Posted on 07/11/2017 12:17:01 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Generally, an individual (including a foreign national) may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution. The Act provides this volunteer "exemption" as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone. The Commission has addressed applicability of this exemption to several situations involving volunteer activity by a foreign national, as explained below.
In AO 2014-20 (Make Your Laws PAC), the Commission concluded that a political action committee could accept assistance from a foreign national in developing intellectual property for the PAC, such as trademarks, graphics, and website design because the services accepted by the PAC would fall under the volunteer exemption. Similarly, in AO 2004-26 (Weller), the Commission held that a foreign national could attend, speak at campaign events for a federal candidate, and solicit contributions to the campaign. However, the Commission cautioned that the foreign national could not manage or participate in any of the campaign committee’s decision-making processes. See also AOs 2007-22 (Hurysz) and 1987-25 (Otaola).
In MUR 5987, the Commission examined a situation in which a foreign national provided an uncompensated musical concert performance as a volunteer for a federal candidate’s campaign as part of a fundraising event. The candidate’s campaign had paid all of the costs of hosting the concert, including the rental of the venue and equipment and providing security. The performer had merely provided his uncompensated volunteer services to the campaign and had not participated in any of the campaign’s decision-making. Based on these facts, the Commission found no reason to believe that the foreign national or the federal candidate’s committee had violated the Act’s foreign national prohibition.
I don't see what law was broken here. This is the portion of the law that libs are pointing to on all the message boards.
Should say ‘RULES’ - auto correct and posting on the road. Sorry.
This is a reasonable (though left slanted) legal analysis of the situation:
To solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication.
11 C.F.R. §300.2(m).
***
Solicit for free or solicit for money?
Trump in one of the debates said, “Russia, if you have Hillary’s emails, please release them!”
I think it’s a tough case to make with no money involved and nothing offered (give us dirt and we’ll change the US-Russian adoption laws).
Don’t you just love auto-correct? I knew as soon as I read the headline.
I know. I shouldn’t be driving and posting!
At least I do it at traffic lights when stopped.
The law says “something of value” must be received. Can’t prove that happened in this Don Jr. meeting.
Every phone call and email from anyone associated with Trump’s campaign was spied on and saved. They’re likely fishing for a “the crime is the denial of a crime.” No actual crime but lying to the investigator is a crime. Or flip one person in the inner circle and get them to go after others with a wire.
This is a dangerous time for the country. Dems taking treason. Conservatives ready to fight for Trump. Could get real messy real fast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.