Didn't the SCOTUS rule that money and speech were equivalent when it came to the constitutionally protected freedom of (political) speech?
I don't want to imply that I agree with this ruling, just pointing out what I believe is the law of the land.
Neven apparently believes that the difference between covert and overt actions is enough to have one ruled as acceptable, while the other is illegal. He may have a point, though I'm sceptical.
How would the court decide a case where the defendant was accused of overtly signaling his support for a matter that he was covertly opposed to, when he was aware that he was so unpopular that his support would doom the issue?
I think it's much more likely that covert and overt support would be equal under the law, if only to avoid such legal conundrums.
Terry
BTW - Read something that said that most of the Russian media money was spent after the election rather than during the election cycle. If true, should this be seen as exculpatory evidence, interesting, but unrelated to the charges, or as further proof that 13 Russians had conspired against Hillary's Presidency?
In the
Citizens United case, SCOTUS did rule that using money is protected as speech in election contests, in a specific context, with specific limitations. First, such free spending cannot be in coordination with the official campaign, or else it's a campaign contribution, still subject to strict limits, strict scrutiny, and severe penalties.
Second, in election activities, it only applies to US citizens. Foreign nationals are still forbidden to spend to elect a given candidate. SCOTUS utterly failed to see how allowing corporations to spend their money automatically opened the door to foreign monies entering the game. I blogged about this the day after their decision.
Otherwise, the Mueller indictment emphasized that the named defendants were engaged in fraud. They engaged in straightforward bank fraud. And they falsely portrayed themselves as acting as Americans.
Being anonymous/covert was less the issue than fraud, and making organized efforts in an election as foreign nationals.
Should it transpire that their activities took place with the knowledge and encouragement of the Trump campaign, then all those involved campaign officials face criminal prosecution. It's not credible to me that
Herr Gropenfuhrer wasn't personally involved.
Even if it was all backed by an oligarch acting alone, rather than the Kremlin itself (not a credible possibility in my view), the Trump administration
still faces criminal prosecution.
How would any foreigner bankrolling this
not seek Trump's knowledge and encouragement? Having that would make Trump beholden, on pain of prosecution. A very powerful position for whoever bankrolled the operation. So, of course Trump knew and approved.
Steve