FEC Attacks Campaign for Liberty

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unsurprisingly, the criminal regime in Washington feels threatened by the successes of the Campaign for Liberty. Hence the illegitimate entity that is the FEC is once again attempting to shut down free speech and prevent C4L from informing the people on political issues.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's odd.

The link has the domain chooseliberty.org, but the Campaign for Liberty uses campaignforliberty.org

I can't find a link or anything else referring to this on the campaignforliberty.org website.  The DNS registrations for the two domains are totally dissimilar.

Looks to me like someone is trying to take advantage of gullible libertarians and scam some money from them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

That's odd.

The link has the domain chooseliberty.org, but the Campaign for Liberty uses campaignforliberty.org

I can't find a link or anything else referring to this on the campaignforliberty.org website.  The DNS registrations for the two domains are totally dissimilar.

Looks to me like someone is trying to take advantage of gullible libertarians and scam some money from them.

     I pulled up the McAfee site report & it said that chooseliberty.org links to only one site: campaignforliberty.com. I thought maybe it was an instance of domain squatting, so I did a little investigating & discovered that it is in fact a .com domain (campaignforliberty.org re-routs to campaignforliberty.com). I am far from an expert on these matters, but it seems legit to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's odd.

The link has the domain chooseliberty.org, but the Campaign for Liberty uses campaignforliberty.org

I can't find a link or anything else referring to this on the campaignforliberty.org website.  The DNS registrations for the two domains are totally dissimilar.

Looks to me like someone is trying to take advantage of gullible libertarians and scam some money from them.

     I pulled up the McAfee site report & it said that chooseliberty.org links to only one site: campaignforliberty.com. I thought maybe it was an instance of domain squatting, so I did a little investigating & discovered that it is in fact a .com domain (campaignforliberty.org re-routs to campaignforliberty.com). I am far from an expert on these matters, but it seems legit to me.

Problem is anyone can redirect to another site, but the link itself doesn't redirect, and the donation form one is sent to if you sign their "petition" doesn't either.  I'd expect that if this were legit that they would have a link from the main site to something about this, but there is nothing, nada, zilch.  Anyway, since campaignforliberty.com has a form to report suspected abuse of their logo, I filled out their form out.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Well, I'm always skeptical of e-mails, so since it doesn't detail what they're charged with or cite any evidence, I have a somewhat hard time necessarily believing it.  This, combined with the fact that there are no news stories about this makes me skeptical.

[Associate Justice PiT]

That's odd.

The link has the domain chooseliberty.org, but the Campaign for Liberty uses campaignforliberty.org

I can't find a link or anything else referring to this on the campaignforliberty.org website.  The DNS registrations for the two domains are totally dissimilar.

Looks to me like someone is trying to take advantage of gullible libertarians and scam some money from them.

     I pulled up the McAfee site report & it said that chooseliberty.org links to only one site: campaignforliberty.com. I thought maybe it was an instance of domain squatting, so I did a little investigating & discovered that it is in fact a .com domain (campaignforliberty.org re-routs to campaignforliberty.com). I am far from an expert on these matters, but it seems legit to me.

Problem is anyone can redirect to another site, but the link itself doesn't redirect, and the donation form one is sent to if you sign their "petition" doesn't either.  I'd expect that if this were legit that they would have a link from the main site to something about this, but there is nothing, nada, zilch.  Anyway, since campaignforliberty.com has a form to report suspected abuse of their logo, I filled out their form out.

     The site report for campaignforliberty.com does not mention any links to chooseliberty.org. I am pretty sure it does not list every site that a given site links to (especially since it never lists more than eight), so I am not sure how conclusive it is. Nevertheless, I wouldn't trust the legitimacy of the e-mail.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Uh, can we please stick to the issue here and perhaps debate the validity of that link somewhere else?

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

[Derek]

There will always be attacks on liberty as long as we have big government.

[Zarn]

There will always be attacks on liberty as long as we have big government.

That includes Romney, Palin, Huck and Newt... as well as Obama, the czars, Pelosi, and Reid.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Frankly, the 501(c)(4) status of the Campaign for Liberty ought to be revoked.  501(c)(4)'s are allowed to engage in incidental politicking, but C4L's whole raison d'etre is politics.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

[Meeker]

Cool!

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Cool!

Down with free speech!

[MaxQue]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

From what I understand, being used to permit to individuals to give more money to a candidate than the contribution limit.

How that worked: Someone gives the maximum contribution to the candidate and gives money to Campaign for Liberty because the candidate said them to give the remainder of the contribution to Campaign for Liberty and some others organisations Those organisations give him the money they collected for him. It is saw as a illegal mean of evading the contribution limit.

[Free Palestine]

Cool!

What, now?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

Helping direct people to give money to them as an indirect way of helping the candidate (Buck) above the legal contribution limit.  Now, giving to an organization who gives to the candidate isn't illegal, but when the candidate and his campaign instructs people to give to an organization because he knows they'll be putting out an ad campaign (which his campaign coordinated with the organizations), then that is illegal.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

Helping direct people to give money to them as an indirect way of helping the candidate (Buck) above the legal contribution limit.  Now, giving to an organization who gives to the candidate isn't illegal, but when the candidate and his campaign instructs people to give to an organization because he knows they'll be putting out an ad campaign (which his campaign coordinated with the organizations), then that is illegal.

Alright, so they were being honest and doing a good deed. Hopefully another way will quickly be found to subvert the ridiculous laws of the State.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

Helping direct people to give money to them as an indirect way of helping the candidate (Buck) above the legal contribution limit.  Now, giving to an organization who gives to the candidate isn't illegal, but when the candidate and his campaign instructs people to give to an organization because he knows they'll be putting out an ad campaign (which his campaign coordinated with the organizations), then that is illegal.

Alright, so they were being honest and doing a good deed. Hopefully another way will quickly be found to subvert the ridiculous laws of the State.

Well, personally, I feel like contribution laws should be more laxed, but that doesn't change the fact that they most likely DID break the law here.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

Helping direct people to give money to them as an indirect way of helping the candidate (Buck) above the legal contribution limit.  Now, giving to an organization who gives to the candidate isn't illegal, but when the candidate and his campaign instructs people to give to an organization because he knows they'll be putting out an ad campaign (which his campaign coordinated with the organizations), then that is illegal.

Alright, so they were being honest and doing a good deed. Hopefully another way will quickly be found to subvert the ridiculous laws of the State.

Well, personally, I feel like contribution laws should be more laxed, but that doesn't change the fact that they most likely DID break the law here.

The law is clearly unconstitutional anyway.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

Helping direct people to give money to them as an indirect way of helping the candidate (Buck) above the legal contribution limit.  Now, giving to an organization who gives to the candidate isn't illegal, but when the candidate and his campaign instructs people to give to an organization because he knows they'll be putting out an ad campaign (which his campaign coordinated with the organizations), then that is illegal.

Alright, so they were being honest and doing a good deed. Hopefully another way will quickly be found to subvert the ridiculous laws of the State.

Well, personally, I feel like contribution laws should be more laxed, but that doesn't change the fact that they most likely DID break the law here.

The law is clearly unconstitutional anyway.

Well, CfL can challenge it, but I'm willing to bet the Court will just uphold previous precedent.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

Helping direct people to give money to them as an indirect way of helping the candidate (Buck) above the legal contribution limit.  Now, giving to an organization who gives to the candidate isn't illegal, but when the candidate and his campaign instructs people to give to an organization because he knows they'll be putting out an ad campaign (which his campaign coordinated with the organizations), then that is illegal.

Alright, so they were being honest and doing a good deed. Hopefully another way will quickly be found to subvert the ridiculous laws of the State.

Well, personally, I feel like contribution laws should be more laxed, but that doesn't change the fact that they most likely DID break the law here.

The law is clearly unconstitutional anyway.

Well, CfL can challenge it, but I'm willing to bet the Court will just uphold previous precedent.

Of course the State will rule in favor of itself. That doesn't make them right.

[Ameriplan]

The complaints filed by the FEC are real and they may very well indeed threaten the continued existence of the Campaign for Liberty under this criminal federal regime.

And after reading that, it seems pretty clear that Campaign for Liberty has violated the law.

So what crime did they commit? Exercising their right to free speech?

From what I understand, being used to permit to individuals to give more money to a candidate than the contribution limit.

How that worked: Someone gives the maximum contribution to the candidate and gives money to Campaign for Liberty because the candidate said them to give the remainder of the contribution to Campaign for Liberty and some others organisations Those organisations give him the money they collected for him. It is saw as a illegal mean of evading the contribution limit.

Yeah, I'm no bureaucrat, but it looks like the law has been violated and C4L is using fear of Obama's anti-free speech to incite anger in idiotic Paulites.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I have to agree with Libertas here. Campaign for Liberty deserves mad props for helping people circumvent the limit on political donations. After all, I should get to do what I want with my money. If I want to give it all to a candidate for office, tough. It's highly unfortunate that, as Inks points out, the courts will probably rule against them.

[Derek]

See here's where I disagree. If people are allowed to give as much as they want to political campaigns, then it's going to be the rich who run this country even more. What this country needs is a COMPLETE BAN on soft money sent from unions and corporations in attempts to control what congress does politically. It's not unions or corporations that vote, but people like you and me. I agree with the campaign finance reform law stating 2,000 a person and 5,000 a couple I think it is. However, the fact that a candidate can opt out of it makes the law irrelevant. Serious candidates know that they can raise more than the 200 million so they opt out of it. Bush signed it into law and Kerry voted for it, but both opted out of it. If we allow the sky to be the limit, unfortunately we're stuck with a ruling class and the rest scenario more than what we have now.

I do concede that the 527 groups are a product of this law and a downside. People with alot of money are limited to what they can send a candidate but can send any amount to moveon.org or the NRA to put up ads. However, that is their freedom. So you see, you can donate as much as you want, just not directly to the candidate. I'm not agreeing with how the 527's run their ads but am simply acknowledging the other side.