So. Let's say information going to a campaign is not mandated to be included in FEC reports.
For something somebody happens to know offhand, that's reasonable.
But when something is not known IN ADVANCE and requires research, which most people don't do for free:
For something somebody happens to know offhand, that's reasonable.
But when something is not known IN ADVANCE and requires research, which most people don't do for free:
when a foreign nation-state's intelligence apparatus dedicates a full division solely to a months-long operation to access, exfiltrate, and weaponize information via theft -
it has value to them.
Share that info with the opposition & it inherits the value of the expenditure.
it has value to them.
Share that info with the opposition & it inherits the value of the expenditure.
If information is solicited, and is not immediately on hand, if it requires additional effort to procure - that is unquestionably soliciting a thing of value.
Asking a foreign nation-state to put resources into in a joint investigation of a political opponent/potential political opponent within the jurisdiction of domestic governance: AT THE TIME THE ISSUE IS FIRST REPORTED?
MAYBE not a thing of value.
MAYBE not a thing of value.
Asking a foreign nation-state to put its sole resources into in a politically motivated investigation of a political opponent, absent any concurrent official domestic investigation, years after the fact, and outside the reach of domestic oversight:
a very illegal thing of value
a very illegal thing of value
And when someone requests that anyone else undertake a PR effort, which, for a world leader, has tangible costs to perform - travel costs for self and staff, wages for staff involved in preparing that statement...
IOW:
prior first-hand experiential knowledge - not a thing of value.
info source expends financial resources to procure: value.
intelligence obtained through the use of any compensated individuals tasked with obtaining it, previously held confidential: value.
prior first-hand experiential knowledge - not a thing of value.
info source expends financial resources to procure: value.
intelligence obtained through the use of any compensated individuals tasked with obtaining it, previously held confidential: value.
somebody traveling around the world to a private meeting? if it has to be held so tightly that it can't be discussed on the phone, and necessitates travel costs to ensure secrecy? value.
the proceeds of a crime: illegal value, but still value.
the proceeds of a crime: illegal value, but still value.
Funding has tangible value.
The big question: but for the existence of funding, would the info have been available?
If somebody has to get paid for it, and it isn't fully released into the public sphere... it has value.
The big question: but for the existence of funding, would the info have been available?
If somebody has to get paid for it, and it isn't fully released into the public sphere... it has value.
Oh. Extortion.
If you're withholding from someone until they give you what you want....
that which you are willing to withhold is the value YOU assign that thing.
And that which the person you're withholding from agrees to provide is the value they assign.
If you're withholding from someone until they give you what you want....
that which you are willing to withhold is the value YOU assign that thing.
And that which the person you're withholding from agrees to provide is the value they assign.
in any case, the ASK - or in the absence of a direct ask, the signal that is meant to indicate what is expected to be withheld, along with vague "do us a favor, though"-like requests:
that's the value you assign.
that's the value you assign.
