A Quote by Tom Malinowski

We already ban foreign donations to political candidates, and we should strengthen that ban with closer scrutiny of credit card donations. — © Tom Malinowski
We already ban foreign donations to political candidates, and we should strengthen that ban with closer scrutiny of credit card donations.
Federal election laws bar candidates from the 'personal use' of campaign donations - a ban meant to stop candidates from buying things unrelated to their runs for office. If a purchase is a result of campaign activity, the government allows it.
Tobacco companies are legally operating entities in Australia. If the Government thinks that they should not make donations to political parties, well then they should ban them operating as legally structured entities in Australia.
What we have are - some of the big political donors behind the super PACs are big on promoting more of these trade agreements which cost us jobs - another reason that we need to end political action committees and have only individual donations with their donations being disclosed completely with names and addresses and other information.
The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal for 78 years. Did the ban make them 'more' illegal? The ban addresses only the appearance of weapons, not their operation.
To drain the swamp of corruption in Washington, D.C., I started by impose ago five-year lobbying ban on white house officials, and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson says he believes that same ruling that stopped the first version of the ban should still apply to the second version of the ban because it is basically the same ban. It is basically the same policy.
No doubt the political left will say that foreign donations to the Obama campaign are a 'phantom' problem. However, there is physical evidence.
Obviously, a lot of non-profits live on donations, and that's a wonderful thing. But higher education can't exist on donations only because, if that were the case, we would have a hard time paying teachers adequate salaries.
If you have to ban something, ban products which are actually harmful for us, like cigarettes. Smoking also affects the health of people standing around you. But we won't ban such things. We're told don't eat fish, don't eat meat, don't wear miniskirts and other such things.
In Britian we have a free press. It's not a pretty press, but it's free. The people who can't bear the Daily Mail, they say: 'you should ban it'. No, no, no, no, you don't ban it... you don't buy it.
Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none.
A ban on a class of arms is not an 'incidental' regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.
There are some terrorist organizations, there are some organized crime organizations, that launder money through charities and make donations to charities. That's not the purpose of charitable donations in Canada, so we're becoming increasingly strict on the subject.
Liberals talk about how evil it is, and they talk about how deadly it is. They won't ban it. If it's so bad, if it's so deadly, if it's so dangerous, if it's so harmful, if it's so mean, why don't they ban it? Just ban the product.
One would understand a ban on surrogate advertising, but to completely ban [smoking] is ridiculous, a joke taken too far.
I'm vociferously against any ban in the society. You have to educate people instead. When you ban something, you invoke in them the curiosity to find more about that.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!