Who do you want the next president to be?

[Guest American Woman]

Again this speaks to the Candidate accepting the contributions.

What part of "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating,..." and "Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities..." aren't you getting? It is against the law for a foreign national to contribute or donate. Therefore, doing so is "engaging in these activities." And persons who do "engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

It is against the law to donate. It is therefore subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

If you still don't get it, that doesn't change the reality.

Edited April 17, 2010 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

Big deal- we in Canada sell off our highways and mines to off shore poweres--- odd that some one in Europe has the power to pull your drivers licence if you do not pay up on a toll road that was built with our tax dollars.

[punked]

What part of "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating,..." and "Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities..." aren't you getting? It is against the law for a foreign national to contribute or donate. Therefore, doing so is "engaging in these activities." And persons who do "engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

It is against the law to donate. It is therefore subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

If you still don't get it, that doesn't change the reality.

BECUASE

 [Title 11, Volume 1] [Revised as of January 1, 2009] says so.

"When a federal political committee (a committee active in federal elections) receives a contribution it believes may be from a foreign national, it must:

Return the contribution to the donor without depositing it; or

Deposit the contribution and take steps to determine its legality, as described below.

Either action must be taken within 10 days of the treasurer's receipt. 11 CFR 103.3((1).

If the committee decides to deposit the contribution, the treasurer must make sure that the funds are not spent because they may have to be refunded. Additionally, he or she must maintain a written record explaining why the contribution may be prohibited.[4] 11 CFR 103.3((4) and (5). The legality of the contribution must be confirmed within 30 days of the treasurer's receipt, or the committee must issue a refund.[5]

If the committee deposits a contribution that appears to be legal, but later discovers that the deposited contribution is from a foreign national, it must refund the contribution within 30 days of making the discovery. If a committee lacks sufficient funds to make a refund when a prohibited contribution is discovered, it must use the next funds it receives. 11 CFR 103.3((1) and (2)."

If a foreign national makes a contribution it falls on the campaign to figure that out and send it back.

Edited April 17, 2010 by punked

[Guest American Woman]

It also applies to the foreign national making the donation. It applies to both.

[Sir Bandelot]

Is it true that in America, corporations can make unlimited donations to their favorite candidate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

And some of those must have strong multinational ties,

[Guest American Woman]

Is it true that in America, corporations can make unlimited donations to their favorite candidate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

And some of those must have strong multinational ties,

And your point is .... ??

[Sir Bandelot]

And your point is .... ??

Citizens of other countries don't have any say in the outcome of the US election. But big businesses could

[Moonlight Graham]

You're singing my song.....good to see another American probing this assumed cross-border familiarity and privilege.

We don't have any "privilage". But we are entitled to our opinion in who we want to be President. I don't really care if you support one Prime Minister candidate over another, you're entitled to your opinion, but the reason why most Americans dont care is that who the PM is hardly affects them or the world.

However, a Canadian telling Americans what they "need" (as in the OP)is going over the line, i'll agree on that.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Sir Bandelot]

I don't really care if you support one Prime Minister candidate over another, you're entitled to your opinion, but the reason why most Americans dont care is that who the PM is hardly affects them or the world.

"Let's play 'merikans."

Oh, you fools. Don't you realize, this type of thread only gives him a rise?

[Guest American Woman]

Citizens of other countries don't have any say in the outcome of the US election. But big businesses could

Canada's CEOs, business owners, et al, some of whom must have strong multinational ties, are free to speak their minds in spite of foreigners being prohibited from doing so during an election period. So same goes for Canada, in spite of your election laws-- citizens of other countries don't have any say in the outcome of the Canadian elections, but big businesses could.

[bush_cheney2004]

We don't have any "privilage". But we are entitled to our opinion in who we want to be President. I don't really care if you support one Prime Minister candidate over another, you're entitled to your opinion,...

Accordingly, you would not mind then if Americans created web sites and pumped media content into Canada favoring one MP or party over another, just as Canadians did during the 2004/2008 American federal election (e.g. Canadians for Kerry).

but the reason why most Americans dont care is that who the PM is hardly affects them or the world.

How does the American president affect you?

[Sir Bandelot]

Canada's CEOs, business owners, et al, some of whom must have strong multinational ties, are free to speak their minds in spite of foreigners being prohibited from doing so during an election period. So same goes for Canada, in spite of your election laws-- citizens of other countries don't have any say in the outcome of the Canadian elections, but big businesses could.

So what, you expect me to defend that, or something? lol

That would be for people who are naive enough to believe they have meaningful say in the process.

But the premise that only American citizens get to decide who is elected, or should have an interest in who gets elected is false.

To contribute to the question here all I can say, I hope whoever it is would be someone who appreciates Canada as a partner. I don't expect that to happen. More likely, expects Canada to be a genuflecting lackey. A better question is, who would you like the next Canadian PM to be, and my answer would be obvious! someone who can say "NO" to the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

To contribute to the question here all I can say, I hope whoever it is would be someone who appreciates Canada as a partner. I don't expect that to happen. More likely, expects Canada to be a genuflecting lackey. A better question is, who would you like the next Canadian PM to be, and my answer would be obvious! someone who can say "NO" to the United States.

Canada goes wonky if it gets to close or too far from the United States, just like one of Jupiter's moon

[Guest American Woman]

So what, you expect me to defend that, or something? lol

Ummm. No. Just pointing out the fact of the matter.

That would be for people who are naive enough to believe they have meaningful say in the process.

So you don't think the voice of big businesses makes an impression in Canada? Seems to me that would make you naive.

But the premise that only American citizens get to decide who is elected, or should have an interest in who gets elected is false.

If the premise is false regarding Americans, it's just as false regarding Canadians, as I pointed out.

[Sir Bandelot]

So you don't think the voice of big businesses makes an impression in Canada? Seems to me that would make you naive.

Of course I do, that was what I said. I think it's gotten to the point that it makes no difference who a person votes for. If it ever did

Thus, I do not vote.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course I do, that was what I said. I think it's gotten to the point that it makes no difference who a person votes for. If it ever did

Thus, I do not vote.

Way to fight back against the system-- do nothing.

FYI, Obama beat McCain because that's what corporations wanted. He beat him because that's what the voters wanted. People who bothered to vote.

[Sir Bandelot]

Way to fight back against the system-- do nothing.

I didn't say I wanted to fight it, I just don't want to willingly endorse liars by putting my name to them.

FYI, Obama beat McCain because that's what corporations wanted. He beat him because that's what the voters wanted. People who bothered to vote.

The voters are easily swayed. A few glitsy tv shows, a nice smile, smooth talker with a nice hair do, who knows how to say the right things. Whatever. "Let them have democracy."

If Obama went too far off the script he would be eliminated, either by violence or political marginalization. But judging from his performance so far, I'd say he is an excellent successor to GWB, especially as a "Democrat".

[maple_leafs182]

Agreed...there will be no such revolution, but some Canadians see this in the only media they have ever known and jump to conclusions. Many do not have a context larger than what they see on Fox or MSNBC.

Canadians who actually live and work in the USA have a much more balanced view of things, IMHO.

I don't have cable, I don't watch any corporate news.

The government is robbing the people of their wealth. When the economy and dollar crash which they will,

the people will be left with nothing. Who will they blame. There will be a revolution.

There is a reason why militias groups are on the rise.

Current events form future trends.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't have cable, I don't watch any corporate news.

Yet you still manage to worship an American named Ron Paul.

The government is robbing the people of their wealth. When the economy and dollar crash which they will,

the people will be left with nothing. Who will they blame. There will be a revolution.

Then when is Canada's revolution? Oh wait....Canada doesn't do that.

There is a reason why militias groups are on the rise.

Current events form future trends.

There have always been such groups. It's in the US Constitution.

[bush_cheney2004]

More wannabe anectdotes:

"I think Hillary Clinton should obviously be the United States' next president," says Julie, one Canadian that I spoke to. When asked what she thought about the current Democratic primaries in the states, Julie laughed. "It's insane!" she says. "Obama and Clinton are so close in terms of numbers, but if you look past that and look at who has actually done the most,

Clinton is the best choice for Americans

."

"

I would give up my right to vote in Canada if I could just cast a vote in this upcoming U.S. presidential election

," says Don, another Canadian. "Obviously, the election in the states has a huge affect on Canada, and so we're all watching what is happening down south," he says. "Most of us agree that Obama would be bad for Canada-U.S. relations."

[ToadBrother]

I disagree completely. The Tea Party is all about economic and budgetary issues. That's Romney's strong suit.

Oh BS. They're a bunch malcontents, rudderless and angry.

[Moonlight Graham]

Accordingly, you would not mind then if Americans created web sites and pumped media content into Canada favoring one MP or party over another, just as Canadians did during the 2004/2008 American federal election (e.g. Canadians for Kerry).

Well if they were supporting a candidate i liked, i'd probably hate it because any group called "Americans for X cnadidate" would probably have a negative impact on their campaign rather than positive.

How does the American president affect you?

I don't think the MLW has enough bandwidth for me to list the number of reasons, so you'll just have to guess.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well if they were supporting a candidate i liked, i'd probably hate it because any group called "Americans for X cnadidate" would probably have a negative impact on their campaign rather than positive.

So that would be a vote for not supporting such cross border political activity. But I guess it's OK if Canadians do it!

I don't think the MLW has enough bandwidth for me to list the number of reasons, so you'll just have to guess.

Sure it does...the web hosting service is in the United States...lots of bandwidth...I will pay UofL's added cost.

You really have no valid reasons.

Edited April 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Moonlight Graham]

I didn't say I wanted to fight it, I just don't want to willingly endorse liars by putting my name to them.

That;s not the point though. Vote for who you dislike the least. I`ve never voted for a politician i liked.

[maple_leafs182]

Yet you still manage to worship an American named Ron Paul.

Dr.Paul cured my apathy.

The fact that he is American is irrelevant.

There have always been such groups. It's in the US Constitution.

I know, but the amount of them is growing.

In 2009, the Southern Poverty Law Center tracked a 300 percent increase in the number of militia groups operating in the United States -- from 42 to 127 such groups at the year's end.

Source: CNN