# Did Romney break the law regarding foreign donations? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 14, 2012, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483 "2012-08-14T17:02:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/61 "2012-09-03T20:11:22Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I think the rights granted in the Constitution include the right to free association (including to form political groups) and the right to freely exercise a religion (including forming a church and worshipping therein). I do not think the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was intended to apply to for-profit corporations. That doesn’t fully answer the question. List ALL the rights you think groups don’t have that individuals do (you can skip the obvious, like the right to vote.) If you don’t want to list them all, tell me these three key ones: Do they have property rights, procedural rights in court, the right to speech? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/62 "2012-09-04T10:38:48Z")
Could you define your terms? Do property rights include the exemption from limited liability? Because that’s not the case with all [groups in the US](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_company#United_States). Procedural rights are different in [criminal and civil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liability#Using_the_civil_law) proceedings. As for free speech, the US is [absolutely unique](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_Legal_Personality) in the regard that the right to free speech is assumed to be a [collective rather than common right](http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html#freespeech) (somehow I doubt the fears of the author of the article will be realised in regards to the dismantling of unions being halted due to court cases based on collective bargaining). As it stands, yes, the precedent is that groups do have free speech laws. Without such precedent the US would be no worse off than any other industrial nations. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2012, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/63 "2012-09-04T12:57:12Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Could you define your terms? > > Do property rights include the exemption from limited liability? Because that’s not the case with all [groups in the US](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_company#United_States). Of course not. Exemption from liability is not a right at all. Property rights means the right to own property, and defend it in court. > [@](#): > > Procedural rights are different in [criminal and civil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_liability#Using_the_civil_law) proceedings. Answer the question. Do groups have the right to a lawyer, a speedy trial, etc? > [@](#): > > As for free speech, the US is [absolutely unique](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_Legal_Personality) in the regard that the right to free speech is assumed to be a [collective rather than common right](http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html#freespeech) (somehow I doubt the fears of the author of the article will be realised in regards to the dismantling of unions being halted due to court cases based on collective bargaining). Yes or no? > [@](#): > > As it stands, yes, the precedent is that groups do have free speech laws. Without such precedent the US would be no worse off than any other industrial nations. So you think political parties should have no speech rights. Is that it? Yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/64 "2012-09-05T08:12:17Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Do groups have the right to a lawyer, a speedy trial, etc? Under which circumstances? In criminal and civil proceedings, there is a long history of such a right. However, such proceedings do not encompass the whole of the law: a group may be subject to judicial arbitration or mediation without the presence of a lawyer. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > So you think political parties should have no speech rights. I think the right to free speech is an individual right rather than a collective right and such a right is not limited if the federal government limits where one can advertise. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/65 "2012-09-05T15:49:46Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Under which circumstances? In criminal and civil proceedings, there is a long history of such a right. Do you support that? > [@](#): > > I think the right to free speech is an individual right rather than a collective right and such a right is not limited if the federal government limits where one can advertise. So the answer that you believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU. Wow. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/66 "2012-09-06T13:52:42Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Do you support that? Sure. Do you support mandatory jail time for manslaughter? > [@lance strongarm](#): > > So the answer that you believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU. Believe what you will. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2012, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/67 "2012-09-06T13:58:43Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Sure. So you’re saying you support the rights of groups. > [@](#): > > Believe what you will. I’m not playing games with you. Unless you say otherwise, that conclusion is very clear. You believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/68 "2012-09-07T07:07:02Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > So you’re saying you support the rights of groups. Based on precedent, rather than legislation. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > I’m not playing games with you. Unless you say otherwise, that conclusion is very clear. You believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU. I don’t think a neutral arbiter would agree. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/69 "2012-09-07T13:51:44Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Based on precedent, rather than legislation. So you would support legislation to overturn the precedent. Just come out and say it. This is not about your respect for precedent, it’s about what you believe. Why can’t you just admit what you believe? > [@](#): > > I don’t think a neutral arbiter would agree. I think he would. There is simply no other logical conclusion. But hey, here’s your chance to say “no, I don’t believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU.” So go ahead. Say it. ---
**Author:** ![President\_T\_Toilet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@President\_T\_Toilet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/President_T_Toilet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/70 "2012-09-07T18:09:30Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > So you would support legislation to overturn the precedent. > > Just come out and say it. This is not about your respect for precedent, it’s about what you believe. Why can’t you just admit what you believe? > > I think he would. There is simply no other logical conclusion. > > But hey, here’s your chance to say “no, I don’t believe that the government should have the power to censor any and all speech by political parties or interest groups like the NAACP or AARP or the ACLU.” > > So go ahead. Say it. I’d support legislation to censor you 😉 ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/71 "2012-09-07T18:11:06Z")
> [@President\_T\_Toilet](#): > > I’d support legislation to censor you 😉 That’s a point in my favor. ---
**Author:** ![President\_T\_Toilet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@President\_T\_Toilet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/President_T_Toilet)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/72 "2012-09-07T19:43:24Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > That’s a point in my favor. Yes but you lost 2 points for being smug about it. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/73 "2012-09-08T11:59:59Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Just come out and say it. I think it’s more convenient in some instances to bring suits against corporations when corporate decisions have been criminal, but I don’t see the harm of “ministerial responsibility” when corporations commit particularly heinous crimes: rescinding corporate charters and jailing their executives. I don’t believe the government should have the power to censor political parties or interest groups, but I don’t consider limiting expenditure on electioneering communications censorship and most people agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/74 "2012-09-08T14:06:56Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I think it’s more convenient in some instances to bring suits against corporations when corporate decisions have been criminal, Why bother? If they have no rights and deserve none, they have no right to a trial. Simply pass a law allowing confiscation of their assets and go grab them. No process necessary. THAT is what having no rights means. > [@](#): > > but I don’t see the harm of “ministerial responsibility” when corporations commit particularly heinous crimes: rescinding corporate charters and jailing their executives. Fine, but that’s not the issue. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe the government should have the power to censor political parties or interest groups, Then you believe those groups have the same rights as individuals. So don’t ever claim otherwise. > [@](#): > > but I don’t consider limiting expenditure on electioneering communications censorship That’s a different issue. That’s about the right to spend money on rights, not about groups vs. individuals (unless you think individuals have that right but groups don’t). No more talk of groups having no rights please. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2012, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/75 "2012-09-09T10:09:42Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > Simply pass a law allowing confiscation of their assets and go grab them. This would be covered in transfer of equity. If there is no collective ownership, then ownership transfers to the individual, for which there is a remedy against state seizure of land (fourth amendment). > [@lance strongarm](#): > > So don’t ever claim otherwise. I think it’s wholly consistent to say that the government should not censor groups because of the individual right to free speech. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2012, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/76 "2012-09-10T13:00:02Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > This would be covered in transfer of equity. If there is no collective ownership, then ownership transfers to the individual, for which there is a remedy against state seizure of land (fourth amendment). Then the group simply doesn’t exist. It’s simply a collection of individual holdings that happen to be in the same place. It can’t do anything without its individual members. It’s not really a group. Confiscation isn’t the only issue. Can a group spend money? Incur debt? Sue in court to protect its interests? Or must every individual member do those things all at once? All those things require a group to have rights as a group. When a group spends money, must every member of the group write a check for $3.22 to cover that expenditure? Of course not. It’s absurd. A group is a group, and exists independent of its members. > [@](#): > > I think it’s wholly consistent to say that the government should not censor groups because of the individual right to free speech. I’m glad you now finally come out and say that groups have rights. Keep saying that. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/77 "2012-09-11T06:57:49Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > All those things require a group to have rights as a group. Such an arrangement isn’t common to every country with [political parties](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action). > [@lance strongarm](#): > > hen a group spends money, must every member of the group write a check for $3.22 to cover that expenditure? No, but there is no right to derive profits from the result of illegal activities with no consequences. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > I’m glad you now finally come out and say that groups have rights. Can you think of an instance where a group is censored without an individual being censored? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/78 "2012-09-11T12:49:29Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Such an arrangement isn’t common to every country with [political parties](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action). It’s not logically possible to have a political party with no rights whatsoever. > [@](#): > > No, but there is no right to derive profits from the result of illegal activities with no consequences. Nobody said there was. Nobody. > [@](#): > > Can you think of an instance where a group is censored without an individual being censored? Really? Of course I can. A group puts out a statement and the group is charged a fine for it or its offices and assets are seized. Or a group puts out a newsletter and it is confiscated. (I’m referring to “censored” or otherwise persecuted for speech). I suppose you want to find a situation where an individual is speaking on behalf of a group and the individual is told to stop speaking. Then the individual protests, and is told he has a right to speak, but not for the group or not using group assets - the government can ban any mention of the group by him? Or it can let him speak, but not spend any of the group’s money to distribute his comments in a newsletter to its members or the public? Even if we actually entertain this ridiculous idea, can’t you see how this infringement of groups rights infringes on the rights of the group’s members, and individuals? If you can see that it does, then what’s the point of making the distinction? ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/79 "2012-09-12T16:23:20Z")
> [@lance strongarm](#): > > It’s not logically possible to have a political party with no rights whatsoever. Colloquially, but it is possible for there to be no legislation enshrining a right and for the right to exist. Like the positive right to vote. > [@lance strongarm](#): > > A group puts out a statement and the group is charged a fine for it or its offices and assets are seized. Or a group puts out a newsletter and it is confiscated. Both of these contravene the fifth amendment. The individuals whose assets are seized are the injured party, not the group. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483/80 "2012-09-12T16:48:45Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > Both of these contravene the fifth amendment. The individuals whose assets are seized are the injured party, not the group. No, the group is. The individuals donated to the group. They don’t own the group. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-romney-break-the-law-regarding-foreign-donations/631483.md?page=3)