Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Am I wrong about this?
1 posted on 06/22/2016 12:58:40 PM PDT by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
To: CivilWarBrewing

Is Hitlery a Democrat? Then no.


2 posted on 06/22/2016 1:00:07 PM PDT by deadrock (I is someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Believe you are correct.
Send the information to the Trump campaign. They will know what to do


3 posted on 06/22/2016 1:00:25 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Trump is exposing the Fifth Column in the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

It’s a serious federal crime for foreign rich people to give huge amounts of money to help Republicans.


4 posted on 06/22/2016 1:01:24 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Vote GOP: A Slower Handbasket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Obama removed the Borders , you are now a Citizen of the World ,so it’s OK


5 posted on 06/22/2016 1:01:30 PM PDT by butlerweave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing
Actually, this is more than just 'foreign donations'.. This is foreign interference in our electoral process which to me is a far worse crime.
6 posted on 06/22/2016 1:02:33 PM PDT by CivilWarBrewing (Females DESTROYED America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Excellent question and issue.

It is a criminal violation of Federal Election laws for a campaign to accept foreign funds, be it from an foreign individual, PAC or corporation.
Period.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml

The ban on political contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals was first enacted in 1966 as part of the amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an “internal security” statute.  The goal of the FARA was to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals.  These included registration requirements for the agents of foreign principals and a general prohibition on political contributions by foreign nationals.  In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (the FECA), [HTML] [PDF] giving the Federal Election Commission (FEC) jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation.

This brochure has been developed to help clarify the rules regarding the political activity of foreign nationals; however, it is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the election law.  If you have any questions after reading this, please contact the FEC in Washington, D.C., at 1-800-424-9530 or 202-694-1100.  Members of the press should contact the FEC Press Office at 202-694-1220 or at the toll free number listed above.

Except where otherwise noted, all citations refer to the Act and FEC regulations.  Advisory Opinions (AOs) issued by the Commission are also cited.
The Prohibition

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly.  It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them.  Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.
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.”

cartoon of port

Individuals:  The “Green Card” Exception

An immigrant may make a contribution if he or she has a “green card” indicating his or her lawful admittance for permanent residence in the United States.
Domestic Subsidiaries and Foreign-Owned Corporations

A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation or a U.S. corporation that is owned by foreign nationals may be subject to the prohibition, as discussed below.
PAC Contributions for Federal Activity

A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation may not establish a federal political action committee (PAC) to make federal contributions if:

    The foreign parent corporation finances the PAC’s establishment, administration, or solicitation costs; or
    Individual foreign nationals:
        Participate in the operation of the PAC;
        Serve as officers of the PAC;
        Participated in the selection of persons who operate the PAC; or
        Make decisions regarding PAC contributions or expenditure.  11 CFR 110.20(i).
        (See also AOs 2000-17, 1995-15, 1990-8, 1989-29, and 1989-20.)

Corporate Contributions for Nonfederal Activity

Additionally, a domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation (or a domestic corporation owned by foreign nationals) may not donate funds or anything of value in connection with state or local elections if:

    These activities are financed by the foreign parent or owner; or
    Individual foreign nationals are involved in any way in the making of donations to nonfederal candidates and committees.[1]

Please note that many states place additional restrictions on donations made to nonfederal candidates and committees.  11 CFR 110.20(i).  (See also AOs 1992-16, 1985-3, 1982-10, and Matter Under Review (MUR) 2892.)
Volunteer Activity

Generally, an individual may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution.  The Act provides this volunteer “exemption” as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.  11 CFR 100.74.  The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.

In AO 1987-25, the Commission allowed a foreign national student to provide uncompensated volunteer services to a Presidential campaign.  By contrast, the decision in AO 1981-51 prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a Senate campaign.[2]
Non-election Activity by Foreign Nationals

cartoon of protestDespite the general prohibition on foreign national contributions and donations, foreign nationals may lawfully engage in political activity that is not connected with any election to political office at the federal, state, or local levels.  The FEC has clarified such activity with respect to individuals’ activities.

In AO 1989-32, the Commission concluded that although foreign nationals could make disbursements solely to influence ballot issues, a foreign national could not contribute to a ballot committee that had coordinated its efforts with a nonfederal candidate’s re-election campaign.

In AO 1984-41, the Commission allowed a foreign national to underwrite the broadcast of apolitical ads that attempted to expose the alleged political bias of the media.  The Commission found that these ads were not election influencing because they did not mention candidates, political offices, political parties, incumbent federal officeholders or any past or future election.[3]

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].

Soliciting, Accepting, or Receiving Contributions and Donations from Foreign Nationals

As noted earlier, the Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals.  In this context, “knowingly” means that a person:

    Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;
    Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national;
    Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.
    11 CFR 110.20(a)(4)(i), (ii) and (iii).

Pertinent facts that may lead to inquiry by the recipient include, but are not limited to the following: A donor or contributor uses a foreign passport, provides a foreign address,

makes a contribution from a foreign bank, or resides abroad.  Obtaining a copy of a current and valid U.S. passport would satisfy the duty to inquire whether the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national.  11 CFR 110.20(a)(7).

Monitoring Prohibited Contributions

When a federal political committee (a committee active in federal elections) receives a contribution it believes may be from a foreign national, it must:

    Return the contribution to the donor without depositing it; or
    Deposit the contribution and take steps to determine its legality, as described below.

Either action must be taken within 10 days of the treasurer’s receipt.  11 CFR 103.3(b)(1).

If the committee decides to deposit the contribution, the treasurer must make sure that the funds are not spent because they may have to be refunded.  Additionally, he or she must maintain a written record explaining why the contribution may be prohibited.[4]  11 CFR 103.3(b)(4) and (5).  The legality of the contribution must be confirmed within 30 days of the treasurer’s receipt, or the committee must issue a refund.[5]

If the committee deposits a contribution that appears to be legal, but later discovers that the deposited contribution is from a foreign national, it must refund the contribution within 30 days of making the discovery.  If a committee lacks sufficient funds to make a refund when a prohibited contribution is discovered, it must use the next funds it receives.  11 CFR 103.3(b)(1) and (2).

(Return to top)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This means that foreign nationals may not participate in donation activity, allocate funds for donations, or make decisions regarding donations (e.g., selecting the recipients, approving the making of donations, or approving the issuance of donation checks).

[2] The Commission has stated that this opinion is not superceded by AO 1987-25.  Individuals may obtain further guidance in this area by requesting an advisory opinion about their proposed activity.

[3] Individuals and committees should consider requesting an advisory opinion before engaging in other types of political activity involving foreign nationals.

[4] This information must be included when the receipt of the contribution is reported.

[5] For example, evidence of legality includes a written statement from the contributor explaining why the contribution is legal (e.g. donor has a green card), or an oral explanation that is recorded in memorandum.


12 posted on 06/22/2016 1:19:54 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009 (When is our next march on DC? When have we had enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

No, you’re not wrong. Helping a campaign with your goods and services, even if you don’t donate to it directly, is called an “in kind donation”, and those fall under the same restrictions as cash donations.


15 posted on 06/22/2016 1:24:27 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

If it were for a “conservative” it would be illegal. Dems, not so much. SOP.


16 posted on 06/22/2016 1:24:50 PM PDT by rktman (Enlisted in the Navy in '67 to protect folks rights to strip my rights. WTH?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

RE: “How is Hillary getting away with this?”

Hitlery, Slick Willy, Obola and the Whole rotten bunch of destructive parasite democrats and Republicans get away with Destroying our children’s country, only because we passively take it, instead of Marching on DC and state capitals.
We know better, and it’s our obligation to Shame the SH1T out of the crooked bassturds that are ruining this country.

How will we ever tell our kids we gave up without so much as a whimper?


18 posted on 06/22/2016 1:31:48 PM PDT by MarchonDC09122009 (When is our next march on DC? When have we had enough?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Worst case his lawyers need to delay the trial until after 1/20/2016 (and make sure Hillary wins no matter what it takes).


19 posted on 06/22/2016 1:33:07 PM PDT by LostPassword
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Well, right or wrong, who would prosecute her?


20 posted on 06/22/2016 1:46:20 PM PDT by Fido969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

add it to the list of laws Her Majesty is not subject to


23 posted on 06/22/2016 1:58:51 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Wisdom is doing due diligence before forming an opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Crime??? No...we live in lawless times with a criminal government. Laws...we don’t need no steenkin’ laws.


25 posted on 06/22/2016 2:04:34 PM PDT by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing
Nothing in the eyes of the current Justice Dept that helps Democrats is ever a crime. You obviously don't understand how the Obama Justice Dept. works.

Now when we get a Republican to kick out all the Justice Dept Democratic Party hacks, it would probably be a crime.

30 posted on 06/22/2016 2:49:48 PM PDT by Robert357 (D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

I would love to send Trump a small contribution
but I believe it would be illegal because I am a foreigner,
and having integrity, I will not circumvent the law.

It appears Democrats are not so constrained.


33 posted on 06/22/2016 2:55:16 PM PDT by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

I don’t hold much hope even if someone like Trump wants to take it to court.

Rest assured the Swiss guy and the Clintons are lawyered-to-blank-up and have studied this from every angle to be able to worm-hole through all the laws and make it legal, somehow.

But lets see what the Republican party and Trump does. If nothing, I would bet the lawyers did a great job getting all the dark angels dancing on that pin head known as breaking the law.


34 posted on 06/22/2016 2:57:11 PM PDT by Alas Babylon! (Fully accept and CELEBRATE gayness, or you are a homosexual mass murderer supporter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

The law dictates how much politicians can collect in campaign contributions, limits their ability to make money on the side,, and requires the disclosure of those contributors. Hopefully, politicians are also limited to some extent by their conscience. A sense of decency and good judgment ought to prevent politicians on both sides of the aisle from engaging in certain transactions—even if they think they can get away with it.

But while there is ample debate about which transactions should be limited and how, there is a near-universal agreement that the game, however muddy, should be exclusively played by Americans. For this reason, it has long been illegal for foreigners to contribute to US political campaigns. In 2012 two foreign nationals challenged the constitutionality of that law. The US Supreme Court decided 9-0 declaring the law not only constitutionals, but eminently reasonable.

The Clintons, however, often take money from foreign entities. And that money, donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid in speaking fees, comes in amounts much larger than any campaign contribution. Indeed, the scope and extent of these payments are without precedent in American politics. As a result, the Clintons have become exceedingly wealthy.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bluman-v-federal-election-commission/.


35 posted on 06/22/2016 3:02:50 PM PDT by HarleyLady27 ('THE FORCE AWAKENS!!!' Trump; Trump; Trump; Trump; 100%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

Silly pissant laws are for those who are below the salt.


37 posted on 06/22/2016 3:52:10 PM PDT by fella ("As it was before Noah so shall it be again,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing
In January 2015, conservative U.S. news site The Daily Caller accused John Podesta, who was at the time an advisor on environmental issues to the Obama administration, of an ethics violation for pushing the advocacy agenda of a former employer, because he had previously received $87,000 as a consulting fee for work he did for Wyss' HJW Foundation in 2013 (that organization was later merged with the Wyss Foundation). It was noted that the Wyss Foundation had previously donated $4 million to the Center for American Progress (CAP), which Podesta founded. -- Wikipedia
40 posted on 06/22/2016 4:50:54 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CivilWarBrewing

I’m just surprised that the Russians and Chinese aren’t backing Hillary - it’s the surest and quickest way to destroy the United States.


42 posted on 06/22/2016 5:12:02 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson