PDA

View Full Version : Is llepard's full page legal?




coboman
11-13-2007, 12:44 PM
I am very sorry to bring this up, but I need to ask.

As far as I have been able to investigate, no individual can publish a political advertisement. I must be done through a FAC.

And even in a FAC, no individual can donate more than $50,000.

I guess llepard has taken the necessary steps to make his great effort legal. But I can only guess, and I would like to know.

If there is a legal issue, I think there is still time to fix it, before the ad is published.

me3
11-13-2007, 12:47 PM
Contact him directly. Don't post this in a public forum for the wannabe lawyers to confuse and mislead the discussion.

Mark
11-13-2007, 12:51 PM
Welcome to the board coboman..

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

Alopederii
11-13-2007, 12:54 PM
I think you mean PAC (Political Action Committee).

Actually, he doesn't need to go thru the PAC, but there are FEC rules to follow. If he went thru a PAC, the limit would be $5,000, not $50,000. As an individual, there is no limit. But as I stated before, there are other requirements.

Mark
11-13-2007, 12:54 PM
.


I will report it.


http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml


Prohibited Contributions and Expenditures

The FECA places prohibitions on contributions and expenditures by certain individuals and organizations. The following are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to influence federal elections:
Corporations;
Labor organizations;
Federal government contractors; and
Foreign nationals (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/foreign.shtml).Furthermore, with respect to federal elections:
No one may make a contribution in another person's name.
No one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100.In addition to the above prohibitions on contributions and expenditures in federal election campaigns, the FECA also prohibits foreign nationals, national banks and other federally chartered corporations from making contributions or expenditures in connection with state and local elections.

Independent Expenditures (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/indexp.shtml)

Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) may make unlimited "independent expenditures" in connection with federal elections.
An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate's campaign. To be considered independent, the communication may not be made with the cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or his/her authorized committees or a political party, or any of their agents. While there is no limit on how much anyone may spend on an independent expenditure, the law does require persons making independent expenditures to report them and to disclose the sources of the funds they used. The public can review these reports (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/imaging_info.shtml) at the FEC's Public Records Office.




.

coboman
11-13-2007, 01:00 PM
My bad. Thanks for the clarification.

Mark
11-13-2007, 01:10 PM
My bad. Thanks for the clarification.
.

This time..

and ANYTIME.. brother.. :)

no 'bad' needed..

Just another example of why/how..

this is a 'grassroots'... TEAM.. effort.. ;)

Just... pass it on.. :)

.

Visual
11-13-2007, 01:14 PM
.
this is a 'grassroots'... TEAM.. effort.. ;)
.


Since it's a team effort, I think we should refer to each other as comrades.. such as 'Comrade Mark' or 'Comrade Visual' etc.



I'm sure the Neocons would LOVE that... :rolleyes:

krott5333
11-13-2007, 01:15 PM
Contact him directly. Don't post this in a public forum for the wannabe lawyers to confuse and mislead the discussion.

yeah no kidding.

GEESH

Tidewise
11-13-2007, 01:21 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the supreme law of the land. Don't forget it.

fcofer
11-13-2007, 01:22 PM
Whatever. This isn't a really big deal.

Coboman, maybe it would have been better if you had PM'ed your question, but don't let anyone make you feel like a retard for posting.

Probably some other people were wondering, too, and now the question has been cleared up for them. I don't think that there's anything wrong in asking a question. Many posters here are lawyers; probably some of them are qualified to answer these sorts of questions.

llepard
11-13-2007, 01:24 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the supreme law of the land. Don't forget it.

AMEN BROTHER!

I hope they come after us, do you know how much free publicity we would get out of a First Amendment challenge!

llepard
11-13-2007, 01:25 PM
Whatever. This isn't a really big deal.

Coboman, maybe it would have been better if you had PM'ed your question, but don't let anyone make you feel like a retard for posting.

Probably some other people were wondering, too, and now the question has been cleared up for them. I don't think that there's anything wrong in asking a question. Many posters here are lawyers; probably some of them are qualified to answer these sorts of questions.

Don't worry, there are no secrets. This is the open web remember.

fcofer
11-13-2007, 01:26 PM
AMEN BROTHER!

I hope they come after us, do you know how much free publicity we would get out of a First Amendment challenge!

Now that is what I like to hear!!

You are like the model Ron Paul supporter!

Mark
11-13-2007, 01:27 PM
Whatever. This isn't a really big deal.

Coboman, maybe it would have been better if you had PM'ed your question, but don't let anyone make you feel like a retard for posting.

Probably some other people were wondering, too, and now the question has been cleared up for them. I don't think that there's anything wrong in asking a question. Many posters here are lawyers; probably some of them are qualified to answer these sorts of questions.
.

YES.. any lawyers responding would be nice..

I'm just going by what I comprehended from the current FEC website.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml


however.. not being an attorney myself..

Learned input would be a nice clarification..

.

constituent
11-13-2007, 01:28 PM
AMEN BROTHER!

I hope they come after us, do you know how much free publicity we would get out of a First Amendment challenge!

Is it illegal?

who cares?

i'd say this is one of those "better to apologize..."
situations for sure.

to llepard's quote:

Hell Yes!

ButchHowdy
11-13-2007, 01:29 PM
Bob Schultz (We The People) used to run full page ads in the USA Today slamming the IRS until the paper (through coercion) wouldn't accept his money anymore.

Now he's working on the 'Clean Elections' campaign

Another "Great American"

Jobarra
11-13-2007, 01:35 PM
Well, it is a worthy question since McCain just asked his supporters to stop placing ads in papers for him. It sounds like he didn't ask them to do it in the first place, so it's kind of weird that he's asking them to stop.

fcofer
11-13-2007, 01:37 PM
.

YES.. any lawyers responding would be nice..

I'm just going by what I comprehended from the current FCC website.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml


however.. not being an attorney myself..

Learned input would be a nice clarification..

.

I think you nailed it with your response, Mark. Plus, having a law degree really doesn't qualify you that much unless you are working in your area of specialty. Most lawyers are not going to be familiar with the intricacies of McCain-Feingold.

On the other hand, I'd stake my reputation on saying that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. :) But if someone asks you your legal opinion, you don't want to say, "Ah -- don't worry, go ahead, you're fine, because after years of litigation, a higher court will almost certainly rule that the statute purporting to govern you is unconstitutional."

I'll bet there are lawyers here who specialize in tax or government finance and who know the particulars on how the campaign finance laws are actually enforced; that's really the interesting question. You guys should speak up, for the benefit of the rest of us. But if llepard's not afraid of a little controversy, who really cares?

You're a great American, llepard!

LibertyEagle
11-13-2007, 01:39 PM
Since it's a team effort, I think we should refer to each other as comrades.. such as 'Comrade Mark' or 'Comrade Visual' etc.



I'm sure the Neocons would LOVE that... :rolleyes:

No, that is more fitting for the "ex"-marxists like Horowitz. He and his ilk have a very good working knowledge of the term "comrade", as it was and probably still is, a daily part of his vocabulary. ;)

coboman
11-13-2007, 01:39 PM
I'm touched. Thanks to all for the responses.

And thanks to llepard for the incredible gesture.

Goldwater Conservative
11-13-2007, 01:48 PM
The Constitution, and in this case the First Amendment, overrides all statutes, including McCain-Feingold.

Unfortunately, far too many lawyers and judges have shown utter contempt for applying the Constitution with any common sense.

Revolution9
11-13-2007, 02:00 PM
AMEN BROTHER!

I hope they come after us, do you know how much free publicity we would get out of a First Amendment challenge!

Kicking royal ass and telling them to make a stink about it.. love it.. Come on clowns..the LLepard gots his claws out ready for a shredding.

With Respect
Randy

austin356
11-13-2007, 02:08 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

JoshLowry
11-13-2007, 02:13 PM
Lawrence owns.

Menthol Patch
11-13-2007, 02:57 PM
llepard has freedom of speech. What he did is NOT illegal according to the first amendment. That is all that matters. If anyone dares try to attack him for taking out this article he will have all of Ron Paul Forums standing beside him.

Ncturnal
11-13-2007, 03:04 PM
Since it's a team effort, I think we should refer to each other as comrades.. such as 'Comrade Mark' or 'Comrade Visual' etc.

dotcomrade (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dotcomrade) :)