Myself, I’d call that a penumbra. Freedom of the press implies, and therefore includes, freedom of access to the press. A right entitles you not only to the things explicitly included in the right but also to the things that are necessary to make the right meaningful. An example I’ve used elsewhere is that the right to own and carry a firearm includes the right to own and carry ammunition.
Is Paulina Vega a member of the Colombian government? Promising to provide government obtained information? From a government accused of hacking the computers of a presidential candidate during the campaign in an effort to influence our election?
No? Then I couldn’t possibly care less who she talks to about her personal experiences.
I continue to be baffled at supposed patriots shrugging off the idea that a hostile foreign government surreptitiously attempted to influence our election. Yes, Trump meeting with Russian Government Lawyers to get dirt on his opponent is the same thing as a beauty queen talking about how Trump grabbed her pussy.
Columbian? From DC?
The law in question does not distinguish between “member of the Colombian government” and general “non-US citizen”, or between government-obtained information and some other-ways-obtained information. Or which country’s foreign citizen.
It’s a stretch to call oppo research a campaign contribution.
But you don’t have to allege a crime in order to start an investigation. Something smells funny? Let’s investigate.
If it would cost money (i.e. oppo research) it’s a campaign contribution. Unless, of course, you’re claiming that the Russian government qualified as volunteers for the Trump campaign under FEC law. I’m pretty sure you don’t want to go down that road.
<Shrug>
Not to get into the usual SDMB microscopia, but how much money did it cost?
If Paula Jones had gone to the Bush HQ in 1992 and said Clinton flashed her, is that a donation? If she told a friend and the friend paid for a cab ride to Bush HQ, is that a donation?
Most likely not though the laws governing campaign contributions are pretty strict.
However, if a cab company offered free rides to volunteers, that likely would be considered a contribution.
I guess the law is a bit behind the times, since they didn’t bother to distinguish between a campaign speaking with a foreign national, and colluding with a hostile foreign government.
Live and learn.
I don’t know. What’s the going rate to hire an oppo research consultant?
Why is that?
Because it comes with a political cost. It verifies collusion.
Yes, and if it turns out the Trumpsters knew- or worse requested- this, it will be really bad.
Especially if we find out that in even one small area it worked.
I believe the 14th ad and SCOTUS rulings have changed this significantly.
Bricker?
This thread asks about laws being broken. The argument you’re reading is not that these two scenarios are the same in all respects, but simply that they are both reached by the law in question. From the point of view if this law, they are the same. That’s not a general claim that they are identical.
“Can’t touch it,” is not accurate.
But both citizens and non-citizens are protected. The actual test is strict scrutiny: is Congress’ restriction narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest?
My question was more- now in the USA, arent all branches of Government, Executive, State, Local, etc also held to the 1st Ad, not simply *just *Congress?
Yes.