There's a lot going on here with foreign influence but I don't think this shows Obama was right.https://twitter.com/jeffhauser/status/954068196054663169 …
-
You don't think the NRA (c)4 could use Russian money for explicit electoral activity under CU?
-
-
Let's assume arguendo Russia did fund the NRA. But for unlikely series of events leading to special counsel, there's NO way that would ever become known (and likely much spending *has* been successfully hidden), & it's still a heavy investigative burden. CU made it much easier.
-
Is your argument still https://electionlawblog.org/?p=69833 ? The idea that
#SCOTUS makes a mess of the law & can assume other branches will clean up for it is naive; cf. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2265455 … by@BrianneGorod#SCOTUS broke it & now they own it.pic.twitter.com/T4Z6qMAwdJ
-
still my view
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Illegal, sure, but before CU much more enforceable, bc Russians wouldn’t have been able to move money in large chunks to eventually result in electioneering. (C)(4) loophole made it possible & appealing.
-
Don McGahn was orchestrating the FEC's Republicans while CU was being argued and decided. There was *never* a chance the FEC was going to address these issues. Cf. McConnell/filibuster/Senate It's like suggesting I dunk in basketball -- would be legal, wholly unrealistic.
-
And the FEC doesn’t even have authority to audit the (c)(4) receipts, right?
- 1 more reply
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.