It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Romney illegal foreign campaign donations

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:52 PM
It would appear Mitts world tour garnered him some shady funding from foreign investors who remain hidden in the shadows. It is fairly illegal for any presidential candidate to prostitute themselves to foreign countries... much like it's illegal for a foreign born citizen to hold the office of president.

"No other American presidential candidate has ever left the US to garner campaign contributions from foreign citizens.
There is a reason for this, one that Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media had ignored until just recently.
Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony."

It seems strange that his tour was widely publicized yet no main stream media mentioned the legality of such fundraising save for a small mention on Faux News.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:57 PM
Dirty, dirty Romney.

A proven pathological liar, weasels out of paying taxes while the USA goes under preferring to spend more on toupee's and prostitutes...he'll probably go far.

America loves a wrongun, and seems to ignore people like Ron Paul.

Whatever comes will be self inflicted i'm afraid.

edit on 13-8-2012 by MysterX because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 08:58 PM
Who is better at laundering money than the government?

Any money/contributions he received will never be tied directly to his campaign. Unless of course such a disclosure serves in some way TPTB in the future.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by CthuluPrime

He'll probably just say it was from Americans Abroad. They are still allowed to make political donations even if they are not home in the states. I have family in the military and they are not all stationed here on American soil. Some are overseas and have just as much right to participate in democracy as everyone else. I would argue more so seeing as they are the ones defending everyone elses rights in the first place. They are the reason why we even have a democracy still.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:31 PM
Obama has some questionable foreign sources too

Busy Month for Obama Campaign with Fundraisers in Switzerland, Sweden, Paris and Communist China

Obama's Overseas Fundraisers Spark GOP Ire

I think Obama has to release the books on this in order to relieve the suspicions that his supporters will see as negative.

"Picture I.D.'s please" .... let's see the current passports !!

Besides that, how dumb are these guys?

All foreign donations should be delivered in cash by international couriers.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

I don't think I've had a chance to thank you in a while. You brought up the key point. No matter how many assumptions, and how much inflamed rhetoric was used, I didn't see anywhere in the article "Sam Smith, a citizen from somewhere else donated a bazillion dollars to the Romney campaign. This was verified by ????"

This seems, until I can find some evidence, to be another in the: Romney traded illegally, Romney ate a dog (oh, wait), Romney uses toxic chemicals in his hair, Romney makes out with his wife's horse, kind of story.

I really would like a discussion on serious issues.

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:39 PM
reply to post by skepticconwatcher

Umm no. I agree that most soldiers abroad are serving our country honourably. However to say that the soldiers abroad are the only reason we still have liberty here is a joke.

We have liberty here because we:

1) Have a constitution that no matter how they try, the PTB cant circumvent (yet)

2) Have a right to bear arms; which makes it a damn infeasible for any military, including our own, to take this country

3) Still have a blooded sense to fight for our rights, and not just roll over at the first inclining of a threat.

Our intervening in the matters of a foreign nation at every feasible opportunity is not a requirement of our liberty.

edit on 13-8-2012 by coven83 because: spelling

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:48 PM
Sounds to me that they are going for another stab at the old...

"Romney committed a felony" routine

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:52 PM

No other American presidential candidate has ever left the US to garner campaign contributions from foreign citizens.

There is a reason for this, one that Romney and his staff seem oblivious to and the mainstream media had ignored until just recently.

Using foreign contributions in any American election is a felony. Hello Romney campaign…is anybody home, hello?

Both Romney and Obama raised funds from Americans living overseas, which is legal. Romney is the only that may have crossed the line by raising funds from non-American citizens. He held secret fund-raising meetings with overseas contributors, many of whom are not American citizens, and kept the reporters and cameras out. He also refuses to disclose who attended the meetings and who contributed to him. Obama has disclosed all his fundraising events, who attended and who contributed (see Fox video)

Candidates look overseas for campaign cash

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the hunt for campaign money, no distance is too far to travel, especially when the race between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is tight and likely to stay that way into the fall.

The Democratic president and his Republican challenger have been aggressively courting Americans living abroad at fundraisers held far beyond U.S. shores. Such efforts serve the dual purpose of raising money to pay for what may be the most expensive election in U.S. history, and galvanizing a largely untapped group of eligible voters.

The practice is legal and has been used for decades, said former Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason.

One of Romney's London fundraisers raised eyebrows because the guest list included executives from Barclays, which recently admitted that bank employees were involved in manipulating a key market index.

But did Barclays British execs donate to Romney?

A separate well of potential donors awaited Romney in Israel, the second stop on the former Massachusetts governor's three-country tour. But there too Romney attracted some unwanted attention when his campaign announced it would break with its own precedent by barring reporters from covering a fundraiser at a swanky Jerusalem hotel.

How bad is the Citizens United decision? We're still seeing the ill-effects of the worst SCOTUS decision in decades. Thank your corporate masters for this one:

Election law experts have warned that the proliferation of super PACs has made it impossible to tell whether foreign cash is flowing to the campaigns. The foreign money ban also applies to super PACs, but some of their money comes from vague corporate entities, obscuring the original funding source.

Two percent of the money super PACs raised this year came in the form of so-called "secret money" that can't be reasonably traced, according to a preliminary analysis from an upcoming report by Demos and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In addition to super PACs, nonprofit groups are also spending heavily on the 2012 race, campaign finance experts said, and those groups aren't required to disclose their donors as long as their political activities stay within certain limits.

"As long as there is secret money sloshing around in our national elections, the public simply has no way of knowing if illegal foreign money is working its way into influencing our presidential and congressional races," said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, which advocates for campaign finance reform.

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:05 AM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Dear Blackmarketeer,

This seems to be a lot like the tax return matter. In both cases people are saying "There may be evidence of wrongdoing, but we don't know because the person we suspect isn't giving us the evidence." I think that's a fair way to express it.

Given that's the case, what should our response be? Should we say, "He's a criminal and should not be allowed to run?" Should we say "We just can't know for sure, it looks liked we're blocked on this particular matter, let's try some other issue?" Or, perhaps "Let's just keep saying this over and over, it's our patriotic duty to keep him out?"

What should be done?

With respect,

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by CthuluPrime
Are you serious?
Is that the only way to attract foreign donations?
Ever heard of the word 'Lobbyists' ?

DC has the biggest bunch of them from all over the world. How do you think your buddy...the present POTUS gets some of his fundings?


The rules are well-established for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee[34]. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike John McCain, Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.


President Obama’s health care law and the 2009 stimulus have provided money to groups pushing for tax increases on soda and price controls for other unhealthy foods, despite laws against taxpayer-funded lobbying of lawmakers.


new topics

top topics


log in