Posted on 04/02/2018 10:32:44 PM PDT by Revel
So, Facebook and Obama may have violated “Federal campaign laws”?
I see in Article I §4 that Congress has the power to make regulations regarding elections for Representatives and Senators.
But I do not see anything in the Constitution about “Presidential elections”. What I DO see is that State Legislatures have the power to appoint Electors for President and Vice President however they choose to do so, and I also see that this power has NOTHING TO DO with Congress.
It is very, very unlikely that the writers of the Constitution intended Congress to have authority over how Electors are chosen by the States. The fact that, currently, all 50 States have chosen to appoint their Electors through the mechanism of idiots voting does not change this.
So it follows that any and all laws purportedly passed by Congress regarding TV dramas (”debates”) and the giving and spending of money within the States regarding appointment of Electors are unconstitutional.
If anybody has a theory of how Congress has authority to regulate this, please say so.
See my #21 below.
How can their be ANY Federal involvement in the process of State Legislatures appointing their Electors? It looks like this is a plenary and unreviewable power.
For there to be a "Presidential Debates Commission", a "Federal Election Commission", and "campaign finance laws" which pertain to the means by which States choose their Electors, the national government has to be granted authority over the 50 sets of laws involved in the first place, and I can't see that this has been done.
As of Nov 19, 2016, This is how the FEC defines 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. 100.52(d)(1) and 100.111(e)(1). 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. 109.20.”
More information here: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf.
I’m more concerned about the privacy of non-members who visited Facebook.
Oh, yes, I’m sure Facebook conspired with the Obama campaign to violate Federal Election laws.
My point is, those laws have no validity with regard to the process by which STATES choose to appoint their Electors.
Congress absolutely has authority to make regulations governing the election of Representatives and Senators (Article I §4).
But I can’t see how the power of every single State Legislature to appoint their Electors however they choose to do so can possibly be governed by Congress or by Federal courts, and if you can find such authority in the Constitution, I’d appreciate it if you could show me.
“Obama’s got a database like you never seen before...” ain’t that right Maxine?
I think I understand the dilemma you have presented here.....
but I dont see how this relates to the impending Obama/Facebook problem which appears not to be at all state-centered.
Well, if I understand the issue, it’s that Facebook donated to the Obama campaign by giving them data free that others would have to pay for, right?
But the PURPOSE of the Obama campaign, as with any other campaign, was to influence the appointment of Electors by State Legislatures through influencing voter behavior.
STATES are perfectly free to make laws about the methods used to influence their processes for choosing Electors. They are free to have elections for this purpose, or to dispense with voting and to appoint their Electors directly.
As I’ve said, I have no doubt that Facebook broke the written law, and did so with evil intent.
The issue is, is ANY law or regulation which purports to govern a process by with States appoint Electors a valid, or constitutional, law?
It is entirely possible that Facebook may have committed federal offenses, including, but not limited to:
<><> Title 18 U.S.C. §1341, Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C.§1001, Presenting a False Document to an Agent of the US Government for funding (may involve several felonies and could include forgery);
<><> 18 U.S.C.§1027 False statements and concealment of facts in relation to documents required by ERISA enacted 1974 and other possible offenses including civil and/or criminal RICO violations.
<><> 18 U.S.C. §§1961-68 (RICO Act)18 U.S.C. §1001 (making false Statements to Agents of the US Government,
<><> 18 U.S.C. §241(Conspiracies Against Civil Rights). Violation of Civil Rights under Color of law and conspiracy. Conspiring with others to violate Facebook users 4th amendment rights.
<><> Possibly full investigations centering on RICO conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) could be warranted because (1) the persons (2) were employed by or associated with a public enterprise (3) that engaged in or affected interstate commerce and that (4) the persons operated or managed the enterprise (5) through a “pattern” (6) of racketeering activity, and (7) the taxpayers were injured by reason of the “pattern” of racketeering activity.
<><> Alleged Offenses could include Violation of Rights – which prohibits in relevant part, “two or more persons (from conspiring) to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District
<><> Title 18 U.S.C. §2 41 – Conspiracy Against Constitutional mandates in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of having so exercised the same . . .” See, 18 U.S.C. §241.
Taxpayers demand the following agencies commence investigations of Facebook activities at once:
<><> FBI — Wire Fraud Division
<><> IRS-Fraud Unit
<><> Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General,
<><> Department of Commerce’s Office of Inspector General.
<><> DOJ’s Criminal Division— Public Integrity Section
<><> DOJ Criminal Division—Organized Crime and Gang Section.
“it’s about the Obama administration using Facebook data they were not supposed to”
A few days ago I heard legal pundits say that the problem is that FB approached the Obama campaign and basically asked, “What can we do to help you?”
Campaign guy asked FB guy something like, “Why would you do this?”
FB guy replied, “Because we’re on your side.”
By doing that, FB made an in-kind donation. God only knows what the monetary value is for that!
Josh Hawley is running against Claire Mccaskill for Missouri Senate seat. He has an excellent chance to win this election. He is bright, articulate and has a good reputation. Claire should have lost in her last election but she poured huge dollars into Todd Akin campaign during republican runoff.
Hawley is a graduate of Stanford and Yale Law School and is only 38 years old. We need young, bright fighters in the GOP. I need to send him a donation.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/josh-hawley-opens-probe-facebook-continues-battle-silicon-valley/
Hypocrite, thy name is:
Democrat
Progressive
Clinton
Obama
Schumer
Pelosi
Soros
Google
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
WaPo
NYT
HuffPo
WSJ
ABC
CBS
NBC
PBS
NPR
CNN
MSNBC
And did Facebook register as a lobbyist for the Democrat Party.
Did Obama report that as an kind contribution?
'bout time...
Makes sense. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.