Hillary is going to flaunt the law again?

The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.

Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

 http://www.wsj.com/articles/foreign-government-gifts-to-clinton-foundation-on-the-rise-1424223031

So, now Hillary is planning on taking foreign contributions for her election campaign? Flaunting the law seems to be the norm for the Clinton’s.  The law has not changed and for her to accept foreighn  contributions is still against the law.

 See the following partial NEUTRAL information.

Since 1966, foreign nationals have been prohibited from donating money to American campaigns; recent legislation and Supreme Court decisions have only reinforced this principle. However, the lack of disclosure in the new super PACs means that foreign donations will be harder to detect, and American elections may be vulnerable to foreign influence.

Federal Election Campaign Law: § 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 304(f)(3)) (2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3)); or …..

In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which also incorporated a ban on foreign donations.

 Section 303 of the BCRA makes it unlawful for a foreign national 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[.] 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441e(a)(1). The provision replaces the former, similar ban in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

 The existing prohibition on contributions in federal, state, or local elections by foreign nationals was clarified and expanded in BCRA. The ban now clearly applies to: · contributions and donations of money, or anything of value, in connection with US elections, · contributions and donations to committees of political parties, · donations to Presidential inaugural committees, · donations to party committee building funds, · disbursements for electioneering communications, · expenditures, including independent expenditures.

 In 2010, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission stated that the First Amendment does not allow the government to restrict independent political expenditures by corporations. The Supreme Court opinion mentions foreign political donations  here:

 In 2012, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission upheld the ban on donations by foreign nationals. The FEC explains the decision by the US District Court for the District of Columbia:

 https://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Foreign_Money_in_U.S._Elections

 In the years following the presidential election of 1996, the Justice Department investigated allegations that Chinese individuals made financial contributions to the Bill Clinton campaign. The Republican majority of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigated and produced a report. Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud.