Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid

[flatdawg]

Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid

by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor

No other American presidential candidate has ever left the US to garner campaign contributions from foreign citizens.

There is a reason for this, one Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media has ignored.

Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony.

If you go outside the US, if you stay inside the US, if your contributor is living in the US but not a citizen, any money you get can mean years in jail.

For Romney, he went the whole way, outside the US, foreign citizens, and while traveling humiliated himself and his country with his ignorance and his attempts to trade illegal cash for promises of illegal war. One could hardly break more laws if one wanted.

Romney raised millions in foreign cash at fundraisers across Israel. One table alone gave him a million in cash. None was from American citizens. Fewer than 10% of Romney’s contributors in Israel are estimated to be “dual citizens.”

A real question many might ask, why would a presidential candidate travel outside the US to seek campaign money at all? As the Supreme Court points out, in the decision Bluman, et al., v. Federal Elections Commission, no foreign cash, especially collected overseas, can ever be used in an American campaign.

more at link

A beautiful thought - Romney in prison stripes and Dr. Paul in the White House.

[Sparta]

Treason, maybe? Just askin'?

[Jmasters]

Treason, maybe? Just askin'?

If it's considered treason I wouldn't hold my breath about any consequences given the considering the current administration is still in office.

[Sparta]

If it's considered treason I wouldn't hold my breath about any consequences given the considering the current administration is still in office.

No disagreement. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Google this: "vote for the lesser of two evils" ---- So what are we to do? Just askin'.

[cris]

Busy Month for Obama Campaign with Fundraisers in Switzerland, Sweden, Paris and Communist China

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, July 15, 2012, 6:44 AM

It’s going to be a very busy month for the Obama Campaign.

Fundraisers are scheduled in Switzerland:

Sweden

Paris

And Communist China

[40oz]

But, he already picked a veep.

Thanks FD!

[rightsonword]

Ah, just proof they are both pathetic, bought out puppets. And many don't have a problem voting for such people. Interesting . . . .

[Markinsa]

Hmmm... How come no one said anything when Al Gore took contributions from the Chinese?

-

[gp49]

Didn't recognize the poster.... another disgruntled rp lover ???

Edited August 13, 2012 by gp49

[cris]

Ah, just proof they are both pathetic, bought out puppets. And many don't have a problem voting for such people. Interesting . . . .

Yeah....Thats not the point of my post.

Clinton collected outside the US....not sure if Bush did, probably, & Obama collected

from outside in 2008.

Now the point is, there's a legal way to do this...The campaigns arent filled with

idiots, that dont know the workings of this process.

The original article from this thread from Gordon Duff is very likely incorrect...These

guys arent going to get caught out on something so simplistic.

[rightsonword]

Yeah....Thats not the point of my post.

Clinton collected outside the US....not sure if Bush did, probably, & Obama collected

from outside in 2008.

Now the point is, there's a legal way to do this...The campaigns arent filled with

idiots, that dont know the workings of this process.

The original article from this thread from Gordon Duff is very likely incorrect...These

guys arent going to get caught out on something so simplistic.

Perhaps it is legal, but it's on the same scale as lobbyists buying out politicians and getting favors in return. Politicians favoring the lobbyists who give them money has been a major problem for years, do you agree? Do you see how if it's sketchy on the national level, how more unethical it is on the international level where instead of favoring local companies, you are favoring international interests?

[cris]

Perhaps it is legal, but it's on the same scale as lobbyists buying out politicians and getting favors in return. Politicians favoring the lobbyists who give them money has been a major problem for years, do you agree? Do you see how if it's sketchy on the national level, how more unethical it is on the international level where instead of favoring local companies, you are favoring international interests?

What part of it is legal do you not understand?

Its unimportant what your moral values are, or what

you perceive Pauls values to be.

If it is legal, thats the final word....O'blah Is & will

continue to obtain funds this way....If he can do it, so can

Romney....bottom line, they arent going to get caught out

illegally obtaining funds

Also, I dont agree with most of what you have to say.

I dont agree with your efforts on this site, the underlying real

Pauler campaign, or the way that you interact here....

Im jaundiced by the source.....

[rightsonword]

What part of it is legal do you not understand?

Its unimportant what your moral values are, or what

you perceive Pauls values to be.

If it is legal, thats the final word....O'blah Is & will

continue to obtain funds this way....If he can do it, so can

Romney....bottom line, they arent going to get caught out

illegally obtaining funds

Also, I dont agree with most of what you have to say.

I dont agree with your efforts on this site, the underlying real

Pauler campaign, or the way that you interact here....

Im jaundiced by the source.....

*Face palm*

What part of unethical do you not comprehend?

What part of conflict of interest do you not grasp? Especially when dealing with international donors and national presidential politics?

When a man has their horse blinders eye, it's quite difficult to reason with them, especially regarding ethics.

Have a nice day.

Edited August 13, 2012 by rightsonword

[cris]

*Face palm*

What part of unethical do you not comprehend?

What part of conflict of interest do you not grasp?

When a man has their horse blinders eye, it's quite difficult to reason with them, especially regarding ethics.

Have a nice day.

If its LEGAL, There is no ethics problem or conflict of interest

Btw....I do agree with the horse blinders comment

[rightsonword]

Hmmm... How come no one said anything when Al Gore took contributions from the Chinese?

-

Good question, why didn't you? I was too young. Do you think it is OK for the president of the US and presidential candidate to accept donations from lobbyists overseas?

[rightsonword]

If its LEGAL, There is no ethics problem or conflict of interest

Btw....I do agree with the horse blinders comment

Abortion is legal. Do you believe it is ethical?

Prostitution is legal in some areas. Do you believe it is ethical?

It is legal to outsource as many jobs as you want, while paying those workers scraps. Do you believe that is ethical?

It is legal for Obama to not have to release anymore records. Do you believe that is ethical?

It is legal to use Executive Privilege. Do you believe it is ethical?

It is legal to tie up a key competitor or strategic partner in extensive negotiations with only the intent to steal information. Do you believe it is ethical?

Slavery was once legal? Do you believe it was ethical?

Segregation as once legal? Do you believe it was ethical?

It is legal for Congress to have insider trading information and to buy/sell accordingly. Do you believe this is ethical.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are imply that if something is legal, then it is ethical? Have you ever read Brave New World? It might be your favorite book.

Edited August 13, 2012 by rightsonword

[40oz]

Don't forget, marijuana is legal here in California, so it's ethical.

[Jmasters]

No disagreement. A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. Google this: "vote for the lesser of two evils" ---- So what are we to do? Just askin'.

I understand the conundrum here as many of us are faced with this each and every time we come to Presidential Elections.I believe this is not by accident to be such a catch .22 situation and believe it comes down to personal choice on the matter.Some say you can't gripe if you don't vote but there is plausible truth to George Carlin's take that if you don't then you can gripe about the choice others made.The next thing I often wonder is since its gone digital , it is a true reflection of the choice of the American voters?

[rightsonword]

Don't forget, marijuana is legal here in California, so it's ethical.

Oh, good point!

I guess Cris is a joint supporter of the joint, haha.

[TPSprayduster]

Same old stories reminds me of Obama in 2008. He went on to win. Disgruntled RPers!!!!!!!!

[cris]

Abortion is legal. Do you believe it is ethical?

Prostitution is legal in some areas. Do you believe it is ethical?

It is legal to outsource as many jobs as you want, while paying those workers scraps. Do you believe that is ethical?

It is legal for Obama to not have to release anymore records. Do you believe that is ethical?

It is legal to use Executive Privilege. Do you believe it is ethical?

It is legal to tie up a key competitor or strategic partner in extensive negotiations with only the intent to steal information. Do you believe it is ethical?

Slavery was once legal? Do you believe it was ethical?

Segregation as once legal? Do you believe it was ethical?

It is legal for Congress to have insider trading information and to buy/sell accordingly. Do you believe this is ethical.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are imply that if something is legal, then it is ethical? Have you ever read Brave New World? It might be your favorite book.

Ok...thought you were done...I see you've been thinking a little.

My ethics do not enter into the equation on any of those matters.

including 40's

My ethical attitude is of no concern, in terms of what the laws of the

land are......zero.....some of those items Im perfectly fine with, others

I disagree with vehemently...I'll let you figure out which they are.....

My beliefs dont matter, in a court of law, since we are discussing a

legal matter.....

Now, if you'd like to change the way things are done legally there

are procedures for doing that....If there are items on this list that

morally or ethically are abhorrent to you, legislation is the way to

change laws.

Im getting the impression that you two dont have much experience in

court, or how court proceedings unfold.

In most cases, only the facts are of consequence. Anyone is capable

of saying whatever they would like, but if there is no supporting or

corroborating evidence, heresay, or your ethical objections are ignored

in whatever decision is made.

This is a very simplified explanation, but for this thread it's adequate.

[rightsonword]

Ok...thought you were done...I see you've been thinking a little.

My ethics do not enter into the equation on any of those matters.

including 40's

My ethical attitude is of no concern, in terms of what the laws of the

land are......zero.....some of those items Im perfectly fine with, others

I disagree with vehemently...I'll let you figure out which they are.....

My beliefs dont matter, in a court of law, since we are discussing a

legal matter.....

Now, if you'd like to change the way things are done legally there

are procedures for doing that....If there are items on this list that

morally or ethically are abhorrent to you, legislation is the way to

change laws.

Im getting the impression that you two dont have much experience in

court, or how court proceedings unfold.

In most cases, only the facts are of consequence. Anyone is capable

of saying whatever they would like, but if there is no supporting or

corroborating evidence, heresay, or your ethical objections are ignored

in whatever decision is made.

This is a very simplified explanation, but for this thread it's adequate.

Nice try, but don't change the parameters of the point being discussed. You said accepting international contributions is ethical because it is legal. Using your logic, anything that is legal is thus ethical. This has nothing to do with court of law or changing laws. It has to do with what is right and what is wrong, what is honest, and what is shady. Are you trying to say that politicians don't cater to those who donate to them?

Having double standards typically puts you in a "logic corner," so to speak.

[flatdawg]

Hmmm... How come no one said anything when Al Gore took contributions from the Chinese?

-

And look what it got him... a losing campaign. I predict the same results for willard.

But... just say that willard does win, do you really want a rehash of the second Nixon administration? It wasn't a pretty time for America.

Why would you GOPers stand behind a felon?

[captjohnk]

I seem to recal that Bill Clinton Sold top secret teck. on GPS for a 4 million dollar donation to his library. But that's OK because he's a liberal Dummycrat I guess.

[flatdawg]

The original article from this thread from Gordon Duff is very likely incorrect...These

guys arent going to get caught out on something so simplistic.

Should've follow the link:

January 9, 2012, 3:34 pm

Supreme Court Retains Ban on Foreign Campaign Donations

By JOHNH. CUSHMAN JR.

In a terse four words, the Supreme Court on Monday issued an order upholding prohibitions against foreigners making contributions to influence American elections.

The decision clamped shut an opening that some thought the court had created two years ago in its Citizens United decision, when it relaxed campaign-finance limits on corporations and labor unions. On Monday the Supreme Court, upholding a lower court’s decision in Bluman, et al., v. Federal Election Commission, refused to extend its reasoning in Citizens United to cover foreigners living temporarily here.

Foreign nationals, other than lawful permanent residents, are completely banned from donating to candidates or parties, or making independent expenditures in federal, state or local elections.

The Supreme Court’s order did not discuss the merits or suggest that there was any dissent among the justices.

Wait... there's more:

The problem stems with bad legal advice Romney received from his campaign finance staff. The Romney campaign had been laundering money through corporations, money moved into the US under the “Citizen’s United” decision of the US Supreme Court.

Romney figured he could then go anywhere in the world, peddle foreign policy, promise war, play president and collect cash from foreigners though this is specifically prohibited by US law.

In doing so, he is no longer qualified for office and, if challenged by Ron Paul, has no standing at the Republican Convention. With such a clear violation of law, not just blatant but massive, Romney could face years in prison.

Looks like once again, the GOP is supporting a felon.

What a shame, they could have had a Patriot this time around. A very conservative one at that.