What's the harm if Russians "interfered" in our elections? Why not allow foreigners to participate?

[Elixir]

This has more to do with the medium than the message. I'm not okay with the Russian government buying vast access to specific citizens through our social media, using super-sophistocated programatic marketing algorithms and tools conveniently provided by facebook, twitter et al... to spread misinformation and falsehoods trying to sow chaos and influence elections.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because nation-states don't work that way. The entire idea behind the nation-state is that the state apparatus derives its legitimacy from being a state by the people which it rules (The nation)

That's not what a nation state means. Nation states are units consisting of citizens that are members of the incredibly vague concept, "nation". The philosophers Fichte end Herder tried defining it. I recommend studying them, because they are rediculous. The first nation state was Spain under queen Isabella. She'd just kicked out the Moors and needed a new identity to bind together her nation. So she just made some shit up. Because Spain was up to that point an Islamic nation.

 

[RVonse]

The OP is correct with one caviout. The foreign advertising should be heavily taxed in a very progressive way compared to domestic sources. To ensure no other country could ever have any significant influence.

Whether we like this or not foreign influence has already arrived anyway. So we might as well capitalize on it. For example, a company such as Anheiser Busch is no longer a US owned company. With Citizens United the foreign owned home offices of these foreign controlled corporations with deep pockets can interfere with US elections and Hillary cant say anything at all about them. Just how is corporate controlled foreign corruption any different than Russia and Trump?

Like the OP says, election corruption is already in place to stay. No one is ever going to change that. So we might as well get some financial taxation out of it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why assume that any foreign-backed candidate has to be the worse candidate?

What's the harm if Russians "interfered" in our elections? Why not allow foreigners to participate?

Two words for you:

DONALD
TRUMP

You're saying the Russians did something which caused Trump to get elected. Let's assume that's true.

Was it something BAD they did, or something GOOD?

If it was BAD, then it should be illegal for ANYONE to do it, not just foreigners. So why are we obsessing on preventing foreigners or Russians from influencing our elections? Make it illegal for ANYONE, including U.S. citizens, to do this bad thing which could influence the elections.

But if it was a GOOD thing the Russians did, then why should they be prohibited from doing it?

So instead of prohibiting any interference from foreigners in our elections, just prohibit anyone from doing something bad which influences our elections, regardless whether they're foreigners. Isn't it just as bad for the country if a CITIZEN does the same thing, and thus causes a Trump-like candidate to win?

If whatever the Russians did had been done by a citizen, and there's no harm in it, then how is there harm in it that a foreigner did it? Why does it become bad for the country if a foreigner did it, but not if a citizen did it?

How can it hurt the country if foreigners influence which demagogue-blowhard gets elected?

Not all demagogue-blowhards are created equal.

But why assume the foreign influence would favor the worse demagogues? There are many factors which might favor the worse candidate over the better candidate, but we can't identify all of them and eliminate them from influencing the outcomes -- there's no way to identify every factor and measure how much it might favor a better or a worse candidate. That same factor might favor the worse candidate in one race but the better candidate in a different race.

What reason is there to assume that foreign influence would always favor the worse candidate in any given race? That foreign entity might have a good reason to favor a certain candidate (or oppose his opponent) and thus is interfering for a good reason, and the U.S. even benefits from that interference because it tips the scales in favor of the better candidate.

Since there's no way to know what the influence is in all (or most) cases -- whether for good or ill -- it's better to just leave alone the million factors (or 10 million) which are influencing the outcomes. Overall there's no reason to try to control the factors and restrict certain ones. Except in the few cases where it's obvious to everyone that a certain factor is bad, such as someone stealing ballot boxes or manipulating the votes, etc.

There is no reason to assume that a foreign influence would cause only bad outcomes and always benefit the worse candidate in a given race.

Some have a vestige of ethics, don't have corrupt business interests all over the world, etc. etc.

So your scenario is that a tycoon runs for President (or Senate etc.) and is supported by Russia where he has business interests (some shady?), and Russian resources are spent to help him get elected, i.e., spent by some Russians profiting from him. And this factor, plus a million others, helps tip the scales, so that he wins because of all these factors, and without the Russian aid factor he would have lost. And he was the worst candidate.

Although this can happen, it could just as well happen that the foreign support would benefit a good candidate in some other race. It can't automatically be the case that every candidate favored by those foreign interests has to be the worst candidate for the U.S. Or that every tycoon doing business abroad has to be the worst candidate in any politcal race.

He's not automatically the worst candidate because he's a capitalist getting rich and being liked by certain foreigners or a certain foreign government. Maybe they like him for a good reason, and he's getting rich by producing benefit.

Do you want to add the factor that no one may run for office who has lawsuits pending against him? or who is accused by someone of having committed a crime? This might be a legitimate reason to disqualify a candidate. So -- no one may run for public office who has been charged with a crime (including in a foreign country) or who is being sued (or even just accused by someone of a crime). Possibly there would be merit in that kind of restriction on candidates.

(And with such a restriction, both Trump and Hillary would have been disqualified from running. And thousands of dubious candidates would be disqualified, and perhaps millions would be deterred from seeking office because of their tainted past record.)

But just that they do business abroad or have supporters in a foreign country does not necessarily make them bad candidates and a threat to the folks back home.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

It's just xenophobia.

And if what we have isn't ideal then obviously we should just smash it up some more because nobody will notice a little more damage... Right?

How does it "smash" up our country to allow foreigners to influence our elections? No one is giving any example how this makes the country worse off. Can't someone give at least a HYPOTHETICAL example what would go wrong?

So then how are we not still running "our own country" even if we allow foreigners to have some influence in the elections?

The word "some" is tricky because 99% is some. If we keep giving away "some" influence to the highest bidder there may come a time when there isn't as much "our country" as "their country."

It's all just xenophobia until you offer a hypothetical example of what might go wrong.

I.e., some foreigner (or foreign government) spends money on a candidate, so that candidate wins by a close margin. Maybe several candidates get such support from foreigners. How does that mean we lose the country? What specifically is it that goes wrong as a result of that person getting elected?

But such extremes aren't necessary. Minute influence can still tip the balance of power in vastly different directions with countless repercussions.

But how are "repercussions" or "influence" necessarily bad just because it's foreigners doing it? How does it make us worse off?

What's a serious example of damage to the country which might happen as a result of allowing foreigners to "influence" or "interfere" with or "meddle" in the elections?

Don't play dumb, you know how corruption works.

You mean anything foreigners do is automatically corrupt? Some corruption is already illegal, regardless whether it's foreigners doing it. Are there some additional kinds of corruption which should be made illegal? If so, then we should make them illegal. But just that foreigners do something to help a candidate doesn't mean something criminal happens or that some damage is inflicted. What is the crime? or the damage? or the loss to the country?

If you don't, now is your chance to go learn about it. Corruption from foreign sources works the same as internal ones.

Then deal with it the same way. If we have a way to address internal corruption, then do the same in the case of foreign corruption. But why does that mean the NON-corrupt foreigners cannot be allowed to influence elections? What's the "corruption" if a foreigner donates to a U.S. candidate? or runs a political ad? Why assume it's automatically "corruption" just because it's from a foreigner?

If anyone does something corrupt, then bust them. But just influencing the election is not corrupt in itself, or just being a foreigner.

But what's the harm if some people make money in the process? especially if some of that money can be taxed or is spent paying for the elections?

Gee, Mr Al Capone wants to keep prohibition going, I guess his cash for the air time he buys trying to swing the election more than makes up for all the other consequences his position might inflict on the nation... Right?

So because you disagree with someone's politics, they should be prohibited from supporting a candidate? Or because you think that person is selfish, he should be suppressed from participating? So, no one may support any candidate or participate if their political views are judged to be wrong or they are selfish?

You could restrict them if they are known to be criminals. Perhaps anyone thought to be committing crime should be restricted from supporting a candidate. That might be reasonable. But just because they want to spend money on a candidate does not make them "corrupt" or criminal or unfit to participate. Or just because they profit from the election does not make them corrupt. Or that their candidate is favorable to their interests. Or that they are foreigners.

I don't even think money should be involved at all in elections. No campaign contributions. They all lead to corruption.

What about allowing people to volunteer their time to a candidate? Why wouldn't that also be corrupt? Why is it OK to volunteer your time but not your money which you spent time to earn? One volunteer works going door-to-door, another "volunteer" works hard to run a business so he can donate to his candidate. What's the difference?

So you would also have to ban all volunteer work done for candidates.

Nah, we wouldn't have to. We also don't have to conflate vastly different things like labor and capital.

You're not giving a reason why it's OK to contribute your time to a candidate but wrong to contribute your money. They're basically the same, except that the money offers the additional benefit that it probably can be taxed.

 

[zorq]

How does it "smash" up our country to allow foreigners to influence our elections? No one is giving any example how this makes the country worse off. Can't someone give at least a HYPOTHETICAL example what would go wrong?

You aren't paying attention. You are the one insisting that this sort of influence should be acceptable because we are working with a broken system already, otherwise why did you bring up the fact that the system is already broken?

So then how are we not still running "our own country" even if we allow foreigners to have some influence in the elections?

The word "some" is tricky because 99% is some. If we keep giving away "some" influence to the highest bidder there may come a time when there isn't as much "our country" as "their country."

It's all just xenophobia until you offer a hypothetical example of what might go wrong.

Obviously, the people who have our best interests at heart is always going to be US. Why let people who DON'T have our best interests at heart drastically affect us when it is so easy to prevent? Will their influence on the election benefit us? Maybe. Will it benefit them? Always.

I.e., some foreigner (or foreign government) spends money on a candidate, so that candidate wins by a close margin. Maybe several candidates get such support from foreigners. How does that mean we lose the country? What specifically is it that goes wrong as a result of that person getting elected?

Specifically, because you seem too dense to put two and two together, the candidate chosen by foreigners benefits the foreigners possibly at the expense of the locals. That's why the foreigners chose their candidate, there is no other reason for them to do so. Is the candidate a Manchurian candidate? Maybe. Is the candidate going to give favorable trade deals to the foreigners? Maybe. Is the candidate being blackmailed by the foreigners and leveraged as their pawn? Maybe. Is the candidate beholden to the foreigners for helping with this election and dependant on them for help in the next election? Maybe. How many sweetheart deals that might have otherwise stayed local will this candidate dole out in exchange for campaign help next time?

At the very least, if the influence is locally sourced, money isn't going to be flowing out of the local economy. But when foreigners are peddling the influence, you can almost guarantee that some money is going across the border.

But such extremes aren't necessary. Minute influence can still tip the balance of power in vastly different directions with countless repercussions.

But how are "repercussions" or "influence" necessarily bad just because it's foreigners doing it? How does it make us worse off?

They aren't necessarily bad but they are potentially catastrophic, so why let that sort of chaos in to the system if you don't have to. Many drunk drivers are perfectly capable of driving home safely, but we outlaw all of them because of the risk they pose to society.

What's a serious example of damage to the country which might happen as a result of allowing foreigners to "influence" or "interfere" with or "meddle" in the elections?

Don't play dumb, you know how corruption works.

You mean anything foreigners do is automatically corrupt?

I told you not to play dumb. You asked for an example of what could go wrong and I am saying that I don't have to because CORRUPTION could occur and the consequences of corruption are well known by both of us.

But let me break it down for you, because you can't seem to follow along. People giving favors often expect favors in return. What do you think a big pile of cash that helps you win a cushy job is? It's a campaign contribuition and it's a big favor.

Some corruption is already illegal, regardless whether it's foreigners doing it. Are there some additional kinds of corruption which should be made illegal? If so, then we should make them illegal. But just that foreigners do something to help a candidate doesn't mean something criminal happens or that some damage is inflicted. What is the crime? or the damage? or the loss to the country?

Corruption is rarely uncovered until the damage has already been done. Why take the risk? Laws themselves don't prevent people from breaking them. Why let people who Don't have our best interests at heart meddle with our lives?

Would you let a stranger off the street make major life decisions for you? Tell you who to marry? Tell you when to quit your job or demand a raise? They might be doing you a favor or they might be trying to screw with you, or they may have their eyes on your current wife or job and are trying to get you out of the picture. WHY TAKE THE RISK?

If you don't, now is your chance to go learn about it. Corruption from foreign sources works the same as internal ones.

Then deal with it the same way. If we have a way to address internal corruption, then do the same in the case of foreign corruption. But why does that mean the NON-corrupt foreigners cannot be allowed to influence elections? What's the "corruption" if a foreigner donates to a U.S. candidate? or runs a political ad? Why assume it's automatically "corruption" just because it's from a foreigner?

If anyone does something corrupt, then bust them. But just influencing the election is not corrupt in itself, or just being a foreigner.

Again, it is an unnecessary risk.

But what's the harm if some people make money in the process? especially if some of that money can be taxed or is spent paying for the elections?

Gee, Mr Al Capone wants to keep prohibition going, I guess his cash for the air time he buys trying to swing the election more than makes up for all the other consequences his position might inflict on the nation... Right?

So because you disagree with someone's politics, they should be prohibited from supporting a candidate? Or because you think that person is selfish, he should be suppressed from participating? So, no one may support any candidate or participate if their political views are judged to be wrong or they are selfish?

Will, you pay attention? I said nothing bout "wrong" or "selfish" political opinions. This was addressing the monetary aspect that you think is so great. The cash infusion of the marketing campaign for one election is miniscule in comparison to the drastic damage that can be done in one election.

You could restrict them if they are known to be criminals. Perhaps anyone thought to be committing crime should be restricted from supporting a candidate. That might be reasonable. But just because they want to spend money on a candidate does not make them "corrupt" or criminal or unfit to participate. Or just because they profit from the election does not make them corrupt. Or that their candidate is favorable to their interests. Or that they are foreigners.

Agreed.

Nah, we wouldn't have to. We also don't have to conflate vastly different things like labor and capital.

You're not giving a reason why it's OK to contribute your time to a candidate but wrong to contribute your money. They're basically the same, except that the money offers the additional benefit that it probably can be taxed.

The biggest difference in my mind is that time is more scarce, and it's distribution is more equitable. This makes it less likely to corrupt a candidate when donated. If the head of a major corporation wants to put 100 hours of his own time into helping out a candidate, he is not likely to stand out as deserving of special treatment when hundreds of other people have done the same.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Let everyone participate, contribute, propagandize, spend, profit, invest in elections -- even foreigners.

Regarding your title,

Nobody said 3rd party profit deligitimizes an election.

OK, so we agree that there is no reason to discourage anyone from contributing to campaigns or from making a profit off it in some way, because this in no way taints the election. The democratic election process is not compromised at all by the fact that certain people profit from it, such as through contributing or advertising or promoting something, spending money in the election, investing in it in some way, hoping to profit from it one way or another. None of that is bad or harmful to democracy, so there should be no prohibitions on it.

If something bad is done by a candidate or a donor, it can be addressed, but just that they profited or spent money or invested in it or promoted something does not in itself mean anything wrong happened which taints the democratic process.

Is it really a good thing for certain local media companies to take in money from foreign sources if the consequence is a distorted perspective of the electorate when making decisions on the course their country should take?

The phrase "distorted perspective" is subjective. If we outlaw all perspectives which are "distorted" we will have never-ending litigations fighting over what perspectives are "distorted" and which ones are OK.

Some perspectives are objectively wrong.

But there is no agreed process in our society to determine the right and wrong perspectives. The election process cannot assume there is any right or wrong perspective. E.g., the "FOREIGN" perspective cannot be judged as objectively wrong and so should not be censored from being a part of the process. There's little we can do legally to give an advantage to the "right" perspectives over the "wrong" ones. Those who claim to be "right" usually cannot prove it objectively, so it's a mistake to let them rig the system to favor their "right" perspective over what they claim is the "wrong" perspective.

So it's best to let everyone participate in the elections and not ban anyone because their perspective is deemed to be the "wrong" one.

Some people and industries profit from the propagation of those objectively wrong perspectives.

Possibly, in criminal court that might be shown in a few cases. But most particular claims like this cannot be proven objectively. Most particular claims of "people and industries" profiting from "objectively wrong" perspectives cannot hold up to objective scrutiny, but are based on emotional impulses rather than reason. There is no such profiting which warrants putting any limits on such people or industries promoting their interests in elections.

As always, you cannot give any specific examples. It's easy to throw around vague paranoid pronouncements about someone profiting somewhere doing something objectively wrong, but there is no example of this which requires that any limits be placed on campaign contributions or advertising in elections.

It would be OK to establish a grand jury system as an objective process to investigate corruption or dubious practices and promotions and issue determinations on who is lying or distorting the truth. That would be a welcome improvement in modern society, but we do not have any such process. The best we have are private lawsuits where only limited interests settle their conflicts, but no process to protect the public good from private interests who profit from spreading lies.

At the same time, private profiteers often serve the public good by promoting their interests, so it would do more harm than good to crack down on all profiteers promoting their narrow interests, such as by restricting their participation in elections.

When we let money be the deciding factor of whether a perspective gets broadcast we get all kinds of distorted perceptions of reality in the population.

But we also get improved perceptions as well. That money spent to promote private interests also promotes an increase in total education or information to the public. If there are "distorted" perceptions being broadcast somewhere, it is always better to let other contrary interests also spend money to promote their perceptions in response, rather than to put limits on the ones promoting their perception which someone claims is distorted. Instead of limiting them from spending money on their perceptions you need to spend your own money promoting your perception contrary to theirs.

Unless perhaps there's an official grand jury process for determining which perceptions are objectively "distorted" or false or dangerous and needing to be censored in some way. But since there is no such process, it's better to let all the perceptions be promoted and hope that the "right"-thinking persons will promote the better perceptions in opposition to the distorted ones.

Now, do you suppose that a foreign power (who is most leither a competitor, or an enemy of the local nation or its industries) is either more likely or less likely to contribute objectively wrong perspectives to the political process of the local nation?

What they likely will do is present a minority perspective which is currently being suppressed in the local nation, so that this additional perspective will INcrease the knowledge of the local population so that those people will become more informed than previously. So it is more likely to be an improvement to the nation. More information and more perspectives is usually an improvement.

There should not be anything in the law using terminology such as "distorted perspectives" or based on such subjectivity.

Then it's a good thing I proposed no such thing!

So then we agree that there should be no limits on election participation or contributions or promotions or campaigns based on the need to prevent someone from contributing "distorted perspectives" to the population.

The OP implies that a thousand dollars in Google's pocket is worth inflicting a Donald Trump presidency on a nation.

Surely thousands of legitimate candidates have been elected as a result of something being bought or sold somewhere. You can't say that any buying or selling has to be wrong because the result of it is that some candidate got elected as a result of it. The buying and selling is just a normal part of the process.

While corruption is normal, it doesn't have to be tolerated.

But buying and selling per se is not necessarily corruption. It's not "corrupt" that Google profited. Profit per se is not corruption. Even if the worse candidate won. There's no evidence that someone profiting generally causes the worse candidate to win. In some cases it probably helps the better candidate to win. In most cases the one who got elected was a worse choice than millions of better persons in the society who had no chance of ever getting elected.

You could write volumes about how the ones who get elected are usually worse than someone else who would have been better. Maybe the average Joe off the street would have done a better job than either candidate. This general flaw of representative democracy is not fixed in the slightest by putting limits on campaign contributions or putting limits on participation, such as excluding foreigners from participating.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Xenophobia, paranoia, scapegoating, pandering, manipulating the masses with idiot slogans about foreign "interference"

Whoever does this best wins the election.

They did not do that. They found few Tor nodes in Russia and claimed "See, Russia!"

Why would any other country have an incentive to manufacture these accusations against Russia?

You can't think of any reason? What are the incentives Russia has to try to meddle in US elections?

There's a lot of traffic. There's a lot of posts.

So they claim.

That requires somebody well motivated and well funded.

So. only Russia is well motivated?

It's not the Democrats, or they would have broken the news before the election was over. What other candidate is there?

Candidate for what?

What is the point of this bickering over which foreign country "meddled" in our election and which candidate or Party colluded with that meddler?

Why does it matter if some other country, or some foreigner, "meddled" in our election?

Suppose a Congress member from Washington state has talks with someone in Japan about ordering some Boeing planes, and even gets a donation from them to his campaign, and even wins because of that donation. So what?

(bad example?) Change the details. Name a hypothetical scenario where the U.S. is harmed because another country "meddles" and helps a candidate win election in the U.S. -- rather than proceeding from xenophobic paranoia about foreign "meddling" and then bickering back and forth over whether it was the Dems or the 'publicans who are the traitors selling out our country to the highest bidder.

This is just populist pandering and scapegoating and pandering to the deluded rabble masses.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

e.g., free trade with Cuba

Why does it matter if some other country, or some foreigner, "meddled" in our election?

Suppose a Congress member from Washing . . .

Here's a better example:

Suppose the Cuban government contributes to a U.S. candidate who favors ending the Cuban trade embargo. What's wrong with that?

Ending this embargo would be good for the U.S. -- for tourists and for companies wanting to do business with Cuba.

So, what's good for Cuba is also good for the U.S. In most cases the interests are not in conflict between the U.S. and the other country which might want to influence U.S. elections.

 

[Trausti]

Why does it matter if some other country, or some foreigner, "meddled" in our election?

Suppose a Congress member from Washing . . .

Here's a better example:

Suppose the Cuban government contributes to a U.S. candidate who favors ending the Cuban trade embargo. What's wrong with that?

Ending this embargo would be good for the U.S. -- for tourists and for companies wanting to do business with Cuba.

So, what's good for Cuba is also good for the U.S. In most cases the interests are not in conflict between the U.S. and the other country which might want to influence U.S. elections.

This is not a good analogy. A candidate on the payroll of a foreign government has suspect loyalties. Meddling, on the other hand, everyone does it. See Obama Brexit speech.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Since there's no real example, how about a HYPOTHETICAL example where foreign "interference" in elections would hurt the U.S.

It's real simple for me, I want a President who will work for the best interests of the US.

Which ones? There are many such interests, and they often conflict with each other -- one U.S. interest might conflict with another. And if a foreign interest enters the picture, it might agree with one U.S. interest and conflict with another.

Why should we assume that a foreign interest must be overall detrimental to the U.S. rather than beneficial? Why couldn't it harmonize with the U.S. interests, or with most of the U.S. interests? When it harmonizes more than conflicts with U.S. interests, then it's best for the U.S. if that foreign interest exerts its influence within the U.S. political process.

I don't want a president who is beholden to a foreign government.

The president IS "beholden" to that foreign government if there is a treaty with that country, or legal agreements. Can't a president make a promise to a foreign person or group if it's legitimate? which then there is an obligation to fulfill? Aren't there legitimate forms of being "beholden" to someone of another country? If he can never be "beholden" to them, then how can there ever be any deal or agreement to cooperate with them on anything?

I want to know what the quid pro quo is.

But we should know what the quid pro quo is regardless if it's a foreign or a domestic entity with whom there is an agreement. A "quid pro quo" is not necessarily something about foreigners. A donation to a political candidate might have a "quid pro quo" attached to it, whether the donor is a foreigner or a citizen. Maybe we should always know of these, regardless whether there's a foreign connection.

It is incorrect to say that a "quid pro quo" deal may be kept secret if both parties are domestic, but that it has to be disclosed if it's foreign. No -- something sinister could be happening in either type of deal, foreign or domestic. So if transparency is necessary, it's just as necessary whether the parties to the deal are both domestic, or if one is domestic and one is foreign. The sinister-ness of it has nothing to do with whether foreigners are involved in it.

It's clear to me that if Trump's foreign connections to Russia hadn't been exposed, that the US would have pulled out of Nato . . .

No, the U.S. would not have pulled out of NATO. Trump has plenty of pressure on him not to do this. He would have had to fire too many high-level advisers. Even if he makes anti-NATO remarks, he would never pull out of NATO.

. . . and Russian sanctions would have been dropped.

Maybe he would have moderated them, but only after getting some concessions from Putin. Though Trump is bad about many things, he's good at getting the other side to concede something in return, in a deal. So maybe some easing of the sanctions plus some Putin concession would have been a good deal for the U.S.

So it's not clear that the "deal" (if there was one) between Trump and the Russians was bad for the U.S. I.e., if the Russian "interference" helped Trump to win, and even if Trump agreed to say something negative about NATO and to ease the sanctions --- even if all that is the case, it's still probably not bad for the U.S.

And likewise, if there was a "deal" between the Russians and the Hilary campaign, that too probably would not have been detrimental to the U.S.

So, no matter which side "colluded" with the Russians, it wasn't necessarily bad for the U.S.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

There are legitimate forms of foreign "interference" in elections which are illegal but should not be.

right-wing conservative: So Russian Intelligence is fucking with multimedia, passing along polarizing fake ads in an effort to undermine our democracy. Is it that big of a deal?!

Are "polarizing fake ads" a threat to our democracy? a corrupting influence which must be stamped out? Whatever these ads are, the best response to them, if any is needed, is for someone else to run counter-ads to debunk them.

What's an example of how our democracy is being undermined by this? Or rather, how is it being undermined in a negative way? Maybe some of what we call "democracy" needs to be undermined. Maybe these fake ads are part of a medicine which will purge our democracy of its rotten part.

Having MORE total input is usually an improvement that makes everything (slightly) better than before.

More total input? Yeah, it is called a DOS attack, you clearly have no idea about how anything in the real world works.

It's not clear that this is all that is meant by Russian "interference" in the elections.

(Does the term "polarizing fake ads" necessarily refer to DOS attacks only?)

Of course some forms of foreign interference might be criminal, just as domestic participants in the elections might do something criminal.

All criminal acts should be illegal and prevented, whether done by foreigners or by citizens.

So that DOS attacks occur, or other criminal acts, says nothing about why foreign "interference" in elections are bad and should be prohibited. All criminal acts should be prohibited, as much as possible, regardless whether they are done by foreigners.

But there is no reason why all foreign "interference" in U.S. elections should be prohibited. Such as foreigners contributing to a political candidate. Or foreigners running ads to influence the voters. These are illegal but should not be.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why can't anyone give an example how foreign "influence" in elections would harm the country?

How does excluding foreigners from having an influence make the elections any better?

Because it reduces corruption, and corruption is a big part of what makes our elections farcical.

But it would reduce corruption to exclude ANYONE from having an influence. What's especially corrupt about foreigners? There are many cases of CITIZENS doing something corrupt in the elections. How does eliminating foreigners per se from elections reduce corruption more than eliminating any other category of participant? Does FOREIGN = CORRUPT? Why?

Why would you want to make them even more problematic at reflecting the democratic will of the governed?

No, what's "more problematic" is the artificial waste of resources trying to exclude foreigners from playing a role, like restricting them from contributing to a campaign or advertising or lobbying.

No, corruption and the will of the governed not being recognized by their governors are by far more problematic than waste when it comes to elections.

But what does this "corruption" and "will of the governed not being recognized" etc. have to do with foreign "interference" in the elections? Foreign influence in the elections does NOT mean "corruption and the will of the governed not being recognized by their governors" -- this can be reduced by eliminating ANY influence in the elections, by ANYone, not just foreigners.

What is the point of targeting only foreigners to be excluded from having influence in the elections? Foreign influence per se DOES NOT EQUAL corruption or the will of the governed being thwarted.

Or also putting restrictions on citizens -- businesses or interest groups to limit their influence on campaigns.

How do these restrictions promote "the democratic will of the governed"?

Restrictions that reduce the influence of those who will not be governed necessarily increase the ability of the governed to influence their governors.

Only if you assume that "those who will not be governed" have interests in conflict with "the governed" -- you're assuming the former group (foreigners) would necessarily thwart the latter (citizens) by their influence. But the truth is that "the governed" group can benefit from the participation of the "not governed" group when the latter's influence coincides with the interests of "the governed" rather than conflicting with it.

The total influence on the ones governing is summed up by all the pressures on them from everywhere and is not just that of summing up the total population of voters or citizens or participants. It's not the total body count of these that measures the real influence on the decision-makers. Just reducing that body count, like reducing the total number of participants from 50,000,000 to 49,000,000 does not really increase the magnitude of the influence of those 49,000,000 remaining bodies who are allowed to participate. There is much more to the participation than just the raw number or head-count of all those allowed to participate.

To believe their true influence is reduced by the foreign participants you must believe their interests are in conflict with that of the foreigners, not just that they personally are enhanced by the reduced number of the total participants.

By this body-count logic, you could argue that your own influence is increased by eliminating other voters from participating, by eliminating them from voting or from campaigning or donating to candidates. So your own influence is increased as you can somehow eliminate more of these others, any of them, from participating in any way.

Or, more so, you can increase your influence on those governing by eliminating any participants who are in conflict with your interests. So if you single out anyone, including citizens, in conflict with your interests and somehow deter them from participating, in whatever way, you can increase your influence. If you reduce the influence only of foreigners and of no other category, and this increases your influence, it can only be because there is an inherent conflict between your interests and that of the foreigners.

Just that you reduced the total number of those participating (such as from 50,000,000 to 49,000,000) does not mean your real influence is increased. Rather, there has to be something specific about those 1,000,000 eliminated from participating which made those persons in particular a threat to your interests, or a reduction of your influence, which would not be the case if 1,000,000 randomly-chosen participants were eliminated.

How does eliminating this one targeted group, foreigners, increase the real influence of all those remaining? anymore than if all blue-eyed persons or all blonds or all left-handers were eliminated? You have to identify what the conflicting interests are -- not just that you've reduced the total number of participants and thus increased the influence of all those remaining.

Just identifying some group -- "the governed" vs "the not governed" -- isn't enough. If all you can do is identify the group to be excluded but not say how their interests conflict with those not excluded, you are not really showing how the influence of those not excluded has been increased by the other group's exclusion (except in the trivial sense that excluding any group chosen at random increases the influence of the others not excluded).

This is not analogous to the lifeboat scenario where more bodies cast off the crowded boat results in a better prospect for those remaining. Even identifying a particular group to be eliminated isn't enough if you don't identify how those eliminated ones in particular are in conflict with the ones to be kept remaining.

Allowing ALL the influences to compete against each other does more to promote the "democratic will of the governed" than all these cumbersome restrictions. What's unhealthy about the increased competition?

Not when some of those influences have a very disproportionate ability to leverage their influence with vast sums of money, . . .

But those influences are not all concentrated together but are dispersed into a million different directions, often in opposition to each other. There are millions of disproportionalities in the struggle for political power, or the game of manipulating the system toward your benefit in opposition to others. Leaving all the players free to compete results in the best outcome because of the increased competition, as one powerful group offsets the influence of another.

You can't equalize anything or make it less "disproportionate" (more "fair"?) by excluding some players -- rather, by unleashing all the players and their money you insure that none of them gains a monopoly on power, as they keep offsetting each other. Whereas if you impose your cumbersome rules to make it more equitable, you only give more power to those players who are good at breaking the rules, or circumventing them, which they usually can do.

. . . or when other influences are able to manipulate the electorate from outside with no chance that the negative aspects of that manipulation will affect them because they will not be governed by the result.

But they are affected by a (negative) result, and even "from outside" they have an incentive to promote something positive, not negative -- i.e., a good result not only for themselves but also for those who are "the governed" or are from inside. There is not really so much difference between those "from outside" and those "from inside" as far as what their interest is. The interests might not be identical, but they generally overlap.

What do you stand to gain by letting any government in the world pour money into our elections?

By letting anyone and everyone "pour money" or anything else into them, we increase the sources of information and promote a greater variety of ideas. If some of those players are BAD guys, then let the GOOD guys also join in and oppose them. The more players the better. We stand to LOSE by restricting the players or disqualifying some who want to play.

And when I want to play, but I lack the means to play because of the influence of foreign money, what then?

That doesn't make any sense. How does "foreign money" cause you to "lack the means to play"? You have the same "means to play" regardless of any "foreign money" involved. The influence of domestic money is vastly greater than that of any foreign money, so by your reasoning the domestic money also has to be disqualified.

There's probably a million flaws about the election system, but restricting the money to be spent on them, or restricting who can spend or how much, or excluding foreigners from spending money, etc., does nothing to correct any of the flaws. Nothing about others spending money deprives you of your means to play. Those ones spending heavily have to pool their resources one way or another, in a group effort, in order to have any chance of making a difference, and the same is true of you or any other individual, who alone has virtually no voice of any kind. But you can add your resources to that of others -- as all the big players do who have "influence" -- and thus you do have the "means to play" just as others do. But as an individual by yourself obviously you have no real means to play, regardless whether foreigners have any influence.

It would be fine if somehow each individual could be given the same input as any other individual, and the system would be run by all the individuals each playing separately and individually by contributing their individual input, with no groups or combinations of any kind adding additional influence. But we don't have such a system, and trying to exclude certain targeted groups or combinations while leaving others free to exert their influence is just an arbitrary power play by the latter groups trying to muscle their way in and shoving others out.

Whatever cause you promote, you can be sure there are rich powerful forces at work promoting that cause and stomping down their opposition and strong-arming their way into influence, bumping the weaker players aside, in order to promote your cause -- you're not the poor helpless disadvantaged victim you think you are. There are plenty of "victims" weaker than you who are being shoved aside by the machine politics serving your interests. Any players you succeed in excluding will be chosen carefully to preserve the power system you now benefit from, not to equalize anything or make it more "proportionate" for all.

I am the poor sap who will bear the brunt of that influence, . . .

Only in the sense that there are plenty of poor saps bearing the brunt of YOUR influence, i.e., the influence of those you voted for and their supporters and any cause you promoted. You're also a manipulator in the system, exerting your influence in combination with others you're allied with -- you've stepped on plenty of poor saps out their who didn't agree with you and have to bear the brunt of your influence. Everyone gets stepped on and bears the brunt of someone else's influence, AND everyone is stepping on someone else and exerting influence that others have to pay for.

There is no foreign influence, or even hypothetical foreign influence, which you have to bear the brunt of (or would have to) which is not equaled by a DOMESTIC influence doing the same.

You're not giving any example of it -- not even a HYPOTHETICAL example.

I've given an example of a possible foreign influence which would benefit virtually everyone:

Suppose the Cuban government donates to a U.S. candidate who favors trade with Cuba, or ending the embargo. This would benefit most Americans (virtually ALL), but probably there are some interests who would "bear the brunt" of this and get stepped on. But the overall result would be good for virtually all Americans, and so it would benefit the U.S. for that candidate to succeed in getting that result passed in the Congress and the policy changed.

Now why can't you offer at least a HYPOTHETICAL example of how a foreign country would do harm to the U.S. by contributing to a U.S. candidate?

. . . not the foreign billionaire who just bought themselves a city/county/state/country.

Whatever that means, you're not saying how the U.S. would be worse off. Maybe the price the "foreign billionaire" paid was so high that more Americans benefited than were harmed, and the standard of living increased as a result. If it makes everyone better off (or virtually everyone), then why is it bad?

If there's no way it could make people better off, there's no reason to think it could happen, because the seller would not make such a decision that would make people worse off rather than better off.

But the phrase "bought themselves a city/county/state/country" is meaningless. You need to give an example that is not dependent on such a meaningless phrase.

Are you that desperate to save a few dollars every year at tax time?

If some of those contributions can be taxed, why isn't that good for the country? What's wrong with allowing something that does no harm and then taxing it? How does a little more revenue to reduce the deficit make us worse off?

Your supposition is that it does no harm. Unfortunately, you are incorrect in supposing that. I submit the following evidence in support of my position that it does do harm:

President Donald J. Trump

Sorry, I just won, you can take your toys and go home now.

So you admit that you can give no example of how foreign influence can do harm, except this one.

Which can be just as easily refuted by the following evidence that the Russian aid which got Trump elected did a net benefit:

Private Citizen Hillary Clinton.

One piece of brainless non-evidence is as good as another.

Oh wait, you don't get to take your toys, I was able to use money from foreign sources to buy enough influence to enact laws that say you lost the argument, so I get to keep your toys. And, by the way, that home that you used to have, I took money from another foreign source, so now I have to pay them back by granting them the land you used to live on, you know, imminent domain and all that. But hey, you will have to pay less in taxes, so what are you complaining about?

The only thing "imminent" is your inability to give a hypothetical example that makes any sense or has a connection to the real world.

I will give another meaningful hypothetical (or perhaps real) example:

Most economists know that OUTSOURCING is really good for the economy, despite the widespread misperception by idiots that it hurts the economy. A company might contribute to a candidate and have a tacit agreement with him to oppose any penalty (such as Demagogue Trump preaches) on companies who relocate abroad in order to save on labor cost. This relocation is usually beneficial to consumers, because it results in lower prices (or less increase in prices) and thus higher living standard.

Perhaps even a foreign entity (company or government) also would contribute to such a candidate if it were legal. This too would benefit consumers and increase the living standard, even though it came from a foreign source.

So here again is an example, based on reality and facts, to show how contributing to a candidate benefits the whole country, offsetting popular misperceptions and demagoguery by populist politicians.

So I've given TWO REAL EXAMPLES how it does more harm than good to put artificial restrictions on campaign donations, especially from foreign sources.

Whereas no one has been able to give any concrete example how such contributions can do harm to the country -- only silly examples like

. . . the following evidence in support of my position that it does do harm:

President Donald J. Trump

Sorry, I just won, you can take your toys and go home now. . . .

Oh wait, you don't get to take your toys, I was able to use money from foreign sources to buy enough influence to enact laws that say you lost the argument, so I get to keep your toys. And, by the way, that home that you used to have, I took money from another foreign source, so now . . . etc.

This is the best example you can come up with.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Must "the people" choose paranoia/xenophobia over what's practical?

Because nation-states don't work that way. The entire idea behind the nation-state is that the state apparatus derives its legitimacy from being a state by the people which it rules (The nation)

OK, and if the people it rules are smart, they will not favor stupid laws banning foreigners from having "influence" on elections. Rather, they will favor taxing the contributions or the promotions/ads as a legitimate source of public revenue. But it's true that sometimes "the people" choose based on paranoid and xenophobic delusions rather than on practical cost-benefit logic.

if every nation gets involved in other nation's politics then you don't have nation-states anymore.

That's just semantics (technical definition of "nation-state"). What is the practical outcome if one nation-state contributes toward a candidate for office in another nation-state?

Why does no one ever give a concrete example how this does harm to the latter?

The entire point behind the Peace of Westphalia was that individual nations had the right to sovereignty within their borders.

So then they are REQUIRED to ban any outsider from donating to one of their candidates? They are denied freedom to make this choice based on what is practical?

 

[scombrid]

But there is no reason why all foreign "interference" in U.S. elections should be prohibited. Such as foreigners contributing to a political candidate. Or foreigners running ads to influence the voters. These are illegal but should not be.

How about foreign agents posing as Americans in the course of these activities?

That is the lion's share of the activity that I encountered both on social media and in "news" websites that both produced fake content and that acted as a re-broadcaster of bullshit and conspiracy theories. The share-reshare bot nets got it so that a lot of the horseshit was at the top of search engine results.

That is fraudulent. No?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

But if it's not illegal for an American to do it, why should it be illegal for a foreigner to do it?

This has more to do with the medium than the message. I'm not okay with the Russian government buying vast access to specific citizens through our social media, using super-sophisticated . . .

But it would be OK if the American government did the same thing?

Is this kind of behavior something which should be prohibited NO MATTER WHO DOES IT, or only if "the Russians" do it? or foreigners?

. . . using super-sophisticated programmatic marketing algorithms and tools conveniently provided by facebook, twitter et al... to spread misinformation and falsehoods trying to sow chaos and influence elections.

Is it OK if a NON-government does the same thing (private group or individual)?

If this kind of behavior is something criminal, then maybe it should be illegal for ANYONE to do it, whether they are domestic or foreign, whether an individual or a private group or a government.

What needs to be explained is why certain behavior must be made illegal if a foreigner per se does it, but not if Americans do it. What makes it dangerous if a foreigner does it but OK if Americans do it?

How is it a threat to Americans if a foreigner runs a political ad in the U.S.? i.e., an ad which would NOT be a threat if an American ran the same ad? Why is it a crime for the foreigner but legal for the American to run that ad?


FACT CHECK: Is it not illegal for any foreigner to donate to any U.S. candidate for public office? or to run a political ad in the U.S.? even if the ad is respectful and honest and would be legal if an American ran the same ad?

 

[fromderinside]

I'd be less inclined to object if it were brits trying to influence Americans. It's not about borders, really. It's about charters.

 

[KeepTalking]

Meh. Another impenetrable wall of text from Lumpy. This posting style is more off-putting than the ideology it conveys, and that is saying something. I will endeavor to respond to the main points, but this will get tiring fast, just like every other discussion with Lumpy.

But it would reduce corruption to exclude ANYONE from having an influence.

Correct. This means that it is a good thing to disallow foreigners from the process, thereby reducing corruption.

What's especially corrupt about foreigners?

That depends on the particular foreigner. They are extraneous to our political process, however, and therefor there is no necessity in allowing them to further to corrupt it.

There are many cases of CITIZENS doing something corrupt in the elections. How does eliminating foreigners per se from elections reduce corruption more than eliminating any other category of participant?

Our own citizens are integral to the political process, we can't remove them if we want to preserve some semblance of legitimacy in our politics. Foreigners, not so much. That said, I wouldn't have a problem with removing all private money from the political process, and publicly funding elections.

Does FOREIGN = CORRUPT? Why?

Not necessarily. But when it does, then it would be unnecessary corruption with regard to our own political process.

Why would you want to make them even more problematic at reflecting the democratic will of the governed?

No, what's "more problematic" is the artificial waste of resources trying to exclude foreigners from playing a role, like restricting them from contributing to a campaign or advertising or lobbying.

No, corruption and the will of the governed not being recognized by their governors are by far more problematic than waste when it comes to elections.

But what does this "corruption" and "will of the governed not being recognized" etc. have to do with foreign "interference" in the elections?

In a democratic society, the will of the governed not being recognized is a huge problem that can eventually lead to the collapse of that society, or the morphing of that society into one that no longer bears any resemblance to democracy. For some foreigners, destabilizing a major democratic nation by corrupting their elections is the whole point. I hope you aren't going to ask why destabilizing our nation is a bad thing, as I think even someone with your perverse ideology can figure that one out on their own.

Foreign influence in the elections does NOT mean "corruption and the will of the governed not being recognized by their governors" -- this can be reduced by eliminating ANY influence in the elections, by ANYone, not just foreigners.

Yes, I agree, let's remove all private money from our elections.

Only if you assume that "those who will not be governed" have interests in conflict with "the governed" -- you're assuming the former group (foreigners) would necessarily thwart the latter (citizens) by their influence.

No. I don't have to assume that they would in all cases. Only that they could in some cases, that is enough for me, and should be enough for anyone who wants to reduce entirely UNNECESSARY corruption.

You can't equalize anything or make it less "disproportionate" (more "fair"?) by excluding some players

You couldn't be more wrong. Excluding unnecessary players is exactly how you make things more fair.

rather, by unleashing all the players and their money you insure that none of them gains a monopoly on power, as they keep offsetting each other.

Wrong again. That would only enable the player who is able to bring the most money to bear on the process to gain that monopoly on power. The others fall by the wayside as they get outspent.

Whereas if you impose your cumbersome rules to make it more equitable, you only give more power to those players who are good at breaking the rules, or circumventing them, which they usually can do.

And they do so at their own peril. They might find some temporary gains, but they run the very real risk of no longer being able to participate in the process at all once their rule breaking is revealed.

. . . or when other influences are able to manipulate the electorate from outside with no chance that the negative aspects of that manipulation will affect them because they will not be governed by the result.

But they are affected by a (negative) result,

No, they are not. They are not citizens of the political entity that they have influenced, so they will not see the negative consequences (higher taxes, fewer services, crumbling infrastructure, etc.). Meanwhile, they can reap positive benefits by making sure that those consequences are worse than whatever is happening in their foreign land, making it more attractive to business, immigrants, etc.

and even "from outside" they have an incentive to promote something positive, not negative -- i.e., a good result not only for themselves but also for those who are "the governed" or are from inside. There is not really so much difference between those "from outside" and those "from inside" as far as what their interest is. The interests might not be identical, but they generally overlap.

What the hell are you smoking. Whatever it is, put it down, or pass it to me, and then open a history book.

What do you stand to gain by letting any government in the world pour money into our elections?

By letting anyone and everyone "pour money" or anything else into them, we increase the sources of information and promote a greater variety of ideas. If some of those players are BAD guys, then let the GOOD guys also join in and oppose them. The more players the better. We stand to LOSE by restricting the players or disqualifying some who want to play.

And when I want to play, but I lack the means to play because of the influence of foreign money, what then?

That doesn't make any sense. How does "foreign money" cause you to "lack the means to play"?

Because "the means" in this case is money. If I am poor, or even just not rich, then I can't play because I don't have the means (money) to enter the game.

There's probably a million flaws about the election system,

And the largest one is the role that money plays in it.

but restricting the money to be spent on them, or restricting who can spend or how much, or excluding foreigners from spending money, etc., does nothing to correct any of the flaws.

It does if, as I contend, the money is the largest problem (or is any portion of the problem, really) with the election system.

It would be fine if somehow each individual could be given the same input as any other individual

I am glad that you agree with me that all private money should be removed from our elections.

I am the poor sap who will bear the brunt of that influence, . . .

Only in the sense that there are plenty of poor saps bearing the brunt of YOUR influence, i.e., the influence of those you voted for and their supporters and any cause you promoted.

I.e. the influence of the governed, who are the only ones who should matter in a democratic society.

You're also a manipulator in the system,

But it is a system that I am a part of, and therfor have a vested interest in manipulating in a positive way.

exerting your influence in combination with others you're allied with -- you've stepped on plenty of poor saps out their who didn't agree with you and have to bear the brunt of your influence. Everyone gets stepped on and bears the brunt of someone else's influence, AND everyone is stepping on someone else and exerting influence that others have to pay for.

That is the give and take of living within the system. I might get stepped on, but I also might do a little stepping myself. Regardless, I still have to live within that system, and rub shoulders with the stepped on, so it behooves me to make sure that I am being extremely cautious with any stepping I do. A foreigner who is allowed undue influence in that system will not get stepped on themselves, but can step on those within the system with impunity.

There is no foreign influence, or even hypothetical foreign influence, which you have to bear the brunt of (or would have to) which is not equaled by a DOMESTIC influence doing the same.

The point you seem to be missing is that the domestic influence is necessary in a democratic society. There is no reason to make things worse by introducing even more possible negative influence from foreigners on that society.

You're not giving any example of it -- not even a HYPOTHETICAL example.

I thought I was discussing this topic with a reasonable person who is passingly acquainted with the history of human societies. If you are not such a person, we might as well end this discussion now. Pick up any comprehensive history book that is handy, it will be replete with examples of human societies doing incredibly bad things to foreign human societies. If at that point, you still want to pretend that foreigners always have our best interests at heart, we are done.

Now why can't you offer at least a HYPOTHETICAL example of how a foreign country would do harm to the U.S. by contributing to a U.S. candidate?

I don't need a hypothetical example. I have the example of the entirety of human history on my side.

Are you that desperate to save a few dollars every year at tax time?

If some of those contributions can be taxed, why isn't that good for the country? What's wrong with allowing something that does no harm and then taxing it? How does a little more revenue to reduce the deficit make us worse off?

Your supposition is that it does no harm. Unfortunately, you are incorrect in supposing that. I submit the following evidence in support of my position that it does do harm:

President Donald J. Trump

Sorry, I just won, you can take your toys and go home now.

So you admit that you can give no example of how foreign influence can do harm, except this one.

Incorrect. That is just the most recent and relevant example, it is the only one I need.

Which can be just as easily refuted by the following evidence that the Russian aid which got Trump elected did a net benefit:

Private Citizen Hillary Clinton.

While not necessarily a bad thing, it is far from a net benefit. At the very least, the mere possibility that Russia influenced the 2016 election in favor of Trump has thrown our political climate into disarray. The ultimate fallout from that mere possibility has yet to be realized, please stay tuned to the clusterfuck that our politics have become as a result.

One piece of brainless non-evidence is as good as another.

If you want to characterize your evidence as "brainless", that is fine by me. My evidence, however, was spot on.

Oh wait, you don't get to take your toys, I was able to use money from foreign sources to buy enough influence to enact laws that say you lost the argument, so I get to keep your toys. And, by the way, that home that you used to have, I took money from another foreign source, so now I have to pay them back by granting them the land you used to live on, you know, imminent domain and all that. But hey, you will have to pay less in taxes, so what are you complaining about?

The only thing "imminent" is your inability to give a hypothetical example that makes any sense or has a connection to the real world.

Once again, I don't need a hypothetical, I have the history of the real world on my side.

I will give another meaningful hypothetical (or perhaps real) example:

Most economists know that OUTSOURCING is really good for the economy, despite the widespread misperception by idiots that it hurts the economy.

Just because something is good for the economy (debatable with outsourcing) or a company's bottom line, does not make it a good thing. Outsourcing can be terrible for customer service, and it can be devastating for local economies that were previously benefiting from those jobs.

 

[ronburgundy]

One way or another there is money to be made by allowing foreigners to "interfere" in U.S. elections.

If they run ads it generates income which can be taxed. (Haven't Google and Twitter etc. profited from this "Russian interference"?)

Why not tax this advertising, perhaps ALL advertising, so the whole nation benefits. It already is taxed of course, but maybe this kind of tax should be increased. Perhaps advertising per se should be taxed, as a special form of income to be taxed at a higher rate than other kinds of business profit.

So by eliminating ALL restrictions on contributions to election campaigns, this could become a significant source of government revenue. The elections are a farce anyway, no matter who wins. It doesn't matter if the contributions change who gets elected -- we will get the same nonsense outcomes anyway, no matter who wins. But at least the campaigns or contributions can be taxed in order to raise revenue and reduce the public deficits.

And why shouldn't some of that revenue come from foreigners? Why should we object if foreigners spend some of their money here which we can tax? (Also it would put an end to the meaningless investigations and partisan accusations back and forth over who broke the law and who "colluded" with whom, which is wasting government and news-media resources.)

How can it hurt the country if foreigners influence which demagogue-blowhard gets elected?

Because it's in the interests of the Russian government if the US government and its society at large implodes.

 

[Underseer]

This has more to do with the medium than the message. I'm not okay with the Russian government buying vast access to specific citizens through our social media, using super-sophisticated . . .

But it would be OK if the American government did the same thing?

Is this kind of behavior something which should be prohibited NO MATTER WHO DOES IT, or only if "the Russians" do it? or foreigners?

. . . using super-sophisticated programmatic marketing algorithms and tools conveniently provided by facebook, twitter et al... to spread misinformation and falsehoods trying to sow chaos and influence elections.

Is it OK if a NON-government does the same thing (private group or individual)?

If this kind of behavior is something criminal, then maybe it should be illegal for ANYONE to do it, whether they are domestic or foreign, whether an individual or a private group or a government.

What needs to be explained is why certain behavior must be made illegal if a foreigner per se does it, but not if Americans do it. What makes it dangerous if a foreigner does it but OK if Americans do it?

How is it a threat to Americans if a foreigner runs a political ad in the U.S.? i.e., an ad which would NOT be a threat if an American ran the same ad? Why is it a crime for the foreigner but legal for the American to run that ad?


FACT CHECK: Is it not illegal for any foreigner to donate to any U.S. candidate for public office? or to run a political ad in the U.S.? even if the ad is respectful and honest and would be legal if an American ran the same ad?

Thanks for letting us know that you love Russia and love treason. I'll be sure to remember that the next time you whine about how African-American football players aren't patriotic enough for your tastes.