• 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

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,856
Reaction score
8,334
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.

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

Democratic members of Congress, in their opening salvo after winning the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives last fall, spearheaded passage of a major bill late last week that includes provisions to thwart foreign spending in U.S. elections. The sweeping anti-corruption act, known as H.R. 1, covers a wide range of issues from campaign finance to voter rights and government ethics.

Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill, which passed 234-193, reflecting a deep partisan divide over how best to shore up American democracy after the tumultuous 2016 campaign.

Democrats and campaign finance advocates see an urgent need to close loopholes that could allow foreign money to surreptitiously influence American voters, citing in particular a Kremlin-linked company that bought divisive Facebook ads and a Trump administration tax rule change last summer that could allow illegal foreign donors to evade detection.

H.R. 1 would require greater disclosure of donors, increased transparency on digital ad spending, and disclosure of gifts from foreign agents to officeholders. It would also change the structure of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to break its current partisan deadlock, which has severely hampered the commission’s ability to enforce existing campaign finance rules.

Republicans, while acknowledging Russia’s previous attempts to sow dissension, see Democratic legislators’ measures as an overreaction to what was likely a minuscule percentage of overall spending in the 2016 election. They describe Democrats as using a foreign boogeyman to push through an agenda that predates Russian trolls – an agenda which they say would curtail American rights to privacy and free speech.

Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?
 
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.



Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?

As always, the devil is in the details.
 
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.



Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?

It's already illegal for candidates to accept money from foreigners.

Who can and can't contribute
 
It's already illegal for candidates to accept money from foreigners.
So then there should be no problem with a bill designed to help ensure it doesn't happen, right?
 
Why would Cocaine Mitch and his cabal of anti-democracy deviants not desire transparency? Why is the american system so ****ing convoluted?

I am expected to take responsibility. For what I buy, and whom I vote for.

Republicans would continue to disallow me access to crucial information, which enables me to make an informed decision, and truly understand who and what I am voting for.

I wonder why.
 
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.



Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?

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.
 
So then there should be no problem with a bill designed to help ensure it doesn't happen, right?

I been thinking about that. Since it is already illegal, why the need to pass another law making something illegal that is already illegal? Is there a solid reason for doing so or is this just political posturing, trying to gain political points?

Seems to me it would be better for legislation to enhance enforcement of the existing laws which make foreign donations illegal than passing legislation that is meaningless since it is already illegal.
 
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.



Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?

It's already illegal to take donations from foreign nationals.
 
Or anything of value, such as assistance in a presidential election, for that matter...

"Anything of value" refers to something that can be converted to cash, to fund the campaign.

Opposition research doesn't fall under "anything of value".
 
So then there should be no problem with a bill designed to help ensure it doesn't happen, right?

If, and only if, that was the sole purpose/content of the legislation. As usual, the HR 1 bill is a collection of stuff rather*than simply addressing a single problem.
 
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.



Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?

It would be interesting to know if the proposed exclusion of foreign money, aimed at Russian influence, includes Israeli money and influence. Probably not.
 
So then there should be no problem with a bill designed to help ensure it doesn't happen, right?

No to your silly generalization. I want to know the detail of the difference. I realize that as a super liberal, a million more laws (redundant or not) is of no concern to you, since we can never have too many. But sane people think that too many laws is actually possible, and has already occurred in many cases.
 
Among other provisions in the Dems' H.R.1 bill was one calling for closing loopholes which allow "dark money" in political funding.



Pray tell - how does stopping foreign money from entering the American political machinery impede Americans' free speech?

Why are you pretending that this is the only provision in HR 1?
 
I been thinking about that. Since it is already illegal, why the need to pass another law making something illegal that is already illegal?
To ensure the law is being followed. The summary clearly states that.

Did you read the summary while you were thinking?

Seems to me it would be better for legislation to enhance enforcement of the existing laws
That is exactly what the summary said this bill did. So, in that case, you actually do support this legislation, correct?
If, and only if, that was the sole purpose/content of the legislation. As usual, the HR 1 bill is a collection of stuff rather*than simply addressing a single problem.
As it is legislation in Congress, I had no doubt that was the case.
No to your silly generalization.
What is general or silly about my statement, aside from the fact it does not meet the level of propaganda you like to post?

I want to know the detail of the difference.
:lamo :lamo :lamo

Since when? Is this something new you're trying? Because Lord knows I have read more than enough posts from you to realize you NEVER care about details.

I realize that as a super liberal
So someone who does not want foreign money invading our elections is now a "super liberal" to you? I just call that being an American.

Does that mean you're not an American?
 
"Anything of value" refers to something that can be converted to cash, to fund the campaign.

Opposition research doesn't fall under "anything of value".

Sure as hell does when it is given to you and you don't pay for it.

Does trump have a receipt for the services rendered???

Just as if fusion GPS had done all their research for Clinton a d turned it over to her as a gift would have been illegal.

However In trumps case it is even more incriminating as it is a hostile foreign government that assisted/fixed the election for trump.

And hacking and stealing emails and then coordinating their release ( proven by JRs emails).

One of these things is not like the other...

Hint, one is 100% legal opposition research, the other is illegal and very possibly treasonous...
 
Last edited:
To ensure the law is being followed. The summary clearly states that.

Did you read the summary while you were thinking?

That is exactly what the summary said this bill did. So, in that case, you actually do support this legislation, correct?
As it is legislation in Congress, I had no doubt that was the case.
What is general or silly about my statement, aside from the fact it does not meet the level of propaganda you like to post?

:lamo :lamo :lamo

Since when? Is this something new you're trying? Because Lord knows I have read more than enough posts from you to realize you NEVER care about details.

So someone who does not want foreign money invading our elections is now a "super liberal" to you? I just call that being an American.

Does that mean you're not an American?

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:
 
Super liberals enjoy redundant laws.
How is this a redundant law? C'mon, you said you were about the details, your statement is the OPPOSITE of worrying about details.

Explain how a law to provide greater transparency into campaign donations, the provisions of which do not currently exist, is redundant. Give me the details.

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:
Literally nothing you said here has a point, it is just rhetoric vomit. Typical non-American rhetoric vomit.
 
How is this a redundant law? C'mon, you said you were about the details, your statement is the OPPOSITE of worrying about details.

Explain how a law to provide greater transparency into campaign donations, the provisions of which do not currently exist, is redundant. Give me the details.

Literally nothing you said here has a point, it is just rhetoric vomit. Typical non-American rhetoric vomit.

Its a redundant law as Jeb Bush was just fined under the original law.
 
Its a redundant law as Jeb Bush was just fined under the original law.
Did you even read what this one was doing? If you do not understand something, you probably shouldn't post.
 
So then there should be no problem with a bill designed to help ensure it doesn't happen, right?

You mean like a "born alive" bill?
 
We have a bad habit in Congress of presenting and passing bills that are copies of bills already in existence. This bill for instance saying foreign entities cannot contribute, already a law. Congress does this because it looks good, most of the public doesn't know what does or doesn't exist and just see Congress, usually their party, doing something. We are overburdened with legislation that is duplicitous. Often in these bills one party votes against because of some other part of the bill that is added in and really has little to nothing to do with the original bill but was thrown in to sneak past an otherwise no vote.
 
Back
Top Bottom