You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Citizens United is at it again. This time, with a Trojan Horse... CU has petitioned the FEC to make a rule that would lead to ending all limits on political campaign spending. They are using Bloomberg Campaign's $18MM DNC contribution as their cover. 1/ https://sers.fec.gov/fosers/rulemaking.htm?pid=3097006 …
CU say they want to limit the amount of candidate provided money that can be transferred to a political party. They claim "A contribution accepted by a candidate" is ambiguous since it doesn't address "a candidate's usage of his or her own personal funds for campaign expenses" 2/
Of course, Bloomberg didn't accept contributions from himself. Rather, his contributions were accepted by his committee: "Mike Bloomberg 2020, Inc." So, the ambiguous bit in the law is that it doesn't explicitly mention "committees" when identifying which funds are regulated. 3/
But, if the FEC accepts CU's argument, they must also accept that none of 11 U.S.C. §30114(a) addresses contributions accepted by campaign committees -- only contributions accepted by candidates or individuals. 4/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30114 …
CU's petition is in line with their famous SCOTUS win that allowed PACs to spend unlimited funds. Now, it seems they want to use the Bloomberg case as a way to chip away at limits on political campaign spending. This is wrong and must be opposed. 5/
The clear fix to this problem is for Congress to amend the law so that 11 U.S.C. §30114(a) speaks of "A contribution accepted by a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or an individual..." If I were in Congress, I would write that bill. Will someone else? Comments? 6/6
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
