Redress, read the information in the two links I put in the second post in this thread. Especially the definitions of terms like what constitutes a "foreign national" and other key terms. You can't wash the money by passing through a US citizen or US organization, not to say that was your implication.
The emails do not suggest nor imply that is what is happening. The issue is FARA registration, not the source of any money they raised. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the emails linked.
Okay.
True, and Hillary took a justly earned bruising from it during the primary. Still, Trump did solicit donations from foreign nationals, which is very illegal, no matter what. Our campaign finance system to screwed to high hell though, so Trump and Hillary can keep on skirting the rules and getting away with it.
AS is normally the case with the revelations from wikileaks from the Podesta emails, this kinda falls apart as soon as you actually read it. It does not talk about raising foreign money, it is talking about bundlers who lobby for foreign interests. SO these are Americans who are registered with FARA. Most lobby for both domestic and foreign entities. This is perfectly legal. To further highlight the absurdity of the OP, let's look at the first names listed in the emails:
Tony Podesta: He is from Chicago and American.
Ben Barnes: Born in Texas and was even a Texas lieutenant governor.
John Merrigan: Can't find his birthplace, but sure enough, he is American.
You might see a pattern forming here. This is not illegal, immoral, or otherwise improper. Lobbyists tend to represent a variety of clients. Some of those clients are foreign. This does not in any way mean they cannot raise money, or donate to political causes.
How does it fall apart? The Dems rail against money influence in politics, and that whole email chain is talking about how to get the money without it looking bad.
How many countries did the United States interfere with internally during the Cold War, again? What's good for the goose...
Evidently you are a conservative (evinced by your prattling on about Democratic hypocrisy regarding big money in politics whilst ignoring Trump's hypocrisy regarding China). May I presume then that you concur with the Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United, that money is the same as speech?
If so, then you have no grounds for denying to anyone their freedom of speech, regardless of their nationality. If money is speech, then a foreigner has as much right to speak through a monetary donation as he does to opine about an American election on a messageboard or on Twitter.
The claim is that the campaign was doing something wrong. That is not shown in the emails linked. In fact, it shows them being especially cautious.
And while "the Dems" want to get money out of politics, until and unless they succeed, the money is there and they need to play by the rules and use the money.
Trump rails against China and foreign influence in America while soliciting Chinese money. What's the difference?
Them doing something wrong is MY opinion. I never claimed it was a fact. And its based on their inconsistency in regards to campaign financing. Imagine if they publicized all these foreigners raising millions for them. Instead they hide it. Thats how you know that even they know its wrong.
But earlier this month an undercover reporter spoke by telephone to Eric Beach, co-chairman of the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which has the backing of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, as well as the billionaire's son Eric.
...
Mr Beach then said at the Vegas event last Wednesday: "Trump knows that you know, people have stuck with him … I’m not gonna twist your arm or anything, I just think that there’s no way that this group, and you guys have been participating indirectly or directly, won’t be remembered."
Mr Benton said the $2 million, for which he would submit an invoice for “appearances” would “definitely allow us to spend two million more dollars on digital and television advertising for Trump.” The Chinese benefactor's generosity would be “whispered into Mr Trump’s ear."He said he had previously helped US donors conceal donations.
They are not foreigners, they are Americans. It helps to know what you are talking about.
They are foreign agents.
I was not arguing with you. I read what you said. I was making a statement based on what I quoted above. I also gave the link to the FEC web page and a link to the FEC flyer that both lay out that it's in fact illegal in the post you originally quoted.
Also, prior to me responding to you, I read in this thread where some idiot(s) related to the Trump campaign had also appeared to break the same law, hence my adding in my reply to you that it was illegal regardless of who did such an act.
Again, I wasn't trying to argue with you, I was just making a statement that I had already previously established with linked facts.
Yes, I understand that, but I'm disputing your interpretation of the facts. Your link states:
"Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. Please note, however, that "green card" holders (i.e., individuals lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S.) are not considered foreign nationals and, as a result, may contribute. For additional information, consult our "Foreign Nationals" brochure."
The Clinton email states:
"We really need make a policy decision on this soon - whether we are allowing those lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to raise $ for the campaign. Or case by case."
Neither foreign nationals nor foreign governments have not contributed to the Hillary Clinton campaign (or at least this email provides no evidence for it), and they haven't solicited donations from foreign donors. Therefore, your link doesn't apply. Lobbyists collect money, but it's not like it's money taken from multiple sources into a single pot, and the redistributed into whatever that lobbyist is hired to promote. There's always PAC's, charities, organizations, corporations, etc. I don't disagree that this is all shady business that needs to be made illegal, but as it stands right now, it's legal.
(emphasis added)[...]
Who is a Foreign National?
The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:
•Foreign governments;
•Foreign political parties;
•Foreign corporations;
•Foreign associations;
•Foreign partnerships;
•Individuals with foreign citizenship; and
•Immigrants who do not have a "green card."
[...]
Assisting Foreign National Contributions or Donations
Under Commission regulations it is unlawful to knowingly provide substantial assistance to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. 11 CFR 110.20(h). "Substantial assistance" refers to active involvement in the solicitation, making, receipt or acceptance of a foreign national contribution or donation with the intent of facilitating the successful completion of the transaction. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to individuals who act as conduits or intermediaries. 67 FR 69945-6 (November 19, 2002) [PDF].
[...]
From the second link in my post (#2 in this thread) that defines and explains the law:
(emphasis added)
None of the people listed int the emails would qualify as a foreign national based on that. Here is a funny idea: why don't you actually read the ****ing emails and pay attention to what they actually say.
The Clinton email states:
"We really need make a policy decision on this soon - whether we are allowing those lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to raise $ for the campaign. Or case by case."
Wow, such uncalled for anger, I've been very polite and respectful here Redress - - connect the dots from the first section defining a foreign national to the second portion that describes the illegality of "knowingly provide substantial assistance to foreign nationals making contributions or donations in connection with any U.S. election. 11 CFR 110.20(h)" then to your own post where you quoted this:
DP you know the difference between lobbying, and accepting campaign contributions? It seems you do not, so you might start studying up on that. Hint: one is trying to sell politicians on your policy desires, one is taking money to be used in a campaign. Do you notice how they are actually nothing alike?
"... allowing those lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to raise $ for the campaign ..."
The subject of the sentence is "... raise $ for the campaign ..." and the qualifying limitation of the subject is "... those lobbying on the behalf of foreign governments ..." not the other way around. Context and the complete thought in the sentence as well as the purpose of the thought is what matters. The email, and the part you quoted specifically, is showing a conscious knowledge and obvious concern for potential breaches in law by their fundraising activities.
Marc made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don't really get you anything...that Obama actually got judged MORE harshly as a result. He convinced me. So...in a complete U-turn, I'm ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?
Put simply, we would use the same criteria we use for lobbyists, except with a somewhat more stringent screen. As a legal matter, I am not saying we have to do this - we can decide to simply ban foreign registrants entirely. I'm just offering this up as a middle ground.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?