This should be an interesting thread since so many FReepers have decided that rich people are evil (aside from their own rich person)
Honest, Mr. FEC official, the money orders we deposited were signed “Jane Fonda”, “Margaret Sanger”, “Peter-Paul N. Mary”, “Michelle Obama” and “William J. Clinton”.
For the record, the Wisconsin Government Acountability Board allowed signatures with names like “Mickey Mouse” and “Adolph Hitler” to be counted towards the Walker recall.
Excerpt: Americans have only until Tuesday, October 27, to submit an electronic comment asking the FEC to stop, and to abandon these efforts to regulate speech. Anyone can submit a comment at this link. http://sers.fec.gov/forces/addcomments.htm?pid=99531
The Federal Election Commission is considering rules which could force non-profit organizations — such as a pro-life organization — to disclose the names of donors.
Lerner and obama walking away from their crimes has emboldened the other members of the Democrat Socialist gang.
===============================================
BACKSTORY The 1980 Georgia General Assembly was concerned about “the increasing sophistication of various criminal elements on the public payroll” (and those in elective and appointive office). The GA Assembly then adopted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), patterned after a similar federal law.
(RICO is routinely used to try to prove that a legal business was being used for illegal means, and, in at its inception, RICO was used to prosecute drug traffickers or organized crime members).
In recent years prosecutors have applied RICO to crooked government officials: (1) those accused of using their public offices for personal gain, and, (2) tax-paid officials of govt agencies using public monies to flout the law.
To bring a case under Georgia’s RICO law, there must be at least two underlying felonies — such as fraud, bribery, witness tampering (among other felonies).
RICO allows prosecutors to include multiple defendants charged with various crimes in the blanket indictment, and to charge that govt employees, publicy-funded and publicly-sanctioned entities were allegedly part of an ongoing criminal enterprise.
EXAMPLE A govt official commits two felonies by (1) accepting, and, (2) filing falsified documents.
==============================================
HERE'S THE PATHWAY TO LAUNCH---Texas took the lead w/ 26 state AG's, successfully arguing that Obama's beatified DACA/DAPA's were made more desirable employees than US citizens.
==============================================
Any public official using tax dollars to flout that law is a lawbreaker: in cases where govt officials on the public payroll not giving public notice is a violation at the federal level of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notice in the Federal Register. Laws demand that taxpayers have the opportunity to submit views in writing.
===============================================
NOTE If proof is established that RICO'ed criminal public officials impaired the commercial and economic activity of the region, that could also be prosecutable under the Hobbs Act.
UPDATE: Georgia tried, convicted and jailed 27 school personnel under this law.
=================================================
PRIME RICO TARGETS Boehner and his Congressional buddies are complicit in the massive fraud, waste, and criminal use of tax dollars......the flagrant abuse of taxpayers....and aiding and abetting the criminal activities of Obama. They could have reeled in arrogant govt agencies conducting criminal activities (EPA, IRS, BLM, HUD, DOE and DOL). They could have defunded the criminal enterprise called "Obamacare" and the Planned Parenthood parasites living the high life w/ our tax-dollars....but to taxpayers' eternal disgust....they didn't.
When I started filling out the form to submit a request to stop I realized the FEC will post all my private information.
so I stopped.
I forget the name of the conservative who came up with the idea - but I recall the solution was to allow unlimited campaign donations as long as the donators are public info. This allows the voter to see if the person they are voting for has connections to people and groups they like and does not restrict freedom of speech.
I have no problem with the donors to the FEDS being disclosed to any and all Conservative groups. Anybody donating to the FEDs should be outed and public knowledge.
Why would CU be fearful of full disclosure? Conservative generally have no problem with disclosure. Will the same rules apply to liberal groups?
Complaints about Citizens United are complaints that the First Amendment is being respected over the concerns - approved by Congress, the POTUS, and the SCOTUS in McCain/Feingold/McConnel v. FEC - about risk of corruption of the president and other elected officials.And yet Hillary Clinton, having (reportedly) while Secretary of State solicited funds from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation (of which she is a principal) and having been married to a man who received six-figure honoraria from foreign governments for speeches, is now the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party for POTUS. This, despite the fact that Article 1 Section 9 provides that "no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
In what sense would the nomination of Hillary Clinton with that history behind her, comport with the spirit of either “Campaign Finance Reform” or the Constitution? It doesn’t.I have written to ask my legislators, and you should ask yours, why your state allows the possibility that the Electors which your state appointsArticle II Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may directmight be pledged to vote for any such a miscreant.Altho SCOTUS has held that states cannot limit ballot access for purposes of implementing term limits on congressmen, the Constitution says that congressmen are elected but states plainly that a state's presidential Electors are appointed under the direction of the Legislature of that state. State legislatures direct that the electors be chosen by at-large election within the whole state. But - and this establishes precedent on top of the constitutional language - Nebraska law has only two electors elected at large, and each of the others are elected in Nebraska’s individual congressional districts. If a winner of the at-large Electors had ever successfully challenged the selection of an elector for his opponent in an individual CD, that system would not still be in effect.Your state representative should push for a law against nominating an elector who is pledged to vote for anyone who has accepted substantial money, however laundered, from a foreign government. Then you can get out the popcorn while the Democrats in your state try to tap-dance around that issue while continuing to wax indignant over Citizen’s United. Consider calling for a referendum on the issue . . .
PING!
Do not comply. Sue.