribution.

EDIT: After viewing your corrected link, this appears to be the closest to applying to publishing a "biased communication" yet requires coordination with the campaign:



Absent any clear evidence of such coordination publishing such would appear to be completely outside the scope of FEC jurisdiction. Wasn't that the basis for the Citizens United SCOTUS decision - that the movie, although clearly about a political candidate, was not connected to any particular political campaign?

It was actually about when such a movie could he shown. They wanted to do it closer to Tue election than allowed

How much could be spent wasn't part of either sides arguments.

It was a gift from the supremes.
 
It was actually about when such a movie could he shown. They wanted to do it closer to Tue election than allowed

How much could be spent wasn't part of either sides arguments.

It was a gift from the supremes.

That is, at best, partly true. The dates for spending political/campaign related spending did not change - it's definition did.
 
It would be too problematic to treat news reporting that way. During the primaries and general election Trump received more free press than anyone else by HUGE margins. But I blame that more on the candidates’ failure to be more compelling.
 
For the purposes of this poll, assume that the biased reporting occurs in an election year and contribution is defined as "anything of value given to influence a federal election":

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions/

Reporting doesn't count, as goes the FEC's definition of a contribution: "A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election." The FEC specifically expounds on that definition as it applies to in-kind contributions:
"Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person pays for services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate."​

Given the above information:
 
"Page not found

Sorry, we couldn't find the page you're looking for."

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm not sure you can consider that a campaign contribution.

See post 16. Whether such is or isn't a contribution depends on the sequence of events and behaviors that gave rise to the stories' conception.
 
The link does not work. I doubt that publishing biased news, news analysis or an opinion piece, even with a clear political bias, is considered to be a campaign contribution.

EDIT: After viewing your corrected link, this appears to be the closest to applying to publishing a "biased communication" yet requires coordination with the campaign:



Absent any clear evidence of such coordination publishing such would appear to be completely outside the scope of FEC jurisdiction. Wasn't that the basis for the Citizens United SCOTUS decision - that the movie, although clearly about a political candidate, was not connected to any particular political campaign?

Red:
Basically, yes.

That said, evidence need not be of the "smoking gun" sort to be "clear." Soundly analyzed information that isn't "smoking gun" in nature but that can be aggregated into a sound or cogent case in support of the conclusion "such coordination existed" also is clear evidence. It's merely that it takes multiple pieces of information, rather than just one (the "smoking gun") to arrive that the conclusion.

"Smoking gun" evidence is great if one can get it, but it's not often that one can. When one hasn't "smoking gun" evidence, one must bring keen analytical skills to bare to determine what is/was existential/extant.
 
Reporting doesn't count, as goes the FEC's definition of a contribution: "A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election." The FEC specifically expounds on that definition as it applies to in-kind contributions:
"Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution. Similarly, when a person pays for services on the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind contribution. An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate."​

Given the above information:

I'm not sure biased reporting wouldn't count. The purpose of biased reporting (propaganda) is to support parties, and in election years, to support specific campaigns. Per the definition of a campaign contribution: "A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value given to influence a federal election". Biased reporting is certainly 'anything of value' to certain candidates, and is definitely aimed at influencing elections. Solicitation for that value doesn't appear to be a requirement, at least as defined.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom