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 …
-
-
Replying to @rickhasen
1/ But the statute has a lot more text than "thing of value" that is getting lost in this discussion. I agree, this was a thing of value.
4 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @OrinKerr @rickhasen
2/ But I don't think it was a "contribution or donation" that was "received" or "accepted" (or sought to be through solicitation).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OrinKerr
I agree from the letter there was no evidence contribution received or accepted Solicitation is enough. I argue that the "I love it" /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @rickhasen @OrinKerr
line counts as solicitation as defined in BCRA (and linked in the blog posts and Slate piece) /2
9:04 PM - 12 Jul 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.