Skip to comments."Uh-oh" Controversy over Elton John fundraiser for Hillary Clinton (a.k.a. "The Hildebeast")
Posted on 03/27/2008 6:57:02 AM PDT by seanmerc
Are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elton John breaking U.S. laws by allowing the British pop singer, a foreign national, to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign by performing a concert on her behalf?
That's the question Inside the Beltway put to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yesterday, which does not rule out the possibility.
First, some background supplied by the FEC: The goal of the 1966 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) was to "minimize foreign intervention" in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals. In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), giving the FEC jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation.
According to the FEC, 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."
The question now is whether Elton John is contributing "indirectly" to Mrs. Clinton's campaign and whether the candidate herself has sought to "solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations" from a foreign national, which is unlawful.
That said, the act does provide a volunteer "exemption" as long as the foreign national performing a service is not compensated by anyone. But this exemption gets tricky and might not apply to Elton John.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The Beast will not be happy.
The B!tches are back.
I doubt she’s losing a moment of sleep. Her campaign has already decided how to spin it to the media. And any prosecution would only take place long after she was elected.
She will do anything to get elected, including break the law now and deal with the consequences when she’s (oh, God, NO!) president.
cue captain obvious.
OF COURSE ELTON JOHN IS CRIMINALLY VIOLATING THE LAW.
His performance is SPECIFIC to intervent in a US election.
Wait, didn’t this goof ball do a fund raiser for Kerry in 2004 ?
Isn’t the performance itself an “in kind” contribution that has to be assessed a dollar value? Or are they paying Sir Elton (it had better be his usual fee) as though he were simply performing at any private/corporate venue? This seems suspiciously like the kind of thing they did with the 2000 Hollyweird Gala for Shrillary’s Senate campaign - wonder if they’ll have their books kept honestly this time.
p.s. Maybe we should give them a pass if Sir Elton plays “The Bitch is Back” with Shrillary onstage!!
Doug—why does this sound familiar?/s/
All he has to do is charge a customary fee for the performance, and it becomes a non-issue. Then he only has to remain quiet when the check bounces.
The Clintons operate under the principles of “It’s better to ask forgiveness than permission” and if you “load up the FEC with thousands of complaints it won’t get sorted out until you are out of office”.
It’s kinda like how Bill had to absolutely get elected the first time else the law was going to catch up to him and Hillary for all their misdeeds. Being President meant he could control (er manage?) the procesutions against him.
Maybe she should have used Yoko Ono...
I guess I get to say, “I told ya so!”
I posted this very question in the first appearance of this story some time ago on FR. Seemed soooo very obvious!
England has two old Queens.
Gee, can I pick the set?
Funeral for a Friend
All the Young Girls Love Alice
The Bitch is Back
Saturday Night’s Alright for Fighting
Better Off Dead
Texan Love Song
Heart’s in the Right Place
Don’t Let the Sun Go Down on Me
Have Mercy on the Criminal
actually he would have to verify he was actually paid FULLY and it can not be a “pro forma” payment.
He is SPECIFICALLY inducing a contribution to a political campaign. He is specifically encouraging financial support.
Of course he is futher proving straight men don’t vote democrat.
The Clinton's created "broken glass Republicans" - people who will crawl over broken glass to vote against Clintons.... count me as one of them.
As am I, a broken glass Republican.
I hope there are enough of us.