Then you should provide a cite.
Because here in Minnesota, it would not be illegal unless it totaled over $100, which is the point at which the donor would have to be publicly reported. This is for state political campaigns. For Federal ones, like he mentioned in that post. the limits are much higher. And for private charities & non-profits, I don’t think any law applies to them.
I am not saying anyone would get caught, I just said one should be cautious in advising someone to do something illegal. But since you want the relevant law.
http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf
s.441f. Contributions in name of another prohibited
No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person
or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution
and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person
in the name of another person.
(B) If the Commission believes that a knowing and willful
violation of this Act or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of title
26 has been committed, a conciliation agreement entered into
by the Commission under paragraph (4)(A) may require that
the person involved in such conciliation agreement shall pay a
civil penalty which does not exceed the greater of $10,000 or an
amount equal to 200 percent of any contribution or expenditure
involved in such viola tion (or in the case of a violation of section
320 (2 U.S.C. § 441f), which is not less than 300 percent
of the amount involved in the violation and is not more than
the greater of $50,000 or 1000 percent of the amount involved
in the violation)
Contribution thresholds are directed towards the campaigns. Over $250 a federal campaign is required to make reasonable efforts to acquire the name, address and employer of donors. At lower amounts, the campaign does not have to mess with it responsibility. But that does not excuse donors from providing accurate information to the campaigns.
Actually share a rented house with two other guys; one is my dad’s age and the other is just a bit too old to be my son. The younger guy probably hasn’t lived here long enough to affect our household demographic, though. But between the older guy and me, our combined income was under $40K for the last year, (and mine alone was still under $20K) so maybe our “low income” status affects the likelihood of voting Democratic.
However, I’m still betting on either the HRC or the union; my older roommate hasn’t received any mail like this. The organizations he donates to (mostly televangelists, the poor rube) don’t tend to be liberal.
I don’t know whether my neighborhood is considered urban or rural. My city’s economy is agriculturally driven; population is under 30,000. However, I live in one of the oldest neighborhoods in town, which happens to be pretty close to the city center.
That I do. At least, I vote for elected positions, and I vote on initiatives and such. I tend to skip things like school levy votes that affect property taxes, because I’m not a property owner and I don’t feel comfortable voting on other people’s taxes (and I don’t have any children, and don’t foresee having any).
The NRA, Focus on the Family, the John Birch Society?
The NDP was born of an affiliation between the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and Canadian Labour Congress, and there are still numerous unions that are affiliated with the NDP. (The CAW left after its leader Buzz Hargrove campaigned for the Liberals, in violation of NDP membership rules, and had his membership withdrawn.) Members of NDP affiliates are considered to be NDP members, and have special voting rights in electing the party leader.
However, according to the new election laws, corporations and unions can no longer donate to political parties. Individual union members can give, as any other Canadian resident can, but the party can no longer be funded by unions. (Nevertheless, the NDP supported that legislation.)