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 …
-
Can you cite to the text that defines a contribution or donation as a thing of value in the abstract? That would help.
I think we are just reading it differently 11 CFR 110.20(b) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20 … 52usc30121(a)(1)(A) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121 …
-
-
Can I just say how much I love hard-core statutory analysis on Twitter?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
By Kerr's analysis foreign nationals can contribute "things of value" to parties and PACs. It's an absurdity.
-
The phrase "things of value" is not repeated in the prohibitions against foreign nationals contributing or donating to PACS and parties.
-
Is Kerr trying to argue that the oppo wasn't donated/contributed to the campaign? The it was a "thing of value" but not a donation?
-
Just that it wasn't monetary therefore not a "thing of value."
-
Please see my twitter bio.
-
Thanks for that clarification, but then I'm hard pressed to understand the counter-argument. Arguing if it's not $$ solicited, no violation?
-
Sounded to me like what I said above. Doesn't think all "things of value" offered to a campaign are donations/contributions. But...why?
-
That's the part I'm waiting for as well..
- 16 more replies
New conversation -
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.