How dare they insult de Führer!
Via The Hill:
A major coal mining company has agreed to pay $5,000 to settle charges that it violated election spending rules by distributing anti-President Obama signs in 2012.
In a settlement announced Friday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Murray Energy Corp. admitted that it failed to disclose paying for signs that read, “STOP the WAR on COAL — FIRE OBAMA” in the months before the 2012 presidential election.
Following a complaint by a liberal group in Ohio, FEC investigated the signs, for which Murray paid about $22,000.
The agency found that the signs are not expressly prohibited under current campaign finance law, but Murray should have disclosed on the signs themselves who paid for them, and filed regular reports about its spending, which FEC determined was meant to sway the election fight between Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee that year.
“Because Murray Energy’s ‘STOP the WAR on COAL – FIRE OBAMA’ signs are public communications that contain express advocacy, they required a disclaimer,” FEC attorneys said in an administrative filing.
The desire to kill political speech on the internet is nothing new, when it comes to the liberal left progressive Democrats. Their goal is not to win in the arena of ideas, but to eliminate any voice that dares to speak out against them in the arena of ideas. In the battle to silence dissent online, an attack is being launched by the FEC (Federal Elections Commission).
Regardless of Congress, regardless of the First Amendment which tells the Federal Government to keep its hands off of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the freedom of association, and regardless of State election laws and authorities, the agency under Barack Obama is targeting the way campaigns are presented online – whether you like it, or not.
The Patriot Update
A Guyana-born naturalized American citizen fits the Federal Elections Commission’s requirements to run for president, the FEC announced in a ruling.
The case involves New York lawyer Abdul Hassan, who was born in the South American country in 1974. Hassan argues it is discriminatory to not allow him to run for office.
Responding to criticism of possible dual-loyalty issues, Hassan said in a radio interview that a person’s place of birth should not determine his patriotism or presidential eligibility.
Hassan, meanwhile, petitioned the FEC to allow him to run for president, arguing the Federal Election Campaign Act does not bar naturalized citizens from running.
In its official response earlier this month, the FEC agreed with Hassan’s logic.
The FEC’s ruling, which did not receive any news media attention, concluded that a naturalized citizen is not prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act from becoming a “candidate” as defined under the act.
While the FEC’s own rules now allow Hassan to run for high office, the attorney must still clear judicial hurdles before his eligibility could become official.
At issue is the constitutional stipulation that only a “natural born” citizen can be for president.