They've admitted to coordinating with the campaign, but let's set aside that violation for the moment.
The question is: what's the legality of a foreign contribution to AUFC? And technically, is it a foreign contribution, or a contribution by a US citizen via a foreign account?
Yes, it stinks like a rotten apple. But, is it illegal?
I think the money going to belize makes it money from belize and renders it laundered no matter who claims to have sent it.
If it wasn't, they would've kept the $20,000.
I kind of think Mr. O’Keefe knows the answer to that.
It most likely would have to be interpreted by the FEC (which wouldn’t prosecute). I’m not a lawyer but it seems they would fall under
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title11-vol1/xml/CFR-2014-title11-vol1-sec110-20.xml
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
(1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
(2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.
(d) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals for office buildings. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party for the purchase or construction of an office building. See 11 CFR 300.10 and 300.35.
(e) Disbursements by foreign nationals for electioneering communications. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any disbursement for an electioneering communication as defined in 11 CFR 100.29.
(f) Expenditures, independent expenditures, or disbursements by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(g) Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/content/aboutus/
Americans United for Change has challenged the far right conservative voices and ideas that for too long have been mistaken for mainstream American values. In the process, we helped create a groundswell for a return to the traditional progressive values that have defined America – economic fairness, opportunity, national and economic security and democratic leadership.
Today we are building on that success through national campaigns that utilize grassroots organizing, polling and message development, earned and paid media, online organizing, grasstops outreach and paid and volunteer phones to pass the transformational legislation coming out of the Obama White House.
There was never any intent...to be caught on video. Perfectly legal.
But, is it illegal?.... In the middle of the tape Creamer, (I think(, said ‘you wont’ repeat any of this? It is voter fraud you know.’
At the bottom of their donation page, they state "Americans United For Change is organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code." Incidentally, the highest donation amount is "Other ______ (USD)".
The question is: what's the legality of a foreign contribution to AUFC?
Being a 501(c)(4), AUFC can accept foreign donations. However, 501(c)(4)s can't make politics their primary activity.
Yes, it stinks like a rotten apple. But, is it illegal?
What matters is the stench, not the legality. The Department of Just Us would never prosecute the case, nor would the IRS revoke AUFC's 501(c)(4), and, even if they did, the law moves much too slowly to make a difference at this point.