the difference is very minor (all of it except Iran)

Even if the example would not be so extreme as Iran, do you think it would be normal if the government of France would decide that it is in their best interests for Meretz to be in power and then provide millions of dollars to Meretz?!
What you are saying is surprising because no country in the world would allow this. There is no way that France would allow the British government to provide funding to one of the French political parties. This would be a major scandal if it happened in any country.
Sheldon Adelson providing funding is similar to an American citizen living in Canada contributing to the Democratic party. That would be okay. And even though Sheldon Adelson is not an Israeli citizen - a Jew living anywhere is an "honorary" citizen of Israel.

Kol tuv,

Avi

I agree, I would not like it. That's not my point. i said the people should insist on this not happening, even perhaps if it means new laws being passed to prevent such interference. My point is that if a party goes ahead and encourages foreign involvement on its own behalf, hiring foreign strategists, raising foreign money, getting support from foreign politicians, and the like, it has no right to criticize other parties that do the same.
also, as far as I know there is no proof that this group was sent by the US government. As far as what I read, they are a company of consultants that had been hired to work on Obama's campaign back then. Now they are being hired by labor or whoever. That does not mean Obama sent them.

Hi Rafi,
If it was just a marketing or consulting company, that would be no big deal. I don't see any reason to not hire a foreign company that knows how to make cool commercials. The issue is the money. My understanding is that they are providing or arranging for money (or their services are being paid for with foreign money). I am not sure why you don't see a major difference between taking money from Sheldon Adelson who is trying to help Israel, and taking money from an unknown source who might be trying to harm Israel. Put another way, if you are willing to accept someone as a citizen, you might be willing to accept their money, but if you are not willing to accept the person as a citizen, you shouldn't accept their money.

It seems like the lawyers in Israel did a poor job when they drafted the campaign finance laws. However, even if Labor did not technically violate the law, they violated what is accepted as moral throughout the world, as everyone agrees that if a French political party accepted funding from Britain that it would be illegal and a tremendous scandal.
Kol tuv,
Avi

I don't know much about Israeli election law, but it seems that the issues here are: 1. foreign government funding - US State Department (and others) donating to One Voice which in turn campaigns for Labor, as illuminated by Avi's examples, and 2. the fine line between "issue advocacy" and campaigning. In the US, certain non-party groups, exempt from financing restrictions, can spend money advocating for a specific issue or educating about a voting record. The analogy would be if V15 would run ads against the "Jewish State Law," or complaining about stuff Bennett voted for. But, in the US, these groups are not allowed to campaign for a candidate. V15 going door to door and telling people to vote Labor, or whomever, (or echoing Labor's "us or him" slogan) and campaigning for a "Victory" (obviously referring to the election) crosses all of those (fine) lines. If the rules in Israel are similar in this regard to those in the US then what they are doing is clearly illegal. Likud raising money from Americans, if in compliance with campaign finance laws, is very different. Similarly, this goes way beyond a newspaper which happens to have foreign ownership endorsing a candidate.

As an added wrinkle, US non-profits cannot fund political activity beyond certain minimal limits. In fact, One Voice helpfully links to its 990s on its website where they checked the box saying that they do not support political activity. Going forward, at least, that is false.

Hi Rafi,

One more point. In the past Netanyahu has hired foreign advisers. Netanyahu paid them. But here, labor is not hiring foreign advisers. Labor is not paying them. They are being paid by foreign money. So it is not at all similar.
Kol tuv,
Rafi

that is a big difference. I definitely agree that this point is more indicative of foreign meddling than just hiring a foreign consultant