4 ms·

So the difference for you is that Russians purchasing adverts is a hostile act, but Russians giving donations to organisations controlled by one of your politic

So the difference for you is that Russians purchasing adverts is a hostile act, but Russians giving donations to organisations controlled by one of your politicians would not be a hostile act? I have to say I can't begin to understand this line of thinking - I'm guessing it may just be cultural differences though. Both actions are legal under your election laws though, correct?

ern 9y ago
Political ads influence voters. Donations to a foundation linked to a politician may (or may not) influence that individual politician, just as another politician’s overseas business interests may (or may not) influence that politician’s decisions. But they are separate issues for informed voters to judge, since there is some measure of transparency in those activities. And, it is, in fact, illegal for foreign entities to donate to political campaigns. I’m guessing it may just be cultural differences though Yep. I am aware that in many countries, private political funding is entirely opaque, campaign finance laws are non-existent, and the lines between party and campaign, and party and state are non-existent. Fortunately the United States is not (yet) one of those countries.
- RyanZAG 9y ago
  I don't understand. So you have no problem with those donations to foundations run by your political candidates? Also while you stated that donations to political candidates is illegal, is it illegal to buy adverts for political candidates as a foreigner? I was under the impression it was not, but that adds an interesting twist. Who would be held guilty in this case? Would the USA government try to use extradition treaties to get a foreign national onto USA soil if they bought adverts for a candidate?
  - ern 9y ago
    don't understand. So you have no problem with those donations to foundations run by your political candidates? The donations to the foundation are disclosed, and the foundation is run for a well-defined charitable purpose, subject to strict governance, and is it not a personal slush fund (especially not this one, which is probably the most scrutinized in the US, for obvious reasons). The fact that it accepted donations from tyrannies is indeed unsavory, but it was well documented and voters would have been able to make decisions based on this. Voters could have made the same sorts of judgements on the international dealings of the candidate’s opponent (tax returns aside). The idea that these sorts of personal/business dealings (by both candidates) are equivalent to a hostile foreign power undertaking covert activities to influence the outcome of the election and sow internal discord is incongruous, to put it mildly. Who would be held guilty in this case? Would the USA government try to use extradition treaties to get a foreign national onto USA soil if they bought adverts for a candidate I’m sure that, once the current political climate calms, there will be severe consequences, with bipartisan agreement, to make it clear to foreign entities that this sort of activity is unwelcome. Also, I doubt FB’s implicit mea culpa in TFA would have been produced if they weren’t terrified.
paulmd 9y ago
> Russians giving donations to organisations controlled by one of your politicians would not be a hostile act? > Both actions are legal under your election laws though, correct? No, foreigners donating to political campaigns or issue-advocacy groups (PACs), or engaging in electioneering or electioneering communications is illegal. Hence why it's a big deal that Facebook was letting Russians engage in electioneering - if they had attempted to purchase this advertising at, say, a local TV or radio station they would have been denied, but Facebook let them do it. Even if they added sufficient shell companies and lied their way through, the act would still have been logged and disclosed as all electioneering communications are - which again, Facebook was not doing. Facebook may not fall neatly into the existing rules, though (I'm unclear) as those are mainly targeted at broadcast media. Thus they're trying to scramble to make a show of compliance to avoid actual regulation. But this is very clearly something that will happen again unless something is done. http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/electioneering.shtml http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/electioneering.sht...

ern 9y ago

Political ads influence voters. Donations to a foundation linked to a politician may (or may not) influence that individual politician, just as another politician’s overseas business interests may (or may not) influence that politician’s decisions. But they are separate issues for informed voters to judge, since there is some measure of transparency in those activities. And, it is, in fact, illegal for foreign entities to donate to political campaigns. I’m guessing it may just be cultural differences though Yep. I am aware that in many countries, private political funding is entirely opaque, campaign finance laws are non-existent, and the lines between party and campaign, and party and state are non-existent. Fortunately the United States is not (yet) one of those countries.

RyanZAG 9y ago
I don't understand. So you have no problem with those donations to foundations run by your political candidates? Also while you stated that donations to political candidates is illegal, is it illegal to buy adverts for political candidates as a foreigner? I was under the impression it was not, but that adds an interesting twist. Who would be held guilty in this case? Would the USA government try to use extradition treaties to get a foreign national onto USA soil if they bought adverts for a candidate?
- ern 9y ago
  don't understand. So you have no problem with those donations to foundations run by your political candidates? The donations to the foundation are disclosed, and the foundation is run for a well-defined charitable purpose, subject to strict governance, and is it not a personal slush fund (especially not this one, which is probably the most scrutinized in the US, for obvious reasons). The fact that it accepted donations from tyrannies is indeed unsavory, but it was well documented and voters would have been able to make decisions based on this. Voters could have made the same sorts of judgements on the international dealings of the candidate’s opponent (tax returns aside). The idea that these sorts of personal/business dealings (by both candidates) are equivalent to a hostile foreign power undertaking covert activities to influence the outcome of the election and sow internal discord is incongruous, to put it mildly. Who would be held guilty in this case? Would the USA government try to use extradition treaties to get a foreign national onto USA soil if they bought adverts for a candidate I’m sure that, once the current political climate calms, there will be severe consequences, with bipartisan agreement, to make it clear to foreign entities that this sort of activity is unwelcome. Also, I doubt FB’s implicit mea culpa in TFA would have been produced if they weren’t terrified.

paulmd 9y ago

> Russians giving donations to organisations controlled by one of your politicians would not be a hostile act? > Both actions are legal under your election laws though, correct? No, foreigners donating to political campaigns or issue-advocacy groups (PACs), or engaging in electioneering or electioneering communications is illegal. Hence why it's a big deal that Facebook was letting Russians engage in electioneering - if they had attempted to purchase this advertising at, say, a local TV or radio station they would have been denied, but Facebook let them do it. Even if they added sufficient shell companies and lied their way through, the act would still have been logged and disclosed as all electioneering communications are - which again, Facebook was not doing. Facebook may not fall neatly into the existing rules, though (I'm unclear) as those are mainly targeted at broadcast media. Thus they're trying to scramble to make a show of compliance to avoid actual regulation. But this is very clearly something that will happen again unless something is done. http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/electioneering.shtml http://classic.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/electioneering.sht...