BREAKING: Clinton's Elton John fundraiser may be illegal.

[mckeown1128]

According to the FEC, FECA "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment."

The question now is whether Elton John is contributing "indirectly" to Mrs. Clinton's campaign and whether the candidate herself has sought to "solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations" from a foreign national, which is unlawful.

That said, the act does provide a volunteer "exemption" as long as the foreign national performing a service is not compensated by anyone. But this exemption gets tricky and might not apply to Elton John.

Consider that in a 1987 advisory opinion, the commission allowed a foreign national student to provide uncompensated volunteer services to a presidential campaign. By contrast, a 1981 FEC decision prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080327/NATION02/615066787


This sure looks like she is receivin and accepting a contribution/service from a foreign national in a connection to a fundraiser:

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/eltonconcert_web.html?sc=2400

[TwilightGardener]

1. The Clintons, taking foreign funds? NOOOOO!!!!

[MADem]

30. Gee, "The Gores" did too....

Let's take a trip down memory lane:

Elton John helps raise money for Gore
September 20, 2000
Web posted at: 9:40 AM EDT (1340 GMT)


ATHERTON, Calif. (Reuters) - Flamboyant rock star Elton John, making his first foray into American politics after three decades of performing in the United States, endorsed Vice President Al Gore at a ritzy Silicon Valley fund-raiser.

John, the entertainer at a $10,000-a-plate dinner Tuesday, began his set with "Your Song." But before his next number, he showed his political stripes to the business leaders of America's technological mecca.

"I've never done a political fund-raiser before, and I'm an English man who has been coming to America for 30 years," John told the 320 guests, who included actors Robin Williams and Sharon Stone as well as a slew of high-tech executives.

"America has been extremely good to me. Hundreds of friends live here," John said, alone on stage with his piano. "I'm a great believer in the vice president. ... His views completely coincide with mine."

He made clear, on the other hand, that he "did not want this country to have to live under George W. Bush."

"The vice president ... wants this country to go forward, and if you vote for him, it will go forward," John said. "But it's back to the Dark Ages, I'm afraid, if you vote for the other guy." ...

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/20/campaign.gore.john.reut/

[TwilightGardener]

43. Yeah--I was never a big Gore fan, either.

[MADem]

112. Hmmm. That explains a lot. nt

[TwilightGardener]

120. ?

[mckeown1128]

44. So what... Bill Clinton committed perjury...

I guess that means all politicians should be allowed to commit perjury.

[WinkyDink]

58. Excuse me. Since when, perjury? Because YOU think he lied under oath? There is no conviction to

support your mere OPINION.

[TwilightGardener]

69. You must be kidding. I WATCHED him lie on national television!

He was IMPEACHED for perjury! Come on, now, you can defend him without being delusional.

[WinkyDink]

73. Excuse me again. You may believe what you wish, but the law, I'm afraid, does not agree with you.

[TwilightGardener]

88. OK, you're right, he was totally honest and forthcoming. My bad.

edit to add: you hang on to your technicalities to prop up your fantasies of him as a man of integrity, you poor soul you.

[MonkeyFunk]

95. You guys introduced the legal term "perjury"

and it's a false claim.

[Hutzpa]

96. lol!

bwahahahaha! !

:rofl:

[WinkyDink]

101. I object to the use of the term "perjury"; I said nothing else. But YOU can hang onto your belief

in your ability to perceive reality the only correct way.

[PoliticalAmazon]

150. I know it's hard to believe, but it's the truth. Here's the explanation:

To lie under oath is not perjury. It has to be a lie about something material to the charges being investigated.

Example: Say that as an 18 year-old I mooned friends from atop the Capitol steps. It's now 35 years later and I am a politician. I am charged with campaign election fraud.

If I lie under oath about the sources of my campaign funds, it is perjury.

However, if in a deposition, in order to embarass me, the opposing counsel asks me if I have ever mooned friends while atop the Capitol steps, and I lie by saying "no," that is not perjury because whether or not I mooned friends when I was 18 has nothing to do with my campaign finances 35 years later.

Look it up. It's true. I know it's hard to believe, but it is true.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. No he didn't

But many freepers keep lying about it. Ironic, huh?

[onenote]

126. Are you intentionally distorting the truth or are you just ignorant

Clinton was never convicted of "perjury". In the impeachment process, the House considered four articles, three of which mentioned perjury. Two of those failed. One was passed, but Clinton was acquitted in the Senate.

You ought to educate yourself before you post. You will save yourself the embarassment of looking foolish. And I say that as a fellow Obama supporter.

[DURHAM D]

129. I think your fellow Obama supporter is perahps not a Democrat. eom

[MADem]

130. Ah, facts out of order, I see. Accusations are the equivalent of convictions in your mind?

Shoot first, ask questions later?

Why am I not surprised?

[mckeown1128]

142. see post 135 below... to get owned... nt

[MADem]

163. Do you feel like an idiot because you didn't actually READ the post you cite?

It doesn't prove your point.

RIF, there, Skippy!

[blogslut]

156. Yes, but did Mr. Dwight produce/organize that Gore fundraiser?

Or was he merely asked to perform?

Looks to me like a different kettle of fish this year.

[MADem]

160. It doesn't matter. Is it volunteering, or is it a "donation" of service?

If the former, no issue, no matter what his citizenship. If the latter, you've got the 'value of the contribution' issue. Barbra Streisand "volunteers" for Democrats all the time.

And if the FEC isn't going after McCain, they aren't touching this. They don't have sufficient people to hold a frigging meeting anyway.

[MNDemNY]

2. Elton-gate?

[Ronnie]

3. The Washington Times

Right.

[mckeown1128]

6. Does it matter where the story comes from....

Does it make it legal for Hillary to accept campaign favors from a foreign national? If the same story was posted in the New York Times... would it all of a sudden become illegal. You have no clue how ridiculous your post is.

[Hugabear]

8. But it's okay to use anti-Obama articles from Newsmax

We understand. We really do.

[40ozDonkey]

29. Newsmax is a website.

No really, all my hard hitting journalism comes from Fuckfrance.com.

[theredpen]

55. The source *does* have some effect, yes.

Facts are facts, but publications like the Washington Times and NewsMax have an agenda. You need to take their assessments with a huge grain of salt.

Freeper Doug from Upland has been hawking a tape he insists shows Hillary Clinton committing a campaign finance violation. I won't link to his trash, but if you search YouTube for "qcbg72tK_ks" you'll find it (Doug's main trade is in odious "song parodies"). Doug From Upland started his little crusade 9 months ago and so far has gotten all the ignoring he deserves from the MSM.

If you post items that come from sources like this, you should at least note that it could be much ado about nothing stirred up by the right-wing noise machine.

[Ronnie]

153. "You have no clue how ridiculous your post is."

Really? Well, I would say that is your opinion, which is what the article was. And, this is not an opinion: Writing something in a newspaper does not bestow truth on it. It actually must be true in order for it to be true. Look for key words: may, maybe, might. I learned that in high school. Do they teach critical thinking where you go to school?

[SoxFan]

32. Bad source, but valid point

The NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, LA Times, et al, all stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the potential (and frankly, quite obvious) legal issues with the Elton John fundraiser.

I doubt that Sir Reginald is paying for this clambake out of his own pocket. The people I know in the music industry all agree that he is one of the most difficult and self-centered performers on the planet.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

67. Elton did a funraiser for Al Gore

[mckeown1128]

143. That is a lie... see post 135 below... nt

[Hutzpa]

102. Thats the Elton I know

he is your total 'PRICK' the complete package.

Most people in the industry are sick and tired

of working with him. In England his credential

have all trickle down for his over pompous self.

[SoxFan]

115. His antics in NH (of all places) are legendary

My best friend is in the hospitality industry, so I am privy to a lot of nightclub/restaurant/entertainment gossip.

Elton behaves like a spoiled debutante. He once refused to leave his private jet because he felt it was parked too far out on the tarmac. He threatened to stay on his plane all night unless it was brought up to the hangar. After an hour, a compromise was reached where TSA allowed Elton's limo to go out on to the flight line and pick him up.

Folks working for the arena, caterer, etc, all seem to have similar horror stories.

Other performers who come through town have a completely different reputation. Toby Keith (yeah, I know) has been known to pop in and hang out at blue-colar bars, and the guys from Godsmack do the same thing all the time when they are back home in New Hampshire.

[donheld]

146. Who are Pita and Toby

They look like a couple of sweeties.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I would hope the FEC takes action against McCain first, though, for his

public-financing shenanigans. They need to investigate this. The Elton John thing didn't even take place yet.

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. The FEC cannot take action against anyone

They lack a quorum due to a dispute between Bush and the Senate on the appointment of new members.

[MADem]

35. And I doubt Bush is going to put any more names forward, considering

that McCain wants to eschew public monies.

[TwilightGardener]

48. Well, that sux. McCain is doing hinky stuff with loans and public financing.

At least they won't be able to able to take action against Hillary, though, so I guess it's a wash.

[Stephanie]

5. Was Barry Manilow unavailable?

[WinkyDink]

11. No, the Jonas Brothers were. Or was that Miley Cyrus?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Are You Comparing Elton John With Barry Manilow

Elton John was cool enough to collaborate with John Lennon...

I don't think Barry "Mandy" Manilow was...

[SoxFan]

33. Barry knows that he's a cheesy '70s icon

That reality is lost on Elton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. Musical Taste Is Subjective

But Elton John's body of work ,especially his early stuff,got great reviews in the rock press...

You don't accidentally sell 250,000,000 albums...

[WinkyDink]

34. I believe it's age-related......

[MonkeyFunk]

54. how?

Manilow is 4 years older than Elton.

[WinkyDink]

66. That's the point: Geezer-Boomer Barry "wasn't available", so Next-Geezer EJ was tapped.

The post was a slam against HRC's Boomer age and tastes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. They Are Both Sevnties Icons For Different Reasons

But that would be like comparing Paul McCartney with Davey Jones because they both were sixties icons...

I'm not a big fan of Elton John's work... His last decent album was Goodbye Yellow Brick Road...The stuff that presceded it was decent...

I just think Barry Manilow was pure schmaltz...

[leftofcool]

7. Oh sure, like the Clintons don't have attorneys to check these things out beforehand

[mckeown1128]

9. Because she has attorneys doesn't mean it is automatically legal. nt

[MADem]

14. I suppose they figured that since that dual citizen did it for AL GORE, it must be OK.

I seem to recall that another dual citizen named REZKO bundled a quarter million for a certain Chicago politician.

But hey, keep digging!

[Hawkeye-X]

28. And I seem to recall an certain idiot

refusing to read further than what's in the surface for Rezko. And also refusing to Google "Individual H" - Ruh-oh. It's another certain candidate's problem.!

[MADem]

132. "An certain idiot" eh? Methinks thou dost protest too much. NT

[WinkyDink]

68. Sir Elton John is NOT a "dual citizen".

[MADem]

116. You keep saying that, but you don't know it for an incontrovertible fact.

Why wasn't Gore hung out to dry, if what EJ is doing is all "illegal," hmmmm?

[MADem]

10. Isn't Elton a US citizen now? I believe he is. He lives in Hotlanta....

Oh, well. You will have to try again. Tony Rezko was born in Syria, after all, and he bunded a quarter million for Obama.


Elton John did this for AL GORE in 2000, FWIW:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/move_over_oprah_hillary_has_el.html

[jakem]

16. pretty sure he is not a citizen of the US.

google seems to agree.

[MADem]

90. Craig Ferguson is. I have a good friend who is a dual, as well.

You don't have to give up your Brit passposrt to become an American: Since the British Nationality Act of 1948, there is in general no restriction, in United Kingdom law, on a British national being a citizen of another country as well. So, if a British national acquires another nationality, they will not automatically lose British nationality. Similarly, a person does not need to give up any other nationality when they become British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law

[WinkyDink]

17. No, he isn't. He is, in fact, Sir Elton John.

[MADem]

75. Ever heard of DUAL citizenship?

It's popular with Brits--because their tax system is ONEROUS.
It happens alot, you know! There are dual citizens on this very discussion board!!!!

[MonkeyFunk]

84. Still

Elton John is not a dual citizen.

[MADem]

106. I dunno. I can't find anything that proves or disproves the point.

And I know a LOT of wealthy Brits (and Europeans, and Canadians, too) come here and take US citizenship because our tax system is far less onerous than theirs is.

What I DO know is he's done this before, in 2000, for Al Gore. No one hanged him from the nearest tree for allowing a Brit to throw a benefit concert for him.

[MonkeyFunk]

138. Come on now...

if he had become a US citizen, wouldn't there be some mention of it somewhere?

[MADem]

154. Maybe not. Peter Jennings, as I said elsewhere, did it with no publicity.

He only acknowledged it when asked.

EJ is all tied up with being a knight of the British Empire. It is part and parcel of his "brand" as it were. Some might see it as disloyal.

Pamela Anderson got her citizenship in a private ceremony: http://www.moono.com/news/news00293.html We wouldn't know about it except that her publicists wanted the information out there--the old "spell my name right" at work.

I don't know if he is, and I don't know if he isn't. All I am saying is that it's not impossible that he is, for tax reasons, and he just doesn't want to advertise the fact.

[WinkyDink]

103. Ever heard of LOOKING SOMETHING UP?

[MADem]

117. Yes, show me where it says he is NOT a dual citizen, please. NT

[onenote]

127. You are kidding, right?

If Elton John had become a US citizen, it would've been reported by someone, somewhere. (Actually, it would've been reported a lot of places by a lot of people). So do a google search. See if you can find a single reference to Elton John becoming a US citizen. You can't. Now, you would say that since I can't find a story that says he isn't a dual citizen, he may be one. Okay. I also can't find any stories that say he doesn't have two heads and the tail of a squirrel.

BTW, this whole story is a joke and my fellow Obama supporters who are pushing it should be ashamed of themselves. There is nothing illegal, unethical, or improper about Elton John performing at a fundraiser for HRC.

[MADem]

128. Not always. Some people do it quietly. If he had a friend in the State Department, say,

during the CLINTON administration, it could have been accomplished with a private ceremony.

I'm not saying he is, but I am not saying he isn't. I simply don't know. He lives much of the year in Atlanta, he has a massive penthouse there.

[onenote]

133. Elton John doesn't do anything "quietly". It would not have gone unnoticed

There are dozens of websites devoted to him. Someone would have said something. Give it up. YOu don't need to stretch logic to defend ELton's performance at the fundraiser. As I pointed out, there is nothing wrong with his performing at HRC's fundraiser and those who are suggesting otherwise are dishonest and/or ignorant.

[MADem]

134. No, I'll use the fact that he did the same thing for Gore eight years ago as a "defense"

not that he needs one.

Peter Jennings became a US citizen quietly, he only acknowedged it when asked. People DO do things quietly at times. Someone who has been knighted by the Queen might have an interest in playing down such an event, so as to not piss off his UK fanbase. And really, who wants to advertise that they're American nowadays? Dual citizens hereabouts tend to use that "other" passport when checking into European hotels nowadays. Americans aren't terribly beloved around the globe, these days.

[mckeown1128]

144. he didn't use Gore 8 years ago... that's a lie.

see post 135 below to get owned.

[MADem]

161. Read the post--you're the one who is made the FOOL.

For the third frigging time...!

[MADem]

162. Read the post--you're the one who is made the FOOL.

For the third frigging time...!

[WinkyDink]

164. Hello??? Negatives aren't usually asserted, FGS. "And Sir Elton John is not a U.S. citizen, nor a

citizen of Italy, nor of Ukraine, nor of Guatemala, ..."

I mean----WTH??

It's those claiming he DOES have dual-citizenship who need to prove THEIR claim.

[izzybeans]

12. He doesn't have dual citizenship or is not a citizen?

news to me.

[WinkyDink]

19. He's a BRITISH citizen, FGS.

[mckeown1128]

20. He is british. nt

[WinkyDink]

13. Completely ridiculous.

[mckeown1128]

18. What is ridiculous??? nt

[WinkyDink]

23. The "scandal". The concert will go on as scheduled. Count on it.

[mckeown1128]

25. I know it will... but will the laws be enforced...

or do the rules not apply to Hillary.

[leftofcool]

49. Hate to burst your bubble but according to the FCC

it is perfectly legal as long as he is not re-imbursed

[MaineDem]

118. Umm, do you mean FEC?

The FCC has no control over election spending. Just wardrobe malfunctions. :)

[UALRBSofL]

21. I don't know if Elton John donated to her campaign

But I never thought a foreigner having a concert for a candidate to raise money for her campaign was illegal. Are you saying it's illegal for a foreigner to have a concert for the purpose of a fund raiser for a candidate?

[mckeown1128]

24. Yes. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

36. So Al Gore broke the law?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/20/campaign.gore.john.reut/

[mckeown1128]

52. It looks like it. nt

[MonkeyFunk]

63. No

it looks more like you're just wrong.

[mckeown1128]

108. Provide proof that this fundraiser surrounding a foreign national...

is legal. I posted a link to why it may be illegal... your turn...

[MonkeyFunk]

139. It's right there in the OP

as long as Elton doesn't give money, it's legal.

He did it for Gore, and it was legal then.

[mckeown1128]

145. Hello.. the OP mentioned the rulling about artists providing their

services... Besides this is pretty much an Elton John concert where he is giving all the procedes of his concert to Hillary. Sounds like an unethical way for Elton John to give Hillary some dough.

[MonkeyFunk]

148. Yes

the ruling in question about artists was about a non-US painter who had donated a painting. That's a no-no, because the painting itself is a thing of value.

Elton is allowed to volunteer his services, according to the law.

[MaineDem]

119. If he donates his time it's an in-kind contribution

I think the law is pretty clear that money cannot come from foreign sources.

This should be interesting.

[Huge Ego Sorry]

137. Just as long as no one has Foreigner playing a fundraising concert for them

That wouldn't be illegal, just incredibly lame.

[Yael]

22. The rules don't apply to the Clintons

[Lucky 13]

27. I say we call it even if he agrees to play "The Bitch is Back".

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[MethuenProgressive]

31. Elton John is gay. Obama loves McClurkin. Obama moves to block Elton John concert.

Maybe if Elton let Obama "cure" him the concert could go on.

[UALRBSofL]

37. Ewww you did mention McKlurkin, LOL

Actually, I don't know the legality of this. Whether the rules apply to Clintons or not. But I do see several "Squebbs" posts on here.

[MethuenProgressive]

53. Still waiting for BO to give back the $$ Donnie raised for him.

BO gave back the Rezko payola, why not Donnie's 30 peices of silver?

[mckeown1128]

56. He did return the money. nt

[William769]

When? and link please.

[mckeown1128]

85. Here you go.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/obama_returns_rezkolinked_money.php

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-rezko_both_20jan20,0,7876083.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4215299&page=1

[MonkeyFunk]

87. None of those links

have anything to do with the topic at hand.

[mckeown1128]

92. I was confused... I thought we were talking about Rezko...

and that case... why does Obama have to return money from McClurkin.

[William769]

91. Do you know the difference between Donnie & Rezko?

Appearently not. :rofl:

Well I see you are a very well informed Obama supporter, just like the rest of them! :rofl:

[mckeown1128]

93. I was confused about who we were talking about...

It's called being a little quick to reply.

[MethuenProgressive]

65. BO never gave back a cent of the money McClurkin raised for him, Not one cent.

[mckeown1128]

86. Does Obama really have to check the morals...

or is the lack of morals of everyone one of the million + donors to his campaign.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. Donnie was the hand picked host

of Obama events, not one of a million plus donors. He was hired, and he spoke his anti-gay tripe at Obama's events, for which Obama refused to apologize. The constant spin and reduction of the event by Obama's supporters is in many ways worse than the event itself.
Just a few notes. Elton John is leagally married in the UK to an American, they live in Atlanta. If the marriage laws here were not atavistic and unfair, Elton would be the same as the spouse of any other American, and thus this would not be a question.
Elton John has paid more US taxes than McClurkin's entire lifetime earnings. He has established and funded genourously one of the country's leading AIDS chairities and he did it here because of his life here. Millions and millions of dollars in tax and in chairity.
So maybe there is a legal problem, but there would not be under equal law, and ethically the man has more financial and emotional ties to this country than many natural born citizens.
And Elton does not attack minority groups as part of his fundraising style, that is for McClurkin to do.

[MonkeyFunk]

76. No he didn't

but why bother when the truth when making shit up is so much easier?

[mckeown1128]

89. Yes he did... see my post above...

and don't talk about making shit up when.....you just made shit up.

[William769]

94. When you step in do shit the sane thing to do is clean it up.

Not make the mess any bigger. Are you that rabid?

[mckeown1128]

99. Ummm... I was to quick to respond... I thought we were talking

about Rezko.... no biggie.... that being said... why should Obama return money from McClurkin.

[MonkeyFunk]

98. No I didn't

The question was whether Obama returned the money from the McClurkin fundraiser. He did not.

[mckeown1128]

105. Why should he?!?

Is it normal practice for candidates to return money from an entire fundraiser because one of the guests has twisted morals?

[MonkeyFunk]

147. I didn't say he should

I was merely refuting the notion that he had, which you mistakenly endorsed. It's not a biggie.

[Dawgs]

39. You really shouldn't make it so easy for people to put you on ignore.

Bye!!

[William769]

45. Why even mention that fact?

Does it make you feel like a big man? Look I just put this person on ignore and I told him about it. :eyes:

[MethuenProgressive]

60. Just shows Dawg isn't part of the ObamaBot in-crowd...

...or he would've been sent the "Targetted for Ignore!" list.

[Skip Intro]

61. Why should anyone give a shit if you put them on ignore?

Really?

Wave it around like its some kinda huge threat or some big fucking deal if Dawgs has you on ignore.

Who gives a damn?

[greguganus]

70. Is this an "official" ignore? I need to know if the list will be updated now. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

110. If tradition holds, they'll tell me six or seven times in thennext few days that they're ignoring me

and then reply to my posts with 'gee I can't see this person!' for another six or seven days. And then, if they sleep in a coffin and survive the frat spanking they get to sit with the 'cool kids'.

[William769]

40. It seems certain people have and are still trying to "purge" Homosexuals.

Good luck with that.

[mckeown1128]

42. BS BS BS....

Obama hasn't moved to block the Elton John concert... why did you turn a Clinton scandal into an attack on the GBLT community? You need help.


By the way... how do you feel about Richardson endorsing Obama... are you going to follow????

[TwilightGardener]

97. OK, now you're just making shit up.

[The Night Owl]

100. One thing is for certain... Barack Obama's church considers gays to be "sodomites" who won't...

One thing is for certain... Barack Obama's church considers gays to be "sodomites" who won't inherit the kingdom of God...

http://www.tucc.org/upload/tuccbulletin_mar11.pdf

Prayer Breakfast
March 31, 2007 • 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Monument of Faith Church • 2750 West Columbus Ave. • Chicago, Illinois
Guest Speaker: Rev. Sean McMillan, Pastor, Giant Steps Church

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of
these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you
were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. —1 Corinthians 6-9–11

I guess some at TUCC feel that nothing goes better with breakfast than telling people they're going to go to Hell.

[beachmom]

38. Does Elton John have a green card? If so, he can contribute to her campaign.

I guess maybe he doesn't if the Wash Times went ahead with this story. I just am not sure that is clear from your excerpts.

[bridgit]

41. Why don't you post a link to McCain's fund-raising in London...

McCain's not a question of "may be illegal"...he IS illegal. Turn this shit around and stop dragging the Democratic Party down.

[mckeown1128]

50. It is Clinton dragging the party down...

she should have dropped out after Texis and Ohio... she can't win anymore... she is only hurting Obama's chances in the fall... but sure attack me for pointing out how Hillary is breaking th law.

[William769]

57. The same can be said of Obama

A fact that people keep putting their head in the sand over.

[bridgit]

83. Hillary? No. You're dragging the party down.

[TwilightGardener]

51. True--as I noted above, McCain is an FEC nightmare, and no one seems to care.

[bridgit]

79. Yeah, wienerdoggie, you & me get a chance to agree: "McCain is an FEC nightmare...

"...and no one seems to care." :thumbsup:

[SoxFan]

64. Not the same thing at all

McCain's London fundraiser was attended by American expats and business types. You didn't have a British national donating his or her services to the event.

The Elton John event involves an British subject who may be donationg his services to the Hillary campaign. If Hillary's campaign isn't paying Elton John his usual performance rate (which I suspect runs well into six figures), then the campaign is indeed breaking the law.

[bridgit]

77. Ah, so you're here to be an apologist for McCain...

That's just too fucking strange. Unless you are, you are not in a position to say just where McCain's London based fund-raising money actually came from. What is to be? The Remains of the Day Pt II?

"American expats"? Hm, you mean like Halliburton?

[SoxFan]

107. Not apologizing for McCain at all

Simply pointing out the facts. All of the major candidates have raised money from Americans living overseas. The funds have to be reported on the FEC reports, just as if the fundraiser was held in Manhattan or Dubuque.

Bill Clinton attended a Hillary fundraiser in London on October 3.

Michelle Obama hosted an event for Barack in London that same month.

Dennis Kucinich campaigned among American expats in Lebanon, Syria, and England, and his wife Elizabeth met with Americans living in Germany.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14537555
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/19647.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_1_29/ai_n24238512

[WinkyDink]

46. 1. It's a Moonie paper, and it STILL hedges its own question, which apparently many here can't read;

2. EJ did this before, for Al Gore. Either "the laws" didn't apply to Gore then---or THERE IS NO SUCH PROHIBITION.

[UALRBSofL]

62. WinkyDink I know what your saying

But why did the NYTimes even publish this article? I'm sure someone in there legal department knows the laws.

[WinkyDink]

71. NYT or Washington Times (Moonies)?

[MonkeyFunk]

78. The New York Times didn't publish it

:shrug:

[FunkyLeprechaun]

59. If he just performs and not donate to her campaign

Is that ok?

[Stephanie]

109. It might be considered an "in-kind" contribution.

What Counts as a Contribution
Most people think of contributions as donations of money in the form of checks or currency. While these are common ways of making a contribution, anything of value given to influence a Federal election is considered a contribution. This section describes several forms of giving that are considered contributions under the Federal campaign law. All the contributions you make--whatever their form--count against your $108,200 biennial limit and your separate committee limits.

Donated Items and Services
The donation of office machines, furniture, supplies--anything of value--is an in-kind contribution. The value of the donated item (the usual and normal charge) counts against the contribution limits. A donation of services is also considered an in-kind contribution. For example, if you pay a consultant's fee or a printing bill for services provided to a campaign, you have made an in-kind contribution in the amount of the payment.

If you sell an item or service to a committee and ask the committee to pay less than the usual and normal charge, you have also made an in-kind contribution to the committee in the amount of the discount.

Under limited exceptions in the law, you may provide certain goods and services without making a contribution to the committee. These exceptions are volunteering, travel expenses and business services.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml

[spooky3]

72. What the Wash. Times left out of the article

http://ao.nictusa.com/ao/no/810051.html

The 1981 decision concerned a foreign national who created a work of art to be sold at auction. That's quite different from donating services in organizing a fund raiser.

One relevant passage cited in that decision was:

"As you know, SS 441e prohibits any person
who is a foreign national from making "any contribution of money
or other thing of value" in connection with any election to any
political office."

The decision appeared to distinguish "money or any other thing of value", such as a completed work of art to be auctioned off, from "uncompensated volunteer services", for which there is an exception.

There are other exceptions that could also apply here.

Guess The Wash. Times (a RW outlet - check out its reputation at mediamatters.org) didn't bother to read the decision, or call in a qualified legal expert to clarify things for us, and/or they believe as Fox News does (and which Jon Stewart has parodied), that it's ok to put a question mark at the end of an allegation and call it a story.

[William769]

81. Seems like many DUer's didn't either.

Which does not surprise me in the least.

[mckeown1128]

114. So selling concert tickets... isn't Hillary making money off of

Elton John's art?!!! It's the same thing.

[high density]

121. I think you're reading something wrong

Or I am... Because what you linked to seems to point to this Elton John thing being illegal. Based on that it looks like he can't donate "uncompensated volunteer services." If it would be illegal for him to perhaps record a CD for Clinton's campaign to duplicate (instead of painting artwork), why would it be alright for him to offer a free concert? The concert has a value as well.

"Accordingly, the Commission concludes that a foreign national artist would be prohibited by 2 U.S.C. SS 441e from donating his uncompensated volunteer services to the Committee to create an original work of art for the Committee's use in fundraising."

"The second question raised in your request is whether the contribution exception for uncompensated volunteer services provided by an individual to a candidate or political committee would apply in the specific situation you describe. This question is not reached since the Commission has concluded in responding to your first question that the foreign, national artist may not donate his volunteer services to the Committee for the purposes described in your request."

[spooky3]

136. I think the FEC is saying that if those services

are for the purposes of creating a *thing*, such as a piece of art, that will be sold at auction, that is different from other types of services. Notice that the phrase you bold-faced reads "for the purposes described in your request"--and it refers back to the prior paragraphs. The rationale (though I think it's a bit odd) seems to be that a *thing* that has market value is exchangeable for money, so it's treated the same as money, but helping someone organize something isn't, necessarily. For example, I could help you organize a concert but you could lose money on it, and the value of my services is zero.

If I'm not right in this: If you read the rest of the decision and the FEC's website that the article refers to, you will see an inconsistency between the exceptions permitted in the language of the law and the 1981 decision interpreting the law. So someone would still have to reconcile the inconsistency, if it can't be reconciled the way I attempted.

In any case, this work should have been done by the reporter--and questions answered-- before writing the story.

On edit, I see in post #113 where an FEC spokesman has said explicitly that organizing is ok.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

74. hey I have tickets...this is crap even Al Gore had an Elton fundraiser

:grr: :grr:

[mckeown1128]

111. That doesn't make it legal... nt

[William769]

123. Another one of your stories shot down.

NOT SURPRISING.

[Lucinda]

113. FEC seems to think its ok

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/17/elton_john_to_croon_for_clinto_1.html

Elton John to Croon for Clinton

Sir Elton John smiles as he performs to 6,000 plus fans as part of his world tour in Sudbury, Ontario, on Sunday March 2, 2008.(AP.)


By Matthew Mosk
Sing on, Elton John.

The British pop icon -- who was knighted by HM Queen Elizabeth II -- announced today he will be performing to raise money at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser April 9 at Radio City Music Hall in New York. And, lest there be any concern about a non-citizen thereby making an in-kind donation, the Federal Election Commission says it hasn't objected to this type of foreign aid in the past.

Musicians are permitted to donate their time and talents to assist candidates, even when the performers hail from foreign soil, said Bob Biersack, an FEC spokesman.

"If you volunteer your services, then under the regulations that's not a contribution," Biersack said.

The only legal hitch -- the Clinton campaign will need to pay the cost of putting on the show, including lighting, make-up, staging and venue costs, Biersack said.

-more at link-

[high density]

122. So if he "volunteers" something worth thousands of dollars...

The FEC is fine with that in 2008? That seems at odds with the opinion linked earlier in this thread. I mean I'm not going to argue with the FEC on what they think is right, but I would appreciate some clarification on why the 1982 opinion doesn't apply here.

[Lucinda]

124. He did the same for Gore in 2000, and I read elsewhere that a Canadian band did the same for Obama

this cycle.
I don't have the link for which Canadian band played for Obama though.

[high density]

125. Interesting

I'll obviously accept that the FEC knows what they're talking about.

[MyNameGoesHere]

131. More lows Washington Times links. n/t

[Jim Lane]

135. Elton John's 2008 concert is NOT like his 2000 concert

Several DUers have said that Elton John's 2000 appearance for Gore was OK and that anyone criticizing his concert for Clinton next month is therefore accusing Gore of illegality. It's a false comparison.

The relevant rule prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to a presidential campaign. John's 2008 concert will benefit the Clinton campaign. In September of 2000, however, he didn't appear on behalf of Al Gore. According to one of the linked articles about the 2000 event, "The fund-raiser, at the home of Novell Corp. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised $3.25 million for the Democratic National Committee." (See , September 20, 2000.)

Now, that establishes only that the appearance in 2000 "for Gore" wasn't exactly for Gore and doesn't implicate the rule in question. It leaves open the issue of whether a performance violates the rule. As I read the excerpts quoted here, the performance constitutes volunteering (permitted) as opposed to an "in-kind contribution" (prohibited).

[Mezzo]

140. I believe Elton John is a US citizen now. nt

[mckeown1128]

141. link??nt

[MonkeyFunk]

149. No, he really isn't

[cerebellum]

151. Another pseudo-scandal debunked

As some mother members have noted, the FEC chairman just said this fundraiser was lawful:

http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6782

[Mezzo]

157. Breaking: Obamaniacs arguments are broken. Thanks. :)

[McCamy Taylor]

152. shameful post! Elton John bashing! This is McCarthyism

This is McCarthyism, trying to attack anyone who associates with the Clintons.

[William769]

155. Actually it's Gay bashing.

And we all know that Obama's signature for his campaign.

[donheld]

159. What in hell does the OP have at all to do with anyones sexual Orientation?

[spooky3]

158. MediaMatters: WT "falsely asserted..." & "misrepresented FEC spokesman"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270011?f=h_latest

Wash. Times' McCaslin misrepresented FEC spokesman, advisory opinions, to raise questions about Clinton's Elton John concert

Summary: In a column about an Elton John concert on behalf of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, The Washington Times' John McCaslin questioned whether the concert violates federal election law and wrote that FEC spokesman Bob Biersack "said he doesn't know whether the Elton John performance would be considered unlawful by FEC standards." While McCaslin later updated his column, he did not note that, according to the Clinton campaign, Biersack said: "I did not intend to convey ... that there is anything unlawful" about the concert. McCaslin also falsely asserted that a 1981 FEC advisory opinion "prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a U.S. Senate campaign."

In his March 27 "Inside the Beltway" column, The Washington Times' John McCaslin asked: "Are Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elton John breaking U.S. laws by allowing the British pop singer, a foreign national, to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign by performing a concert on her behalf?" He continued: "That's the question Inside the Beltway put to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) yesterday, which does not rule out the possibility." McCaslin noted that, according to the FEC, federal election law bans foreign nationals from "contributing, donating or spending" funds in connection with a campaign "directly or indirectly." Later in the column, McCaslin wrote that FEC spokesman Bob Biersack "said he doesn't know whether the Elton John performance would be considered unlawful by FEC standards." But the Clinton campaign's Fact Hub website quotes Biersack as saying: "I did not intend to convey in my conversation with the Washington Times reporter that there is anything unlawful about Elton John performing in a concert to raise money for a US presidential candidate. The Advisory Opinion 2004-26 is clear in the circumstances of the request that foreign nationals may volunteer and may even solicit contributions from non-foreign nationals, provided they are not soliciting other foreign nationals."

McCaslin has since updated his column by noting that the Clinton campaign "says 'it has complied with the law' surrounding a fundraising concert that Elton John is scheduled to perform," and also adding, "Today, however, Mr. Biersack called attention to an FEC opinion from 2004 (No. 2004-26) that dealt with a Guatemalan national who became engaged to a U.S. congressman and sought guidance on volunteering for his election campaign." However, even in his update, McCaslin did not note that, according to The Fact Hub, Biersack also said: "I did not intend to convey ... that there is anything unlawful" about the Elton John performance...

snip

[WinkyDink]

165. Well, well, well. The concert is legal, and always was. Gee. Too bad for the wasted Clinton-bashing.