Thread: Tell Rob Allyn & Co not to support Mexico over the US!

I'm sure he will be jumping through hoops to get to the nearest phone to return your call.

Look up "Foreign Contribution Prohibition" at either of these pages:

http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/sourcebk/chap1.htm

http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/stru ... otter.html

The foreign contribution prohibition includes anything of value, and covers federal, state, and local elections.

Foreign Contribution Prohibition

For many years there was no ban on foreign contributions. In 1938, in the face of evidence of Nazi German money spent to influence the U.S. political debate, Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This law required agents of foreign entities engaged in publishing political "propaganda" to register and disclose their activities, but it did not regulate political contributions. In 1966, after congressional hearings in 1962-63 had revealed campaign contributions to federal candidates by Philippine sugar producers and agents of Nicaraguan president Lu¡s Somoza, Congress moved to prohibit political contributions in any U.S. election by any foreign government, political party, corporation, or individual (except foreign nationals who are permanent residents of the United States).

The act now prohibits foreign nationals, either directly or indirectly, from making contributions in connection with any election to political office, including state and local elections as well as federal; 2 U.S.C. sec. 441e. 7 The act defines "foreign national" as:

(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term "foreign national" shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or 8

(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8. 9

This prohibition also operates to prevent domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations from establishing PACs if the foreign parent finances the PAC's establishment, administration, or solicitation costs, or if individual foreign nationals within the corporation make decisions for the PAC, participate in its operation, or serve as its officers; 11 C.F.R. sec. 110.4(a)(2) and (3). Similarly, foreign nationals may not participate in the selection of the individuals who run the PAC. It is these provisions that are at the heart of much of the controversy about fund-raising activity in the 1996 election. One issue is whether this foreign national prohibition applies to the donation of "soft" or nonfederal money to a national party committee. The Department of Justice's stated view on this question has varied, and the matter is probably fact specific: Can the funds donated be said to have been used "in connection" with any election to political office, whether federal, state, or local, or were they only used for nonelection activities? 10

Federal Contractors Prohibition

The act prohibits anyone who contracts with the United States or any of its departments or agencies to make any contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office, nor may such a contribution be solicited from any person between the time of the negotiations and completion of the contract. However, federal contractors that are corporations can establish federal PACs; 2 U.S.C. sec. 441c.

Contributions in the Name of Another Prohibition

Section 441f of the act provides that "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." This section is often enforced in connection with other prohibitions. For example, where a foreign national gives money to a U.S. citizen to be contributed by such person to a federal candidate, there is both a violation of sec. 441e (foreign contributions) and sec. 441f (a contribution in the name of another).

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/complain.shtml

I. Filing a Complaint

Any person may file a complaint if he or she believes a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Laws or Commission regulations has occurred or is about to occur. The complaint must be made in writing, and sent to the Office of General Counsel, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463. The original must be submitted along with three copies, if possible. Facsimile transmissions are not acceptable.

A complaint must comply with certain requirements. It must:

* Provide the full name and address of the person filing the complaint (called the complainant); and
* Be signed, sworn to and notarized. This means that the notary public's certificate must say "...signed and sworn to before me..."

Furthermore, in order for a complaint to be considered complete and proper, it should:

* Clearly recite the facts that show specific violations under the Commission's jurisdiction (citations to the law and regulations are not necessary);
* Clearly identify each person, committee or group that is alleged to have committed a violation (called the respondent);
* Include any documentation supporting the allegations, if available; and
* Differentiate between statements based on the complainant's (the person who files the complaint) personal knowledge and those based on information and belief. Statements not based on personal knowledge should identify the source of the information.


II. Complaint: Early Stages

Receipt of Complaint

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) reviews each complaint to determine whether it satisfies the above criteria of a proper complaint. If the complaint does not meet the requirements, OGC notifies the complainant of the deficiencies within 5 days of receipt.

Once a complaint is deemed sufficient, OGC assigns it a MUR (Matter Under Review) number, acknowledges receipt of the complaint and informs the complainant that the Commission will notify him or her when the entire case is resolved. Until then, the Commission is required by law to keep its actions regarding the MUR confidential.

Notice to Respondent

Within 5 days after receiving a proper complaint, OGC sends each respondent a copy of the complaint and a description of the Commission's compliance procedures. The respondent has 15 days to respond in writing, explaining why no action should be taken.

In the case of a complaint that does not satisfy the requirements (see above), the respondent nevertheless receives a copy of the complaint and a letter explaining that the matter will remain confidential for 15 days to give the complainant an opportunity to correct the complaint.

If the complainant corrects and refiles the complaint, the respondent is sent a copy of the corrected complaint and is given 15 days to submit a response to the Commission.

Respondent's Counsel

A respondent who wants to be represented by legal counsel must inform the Commission by sending a "statement of designation of counsel." This document, signed by the respondent, must include a statement authorizing the counsel to receive all communications from the Commission on behalf of the respondent and include the counsel's name, address and telephone number.

Once the Commission receives the "statement of designation of counsel," the agency will communicate only with the counsel unless otherwise authorized by the respondent.
__________________________________________________

SAMPLE COMPLAINT LETTER TO THE FEC

Write your own - DO NOT SEND THIS LETTER AS IS!!!

1 Main St.
Trenton, NJ
April 15, 2003

Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20463

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter serves as formal notice to the Federal Election Committee (“FEC�) that New Jersey’s 13th District Congressman, Robert “Bob� Menendez (“Mr. Menendez�) is in direct violation of 11CFR Part 300, Subpart D, “Candidates and Officeholders/�

BCRA places limits on the amounts and types of funds that can be raised by Federal candidates and Officeholders for both Federal and State candidates (See 2 USC 444 I
(e)). The regulations that address these limitations are found in 11 CFR, Part 300 Subpart D (“Code�).

In § 300,60 the Code mandates that restrictions apply only to “Federal candidates and officeholders, their agents, and entities directly or indirectly established, maintained, or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, any such candidates(s) or officeholders(s).� It is beyond contention that Mr. Menendez holds a Federal office and therefore a recitation of the definition of “Federal Office� will be dispensed with. In addition\, Donald Scarinci is Mr. Menendez’ long time friend and Treasurer and otherwise agent, and therefore his conduct is limited by the rule as well.

Pursuant to Code § 300.61, a Federal candidate or officeholder is prohibited from, soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending non-federal funds in connection with an election for federal office, including funds for any federal election activity described in 11 CFR 100.24. (After opening this section to debate, the Commission added the word “disburse� to the list of covered activities in § 300.61).

Importantly, according to Code § 300.62, any federal candidate or officeholder, his or her agent, successors or assigns is prohibited from:
[r]aising, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending or disbursing funds in connection with any non-federal election, unless the funds are not in excess amounts permitted with respect to contributions to candidates and political committees and are not from sources prohibited by the act from making contributions in connection with federal elections. (See, 2 USC 441 (I)(e)(1)(B).

In their comments for this provision, and specifically in connection with the restrictions on the solicitation and spending of non-federal funds by federal officeholders, the co-sponsors of the bill stated that these provisions were part of a “system of prohibitions and limitations on the ability of federal officeholders and candidates, to raise, spend and control soft money [in order] to stop the use of soft money as a means of buying influence and access with federal officeholders and candidates.� See 148 Cong. Rec. S2139 (Daily Ed. March 20, 2002) (Statement of Sen. McCain).

Accordingly, the Commission has allowed candidates to solicit, receive, direct, transfer, spend or disburse funds in connection with federal and non-federal elections only from sources permitted under the Act and pursuant to the Acts combined amounts and contribution limits. The Commission is also of the opinion that Code § 300.62 does
not permit federal candidates and officeholders to utilize non-federal funds for federal elections.

There are several exceptions to the fundraising prohibitions for non-federal candidates, as well as for federal candidates and officeholders attending, speaking, or appearing as a featured guest at fundraising events. (See, respectively 11 CFR 300.63 and 300.64).

After much debate as to the proper involvement a federal candidate may have at a fundraising event. The following is an excerpt from the Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 145, Monday, July 29, 2002, Rules and Regulations, and is directly on point:

“Accordingly, candidates and officeholders are free under the rules to speak at such functions without regulation or restriction…The Commission concludes, however, that federal candidates and officeholders are prohibited from serving as “Host Committees� for a party fundraising event or from personally signing a solicitation in connection with a state, local, or district party fundraising event, on the basis that these pre-event activities and outside the permissible activities described above
flowing from a federal candidate or officeholder’s appearance or attendance at the event. “

Congressman Bob Menendez has directly solicited funds for the Hudson County Democratic Committee and has even employed his agent, Donald Scarinci, to do the same.
In addition, Mr. Menendez, along with Donald Scarinci, controls the fundraising apparatus of the Hudson County Democratic Committee. In this vein, Mr. Menendez does
more than speak at these fundraising events, he organizes them. Certainly, the Congressman’s name is not directly connected with these fundraising efforts; it is clear from the sameness of their donor base that Donald Scarinci is acting on direct orders from the Congressman. Finally, the Congressman’s action, along with Donald Scarinci is in direct violation of the spirit of the Act. Countless people considering make a contribution to a different organization, one not a part of the Congressman’s inner circle, have been threatened and told to re-evaluate whence their hard-earned dollars should be spent.

It is clear that the law was established just so these types of actions would not be utilized. It is clear that Mr. Menendez, perhaps because of the reputation of Hudson County politics thinks that the law does not apply to him. But it does and I humbly request you investigate Mr. Menendez’ and his agent, Donald Scarinci’s activities with respect to his illegal fundraising.

Very Truly Yours,

John Q. Public

MinutemanCDC_SC

Thank you for posting this information here. This is the kind of info I was looking for.

I will review it in detail once I get some rest and my vision is not so blurry.

I hope you will hang out some with us here. It is clear you could help our efforts a great deal.

William

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/ ... _441e.html

U.S. Code, Title 2

Section 441e. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for -
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of
value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State,
or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political
party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement
for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of
section 434(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or
donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1)
from a foreign national.
(b) ''Foreign national'' defined
As used in this section, the term ''foreign national'' means -
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section
611(b) of title 22, except that the term ''foreign national''
shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United
States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or
a national of the United States (as defined in section
1101(a)(22) of title 8 ) and who is not lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title
8.


See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_El ... mpaign_Act

The U.S. Congress makes frequent attempts to amend this act.

Below is an OP-ED piece by Ruben Navarette about ROB ALLYN. Sounds like we ARE having an IMPACT ON THIS IDIOT!

An image builder for Mexico
UNION-TRIBUNE

January 4, 2006

It wasn't surprising that the Mexican government would hire an American public relations firm to improve its image in the United States.

Nor was it surprising that Mexican President Vicente Fox tapped my friend, Dallas-based political consultant Rob Allyn, to be Mexico's goodwill ambassador. Allyn worked on Fox's 2000 presidential campaign, after which a Dallas magazine dubbed the consultant "Mr. Mexico."

What was surprising was that a simple business deal would result in so many people becoming so unhinged. Suddenly, the Republican strategist is being inundated with angry and insulting e-mails, calls and nasty comments posted on Web logs. Immigration restrictionists are threatening to picket Allyn's office and asking that "patriots" boycott his firm. One zealot wrote Allyn demanding that the consultant "register as a foreign alien agent" and calling him "disgusting and treasonous."

From those cable TV shows that bottom-feed off the immigration issue, I glean that Allyn is doing a "PR campaign for illegal immigrants" and generating public support for a guest worker plan backed by the Mexican government. Not quite, Allyn told me from his office in Dallas.

"We've been hired to promote the image of Mexico," he said, "and specifically to let people know the facts about the real Mexico and where Mexico stands today."

Besides doing media interviews, Allyn plans to organize trade missions between the two countries, produce media material to show progress in Mexico, and conduct polling to gauge attitudes in the United States.

If Allyn wants to know what Americans think of Mexico and Mexicans – and for that matter, Mexican-Americans – all he has to do is read my e-mail. But it's not pretty.

In the words of one reader: "Mexico has nothing that any red-blooded American would want. Mexico is a filthy, unlawful country which is trying with all its might to influence the U.S. to change its laws to benefit illegals."

Another reader complained about "illegal Hispanics" with their "high crime rates, lack of education, large families living on the taxpayers' dole, failure to assimilate, flooding our emergency rooms and depressing wages for poor working citizens."

Allyn, who is to earn about $720,000 for his efforts, should have asked Fox for more money. The way the consultant sees it, "perceptions lag reality," and Americans don't know as much about Mexico and Mexicans as they think they do.

I'll buy that. But that works both ways. Mexicans don't know as much about the United States as they think they do. And that goes double for Mexican presidents. When I suggested that Fox had done himself no favors by labeling as "shameful" U.S efforts to curb illegal immigration, Allyn declined to comment but said he'd pass on my concerns to his client.

So let me add this: Most Americans don't like it when Mexico meddles in the internal affairs of the United States – especially since Mexicans bristle when Americans meddle in the affairs of Mexico and especially since there wouldn't be so many illegal immigrants in this country if the Mexican government took more seriously its obligation to provide opportunities for its own people rather than relying on the billions of dollars that immigrants send home in remittances.

For Allyn, there's a lot of positive news south of the border, including "that Mexico is a democracy today, with clean elections, that the Mexican government has made huge progress in cleaning up corruption, and that there is economic stability."

There's also trade. According to Allyn, Americans export $111 billion in goods each year to Mexico.

"Mexico is America's second-largest trading partner (after Canada). That's more than Japan. More than Germany. More than China," he said.

"Mexico is a huge customer for us. We should treat it with respect."

Good luck with that, amigo. For many Americans, Mexico serves only one purpose, and that's to provide something to which they can feel superior. Consider the reader who, in a recent e-mail to me, referred to "our little brothers to the South."

While Allyn hasn't been hired to represent Mexican immigrants per se, he expects to go to bat for them. That's fine with him. He thinks the immigrants get a bad rap.

"I continue to be astonished at how people can work up so much animosity toward hard-working, family-oriented people who are enduring huge hardships to seek a better life," he said. Some of that has roots in something that has been part of this dialogue since the advent of immigrants: racism.

It's something Allyn acknowledges: "You can smell it. It's like bad art. You know it when you see it."

Mr. Mexico is right on the money. And often, those who can't see it just don't want to.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Navarrette can be reached via e-mail at ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

LOL, good call Bootsie. I just put this up in news at about the same time. Good for us to have copies in both sections.



W

WOW Bootsie! This is fabulous. Does anyone recognize any of their words?

For Allyn, there's a lot of positive news south of the border, including "that Mexico is a democracy today, with clean elections, that the Mexican government has made huge progress in cleaning up corruption, and that there is economic stability."

And I suppose Fox himself told Allyn this. And, of course, all those "positive" things are why people are running north by the thousands! Where in hell is Allyn's head?

Below is an emailed letter I sent to Benedict Allyn yesterday along with numerous other contacts in his company and affiliates that were listed on the Alipac alert. I know I'm a little late -- sent off email responses with the other three Alipac alerts much sooner but I'm a little later with this one - better late than never.

Great find Bootsie on the follow up article. I'm sure that Benedict Allyn didn't read my emailed correspondence before this Op Ed piece was published. Still, I think I've covered much of what others have said when he claims to have been "insulted" in massive emails/phone calls directed his way because he is a traitor supporting Vinnie Foxy and Mexico. And, Dang, after reading my letter below I forgot to mention the $15 billion illegal aliens send back to Mexico every year in remittances. This is another major reason Vinnie the Fox wants to continue on with the status quo.


Rob Allyn
Allyn & Company

Dear Mr. Allyn:

Through a news source (see link below), I have read that you have been hired by Mexico President Vicente Fox as a public relations consultant/lobbyist, “. . .to put the brakes on growing anti-immigration, anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States.� The article quotes you as claiming “There is a huge misperception among the U.S. public about Mexico.�
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/miamiheral ... d_americas

No, Sir, I do not believe there are any misperceptions among the majority of American citizens about Mexico, since the majority of illegal aliens come from this country. Our perceptions are accurate about the illegal invasion and how it is harming our society at many levels. Four out of five American citizens want our immigration laws enforced and illegal aliens deported. Consider us pro-immigration enforcement instead of anti-immigration or anti-Mexican.

Your buddy, Vicente Fox, is a freeloader and parasite of the worst kind. Fox is encouraging, aiding and abetting his poorest and least educated citizens to illegally immigrate into the USA so he and his other rich cronies don’t have to pay extra taxes to make their own people’s lives’ better. They are shifting their burden onto the USA. Mexico has the means and the natural resources to uplift its citizens out of poverty, yet they refuse to do so. Mexico, as well as many other third world countries lead by corrupt leadership, needs to encourage family planning and birth control among their citizens. Instead, they encourage migration where many take advantage by birthing “anchor babies,� overburden USA hospitals, public schools, Medicaid and other government welfare services at the expense of U.S. legal citizen taxpayers.

Now, I haven’t even gotten to the job situation. Illegals take jobs that American WILL DO if paid a livable wage. Most of us are still not at a level yet where we will live 10-30 or more people nor more than one family to a single family home. This is the problem. So many illegals getting jobs that Americans will do if the wages weren’t depressed and there wasn’t the extra competition for the jobs. Not only this, but there is a higher than average crime rate with illegal aliens. It is estimated that at least 25-30% of the prisoners incarcerated in the USA are illegal aliens and their crimes range from drug trafficking, gang violence and graffiti, rape, robbery, murder, identity theft, animal cruelty, ad naseum and into infinity. Citizen taxpayers are overburdened with just the incarceration charges alone of illegal alien criminals not to mention their other expenses taxpayers are forced to pay.

By supporting Mexico and their deadbeat leader in this way, you are selling out your fellow Americans. This is treason of the highest order! You should be ashamed of yourself! Nope – no misperceptions on my part about you, Vicente Fox or Mexico.

Sincerely,

Great letter, Annie!