If it is not on express advocacy, the legality of the foreign spending is less certain, as footnotes here explain: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3017598 …
Show this thread
I don't think this is quite right. If Russian gov't spend money independently on ads expressly advocating election of Trump, that's illegal.https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/905524937661796352 …
-
-
-
And if foreign entity coordinated in supporting candidate with campaign/party, that's an illegal contribution.
Show this thread -
So if Russians were told who/how/when to target by a campaign, that would be an illegal contribution.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, that's why I distinguished the gun/immigration issues. Unclear from report what the ads referring to Trump actually said.
-
I also advance an argument in this paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3017598 …) that even the gun/immigration ads could be illegal.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And that would mean the election results would be overturned and Hillary Clinton would become president, right?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But doesn't the report say they spent on social issues, NOT explicit endorsement of candidates?
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.