International funding for Irish Referenda

Doltanian

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-international-ordered-to-return-donation-from-billionaire-george-soros-1.3320638

Amnesty International have acted illegally in breach of Irish law by accepting donations from billionaire Cultural Marxist George Soros to push their Marxist Far-Left agenda in Ireland.

Chieft-Executive of Amnesty Ireland Colm O'Gorman has said they will refuse to hand back the money to George Soros in clear violation of Irish law. The Govt needs to take a very hard line on this and give an ultimatum that unless the money is returned then they should move to prosecute and jail those involved for trying to undermine the entire debate on Abortion. I would go so far as to add that this revelation undermines any attempts to change the laws on abortion and that a referendum should now be postponed on the issue due to foreign outside influence on it. This something for the Irish to decide and there can be no outside outside influence allowed to influence it.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Thread title amended to reflect the topic rather than the news headline.

Jim2007

Doltanian wrote: »

I would go so far as to add that this revelation undermines any attempts to change the laws on abortion and that a referendum should now be postponed on the issue due to foreign outside influence on it. This something for the Irish to decide and there can be no outside outside influence allowed to influence it.

And you were doing so well until you came up with this bit of BS.

Chips Lovell

“Marxist” is an odd way of describing a billionaire investor.

CrabRevolution

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

“Marxist” is an odd way of describing a billionaire investor.

Reminds me of a thread in the farming forum where removing EU+state support for Irish farmers and leaving them to sink or swim at the mercy of the market was described as "leftist thinking".

frag420

So the anti repeal side are getting absolutely no funding from outside the Irish border at all, none whatsoever?

The IONA and similar get all there funding from within the Irish border yeah?

Doltanian wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-international-ordered-to-return-donation-from-billionaire-george-soros-1.3320638

Amnesty International have acted illegally in breach of Irish law by accepting donations from billionaire Cultural Marxist George Soros to push their Marxist Far-Left agenda in Ireland.

Chieft-Executive of Amnesty Ireland Colm O'Gorman has said they will refuse to hand back the money to George Soros in clear violation of Irish law. The Govt needs to take a very hard line on this and give an ultimatum that unless the money is returned then they should move to prosecute and jail those involved for trying to undermine the entire debate on Abortion. I would go so far as to add that this revelation undermines any attempts to change the laws on abortion and that a referendum should now be postponed on the issue due to foreign outside influence on it. This something for the Irish to decide and there can be no outside outside influence allowed to influence it.

isn't there a rather large and very wealthy international organisation based in Rome, that is also trying to influence the abortion debate?

Manach

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

“Marxist” is an odd way of describing a billionaire investor.

You seem to have trouble with cutting and pasting. Cultural was the modifying adjective first used. That which seems to be underlying many of the -isms to are driving Ireland to embrace the Sweden lite model. But to assist your understanding a bit more, plenty of people got rich under the marxist model - just called themselves servants of the people who well benefited under the party model and toeing the line.

Gunmonkey

Doltanian wrote: »

The Govt needs to take a very hard line on this and give an ultimatum that unless the money is returned then they should move to prosecute and jail those involved for trying to undermine the entire debate on Abortion. I would go so far as to add that this revelation undermines any attempts to change the laws on abortion and that a referendum should now be postponed on the issue due to foreign outside influence on it. This something for the Irish to decide and there can be no outside outside influence allowed to influence it.

So...we can never have an abortion referendum then! Seeing, as others highlighted, massive swathes of the populous have had their opinion doctored by the Catholic Church. Every time we are going to have a referendum, will a priest or nun wander up to one random person and go "De babi Jesus wouldnt like this to pass"

And judging by the part I bolded, will we see the IONA institute have its funding cut and membership locked up? Or if you really want to push this "Lock them up" agenda, would we see priests and bishops in handcuffs?

You cant go the whole "Rabble-rabble it should be a vote for the Irish" and advocate jail terms and such but only when it favours your viewpoint!

Red_Wake

Amnesty International are worse than the RCC for pontificating, I wouldn't pay them any heed.

Their condemnation of the SCC alone marks them out as fools.

blanch152

SIPO are correct to act in the way they did, as the law is clear on this issue.

It sends a message to both sides of this debate, which both sides need to hear and listen to. Foreign interference in Irish domestic politics is unacceptable whether that be bishops in Rome, George Soros, Amnesty International, Putin or various Irish-Americans funding SF, FG or FF.

ancapailldorcha

blanch152 wrote: »

SIPO are correct to act in the way they did, as the law is clear on this issue.

It sends a message to both sides of this debate, which both sides need to hear and listen to. Foreign interference in Irish domestic politics is unacceptable whether that be bishops in Rome, George Soros, Amnesty International, Putin or various Irish-Americans funding SF, FG or FF.

The problem is that both sides have skin in the game. The liberals will overlook gifts from the likes of Soros while moaning about the Catholic Church, Rome, Iona, etc while the conservatives will criticise Soros as interfering in a domestic plebiscite, which he is but will happily accept funding if it supports their side.

angiogoir

Personally I'd remove all foreign funding from NGOs seeking to change our laws. But failing that all funding received should be made public and the exact expenditure set out.
However, SIPO preclude Amnesty and other pro-choice groups from getting funding, not for their operations, but for getting money to fund political campaigns. Amnesty, unlike one of the other pro-choice groups, are refusing to return the money. Thus they appear to be breaking the law. If this isn't proof that our NGO sector is out of control then nothing is.

As to pro-life groups getting funds from abroad, they do, but it appears to pale in comparison to the huge sums sent by wealthy Americans to the pro-choice side, and in earlier referendum campaigns, too.

ancapailldorcha

angiogoir wrote: »

Personally I'd remove all foreign funding from NGOs seeking to change our laws. But failing that all funding received should be made public and the exact expenditure set out.
However, SIPO preclude Amnesty and other pro-choice groups from getting funding, not for their operations, but for getting money to fund political campaigns. Amnesty, unlike one of the other pro-choice groups, are refusing to return the money. Thus they appear to be breaking the law. If this isn't proof that our NGO sector is out of control then nothing is.

As to pro-life groups getting funds from abroad, they do, but it appears to pale in comparison to the huge sums sent by wealthy Americans to the pro-choice side, and in earlier referendum campaigns, too.

I don't know how things are done for Irish referenda but in the UK where they are much less common, there is a referendum commission to ensure fairness. In the EU membership referendum of yesteryear, the official Remain and Leave campaigns were each allowed to spend no more than £7 million. Where that comes from isn't really relevant as both sides can only spend up to the same limit.

Frank Bullitt

Seems like a fairly draconian law that has been brought up to the top.

Twitter is a dam sight more interesting seeing David Quinn etc lose their minds over it.

Vladimir Poontang

Nobody should be getting outside funding. End of story.

johnnyskeleton

Its a tricky one because I'm not sure an outright ban on foreign donations with a political purpose is fair. Would it be wrong for a NGO to support an anti corruption campaign in another country?

What about say Peter McVerry? Most of his funding goes to homeless people what if they advocate for more spending on homeless sehelters or stronger anti eviction laws. Do they then preclude foreign donations.

Also, in an open economy whats to stop a non Irish person setting up an Irish organisation/company that then paying the money that way?

Turning to the specific legislation, as long as the overseas donations are properly declared I dont really see the problem, if they are from individuals or companys. The other side can use it to political advantage by saying that the other side is supported by X person. Or not, as the case may be. In this scenario, maybe voters would be swayed by the fact that a group is backed by X. If such is sufficiently bad it probably damages them more than the benefits of the donations.

Frank Bullitt

Loving how Iona are the big complainers in this, despite them not disclosing the sources of their donations themselves...

markodaly

Gintonious wrote: »

Loving how Iona are the big complainers in this, despite them not disclosing the sources of their donations themselves...

But they did as they are SIPO compliant are they not?

Broadsheet.ie did a piece on it yesterday that was pretty damming on Amnesty Ireland and Colm o'Gorman.

Basically Colm O'Gorman is using weasel words to state that they are above the law. You can listen back to this piece of comedy gold on rte.ie with Sean O'Rourke.

Sean O’Rourke: “Just tell us about the money?

O’Gorman: Well first of all it didn’t come from George Soros. It came from a human rights foundation called the Open Society which was established by a large endowment [$18 billion] from George Soros.

Classic!

Amnesty International Ireland was an organisation to which I had in the past given up my time and money in helping them campaign in releasing prisoners in autocratic regimes, as well as prisoners of conscience. However, since o'Gorman took over it has basically stuck its nose into Irish domestic politics pontificating to the plebs what is morally right or wrong, hence why I have not given them a red cent in years. Maybe this is why they need the cash from Soros, Irish people are sick of their pontificating so they use American money as a substitute for Irish led donations.

No matter if its Russian, American, Chinese, Saudi, outer Mongolian or whomever, foreign money to achieve political outcomes should be 100% illegal in Ireland.

johnnyskeleton

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Colm was like a bould child on RTÉ radio yesterday morning. He wouldn't shut up.

Mod note:

Please discuss the issues at hand i.e. international funding of irish elections/referenda, specificially the putative abortion referendum, and avoid taking pot shots at individuals.

markodaly

What powers does SIPO have in this regard. Colm O'Gorman is adamant that he is not giving back the money because his cause is 'just', even though its against the law to accept it, thus illegal. Can SIPO fine Amnesty Ireland?

This could do more harm than good, where by any referendum could be null and void if he is front and centre of a repeal campaign. You can bet that people will challenge the result if its transparent and clear that illegal money funded the campaign that won.

Red_Wake

markodaly wrote: »

What powers does SIPO have in this regard. Colm O'Gorman is adamant that he is not giving back the money because his cause is 'just', even though its against the law to accept it, thus illegal. Can SIPO fine Amnesty Ireland?

This could do more harm than good, where by any referendum could be null and void if he is front and centre of a repeal campaign. You can bet that people will challenge the result if its transparent and clear that illegal money funded the campaign that won.

Have Amnesty International condemned[or commented on] the russian involvement in the US presidential election?

If they have, they're staggeringly hypocritical.

markodaly

Interesting question alright but he is always front and centre giving out about America. People like him do more harm then good.

AnGaelach

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

“Marxist” is an odd way of describing a billionaire investor.

Well, Marx himself wasn't exactly poor either.

AnGaelach

Aegir wrote: »

isn't there a rather large and very wealthy international organisation based in Rome, that is also trying to influence the abortion debate?

If they were, presumably they'd be able to simply out-spend anyone on the repeal side. I think the Church is loathe to actually use its significant resources in a way that might provoke further backlash against them in the public domain.

AnGaelach

Gintonious wrote: »

Seems like a fairly draconian law that has been brought up to the top.

Twitter is a dam sight more interesting seeing David Quinn etc lose their minds over it.

There's nothing draconian about it. Foreign capital shouldn't have any place in the Irish political system, whether it's from the Koch brothers, Soros or the European Commission. Irish matters are for Irish people to decide.

recedite

<snip - please dont discuss moderation on thread>

O'Gorman took this €137K from George Soros, apparently for the anti-abortion campaign. Its not the first time Amnesty international has collaborated with Soros in support of a policy, both often intervene to keep the "irregular" migrant routes into Europe open.
The fact is, the donation was for political lobbying, whereas O'Gorman tried to say it was for "human rights work".
There may be a fine line between the two, but both O'Gorman and SIPO know where that line is, and SIPO have firmly said the money should be returned to Soros, but O'Gorman has refused to do so.

Even if the donor had been Irish, it was still well over the €200 limit
applying to any single one-off donation for political lobbying purposes.

limits;
a donation exceeding the value of €100, if the name and address of the donor are not known;

a cash donation exceeding the value of €200;

a donation exceeding the value of €200 in any calendar year from a corporate donor unless the corporate donor is registered in the register of Corporate Donors maintained by the Standards Commission and a statement, on behalf of the corporate donor confirming that the making of the donation was approved by the corporate donor, is furnished with the donation to the donee;

a donation, of whatever value, from an individual (other than an Irish citizen) who resides outside the island of Ireland;

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know how things are done for Irish referenda but in the UK where they are much less common, there is a referendum commission to ensure fairness. In the EU membership referendum of yesteryear, the official Remain and Leave campaigns were each allowed to spend no more than £7 million. Where that comes from isn't really relevant as both sides can only spend up to the same limit.

Not sure if there is an overarching Irish commision: There is teh Standards in Public Office Commission and a Referendum commission is set up for each referendumm

Each commission is only as good as its teeth though. Take UK:

UKIP are under investigation for a seven figure donation in kind from Cambridge Analytica.
Official Leave are under investigation for setting up other campaigns with a spending limit of £750,000 to extend the pot. All these campaigns paid monies to AggregateIQ the sister company of Cambridge Analytica.
Arron Banks under investigation for source of his £11 million donations to Leave.eu/UKIP.
Punishment if guilty is twenty grand or so. Damage is done with no consequences. Commission is toothless and so ignored.

mrhoppy

Red_Wake wrote: »

Have Amnesty International condemned[or commented on] the russian involvement in the US presidential election?

If they have, they're staggeringly hypocritical.

The difference is, there is zero evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russians during his campaign, whereas Amnesty International have openly admitted to receiving funding from a foreign entity, in violation of the Electoral Act of 1997

mrhoppy

markodaly wrote: »

What powers does SIPO have in this regard. Colm O'Gorman is adamant that he is not giving back the money because his cause is 'just', even though its against the law to accept it, thus illegal. Can SIPO fine Amnesty Ireland?

This could do more harm than good, whereby any referendum could be null and void if he is front and centre of a repeal campaign. You can bet that people will challenge the result if its transparent and clear that illegal money funded the campaign that won.

SIPO can do more than fine AI. AI are subject to criminal charges after breaking the law. AI are not the only ones receiving money from Soros though. Any referendum campaign found to be receiving money from a foreign entity are subject to criminal charges and should be reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs and/or the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

mrhoppy

Aegir wrote: »

isn't there a rather large and very wealthy international organisation based in Rome, that is also trying to influence the abortion debate?

The Catholic Church has not donated any money to any pro-life groups. Pro-life groups in Ireland are funded by domestic donations.

mrhoppy

Aegir wrote: »

isn't there a rather large and very wealthy international organisation based in Rome, that is also trying to influence the abortion debate?

frag420 wrote: »

So the anti repeal side are getting absolutely no funding from outside the Irish border at all, none whatsoever?

The IONA and similar get all there funding from within the Irish border yeah?

The Iona Institute are not using their funds to influence any elections or referenda, therefore are not in violation of Irish law.

oscarBravo

mrhoppy wrote: »

The Iona Institute are not using their funds to influence any elections or referenda...

Let's break that one down.

Are you arguing that the Iona Institute don't have a position on marriage equality or abortion?

Or are you arguing that they do have a position, but don't seek to influence people's decisions in referendums on these issues?

Or are you arguing that they do seek to influence referendums, but that they don't spend any money in the process?

Ash.J.Williams

Aegir wrote: »

isn't there a rather large and very wealthy international organisation based in Rome, that is also trying to influence the abortion debate?

In fact I think the CEO is having a day out for everyone in Ireland just before the referendum.

mrhoppy

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's break that one down.

Are you arguing that the Iona Institute don't have a position on gay marriage or abortion?

Or are you arguing that they do have a position, but don't seek to influence people's decisions in referendums on these issues?

Or are you arguing that they do seek to influence referendums, but that they don't spend any money in the process?

I'm saying they do have a position but don't seek to influence any referenda using capital

oscarBravo

mrhoppy wrote: »

I'm saying they do have a position but don't seek to influence any referenda using capital

OK, so that's one of the latter two. So I'll ask again:

Are you saying that they don't seek to influence referendums?

Or are you saying that they don't spend money to do so?

markodaly

recedite wrote: »

<snip - please dont discuss moderation on thread>

O'Gorman took this €137K from George Soros, apparently for the anti-abortion campaign. Its not the first time Amnesty international has collaborated with Soros in support of a policy, both often intervene to keep the "irregular" migrant routes into Europe open.
The fact is, the donation was for political lobbying, whereas O'Gorman tried to say it was for "human rights work".
There may be a fine line between the two, but both O'Gorman and SIPO know where that line is, and SIPO have firmly said the money should be returned to Soros, but O'Gorman has refused to do so.

Even if the donor had been Irish, it was still well over the €200 limit
applying to any single one-off donation for political lobbying purposes.

The impression I get is that the law is for the little people while those doing 'Human Rights' work should get a pass from domestic law.

I will tell you one thing, if the shoe was on the other foot, that The Iona Institute received a 137k donation from an American think tank, this thread would be hundreds of pages long with people bemoaning the situation. The media would also be filled with opinion pieces from the likes of Fintan o'Toole pontificating about foreign influences in our elections. These people have not surprisingly remained quiet on this issue. The only people I have seen so far commenting on the situation has been Elaine Byrne and Sean o'Rourke.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

The impression I get is that the law is for the little people while those doing 'Human Rights' work should get a pass from domestic law.

I will tell you one thing, if the shoe was on the other foot, that The Iona Institute received a 137k donation from an American think tank, this thread would be hundreds of pages long with people bemoaning the situation. The media would also be filled with opinion pieces from the likes of Fintan o'Toole pontificating about foreign influences in our elections. These people have not surprisingly remained quiet on this issue. The only people I have seen so far commenting on the situation has been Elaine Byrne and Sean o'Rourke.

So what's the problem with George Soros donating to the liberal side then? It has to be consistent, you either allow foreign money or not. Selective outrage is just hypocrisy to be honest.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So what's the problem with George Soros donating to the liberal side then? It has to be consistent, you either allow foreign money or not. Selective outrage is just hypocrisy to be honest.

Precisely my point. It has to be consistent and the opinion makers are not.

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's break that one down.

Are you arguing that the Iona Institute don't have a position on marriage equality or abortion?

Or are you arguing that they do have a position, but don't seek to influence people's decisions in referendums on these issues?

Or are you arguing that they do seek to influence referendums, but that they don't spend any money in the process?

As regards marriage equality, there isn't currently an actual or proposed refernedum on the subject, or indeed SFAIK any organised campaign for legal change. So, while Iona may say a great deal about it, what they say is not an attempt to influence a referndum or campaign.

As regards abortion, we do expect a referendum on the repeal, or possibly amendment, of the Eighth Amendment. I think you probably could say that Iona (and of course may other organisations) are seeking to influence the outcome of a referendum, even if the referendum hasn't been called yet. It's probably enough that it's expected to be called.

However as I understand it the SIPO regulations don't require disclosure of amounts spent on referendum-influencing campaigns; just of donations received for the purpose of referendum-influencing campaigns. If Iona receives general donations which they are free to apply to any purpose or objective of Iona, and it decides to spend them on a referendum-influencing campaign, those donations do not have to be disclosed. They only have to disclose donations which are given for the specific purpose of the referendum-influencing campaign - e.g. donations where the donor says that that's what he wants the money spent on, or donations received in response to an appeal for donations for that purpose.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards marriage equality, there isn't currently an actual or proposed refernedum on the subject, or indeed SFAIK any organised campaign for legal change. So, while Iona may say a great deal about it, what they say is not an attempt to influence a referndum or campaign.

As regards abortion, we do expect a referendum on the repeal, or possibly amendment, of the Eighth Amendment. I think you probably could say that Iona (and of course may other organisations) are seeking to influence the outcome of a referendum, even if the referendum hasn't been called yet. It's probably enough that it's expected to be called.

However as I understand it the SIPO regulations don't require disclosure of amounts spent on referendum-influencing campaigns; just of donations received for the purpose of referendum-influencing campaigns. If Iona receives general donations which they are free to apply to any purpose or objective of Iona, and it decides to spend them on a referendum-influencing campaign, those donations do not have to be disclosed. They only have to disclose donations which are given for the specific purpose of the referendum-influencing campaign - e.g. donations where the donor says that that's what he wants the money spent on, or donations received in response to an appeal for donations for that purpose.

Sure, but I'm challenging the assertion that Iona "don't seek to influence any referenda using capital".

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards marriage equality, there isn't currently an actual or proposed refernedum on the subject, or indeed SFAIK any organised campaign for legal change. So, while Iona may say a great deal about it, what they say is not an attempt to influence a referndum or campaign.

Well, obviously they lost that one, but they received (and spent) a huge amount of money for the campaign to oppose same sex marriage. And not just during the year of the referendum. They put a lot of effort into holding the referendum at bay for as long as possible.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards abortion, we do expect a referendum on the repeal, or possibly amendment, of the Eighth Amendment. I think you probably could say that Iona (and of course may other organisations) are seeking to influence the outcome of a referendum, even if the referendum hasn't been called yet. It's probably enough that it's expected to be called.

There is no "probably" about it. Definitely.

Peregrinus wrote: »

However as I understand it the SIPO regulations don't require disclosure of amounts spent on referendum-influencing campaigns; just of donations received for the purpose of referendum-influencing campaigns.

Its not just during a referendum campaign. That's what Amnesty tried to argue, but SIPO set them right, resulting in O'Gorman's current hissy fit.

Limits apply to large donations intended...

SIPO wrote:

4. to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcomein relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority;

Fair is fair.
Amnesty and Iona are both attracting large donations and both were/are campaigning to influence public policy.
During the same sex marriage referendum campaign.
During the abortion referendum campaign.
Before the dates of those referendums were announced.
After the referendums.
And also on various other public policy issues.

blanch152

recedite wrote: »

Well, obviously they lost that one, but they received (and spent) a huge amount of money for the campaign to oppose same sex marriage. And not just during the year of the referendum. They put a lot of effort into holding the referendum at bay for as long as possible.

There is no "probably" about it. Definitely.


Its not just during a referendum campaign. That's what Amnesty tried to argue, but SIPO set them right, resulting in O'Gorman's current hissy fit.

Limits apply to large donations intended...

Fair is fair.
Amnesty and Iona are both attracting large donations and both were/are campaigning to influence public policy.
During the same sex marriage referendum campaign.
During the abortion referendum campaign.
Before the dates of those referendums were announced.
After the referendums.
And also on various other public policy issues.

That is an interesting quotation from the SIPO legislation.

I think this may well be an important fight for Amnesty going beyond just the abortion thing. Foreign money may well be paying for a lot of Amnesty's public campaigns.

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, but I'm challenging the assertion that Iona "don't seek to influence any referenda using capital".

I agree with you.

As regards same-sex marriage, Iona certainly did attempt to influence the outcome of that referendum, and spent money to do so. But (I think) the current disclosure laws were not in force at the time). Anything they might say about equal marriage now is not an attempt to influence the outcome of a referendum, because there is no referendum.

As regards abortion/the eighth amendment, I agree with yourself and recedite that any campaign they are running on that subject is an attempt to influence the outcome of a referendum because, even though it hasn't formally been commenced, we all know a referendum is coming.

However SFAIK the legislation doesn't require them to disclose all their spending on such a campaign, and it doesn't require them to disclose all their sources of funding. (Maybe it should, but it doesn't.) It only requires them to disclose donations which are specifically given for the purpose of a campaign to influence the outcome of the referendum. And we don't know that they have received any donations of that kind.

(As far as I'm aware, we also don't know if they received any donations of that kind in relation to the marriage equality referendum. So, even if the current laws had been in place then, they might very well have had no disclosure obligations.)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

It only requires them to disclose donations which are specifically given for the purpose of a campaign to influence the outcome of the referendum.

You keep trying to confine this to a referendum campaign.
The SIPO quote a few posts back expands way beyond that to donations intended to be used in a campaign to influence any "policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority".

Also it does not follow that on the day the votes in a referendum are counted, the issue in question ceases to be a potentially live issue in terms of public policy, or in any attempt to influence future public policy. If that were true, abortion would have ceased to be an issue after a previous referendum back in 1983.

Peregrinus

Any issue at all could in theory be the subject of a referendum at some point in the future. I don’t think that’s enough to say that spending on that issue represents an attempt to influnce a referendum. I think that there needs to be an actual referendum, or at least a sufficiently close prospect of one that people are organising campaigns that they wouldn’t otherwise be organising.

As for non-referendum-related campaigns, the legislation doesn’t catch all spending on any campaign, just spending aiming to influnce the outcome “in the interests of” a third party.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for non-referendum-related campaigns, the legislation doesn’t catch all spending on any campaign, just spending aiming to influnce the outcome “in the interests of” a third party.

It does not catch any spending whatsoever.
It catches all donations over the specified limits which are intended to be used to promote or oppose any "campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority".

"Promote or oppose" is quite important here. For example we know that Iona promotes "marriage" but what does that mean exactly? It can better be explained from a public policy point of view by noting that they oppose same sex marriage.

markodaly

SIPO have threatened to send a file to the DPP if this money isn't given back. Ball in Amnesty Ireland's court now. I guess O'Gorman would love to be a martyr for a cause, most egomaniacs are, but he will hurt the organisation in the long term. Who are the board members, here? Could they not tell O'Gorman to cop on and comply with the laws of the land?

mrhoppy

oscarBravo wrote: »

OK, so that's one of the latter two. So I'll ask again:

Are you saying that they don't seek to influence referendums?

Or are you saying that they don't spend money to do so?

They don't seek to influence referenda. They hold a position on them, yes, but they don't campaign on either side's behalf

mrhoppy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So what's the problem with George Soros donating to the liberal side then? It has to be consistent, you either allow foreign money or not. Selective outrage is just hypocrisy to be honest.

Neither side should be getting foreign capital. The issue is that Amnesty International and the pro choice side are getting foreign capital and are refusing to return the money despite the fact that whoever is involved is now subject to criminal charges

mrhoppy

markodaly wrote: »

SIPO have threatened to send a file to the DPP if this money isn't given back. Ball in Amnesty Ireland's court now. I guess O'Gorman would love to be a martyr for a cause, most egomaniacs are, but he will hurt the organisation in the long term. Who are the board members, here? Could they not tell O'Gorman to cop on and comply with the laws of the land?

O'Gorman won't comply with Ireland's laws because he's the head of the Irish branch of a multinational organisation. Like you said, he's an egomaniac. He let the power go to his head. Says he's doing the "right thing"... by.. breaking the law.