Foreign Cash Disqualifies Romney from Presidential Bid

[TPSprayduster]

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.

Sounds like the song about the birth certificate. Dawg no one is listening to you i guess you are trying to get some attention. Opinions and more Opinions.

[smee2]

Well, I am not an American voter, not an American, actually, but I would think, and it is just me, mind you, I would think that going to countries or people other than home and fellow Americans for money to mount a presidential run would automatically be considered illegal. Wouldn't these guys see that?

Personally, I think that politicians play fast and loose with the very laws they put in place. They follow the ones they want to when they want to, or when they want to force someone else to. But in any circumstance where they can benefit from ignoring the law, they will if at all possible. In this case there would seem to be so many prior instances that they most likely figured if it wasn't stopped for those politicians who did this before, it won't be stopped now.

Just more crooked doings in the political arena.

smee2

[flatdawg]

Opinions and more Opinions.

Nope, facts.

Is it not a fact that the US Supreme Court has said it is illegal to accept foreign money for all US elections?

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

I'm thinking your reading comprehension skills need to be sharpened a bit.

[rightsonword]

Nope, facts.

Is it not a fact that the US Supreme Court has said it is illegal to accept foreign money for all US elections?

I'm thinking your reading comprehension skills need to be sharpened a bit.

Nice work. Unfortunately, some here think it is perfectly ethical to receive contributions from foreign entities regardless if it is legal or not. Obama and Willard are nothing but two bad apples from the same rotting tree.

Well, I am not an American voter, not an American, actually, but I would think, and it is just me, mind you, I would think that going to countries or people other than home and fellow Americans for money to mount a presidential run would automatically be considered illegal. Wouldn't these guys see that?

Personally, I think that politicians play fast and loose with the very laws they put in place. They follow the ones they want to when they want to, or when they want to force someone else to. But in any circumstance where they can benefit from ignoring the law, they will if at all possible. In this case there would seem to be so many prior instances that they most likely figured if it wasn't stopped for those politicians who did this before, it won't be stopped now.

Just more crooked doings in the political arena.

smee

Well said, Smee. Don't ever let anyone say you can't comment on a situation simply because you are not of said country.

[flatdawg]

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

-

HAHAHA

I love it.

Your signature quote, not mine:

9 So let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up.

Maybe we should replace the word "good" with the word "lawful".

You thumpers are always good for a laugh, just wished I had caught it earlier.

[rightsonword]

HAHAHA

I love it.

Your signature quote, not mine:

Maybe we should replace the word "good" with the word "lawful".

You thumpers are always good for a laugh, just wished I had caught it earlier.

In his defense, he never said he agreed with it.a He just pointed out a double standard.

[flatdawg]

In his defense, he never said he agreed with it.a He just pointed out a double standard.

Actually, many of us did say something when al did it. It was just swept under the rug, just like it will be with willard.

My interpretation of his reply was to take the heat off willard by reminding us that al did it too.

Or maybe implying since al got away with it, willard should too.

My issue is that willard has broken the law and should be held accountable.

My other issue is that mark won't hold willard accountable to his religious quotes that he uses as a signature line.

In conclusion, maybe it is mark that is using a double standard

[Deathmonkey]

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

I have a problem with it. However, on this site if you don't go Republican, you are labelled a stupid, hippie liberal. I would vote for Roseanne before these 2, IF I wasn't so worried about Mitt actually winning.

In the great words of South Park, we have the choice of either a ****** bag or a turd sandwich.

[flatdawg]

I would vote for Roseanne before these 2, IF I wasn't so worried about Mitt actually winning.

She's actually my third choice right now.

As for willard, seems he is a ways down in the polls now. The GOP clearly needs the Paul supporters to beat the kenyan.

[TPSprayduster]

She's actually my third choice right now.

As for willard, seems he is a ways down in the polls now. The GOP clearly needs the Paul supporters to beat the kenyan.

Here we go, starting negative. You Paulers will be on the sidelines like you are now. No one is going to kiss your tail. So get over it.

[cris]

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.

Bawhahahaha...... .....and you've done a good job painting yourself into that

tight little ethical corner, havent you?

Really, a lame try there little guy......You brought ethics into this......its a legal matter.

I see you have trouble staying on subject, just inch those blinders to one side a little

and you may see.

Prosecuters love guys like you, you're unable to push outside the tiny box you live in.

A Defender would tell you to stay quiet in a court of law, before you get into more

trouble than you already have.

[dinar_stud]

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.

Did you read or research the SCOTUS case Bluman v. Federal Election Commission?? That court case had nothing to do with what you believe, It had to do with non american living in the USA people donating, it does not even go close to deciding about donation or collections out of the USA.

Try Again

[rightsonword]

Bawhahahaha...... .....and you've done a good job painting yourself into that

tight little ethical corner, havent you?

Really, a lame try there little guy......You brought ethics into this......its a legal matter.

I see you have trouble staying on subject, just inch those blinders to one side a little

and you may see.

Prosecuters love guys like you, you're unable to push outside the tiny box you live in.

A Defender would tell you to stay quiet in a court of law, before you get into more

trouble than you already have.

Wow, you do now that ethics is involved in everything, don't you? There are countless books and college courses on Law and Ethics. It's required reading and courses for Law Majors, just like Law and Medical ethics is required for medicine courses.

I know you see the correlation between law and ethics, and how ethics is involved in every decision where someone is affected. However, I find it troubling that you refuse to acknowledge it. Either you're too proud to simply back from your position and say you misspoke, which is OK, or you have somethings you personally need to work out.

[flatdawg]

Did you read or research the SCOTUS case Bluman v. Federal Election Commission?? That court case had nothing to do with what you believe, It had to do with non american living in the USA people donating, it does not even go close to deciding about donation or collections out of the USA.

Try Again

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.

Reading comprehension can be your friend.

[Markinsa]

1. Good question, why didn't you? I was too young. 2. Do you think it is OK for the president of the US and presidential candidate to accept donations from lobbyists overseas?

1. When you grow up, you'll learn that you need to concentrate on the battles you can win and not the battles you will lose. You'll save yourself alot of time.

2. Yes, as long as those lobbies will benefit the American people as a whole. I do not believe any elected official, no matter what the position, should be allowed to accept contributions from anyone that does not reside or operate a business inside that elected positions' sphere of influence.

-

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?

I rather have Nixon than Obama or any other left wing liberal.

Who's the felon you're saying the GOP is standing behind?

-

[cris]

Wow, you do now that ethics is involved in everything, don't you? There are countless books and college courses on Law and Ethics. It's required reading and courses for Law Majors, just like Law and Medical ethics is required for medicine courses.

I know you see the correlation between law and ethics, and how ethics is involved in every decision where someone is affected. However, I find it troubling that you refuse to acknowledge it. Either you're too proud to simply back from your position and say you misspoke, which is OK, or you have somethings you personally need to work out.

Again....If you've never been in a Court of Law, you probably

dont understand that Justice is Blind......Truely blind.

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts

There's a phrase for you to look up, while your at it, take a

peek at Bio-Ethics....Thats what is being taught in Universities

these days.

if you want to get some of your brand of Ethics back into the

way this country is run....You're going to have to get the requisite

legislation passed, meaning you'll have to Lobby for it.

Oh man....I crack myself up

[dinar_stud]

Reading comprehension can be your friend.

You are rehashing what the author of that article said, not what was challenged in the actual court case.

Research is your friend, you are following blindly what the author says and not challenging it. I Challenged it and found it nothing more then a biased piece of BS.

[cris]

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.

Oh, I did follow the link.....Its an opinion

piece, and simple conjecture on the part of a disgruntled

Pauler......The emphasis on simple......Duff is legally wrong in

all likelihood...Its fun for the RPers to fantasize about, but means

nothing in the end.....Like Pauls campaign

[rightsonword]

Again....If you've never been in a Court of Law, you probably

dont understand that Justice is Blind......Truely blind.

Just the facts ma'am, just the facts

There's a phrase for you to look up, while your at it, take a

peek at Bio-Ethics....Thats what is being taught in Universities

these days.

if you want to get some of your brand of Ethics back into the

way this country is run....You're going to have to get the requisite

legislation passed, meaning you'll have to Lobby for it.

Oh man....I crack myself up

Only the jester would laugh at his own folly, while the king looks on bewildered and unamused.

There's nothing more to say as you refuse to listen to anyone except yourself.

Take care.

Edited August 13, 2012 by rightsonword

[flatdawg]

You Paulers will be on the sidelines like you are now.

And you willard supporters are backing a loser. If the GOP had done something, anything, to bring the Paul supporters into the fold, maybe you'd have a chance defeating the kenyan.

A sane person might look at this election as one the GOP wants and expects to lose.

[cris]

And you willard supporters are backing a loser. If the GOP had done something, anything, to bring the Paul supporters into the fold, maybe you'd have a chance defeating the kenyan.

A sane person might look at this election as one the GOP wants and expects to lose.

After the Convention, Paul will likely be backing Romney

Republican National Convention finally accepts Ron Paul

Published: 24 July, 2012, 00:47

after failing to win enough delegates during the recent Nebraska State Convention, the GOP was expected to exclude Rep. Paul from speaking at this year’s RNC. When the congressman was kept out of the 2008 event, a counter protest was staged outside. This time around Rep. Paul has remained in the race longer than all other Republican Party candidates, except Mitt Romney, and his campaign and crew of supporters insist on having him represented. Only now, however, do organizers with the Ron Paul campaign say that the RNC are dropping their fight and finally accepting the rest of the party as their own.

"They've just treated us like a friend and like a coalition," Jesse Benton, a spokesman for the Paul campaign, tells USA Today. "They have been honest brokers in working with us and treated us with respect."

Even if the congressman can’t get a full time slot to speak at the RNC, the GOP is giving him access to the University of South Florida’s Sun Dome, a decision that both sides say they were able to agree on mutually.

[flatdawg]

After the Convention, Paul will likely be backing Romney

Doubtful. He supported the Constitution Party over McCain in '08.

"They've just treated us like a friend and like a coalition," Jesse Benton, a spokesman for the Paul campaign, tells USA Today. "They have been honest brokers in working with us and treated us with respect."

These are not Dr. Paul's words, only a spokesman for his campaign. Also a campaign worker who may not of always had Dr. Paul's best interests at heart.