4 ms·

I’m not sure when the original law was passed, but it was reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2012. Prohibited by the FEC: >Making any contribution or donation of money or

by kharms 9y ago

I’m not sure when the original law was passed, but it was reaffirmed by SCOTUS in 2012. Prohibited by the FEC: >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; There’s more, but the above covers a good chunk of it. [0] https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court-retains-ban-on-foreign-campaign-donations/ https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/supreme-court... [1] https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/ https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/

smsm42 9y ago
And that shows why it is a bad law as written - now criticizing Hillary Clinton on Facebook while being Russian turns out to be a crime. By using extremely broad definitions of "thing of value": saying "Hillary is bad, Sanders is good" is helpful to Sanders, so if you're Russian or Israeli or Moroccan or Indonesian citizen now it's a crime for you to say it. And using extremely wide definition of "in connection to ... election" - we hold elections every two years, so everything is close to the election and thus can be said to be in connection - any political expression can be prosecuted this way. What would you say if in Putin's Russia somebody would indict an American for criticizing Putin on Facebook? Probably that Putin is a dictator and hates freedom of speech and of course he would do things like that. Now US justice system is doing that. For shame.
crb002 9y ago
SCOTUS also decided Alvarez [0] in 2012. False statements are protected by the 1st Amendment unless they rise to the level of an enumerated exemption. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez

by kharms 9y ago

smsm42 9y ago

And that shows why it is a bad law as written - now criticizing Hillary Clinton on Facebook while being Russian turns out to be a crime. By using extremely broad definitions of "thing of value": saying "Hillary is bad, Sanders is good" is helpful to Sanders, so if you're Russian or Israeli or Moroccan or Indonesian citizen now it's a crime for you to say it. And using extremely wide definition of "in connection to ... election" - we hold elections every two years, so everything is close to the election and thus can be said to be in connection - any political expression can be prosecuted this way. What would you say if in Putin's Russia somebody would indict an American for criticizing Putin on Facebook? Probably that Putin is a dictator and hates freedom of speech and of course he would do things like that. Now US justice system is doing that. For shame.

crb002 9y ago

SCOTUS also decided Alvarez [0] in 2012. False statements are protected by the 1st Amendment unless they rise to the level of an enumerated exemption. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez