Labour Staffers Could Face U.S. Charges for Election Meddling!
The 100 Labour Party staffers who traveled to the U.S. to campaign against Donald Trump and in support of Kamala Harris may face serious legal consequences under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Acting as unregistered foreign agents is a federal offense. By interfering in America’s election, these Labour operatives crossed a dangerous line.
With Trump set to take office on January 20th, his administration could pursue charges that lead to fines, imprisonment, and lasting damage to Labour’s reputation.
Did Keir Starmer authorize this? Was Labour acting as undeclared foreign agents? The U.S. doesn’t take lightly to foreign meddling—and the fallout for Labour could be catastrophic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is a non story by the look of it.
American legislation allows foreign nationals to volunteer in elections so long as they do not contribute financially.
The legal case behind this was outlined by a publication, giving the details.
'It would seem, looking at judicial precedent, that “contribution or donation” amounts to financial contributions only.
The law was interpreted in 2011 by the US District Court for the District of Columbia (a federal court) in Bluman v FEC.
In this case, the plaintiffs Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman were foreign citizens who lived and worked in the US on temporary visas. They wanted to donate money to candidates in elections and challenged the constitutionality of the law barring them from doing so.
The decision was authored by then Judge Brett Kavanaugh (who, seven years later, was appointed by Trump as Supreme Court justice). Kavanaugh argued that political contributions in the form of expenditure – so, financial contributions – were an integral part of the elections process. As such, it was right that foreign nationals be prohibited from making financial contributions.
He emphasised, however, that this decision was limited to expenditure, and that it should not be read as support for bans on other types of engagement with elections. These would be protected by First Amendment free speech protections, which apply to foreign nationals within the US.
From the decision,
"We do not decide whether Congress could prohibit foreign nationals from engaging in speech other than contributions to candidates and parties, express-advocacy expenditures, and donations to outside groups … Plaintiffs … express concern that Congress might bar them from issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy. Our holding does not address such questions, and our holding should not be read to support such bans."
This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court and so constitutes a convincing precedent.
In a nutshell, US law prohibits foreign nationals from financing domestic election activity, but this is limited to financial contributions. The Labour campaign “contribution” so far does not appear to amount to financial contributions, so as long as this remains the case, it is not illegal.'
So Labour volunteers have no case to answer and will be fine. Bit of Click Bait it seems,
Mrs x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it was Labour opportunism, they convinced themselves that Trump was a loser and Harris was going to landslide it, even though it was tight in the poles. So they jumped on the Harris band wagon and thought they could capitalise on Harris proposed win and say they had some influence on the win because they did "so well in Britain".
But if anything they may have cost the Democrats winning, if anyone should sue Labour it should be the Democrats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think it was Labour opportunism, they convinced themselves that Trump was a loser and Harris was going to landslide it, even though it was tight in the poles. So they jumped on the Harris band wagon and thought they could capitalise on Harris proposed win and say they had some influence on the win because they did "so well in Britain".
But if anything they may have cost the Democrats winning, if anyone should sue Labour it should be the Democrats."
What could be worse than 100 Labour party helpers?
200 Labour party helpers.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
