It is not and should not be illegal for anybody to make their views on political issues known.
It’s much more questionable when we start to look at organised funding and lobbying. We have those rules specifically to prevent elections being bought with cash.
AFAIK Obama didn't break the law so his contribution is not under question
I think your questions could be seen as whataboutism[0], but as an answer I do know somebody who was furious that Obama was "telling us what to do" and subsequently voted leave. I don't know anybody who voted remain but was obviously swayed by Obama. Sample size is small but thats what I know.
I'm not making a point either way than to say this. Legalism is probably the weakest argument to make for or against something. Slavery was once "legal".
The OP simply said that Obama's statement is not under investigation because it did not break the law. The leave campaign advertising did break the law, so it is. That's usually how criminal investigations work.
And I'm saying that whether or not you "broke the law" isn't a very interesting argument to me because some truly horrific things are legal and some perfectly mundane ones aren't. Simply being a law isn't a compelling argument in my mind as to whether something is right or wrong. At the same time you can undermine the spirit of something while being perfectly legal. The original argument was about people attempting to sway the vote. Surely Barack Obama and his fame/notoriety taking a side would do that. It's a good counterpoint to make and one that I think has merit.
But no-one is discussing whether it is right or wrong. The original question was "what about Obama's statement?" in the context of the legal investigations against the Leave campaign. The "what about" answer is "there is no criminal investigation because nothing illegal happened".
I get what you're saying but it doesn't really have any relevance here. If you're disregarding legality then any questions about why a criminal investigation happened vs didn't is moot.
>But no-one is discussing whether it is right or wrong.
I mean we literally are. The original premise is about invalidating democratic results. If no one cares if it's right or wrong the conversation is moot in the first place because leave won regardless of circumstance.
>I get what you're saying but it doesn't really have any relevance here.
It actually does. Again the original premise was about mitigating factors of a democratic vote. That is almost entirely a moral/ethical issue. Regardless good laws should follow morals and not the other way around so they're totally inseperable in my mind.
Justice is about equality before the law. It is unjust for one party to do something and be punished, while another party does something that is principly the same, and is not punished.
Citing "whataboutism" does not make this go away, it is the essence of the argument.
If Joe is disqualified from his hockey tournament for throwing his stick, but Mike receives an eye-roll from the same referee, it should not be criticized as whataboutism to say "What about Mike?" - it is a legitimate complaint, because there is injustice in the way both incidents are dealt with.
The situation you just described is one where two people do the same thing, one is punished and one is not. Justifiable to question that.
The situation the OP was describing compared illegal, unreported campaign overspending with a foreign politician expressing an opinion. They're not in any way similar.
The reason I used the word principly is because they are the same thing in principle, the current law is insufficient to treat the issue appropriately, which is what makes it unjust.
A foreign politician who is popular will generate free advertising showcasing the merits of his endorsed position through news media coverage of his statements.
Take money out of the equation entirely. I am a rich filthy corrupt CEO who owns a giant media corporation. I contribute 0 dollars to your campaign, but my TV channel has reporters singing your praises daily. My newspapers write about you in positive terms. My interns spend time on social media defending you from critics.
Everything I have done for you has helped get you elected. My news channel and publications are read by millions. You now owe me.
Similarly, a politician from another place who is very popular in your constituency shows up and campaigns for you. You pay nothing for it, but thousands show up to listen to him. His speech is aired to millions in your constituency.
Eventually you are elected, now you owe him.
Not accounting for some money is principly the same as not accounting for an endorsement by the President of the United States. The same negative outcomes that are associated with money in politics can be applied to endorsements too.
Existing laws do not address this, and are thus unjust because they are outdated in the context of how news and discourse works in 2018
Point is, citing the overspending by Leave as some massive deal looks a bit rich when virtually the entire establishment, business and media conspired to sway the result towards Remain.
Always amuses me to see "the Establishment" cited as firmly in the Remain box. Who is Dulwich educated, commodities trader and decades-long politician Nigel Farage if he's not a part of the establishment? Or Jacob Rees bloody Mogg and Boris Johnson! Quite the anti-establishment rebels they are, eh? As for the media, the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Telegraph and the Express all pushed Leave viewpoints. Leave was always strongly supported by the establishment because they're going to make out like thieves once it happens, it was just sold as "the people's revolt" to a willing audience.
Besides, what would you have happen? All of the people who are actually knowledgable about the topic should exempt themselves from debate? It's a silly argument.
You honestly think the Leave side was equivalently establishment backed as Remain? Leave had the BBC, PM, EU, banks, even the most powerful man in the world all lined up on its side.
I think the Leave side was considerably more backed than the conventional narrative portrays. And received additional illegal, undisclosed funding, hence the reason for this post in the first place.
And I still don't understand what you think should have happened. People across the world should have conferred to make sure that representation for both sides was exactly 50/50?
The United States had the view that the UK staying in the EU was in their favour, so their President expressed that view. What's actually wrong with that? Surely it's up to voters to decide whether they think America's opinion is important or not when deciding how they should vote? Business leaders were in favour of Remain because they knew that leaving the EU would be financially perilous. How is that not relevant information for voters?
Should or should not is something you've introduced yourself. I was saying it was never a fair fight to start with and given this the incessant sour grapes from the overwhelming favourite has an air of pathos about it.