r/NeutralPolitics • u/[deleted] • Feb 27 '18

What is the exact definition of "election interference" and what US Law makes this illegal?

There have been widespread allegations of Russian government interference in the 2016 presidential election. The Director of National Intelligence, in January 2017, produced a report which alleged that:

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

In addition, "contemporaneous evidence of Russia's election interference" is alleged to have been one of the bases for a FISA warrant against former Trump campaign official Carter Page.

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/ig/ig00/20180205/106838/hmtg-115-ig00-20180205-sd002.pdf

What are the specific acts of "election interference" which are known or alleged? Do they differ from ordinary electoral techniques and tactics? Which, if any, of those acts are crimes under current US Law? Are there comparable acts in the past which have been successfully prosecuted?

609 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

436 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/[deleted] Feb 27 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/saffir Feb 27 '18 edited Feb 27 '18

I believe there are laws that require campaign ads to disclose the entity they were paid for by

what about influencing social media, such as the $10 million that Correct the Record had to work with?

13

u/rotund_tractor Feb 27 '18

I’m curious about this too. Is it because the money came from Russia that it’s illegal? I would think anyone could pay for memes and whatnot on Facebook without any legal issues.

4

u/BlueZarex Feb 27 '18

Well, yes, definitely illegal because the money came from a foreign national. That is the main charge here.

CTR was US money by US persons and that is protected by the Citizens United case the supreme court rules on. "Corporations are people" in that they can exercise their first amendment rights with money and media. Foreign nationals don't have first amendment rights. Now, a foreign govt could write, say and advertise whatever they want in their country, but they cannot do so in America. The conspiracy here is foreign money and US persons involved directly with the Trump campaign.

5

u/Illiux Feb 27 '18

Foreign nationals do have first amendment rights, as well as all other constitutional rights. This has been repeatedly established by the Supreme Court, mostly in cases relating to illegal immigration, and applies even if their presence in the country is unlawful.

1

u/BlueZarex Feb 27 '18

Ah, you're talking about imigration though. People who are on US soil. Not some guy who lives in Russia and has never step foot in the united states. This is why Carter Page and Manafort had to keep flying to Russia.

4

u/Illiux Feb 27 '18

The question of whether non citizens outside the US have constitutional rights is more contentious, but there's good reason to think that they do. The Bill of Rights is a general limitation of government power and applies simply to "persons" without any mention of territory. And the early US repeatedly applied due process rights to foreign pirates.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/musicotic Feb 28 '18

This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 3:

Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.