Quantcast
Bernie Sanders fined for accepting payments from an Australian political party

Forums - Politics Discussion - Bernie Sanders fined for accepting payments from an Australian political party

xbebop said:
ITT: People equating Australia and Russia. Really grasping at straws here, guys.

Trump is being accused of what Sanders did. They want to impeach Trump just on the accusation alone with no proof while Bernie is fined for less than what he got from and he'll likely keep his seat. Yeah, you're right, they're not the same.



Around the Network

Moral high ground is such a funny thing



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

CHINESE STATE-OWNED CHEMICAL FIRM JOINS DARK MONEY GROUP POURING CASH INTO U.S. ELECTIONS

https://theintercept.com/2018/02/15/chinese-state-owned-chemical-firm-joins-dark-money-group-pouring-cash-into-u-s-elections/

The 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United ruling and related decisions made it possible for corporate trade associations like the ACC — known as nonprofit 501(6) corporations — to spend as much as they want directly advocating for or against candidates for office “so long as that is not its primary activity,” the IRS says.

This in turn made such organizations an ideal conduit for foreign money to influence U.S. races.

It is formally illegal for foreign nationals — which includes foreign individuals, corporations, and governments — to spend any money attempting to influence U.S. elections.

Therefore, any contributions the ACC accepts from a foreign corporation like Wanhua must theoretically go to an account separate from that which the ACC uses for political spending. But whether this actually happens is extremely difficult for the public to find out, and even if the ACC is following the law, it would be essentially irrelevant.

“I’m sure ACC will claim that any foreign funds it receives will be segregated from the money used for elections, but how will we know?” asks Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, which advocates for stricter enforcement of campaign finance law. “And in any case, money is fungible, so the influx of Wanhua funds could free up other ACC resources for political activity.”

“This is one of those situations where the scandal is what is legal,” continued Fisher. “The FEC will almost certainly accept ACC’s claim that it does not use foreign money to funds its ads, and because the FEC also allows dark money nonprofits like ACC to ignore disclosure requirements, neither the FEC nor the public will have any way of proving otherwise.”

Secondly, and even more strangely, even a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign company is considered American if incorporated in the U.S. — and therefore, can legally spend as much as it wants on American elections as long as it follows complicated, difficult-to-enforce regulations. “Even if Wanhua Chemical directly funded political ads,” says Fisher, “it could probably get away with it if the money came from its U.S. operations and was formally directed by U.S. citizens.”

The ACC is by no means the only trade association to take advantage of Citizens United: After the decision came down, a number of organizations in the U.S. with foreign-owned members began spending corporate money on elections. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, another 501(6) with foreign corporate members, now routinely spends directly on congressional elections. Trade associations are in some ways the perfect vehicles for foreign money: Not only do they not have to disclose donors, most already maintain sophisticated lobbying operations, so that campaign cash is targeted in a way with the most political impact.

The American Petroleum Institute is another trade group with foreign members that spend big on U.S. elections. Wanhua appears to be the second partially state-owned corporation paying dues to ACC. SABIC, the majority state-owned Saudi chemical company, is also a dues-paying member.



ironmanDX said:
Where's Hillary's fines for rigging the primaries?

Politics is a farce in the US right now. Many people are considering Oprah, a talk show host to run? What a joke. I wouldn't worry about Russia, China or North Korea. You're imploding already....

Right?

Trump is absolutely terrible. It's been a disaster, but this Russian investigation is unfair IMO. But you're right - Bush, Obama, and Trump in a row were jokes. We haven't had a good President in the 21st century yet (Clinton did spend a few weeks in the 21st century though!).



Simple solution.

No money in politics.



Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
This will be largely ignored by the leftist media.

Considering the election is over and has been over for a whole year, Sanders's failed campaign is probably not as newsworthy as whatever is going on in the White House.



xbebop said:
ITT: People equating Australia and Russia. Really grasping at straws here, guys.

Just a heads up, but the recent Mueller's report that came out said that the Russians did try to sway the election by helping some candidates in the 2016 election.

They did so by Facebook ads, ect. Not by actually hacking polling booths. Also the candidates that were helped where no coconspirators. They didn't cooperate with Russia. Russia did this on their own.

The two candidates that were helped where:

1. Trump

2. Sanders

So, whether you want to equate Australia with Russia or not, Sanders received help from Russia AND money from Australia.



Mistakes are made some times. Or maybe someone on the campaign knew and didn't care? Either way, they decided to pay the fine. And funding staffers for a campaign is not the equivalent of creating fake news stories online, or hacking the DNC database, etc.



Hiku said:

Mistakes are made some times. Or maybe someone on the campaign knew and didn't care? Either way, they decided to pay the fine. And funding staffers for a campaign is not the equivalent of creating fake news stories online, or hacking the DNC database, etc.

Already stated, but Russia was found to be helping Trump and Sanders.

And is it Trump or Sanders fault for Russia creating fake news stories or hacking the DNC? You can't fault them for another's actions.

Let's say you are running for class president. Are you responsible if I start going around threatening students or bribing students to vote for you? As long as you didn't tell me to do so, my actions should have no baring on you, whether you win or lose. I'm the bad guy, not you.



Aeolus451 said:
xbebop said:
ITT: People equating Australia and Russia. Really grasping at straws here, guys.

Trump is being accused of what Sanders did. They want to impeach Trump just on the accusation alone with no proof while Bernie is fined for less than what he got from and he'll likely keep his seat. Yeah, you're right, they're not the same.

No, there are no formal charges against Trump yet. There is an investigation about Russia's interference dating back to 2015, and some of Trump's advisors/campaign managers, etc have been involved, and several have already pleaded guilty.
We don't know exactly what Trump personally has done, but it could range between anything from money laundry, collusion with foreign nation with intention of conspiring against the United States (unlike these volunteers for Sanders who just ran a normal campaign, they didn't hack the DNC or create fake news sites, etc), obstruction of justice, etc).
We'll see if/when formal charges are brought up why exactly he went through great lengths to try to protect Flynn, and why he doesn't want to show his tax returns, etc.