• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats, citing Russia, move to block foreign funding in 2020 election

Are you unable to see words that you don't like? Here - a bit larger are the first three words of my comment "Among other provisions . . ."

I see the words just fine, it’s just incredibly dishonest to pretend that this one provision is why people voted against HR1.
 
Super liberals enjoy redundant laws. You just want to pass something no matter how insane it might be. Try executing the existing law. Oh no, we need to pass more laws, right? Right? :roll:

So I'm going to presume you are clamoring for enforcement of the lwlaws against the hiring of illegals?

Or are you one of those who wants a wall in a few years instead of enforcing existing laws now?
 
If ensuring foreign money does not find its way into American elections means it is "difficult to challenge incumbents", then fine.

It's already against the law.
 
Wait...did you really just ask why democrats would care about rich donors-especially foreign born globalists-dumping money into campaigns? Isnt campaign finance reform and the influence of rich people one of the primary battle cries of idiot leftists everywhere? Or ios just the Koch brothers that triggers democrats?

Who is/are the "foreign born globalists" you are ranting about? It's not just the Koch brothers triggering Dems, there's some guy named Sheldon Adelson who has dropped a few pennies into Repub hands over the years. The real problem is -- actually there are two problems - one is the result of the Citizens United decision which give personhood to corporations and the other is 'dark money' passing thru multiple limited corporations before being dispersed to a PAC or a campaign. Yes, both sides have benefitted but Dems in the House have at least introduced legislation to stop both issues.
 
What you can't read and understand what's already in place?
I have already addressed this talking point on multiple occasions in this thread. Now, I know reading to understand why you are wrong is not a strong point of yours, but see if you can figure it out.
It's already against the law.
And this legislation helps make it more enforceable, by filling the gaps which need to be filled. As I said.

Seriously, why are you people so scared of reading?
 
Contributions from foreign nationals are already illegal.

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:

Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party nonfederal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both.

Definition
The following groups and individuals are considered "foreign nationals" and are subject to the prohibition:

Foreign citizens (not including dual citizens of the United States);
Immigrants who are not lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
Foreign governments;
Foreign political parties;
Foreign corporations;
Foreign associations;
Foreign partnerships; and
Any other foreign principal, as defined at 22 U.S.C. § 611(b), which includes a foreign organization or “other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country.”

It seems the Democrats are passing a law to make something illegal that has already been illegal for a very long time.

Here's the deal. It may be illegal, but if people can't get caught, then they are going to do it anyways. THAT is what dark money enables. By creating transparency, so people can see where the money is coming from, an illegal activity on paper can become an illegal activity that politicians would be unable to commit without bearing the consequences of their actions.
 
Last edited:
I have already addressed this talking point on multiple occasions in this thread. Now, I know reading to understand why you are wrong is not a strong point of yours, but see if you can figure it out.
And this legislation helps make it more enforceable, by filling the gaps which need to be filled. As I said.

"Helps" that tells me it's still flawed, how many new legislations do you have to have to close ALL the loopholes. When you say "helps" that is subjective, and it may not help one damn bit. I would suggest you need to bone up a little more.
 
"Helps" that tells me it's still flawed, how many new legislations do you have to have to close ALL the loopholes.
Depends. And if something new comes up which is being widely exploited, then more legislation should be passed to deal with it.

When you say "helps" that is subjective
No, it speaks to the intent of the legislation and debunks the falsehood that it is duplicate legislation. Which is the point.

I would suggest you need to bone up a little more.
No, I am 100% on point. And I got you, with only one post, to abandon your previously false position.
 
And this legislation helps make it more enforceable, by filling the gaps which need to be filled. As I said.

It makes it harder for incumbents to be challenged.
And a guy named Cohen was just convicted under existing law.
 
It makes it harder for incumbents to be challenged.
If preventing money from illegally entering campaigns makes it harder, then so be it. That's how elections work.

The idea we should be okay with illegal contributions is absurd.
 
If preventing money from illegally entering campaigns makes it harder, then so be it. That's how elections work.

The idea we should be okay with illegal contributions is absurd.

The proposed legislation doesn't simply change criminal penalties from the current law. It changes the law on what can be donated, and definitions of how donations are defined.
 
Depends. And if something new comes up which is being widely exploited, then more legislation should be passed to deal with it.

No, it speaks to the intent of the legislation and debunks the falsehood that it is duplicate legislation. Which is the point.

No, I am 100% on point. And I got you, with only one post, to abandon your previously false position.

I didn't abandon my previously position. I was pointing out the legislation you so build up does nothing. The best you got is it "helps" which is subjective.

:2wave: Have a good one
 
The proposed legislation doesn't simply change criminal penalties from the current law. It changes the law on what can be donated, and definitions of how donations are defined.
To ensure no illegal foreign influence. I am aware.
I didn't abandon my previously position.
:lamo:lamo

Okay. ;)
 
And Which makes it harder for Americans to donate.

How so? I donate each year to candidates and have had no problem. Explain your comment. How does it make it harder for Americans to donate?
 
So I'm going to presume you are clamoring for enforcement of the lwlaws against the hiring of illegals?

Or are you one of those who wants a wall in a few years instead of enforcing existing laws now?

So you think it's one or the other?
 
This entire thread is as disingenuous as the Democrats stating this bill is about dark money and foreign intervention. Its about making voter fraud laughably easy and not a bug but a feature.

Automatic registration, internet registration, minor registration, same day registration, conditions on interstate challenges, and on and on in Division I, Title I of the bill. They want to make it laughably easy to commit the fraud and hellishly difficult to challenge it and/or purge the rolls should fraud be found.
 
So you think it's one or the other?

Sure don't see your boy even talking bad about employers, much less doing anything about it.

You know, the thing that's already illegal. The thing the executive branch is responsible for enforcing. The thing most of them are coming here for.
 
Sure don't see your boy even talking bad about employers, much less doing anything about it.

You know, the thing that's already illegal. The thing the executive branch is responsible for enforcing. The thing most of them are coming here for.

Was it a campaign promise? BTW Obama talked about it, where were you then? Cheering on his inaction I presume.
 
Was it a campaign promise? BTW Obama talked about it, where were you then? Cheering on his inaction I presume.

It doesn't terrify me as it does y'all.

And the left has been soft on this forever.

The right has NO excuse, beyond turning a blind eye to it because donors.
 
Won't that hurt the Democrat's fundraising?
 
Back
Top Bottom