This is where I think your argument fails. Broad meaning of thing of value for non tangible things in this context http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_s_free_speech_defense_is_as_bogus_as_it_sounds.html …https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/884631379245498368 …
-
2/ But I don't think it was a "contribution or donation" that was "received" or "accepted" (or sought to be through solicitation).
I agree from the letter there was no evidence contribution received or accepted Solicitation is enough. I argue that the "I love it" /1
-
-
line counts as solicitation as defined in BCRA (and linked in the blog posts and Slate piece) /2
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.