Sounds like donating funds indirectly to me. How is "volunteering on an uncompensated basis" different from "contributing, donating, or spending funds.... either directly or indirectly"? Then again, I'm an Obama supporter, so I am a bit biased.

Well I think it's absurd and I thought it was the first time I heard about it. Elton John is absolutely IRRELEVANT to this campaign. Stay in Britain big man.

Jesus where you when Tony Rekzo was raising money for Obama??? Well ok, Elton John is an entertainer. He is known all over the world. I don't think he is being paid to do this, Elton John said:

"I'm not a politician but I believe in the work that Hillary Clinton does," said Elton. "I'm excited to support Hillary by performing at what will be a truly memorable night."

So as far as I am concerned he is helping to raise funds for his candidate of choice. Even though, yeah, he lives in Britain. It only shows how much Hillary affects people, not just here but across the globe. That is saying something. It doesn't sound against the law to me. The only person saying it is, IMO, is a site that is clearly pro-Obama.

Love angelina, did you read what the law said? It clearly is against the law.

So Elton John can't perform at a fund raiser. That sounds ridiculous. Why has no else mentioned it??? This has been announced weeks ago, it was on Perez Hilton, and no has it was illegal. I don't think so.

I think if Hilary was smart, she would thank Elton, but not have him at the fund raiser. It would reflect well on her, when she has taken a beating in the public eye as of late.

it sounds like it falls into the against the law category. elton john is a big name. will draw fans, and attention. Fans bring their money. they'll go through with it anyway, and critics will argue about it until the end of time. the people who don't like it probably dislike Hillary already, and won't vote for her, just like they wouldn't have voted for her before. it seems moot to me.

The whole point of the post is that some have recently stated that it is actually against the law as mentioned above... Hilary is claiming it isn't... many of us and others are claiming it is.

"Campaign law prohibits Any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly."

See?

Whatever. I will see and what the media outlets have to say about it.

good.

I think the legality is definitely questionable. Because Elton John typically gets paid a very large rate for putting on concerts, he is contributing something "of value." If you read through all of the FEC definitions, it definitely does seem like it's illegal for Elton John to be performing at at Clinton fund raiser.

And I found articles in several other places pertaining to this particular case, so it's obvious that it's not just Citizen trying to drum up controversy:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080326/NATION02/743377446

If you go into Google and type in "Clinton, Elton John, illegal" several other articles pop up, as well.

oh lilkimbo, i saw a D&G ad in a magazine with your model and Jillness's model posing next to each other! Or at least I think it's them. They all look the same to me.

http://eng.dolcegabbana.it/2009/dolcegabbana/eng/index.html

How exciting! Thanks for the link.

ha I agree - the stam, lily and gemma all look really alike in that ad!!

yep, i was thinking about all you guys in the gym. If you felt your ears warm about 8:30 central time, it was moi.

God forbid! We don't want our nation to fall under the alluring yet dangerous spell of the man who wrote the score to the musical version of Aida!

im an obama supporter and i think its fine if elton is doing the event so long as he's not montetarily compensated in anyway.

I would think that this is against the law. I've worked under government contracts, which allow us to count volunteered time as a component of cost-share and some of our volunteers charge quite a heavy speaking fee so along that logic I would think that Elton John performing at her fund raiser could be financially quantified and counted as an in-kind gift/contibution.

Also, it may seem silly because Elton John is kind of awesome in his own crazy way, but the law was created to prevent undue influence my non-Americans in our political process. As other countries don't want us to influence their election I think rightly Non-Americans shouldn't influence ours. I'm not at all suggesting isolationism or that we don't listen to other countries but I think every country has a right to have independent elections.

BBBBEnnny and the JETS....

"It doesn't sound against the law to me. The only person saying it is, IMO, is a site that is clearly pro-Obama."

Actually, the law is saying it is illegal.

She is accepting contributions from the donation of his perfomance services. It clearly says, "directly or indirectly", and it says that it is illegal to accept donations from foreign nationals.

It is sad how some Hillary supporters try to paint Obama as the evil in every situation. He didn't write these laws, nor did his campaign. He didn't cause the snafu in the Michigan and Florida elections, their state legislature did. He didn't prevent re-votes, the lack of agreement of the state leaders did. He said that he would go along with what the DNC and state leaders would agree to. It is not his fault that they didn't reach a conclusion.

I really disrespect her and her campaign for trying to pin the blame on him in every situation. It isn't factual.

If its against the law, its against the law. I agree with Cine, if she politely declined and said she declined because its illegal, she would get some much needed credibility points!

Doesn't he have dual citizenship now?

Of course that is in violation! Federal Election Laws are VERY CLEAR. So does this mean a french chef could come over and donate his services? A foreign advertising agency could produce all of the candidates commercials for free too? Senator Clinton wouldn't have to raise money if that were the case.

And it would be in violation for different reasons if an American entertainer was doing the same because of the value of the performance. These people get paid to perform. In a Federal election one individual cannot donate more than $2300 per primary and general election ($4600 per couple each cycle) and no corporation can donate to a federal election. Plain English: If Bruce Springstein "volunteered" his services, it would be in violation because his services are worth a lot more than $2300. If P Diddy's car service donated cars and drivers it would be in violation. And if you want to go further into this read about in-kind contributions. I could continue, but I think there is a character limit here. Perhaps I will return to explain the rest.

I will say one more thing, I would never vote for someone because they would be the FIRST ANYTHING in The White House. The person you elect should be a person QUALIFIED to the job. And THAT, is one hell of a challenging job to say the least. Don't judge until you walk a mile in those shoes.