First, what is the law?  There is a lot of it, and the details begin here: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml

Second: DC Circuit upheld ban on foreign campaigns contributions On August 8, 2011, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a law banning financial campaign contributions from foreigners. The suit was originally brought by two Canadian citizens, who argued that they should be able to contribute to political campaigns since they have visas to legally work and live in the US.

So now, who are asking the tough questions in the main-steam-media?  No one.  There are some in the peripheral media that are asking questions.  Regarding Mitt Romney's London and Israel fund raising trips, at least this article ASKS Questions and points out the dangers:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/foreign-money-for-m...

Foreign Money for Mitt?

Romney's international fundraisers aren't just about expats.

Mitt Romney has just completed an overseas trip that featured missteps and bumper-sticker foreign-policy pronouncements. It was clearly intended to shine a light on his accomplishments as coordinator of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and to burnish his foreign-policy credentials. It did neither, but its secondary purpose, to raise money for his campaign, was somewhat more successful. Mitt hosted a $25,000 per couple fundraiser that raised $2 million while in London and followed up on that with a $50,000 per couple event in Israel that raised $1 million.

...

The prohibition on foreign involvement in U.S. political campaigns is quite broad and includes foreign-owned companies and even the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign firms. But there are nevertheless some enormous loopholes in the law seeking to limit access to overseas money. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations can spend unlimited money on Political Action Committees. Because many large corporations operate internationally, the ability to monitor money flows becomes problematic, particularly in terms of defining what actually constitutes an American company. As a general rule of thumb, a company must be legally registered in the United States to comply, but some corporations that are located in part overseas for tax reasons can also make the cut. Because of the complexity in determining what is foreign, in many cases the candidate’s campaign staff itself must report suspected infractions, and there is inevitably considerable doubt that the self-policing is very effective.

Another channel for foreign money to enter the system is through the recently created Super PACs. Romney’s principal Super PAC is Restore Our Future, while Obama’s is Priorities USA. Super PACs are legally independent political organizations, not tied to any specific campaign or candidate, so they are able to take in money and disburse it without disclosing the source of the funds. If the Federal Election Commission were to become aware of foreign money actually winding up in a candidate’s coffers such contributions would be illegal, but as currently constituted the flow of money from the Super PACs is not normally broken down to indicate the original sources of funds.

...

Finally, there is money laundering. It is impossible to estimate how much money from foreign sources winds up in bank accounts of American citizens and corporations only to be recycled to use in influence buying campaigns focused on U.S. politicians. FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has suggested that considerable money has circulated in that fashion, most particularly on behalf of Turkey and Israel.

All of the above is not to suggest that the United States is awash with foreign money that is altering the course of elections or adversely influencing policy, and it must be noted that President Barack Obama is also seeking funds overseas, including in China. But the decision by the Mitt Romney campaign to openly stage major fundraisers abroad is troubling. It is perhaps a recognition that Romney is seeking to become president with the support of a financial-services constituency that is both international in nature and which shares here and abroad a certain common viewpoint on regulation, or lack thereof. They have a vested interest in being heard by a politician who hopes to take the helm of the world’s only superpower. Bankers have been rightly criticized for furthering their own interests while simultaneously enabling a number of national economies to slide into recession, damaging the livelihoods of millions. So the real question will have to be, who will own Mitt Romney if he is elected?

Why were the Press escorted from the room before the Question & Answer sessi...

Jerusalem (CNN) – Mitt Romney's presidential campaign reversed its decision to bar reporters from an upcoming fund-raiser in Jerusalem, saying on Sunday it will now allow a pool of journalists to cover the presumptive GOP nominee's remarks.

The reporters, however, will be escorted out before Romney takes questions from the audience during the event on Monday.

We know the Banksters and George Soros own Barack Obama, he sold out in 2008.  Atty Genl Eric Holder has done nothing to prosecute the Criminal on Wall St.

Here are some of those backing Mittster in 2012: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00...    Then there are the "independent expenditures":  http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indexp_indiv.php?cycle=2012&i... 

Sold OUT - We have been SOLD Out by both "leading" candidates.

How to we NON-violently take our country back?