Foreign Campaign Contributions Could Disqualify Romney From

[elder999]

....and send him to jail, because they're illegal, and receiving them is a felony.

The ban on foreign campaign contributions in any U.S. election was upheld unanimously by the SCOTUS back in January:

In a terse four words, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections.
The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.
Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.
The Supreme Court’s order did not discuss the merits or suggest that there was any dissent among the justices.

Romney held a $25-50K a plate dinner in Israel. He raised millions of dollars there, and in London.

Of course, I'd expect no less from a man with multiple foreign bank accounts.......:lol:

 

[Steve]

....and send him to jail, because they're illegal, and receiving them is a felony.

The ban on foreign campaign contributions in any U.S. election was upheld unanimously by the SCOTUS back in January:



Romney held a $25-50K a plate dinner in Israel. He raised millions of dollars there, and in London.

Of course, I'd expect no less from a man with multiple foreign bank accounts.......:lol:

Wow... holy @@@@!!! I'm going to wait to learn more about this, because... damn... if it's true, it's both scary and very, very wrong.

 

[Big Don]

Clooney fundraising for Obama in France and Switzerland, gee, I guess BOTH are out...
Link from well know right wing publication... hahaha

 

[Sukerkin]

I can hardly imagine that these people do not know that they are breaking the law ... so what loopholes are they exploiting? Or is it that, as I have said before, that we need to rid ourselves of this 'professional' political class we have saddled ourselves with and get back to having politicians that actually represented us​.

 

[elder999]

Clooney fundraising for Obama in France and Switzerland, gee, I guess BOTH are out...
Link from well know right wing publication... hahaha

T

That would be good. Both out. THey both suck, so I'd be happy. What about you? Unfortunately, in the case of Clooney, it can probably be demonstrated that all the funds came from American citizens-it's even called Americans Abroad. In the case of Romney in Israel and London, though, many, many donors were anonymous-some were Russian Jews from Moscow. One things not quite the same as the other......

 

[Aiki Lee]

Even if they did break the law, nothing is going to happen to either of them. Nothing ever does.

 

[Empty Hands]

Even if they did break the law, nothing is going to happen to either of them. Nothing ever does.

Truest thing I've seen written today. Ways are always found to let the "real" candidates slide on technicalities while 3rd party candidates are held strictly to account. Look at the mess in 2008 with ballot qualification in Texas, both Obama and McCain passed the deadlines but were still allowed in for the election.

That said, there is no use bemoaning and asking when we can replace venal and corrupt politicians like they were put there by aliens or something. We put them there. The electorate has selected for weaselly scum. "Bold truth tellers" lose elections. If we want something different, then we need to put something different in place. Otherwise we deserve exactly what we get.

 

[Big Don]

"Bold truth tellers" lose elections.

That is the truest thing I have seen written today, especially considering the winner in 2008...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Since it involves the annointed saviors of the DNC and GOP, nothing will happen because it wouldn't be 'fair'.
Of course, had it been a 3rd party candidate who actually has to meet election guidelines, all hell would break loose.

 

[billc]

And then you have this...

http://europenews.dk/en/node/13093

Despite dropping the groundbreaking bombshell story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign, no big media picked up the story. Jihadis donating to Obama from Gaza? Could there be a bigger story? Foreign donations are illegal, but this story was all that and so much more. The "Palestinian" brothers were proud and vocal of their "love" for Obama. Their vocal support on behalf of "Palestinians" spoke volumes to Obama's campaign.
And yet still no media.
But Obama pricked up his ears. He smelled trouble and while no media asked, he answered anyway. Sen. Obama's campaign immediately scrambled and contended they had returned the $33,500 in illegal contributions from Palestinians in Hamas-controlled Gaza, despite the fact that records do not show that it was returned and the brothers said they have not received any money. Having gone through all of Obama's refunds redesignations etc, no refund was made to Osama, Hossam, or Edwan Monir in the Rafah refugee camp. And still no media.
One of the Gazan brothers, Monir Edwan (identified here), claimed he bought "Obama for President" T-shirts off Obama's website and thensold the T-shirts in Gaza for a profit. All purchases on the Barack Obama website are considered contributions.

And more from another article by the same author...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

[FONT=times new roman,times]The first in my series of posts ran July 19th. The documents were so unwieldy, readers like John, Doc, and Cathy (who discovered Rafah) were working furiously to cross check our findings at the FEC site and then mine the data.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Obama's overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi's stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc,[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Digging deeper, all sorts of very bizarre activity jumped at us. Dr and JJ continued to break it down and pull data from various sources. We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day, [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]City: Jkbjnj Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Occupation: Balanon Jalalan Amount: $1,077.23[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]or thedonor Doodad, The # of transactions = 1,044[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The $ contributed = $10,780.00[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The more questions we answered the more questions we discovered.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]Thousands of Obama's foreign donations ended in cents. The "cents" did not make sense. And we compared McCain donation documentss to Obama's. McCain's records are nothing like Obama's. McCain's are soclean.[/FONT]

And before people attack the author, I think we have all learned from the Democrats that it is the seriousness of the charge, not what actually happened that makes an investigation necessary...

 

[K-man]

But technically, is $25K paid for a ticket to a dinner a donation? Sure, it's fundraising and sure no meal is worth $25K (especially if you have to listen to a politician waffle on), but it is totally different to some, possibly unidentified, person or state quietly providing funds to a campaign in order to influence that person. I think the law is directed at that type of donation.

 

[elder999]

But technically, is $25K paid for a ticket to a dinner a donation? Sure, it's fundraising and sure no meal is worth $25K (especially if you have to listen to a politician waffle on), but it is totally different to some, possibly unidentified, person or state quietly providing funds to a campaign in order to influence that person. I think the law is directed at that type of donation.

Well, you may think that, but it's not that specific at all. It strictly forbids all foreign contributions to campaigns-any campaigns.

I could run for mayor of Los Alamos-if there were such a thing-and if one of the Chinese scientists who lives in town gave a dollar to my campaign, I'd have to give it back, or risk going to jail. That's the law.

Likewise, if I were down in San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico, where I keep my boat, and hosted a barbecue-as the future mayor of Los Alamos, and charged everyone $25 for all you can eat brisket, shrimp and rellenos, to sit and listen to my vision for Los Alamos, with the understanding that that money was going towards my campaign, and Pedro from the marina came and bought a serving, I'd have to give his money back, or risk going to jail, but not that of the many Texans, Arizonans and New Mexicans who spend time in San Carlos and might attend.

There is a possibility, of course, that many of the people who attended Romney's foreign fundraisers were expatriate Americans, or held dual citizenship-a very strong possibility for some Israelis. I know that some Americans flew into Israel just to attend. What is not is not likely, though, is that they all were Americans. the attendees have been kept largely anonymous.
.

 

[harlan]

Reminds me of another meeting. One with 'energy' and oil reps and the previous administration. Still don't have a list of who sat at that table.

What is not is not likely, though, is that they all were Americans. the attendees have been kept largely anonymous.
.

 

[granfire]

Well, you may think that, but it's not that specific at all. It strictly forbids all foreign contributions to campaigns-any campaigns.

I could run for mayor of Los Alamos-if there were such a thing-and if one of the Chinese scientists who lives in town gave a dollar to my campaign, I'd have to give it back, or risk going to jail. That's the law.

Likewise, if I were down in San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico, where I keep my boat, and hosted a barbecue-as the future mayor of Los Alamos, and charged everyone $25 for all you can eat brisket, shrimp and rellenos, to sit and listen to my vision for Los Alamos, with the understanding that that money was going towards my campaign, and Pedro from the marina came and bought a serving, I'd have to give his money back, or risk going to jail, but not that of the many Texans, Arizonans and New Mexicans who spend time in San Carlos and might attend.

There is a possibility, of course, that many of the people who attended Romney's foreign fundraisers were expatriate Americans, or held dual citizenship-a very strong possibility for some Israelis. I know that some Americans flew into Israel just to attend. What is not is not likely, though, is that they all were Americans. the attendees have been kept largely anonymous.
.

But I am sure if Rita's second cousin twice removed hosted such a shindig to get you elected mayor of Los Alamos (has a nice ring to it, I have to say) and then, via one non-profit or other gave the money of Wong, Pedro and Karl to your campaign (or was it Hans, I forgot) it would be alright I am sure....

 

[zDom]

... we need to rid ourselves of this 'professional' political class we have saddled ourselves with and get back to having politicians that actually represented us​.

When in history did we EVER have that?

 

[Sukerkin]

:lol: A fair point there, Dom. For a time over here in Britain we did; it was called the Labour Party. But that was before they became just like the Tories but with a red banner rather than a blue one .

 

[elder999]

When in history did we EVER have that?

Prior to 1855, members of Congress received an honorarium, rather than an annual salary.

I mean, Paul Ryan's been in Congress since 1998, when he turned 28. It's pretty much the only career he's ever known, and he's making about $174,000 a year at it-which is damned good incentive to keep the job in and of itself, never mind the perks and power. Especially when you condiser that the original intent of the two year term was to allow citizenry an opportunity to govern.'

Sad, really.

 

[Empty Hands]

Sad, really.

The payment of a wage to members of the House of Commons was a major step forward for democratic governance. Without it, only those of independent means can afford to be in government. No one else can take 6 months or more off every year. That would be no improvement over what we have now.

 

[elder999]

The payment of a wage to members of the House of Commons was a major step forward for democratic governance. Without it, only those of independent means can afford to be in government. No one else can take 6 months or more off every year. That would be no improvement over what we have now.

Up until 1855, the honorarium was more than sufficient-it was never piddling. In 1789, it was $1500-a relatively decent amount of money at the time., equivalent to about $39k today. To that extent, I agree with you. It should be an annual salary that's completely reflective of the middle class. No more than $100,000, and probably more like 80K or even 65K.

 

[cdunn]

Up until 1855, the honorarium was more than sufficient-it was never piddling. In 1789, it was $1500-a relatively decent amount of money at the time., equivalent to about $39k today. To that extent, I agree with you. It should be an annual salary that's completely reflective of the middle class. No more than $100,000, and probably more like 80K or even 65K.

Well, in theory, a significant salary, more reflective of the upper middle class, reduces the temptation to accept bribery. I think it's probably an experiment that we can more or less write off as a failure, with as 'for sale' as our representatives obviously are.