Skip to main content
15 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 5, 2019 at 3:42 comment added grovkin I think one of the oral arguments around Citizens United revolved around whether book sales could be outlawed because of prohibition on excessive political donations. This is the flip side of the scenario that foreign corporation can buy merchandise. A number of candidates have published books. Books are sold through regular commercial venues. So there is no check that, for example, some foreign nation hasn't bought 100,000 copies of a candidate's book. Such a purchase would not be tracked.
Jul 3, 2019 at 14:35 comment added Distic "Without that, someone like Putin could give an individual some money and ask the individual to contribute." It seems to me all of this assumes no american citizen would ever accept to contribute with Putin's money, which is quite a strong assumption...
Jul 2, 2019 at 20:45 comment added Zach Lipton @JMac There are independent retailers that sell unauthorized campaign merchandise. A search on Amazon will turn up plenty of unauthorized shirts with the names of presidential candidates on them. None of the money from those shirts is presumably going to the campaign; it's all just people making knock-offs.
Jul 2, 2019 at 15:33 comment added reirab @CodyBugstein That would make a good separate question (either here or on law.SE.)
Jul 2, 2019 at 13:02 comment added JMac @MartinBonner If there was an independent retailer selling politically themed merchandise, I don't see how that in itself would be a problem. The issue would likely be finding someone who is legally making and selling those products without giving a cut to the campaigns.
Jul 1, 2019 at 19:25 comment added eques @nikhil but a "Green Card" represents a permanent (or presumably permanent) state compared to a visa holder which is presumed temporary (even if fairly long-term). So the argument could be made to allow Green Card holders to donate even though they cannot vote because they do have some vested interest in the country since they will remain here longer.
Jul 1, 2019 at 19:03 comment added nikhil @eques that's fair but then the inclusion of a Green Card holder is also debatable. Like any other foreign national they too can be perceived to have allegiance to another foreign nation.
Jul 1, 2019 at 17:32 comment added eques @nikhil given that only citizens can vote, some may feel that non-citizens even those resident in the US shouldn't be able to influence the election directly
S Jul 1, 2019 at 16:29 history suggested Malady CC BY-SA 4.0
Spelling fix.
Jul 1, 2019 at 16:06 review Suggested edits
S Jul 1, 2019 at 16:29
Jul 1, 2019 at 14:52 comment added nikhil Your answer does make sense, obviously I think my situation and Putin's is not comparable. As I've been an American resident with an approved employer based immigration petition, in the queue for a Green Card. It is however understandable that the law doesn't capture each nuanced case and is designed to prevent against the worst possible outcome and rightly so.
Jul 1, 2019 at 14:13 comment added Peter Taylor The choice of prepositions in "should be financed by people in the United States, not people or corporations from other countries" is just about the worst possible one, given that this question is about what someone who is from another country but in the USA can do.
Jul 1, 2019 at 13:07 comment added David Richerby @MartinBonner They might be more about advertising but they're at least partly about making money.
Jul 1, 2019 at 12:56 comment added Martin Bonner supports Monica "Presumably they are putting the notice there because the money is going to the campaign" - not necessarily. Kamala Harris tee-shirts might be more about creating walking Harris advertisements than about making money - but it's thin ice. (See if the website asks for a declaration when taking an order.)
Jul 1, 2019 at 10:35 history answered Brythan CC BY-SA 4.0