Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has consistently followed the government's instructions for keeping prohibited foreign money out of their presidential campaigns, and some of that banned money has slipped into Obama's campaign.
During interviews with 123 donors in 11 countries, The Associated Press found contributions Obama accepted from at least three foreigners. Just five of the donors checked, three for Obama and two for McCain, said the campaigns asked to see copies of their current U.S. passports — as instructed by the Federal Election Commission to avoid legal problems.
Obama's campaign said it would refund the money to the foreign donors the AP identified.
One donor, Tom Sanderson of Canada, made clear his $500 contribution came from a foreign source. He included a note that said, "I am not a American citizen!" Obama's campaign took the money anyway, even publishing Sanderson's cautionary statement about his citizenship in its official finance reports.
Democratic hopeful Obama and Republican rival McCain portray themselves as meticulously abiding by campaign finance laws. But the fundraising review of hundreds of thousands of donations — involving AP bureaus around the globe — found clear evidence that both campaigns took money first and asked questions later, if ever. Shining a light on a weakness in the nation's campaign finance laws, the review turned up a smattering of illegal foreign donations to Obama as well as missing details from both Obama and McCain in federal paperwork the law requires.
Only American citizens or green card holders are legally permitted to give campaigns money, a longtime ban intended to protect U.S. elections from foreign meddling and influence. The Federal Election Commission instructs that candidates ask to see an overseas donor's current U.S. passport, considered the strongest safeguard against illegal foreign money. Screening donors can be a daunting task in a presidential race, especially one with record sums and millions of dollars coming in over the Internet.
Obama has raised at least $2 million abroad, far more than McCain's total of at least $229,000, according to the AP's review of campaign finance records. The amount reported flowing in from outside the U.S. is a small percentage of the roughly $390 million raised so far by Obama and the $167 million by McCain. But few contributors contacted by the AP said the campaigns asked to see their passports.
"I donated to the Obama campaign because I was so excited and thrilled to hear him speak," said Sanderson, a property manager in Calgary. "I like what he says and I like what he represents, and it's a world stage today for any political leader."
Sanderson said he donated money using Obama's Web site and doesn't remember checking a box certifying he was a U.S. citizen, instead noting next to his address that he wasn't. After the AP contacted Sanderson by phone, he asked the campaign for a refund: "It was an error of me to give the donation, and it was an error that it was accepted," he said.
A spokesman for Obama, Ben LaBolt, said campaign workers "consistently review our procedures to make sure that we are taking every reasonable step to ensure that the contributions we receive are appropriate and follow FEC guidelines, and we will do so again in light of this new information."
McCain's campaign said it was impractical to ask Internet contributors for copies of their passports. "We're always looking for ways to best comply with all provisions of campaign finance regulations, and obviously take swift action anytime flags are raised regarding potentially problematic campaign contributions," spokesman Brian Rogers said.
The AP analyzed 1.27 million campaign contributions to Obama and McCain to identify 6,948 contributions from people who appeared to live outside the United States and who were not obviously in the U.S. military. The AP contacted 123 donors in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland and interviewed them about their citizenship and donations.
Obama has far more overseas donors than McCain, and that was reflected in the number of interviews: the AP was able to reach 116 Obama supporters, six McCain backers and one donor who gave to both.
Australian Richard Watters gave Obama's campaign $1,000 over the Internet, entering a fake U.S. passport number — a random jumble of numbers and letters — so the site would take his money. He said he also checked a box stating that he was an American living overseas, "because I could see it wasn't going anywhere if I didn't do that."
Watters was surprised when a reporter told him it was illegal for foreigners to donate to U.S. presidential campaigns, but he said he was still glad he gave.
"I wouldn't give up, because I believe in the man — I really do," said Watters, 76, of Sydney, a stock market trader. "Maybe I just feel he can put a smile back on the face of the world."
Swiss citizen Gilles Massamba gave Obama at least $436 and received campaign souvenirs. He said the campaign didn't ask whether he was a U.S. citizen.
Just three donors to Obama and two for McCain told the AP the campaigns asked to see their passports. One Obama donor, in France, was asked to show her U.S. driver's license at a fundraising event. Others said if they did anything, they checked a box on the campaigns' Web sites affirming they were U.S. citizens or were asked to provide their passport numbers, or both.
A spokesman for the FEC, Bob Biersack, said it was prudent for the campaigns to ask online donors to check a box confirming they are U.S. citizens, but obtaining copies of U.S. passports from overseas donors is the only protection against enforcement action.
In dozens of instances, the AP could not determine whether donors had foreign addresses since their addresses were missing from campaign finance reports. Other key information also was missing. McCain and Obama each omitted information identifying the employers for at least 10,000 contributions in their most recent donor data. In most cases, the campaigns appear to have asked supporters to provide those details.
The ramifications of accepting foreign money can vary from political embarrassment to federal investigations: The last major foreign money scandal, a 1996 Democratic case involving Asian money and the Clinton-Gore re-election effort, resulted in record FEC fines totaling $719,000 and probation for some of those involved.
Sometimes the foreign connection comes from who collects the money rather than who donates it. McCain's campaign announced this month it will return $50,000 solicited by a foreigner and business partner of a McCain volunteer fundraiser in Florida.
The candidates are supposed to disclose detailed information about donors who give $200 or more, including their addresses, employers and occupations. At a minimum, if donors give more than $50, the candidates are expected to record their names.
No donor names appeared in Obama's campaign finance reports for a handful of donations over $50. In dozens of cases, there were names but no addresses. "Anonymous," "999 Anonymous Street," "XX" or "Info Requested" are listed for roughly 200 donations to McCain.
The requirement to include employers is intended to let the public and news media see who is giving and help identify favors that donors or their employers may receive.
The FEC expects campaigns to follow up with donors to seek missing information, but they do not have to try very hard: One attempt, such as a postcard sent to the contributor's address, is considered due diligence under fundraising rules.
In Canada, Sanderson left a message with Obama's campaign and sent an e-mail after learning his donation was illegal. He said he hoped his contribution wouldn't "rustle any feathers." Sanderson considered a mischievous move to neutralize the political value his donation might have, but in the end, just asked for a refund.
"I was going to donate to McCain last night," he said, "and my wife talked me out of it."
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
And yet, there are STILL people who claim that campaign-finance reform isn't needed, or that it would be a horrible violation of "freedom of speech." (In other words, money LITERALLY talks!)
Some of these nuts even resent McCain for the one positive accomplishment he made in his long senatorial career--the McCain-Feingold Act. (shaking my head)
Yeah, let's get the government out of politics, and let the free market decide what our politicians are worth. That's democracy in action.
And yet, there are STILL people who claim that campaign-finance reform isn't needed, or that it would be a horrible violation of "freedom of speech." (In other words, money LITERALLY talks!)
Seems to me that this is another example of how it doesn't work. Unless you're arguing that Obama was deliberating trying to break the law and got caught.
Quote:
Some of these nuts even resent McCain for the one positive accomplishment he made in his long senatorial career--the McCain-Feingold Act.
I think McCain-Feingold was a mistake and its one of the things about McCain that I find troubling. But regardless of how you feel about it, to call it "the one positive accomplishment [McCain] made in his long senatorial career" is completely delusional" is completely absurd. The man is one of the most respected Senators-by members of both sides-of the last 25 years.
Quote:
let's get the government out of politics, and let the free market decide what our politicians are worth. That's democracy in action.
In other words, you think "democracy" is getting government into the regulation of people's exercise of free speech.
McCain-Feingold did nothing. It was feel-good legislation and, in my opinion, a mark against McCain for not really accomplishing anything that he promised.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
McCain-Feingold did nothing. It was feel-good legislation and, in my opinion, a mark against McCain for not really accomplishing anything that he promised.
In fact, McCain-Feingold (or at least McCain's support for such legislation) is a big-if not primary-reason why I supported Bush over McCain in 2000.
Don't go messing with free speech in political campaigns.
So, you buy into the notion that buying elections is an essential element of free speech.
No. I support the notion that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives people the right to voice their opinions about elections and candidates.
At the same time, I recognize that effectively voicing one's opinion can cost money: printing costs, buying TV time, etc.
You can't, and shouldn't, regulate political speech, except perhaps in extreme circumstances, such as a clear and present danger of imminent physical harm to others.
At best it's ineffective. At worst, it's opening the door for the government to influence elections (and keep people in power) by preventing others from getting their message out.
Quote:
Most Americans, however, do not [agree with your position].
Most Americans also think burning a flag should be criminalized.
Americans of all political stripes have disturbing tendency to censorship.
I don't base my view of the constitution on a popularity poll. I'm sorry to see that you apparently do (at least when its convenient to your argument).
Clear Danger to Free Speech: Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart has gone before the Supreme Court arguing that McCain-Feingold gives the government the right to ban books and films.
MEM, I assume with your hissy over allegations Palin wanted a book banned, that you will no doubt ignore this since the Obama admin supports these bans.
I'm pretty sure MEM will point out that campaign finance reform was originally proposed by Russ Feingold and John McCain and, therefore, it's all really a republican's fault.
Clear Danger to Free Speech: Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart has gone before the Supreme Court arguing that McCain-Feingold gives the government the right to ban books and films.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted.
The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates.
At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.
That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.
“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument. In addition, some of the broader issues implicated by the case were only glancingly discussed in the first round of briefs, and some justices may have felt reluctant to take a major step without fuller consideration.
Democrats plan to push bill to limit impact of campaign finance decision: Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, said he would hold hearings to explore ways to limit corporate spending on elections.
What part of "unconstitutional" don't they understand?
Originally Posted By: the G-man
You can't, and shouldn't, regulate political speech, except perhaps in extreme circumstances, such as a clear and present danger of imminent physical harm to others.
At best it's ineffective. At worst, it's opening the door for the government to influence elections (and keep people in power) by preventing others from getting their message out.
The DISCLOSE Act is the Democrats big legislative “fix” to pushback against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that eliminated a number of campaign finance restrictions on first amendment grounds. It just passed the House this afternoon — even with 36 Democrats voting against it.
Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer.
So unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending. Further, the restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably the primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government gauranteed billions directly as a result of the TARP funding — UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns.
Further, under the DISCLOSE Act if a company has more than $7 million in government contracts, it has no right to political speech. But public sector unions can spend millions of recycled tax dollars campaigning for Democrats, no problem. All this will likely do is make business spend more money on lobbyists rather than campaigns. Of course, campaign spending is much more transparent than lobbying, but when it comes to the DISCLOSE act, clean elections and free speech seem to be secondary considerations to getting Democrats elected.
In fact, one Democratic representative, Hank Johnson of Georgia, was explicit in his goals: Unless the Disclose Act passes, Johnson said on the House floor, "we'll see more Republicans getting elected."
House Passes Campaign Finance Disclose Act The bill includes a provision to exempt large organizations like the NRA By Caitlin Huey-Burns
Posted: June 25, 2010 Print Share ThisThe House passed campaign finance legislation known as the Disclose Act Thursday, despite controversy last week over the bill's exempting some large organizations like the National Rifle Association. [See who gets the most from gun rights groups.]
After a January Supreme Court decision allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money sponsoring campaign ads, Democrats crafted legislation in both chambers that would require stricter methods of campaign finance disclosure.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen led the House version of the bill, which requires special interest group officials to physically appear at the end of campaign ads they sponsor, acknowledging who contributes to their campaign fund, and to disclose their campaign related expenditures on their websites.
It also prohibits foreign controlled corporations from contributing to political campaigns.
The bill passed 219 to 206 in the House. Only two Republicans, Reps. Anh "Joseph" Cao and Michael Castle voted in favor of the bill. ...
I don't think the exemption for the NRA is right but I do like that it prohibits foreign controlled corporations from contributing to political campaigns. I also like that it makes it harder for a business or group to hide the money they contribute.
I don't think anyone should be exempted, especially from a law that regulates free speech. If you're going to regulate political speech, which you shouldn't, it should be applied equally.
But based on the comments from some democrats it seems pretty clear that the NRA was thrown into the mix just to muddy the waters and hope that no one knew this bill was designed by people in power to silence their opposition.
Why would the greater transparency be equitable to "silence the opposition"? They can still contribute but they just have to own what they say in the ads. Is that a bad thing?
Why would the greater transparency be equitable to "silence the opposition"?
Originally Posted By: the G-man
...unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending. Further, the restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably the primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government gauranteed billions directly as a result of the TARP funding — UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns.
Further, under the DISCLOSE Act if a company has more than $7 million in government contracts, it has no right to political speech. But public sector unions can spend millions of recycled tax dollars campaigning for Democrats, no problem. All this will likely do is make business spend more money on lobbyists rather than campaigns. Of course, campaign spending is much more transparent than lobbying, but when it comes to the DISCLOSE act, clean elections and free speech seem to be secondary considerations to getting Democrats elected.
This isn't about "transparency." That's just a talking point. If it was about "transparency," no one (not the unions, not the NRA) would be exempted.
It is, as noted above, about making sure there is not a level playing field.
Why would the greater transparency be equitable to "silence the opposition"?
Originally Posted By: the G-man
...unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending. Further, the restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business. If you took TARP funds as a business, express political advocacy is now verboten. So GM has very limited first amendment rights, but even though arguably the primary beneficiary of the auto bailout was the United Auto Workers union which got government gauranteed billions directly as a result of the TARP funding — UAW can spend almost whatever it pleases, and it has a history of spending millions on Democratic campaigns.
Further, under the DISCLOSE Act if a company has more than $7 million in government contracts, it has no right to political speech. But public sector unions can spend millions of recycled tax dollars campaigning for Democrats, no problem. All this will likely do is make business spend more money on lobbyists rather than campaigns. Of course, campaign spending is much more transparent than lobbying, but when it comes to the DISCLOSE act, clean elections and free speech seem to be secondary considerations to getting Democrats elected.
This isn't about "transparency." That's just a talking point. If it was about "transparency," no one (not the unions, not the NRA) would be exempted.
It is, as noted above, about making sure there is not a level playing field.
If the "transparency" was not a big deal, the unions or NRA wouldn't want to be exempted from it and the democrats wouldn't be so damn eager to exempt the unions, correct?
As I said before, I don't think the exemptions are right but I would say make the rule apply across the board. It's not a bad thing to make these groups own what they say in political ads.
Neither is there a "right to secretly buy elections" clause. I don't see a benefit for most of us letting a big comapany produce campaign ads without owning it. It should be like writing a letter to the editor type thing.
As I said before, I don't think the exemptions are right but I would say make the rule apply across the board.
But it doesn't apply "across the board." Which tends to illustrate my original point, namely, that these laws can be (and this case were) abused to help one side over another.
As for your other point, there is actually a certain amount of legal authority that guarantees (to prevent fear of reprisal) the right of people to speak anonymously as part of the First Amendment.
So when one talks about transparency an argument could legitimately be made that one is actually talking about stripping away a constitutional protection.
Well a legal arguement can be made for pretty much anything, it still doesn't make it right or good for the country. Making a group or business publicly own the political ads they make sounds right to me with an obvious benefit. If you have to attach your name to it your going to be more responsible for what's said in them.
Since anybody is still able to spend the money and say what they want, I think that it's still free speech. If somebody wants to slime a candidate I should have the right to know who's saying it.
If somebody wants to slime a candidate I should have the right to know who's saying it.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
there is actually a certain amount of legal authority that guarantees (to prevent fear of reprisal) the right of people to speak anonymously as part of the First Amendment.
So when one talks about transparency an argument could legitimately be made that one is actually talking about stripping away a constitutional protection.
Again, the record will reflect that MEM is against free speech.
That's fucked up. If a company really wants to run some sleazy campaign they can hide their involvement because I might judge them for what they did? That doesn't seem like free speech. Nor do I think the legal backing is as absolute as you state.
Once you start making exceptions to free speech for what one side or another thinks is sleazy you start opening the door to government intervention on the basis of content.
Democrats are going to think (for example) tea party rhetotic is sleazy. Republicans would think that code pink anti-war wacko stuff is.
So, either way, you want to open the door for the government to silence the opposition.
Which is contrary to constitutional protections of free speech:
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius," and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus, in 2002, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
The democrats are trying to strike down a right that is actually older than the constitution itself and considered at the heart of the right to free speech.
To make matters worse, as noted above, they are denying the right to some groups/individuals and not denying to others. They are picking and choosing who gets free speech and who doesn't.
Perhaps this might bring some context to the to remain anonymous...
Quote:
Supreme Court Rules; Petitions are Public Record
Yesterday was a big day for disclosure. The Disclose Act passed in the House of Representatives and by a broad eight-to-one majority in an opinion by the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court held in Doe v. Reed that signatories of referendum petitions generally do not have a constitutional right – i.e., a right that would trump state open government laws – to keep their identities private. But the Court held – again, by the same broad majority – that courts should consider in any given case whether a particular referendum presents sufficiently unique circumstances that anonymity is required. It therefore permitted the claim to anonymity in this case, which involves a referendum on gay rights, to proceed in the lower courts. But their chances of prevailing appear very slim, as five members of the Court either expressed significant doubts about their claim or expressly rejected it.
The case was initiated as a result of residents of Washington State bringing forth 137,000 signatures to repeal the states expanded new laws on same sex domestic partners. The states laws recognize petitions as public record subject to disclosure which proponents filed suit to block. They made two arguments. First, there is always a constitutional right to anonymity for signatories. Second, at the very least there is such a right in this particular case.
Preliminarily, the Court held that the disclosure law is subject to First Amendment scrutiny. Signing a petition, the Court reasoned, is an expressive act – expression of a political view – that implicates the First Amendment. That said, the level of scrutiny must account for states’ wide latitude in implementing their voting systems, as well as the fact that disclosure does not itself prevent speech. The Court held that disclosure of referendum petitions generally survives constitutional scrutiny because it helps to combat fraud and eliminate mistakes (because the public is able to review the signatures) and because it promotes governmental transparency and accountability. ...
Like anybody else who views a political ad, I have the right to judge it. It's sort of scary that you would feel differently.
So you agree the Democrats are wrong for protecting the unions. I think it's the first time I've heard a progressive call them on their slime ball tactics. You might be maturing.
