[EL] Fwd: Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center ChallengeLegality of Pr...
JBoppjr at aol.com
JBoppjr at aol.com
Tue May 17 15:20:17 PDT 2011
Thank you David for the update and correction. I apologize that sometimes
I may over react when someone calls me a criminal for what I am doing, when
they really know nothing about it, as Fred so obviously did not. A few
question by Fred first might have cleared up some of the factual issues but
they prefer to throw accusations first. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 5/17/2011 6:15:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
DBecker at pewtrusts.org writes:
While Jim’s posts are entertaining in their high abuse/substance ratio, I’
ll simply note that Pew has not spent a dime on any work in the campaign
finance arena for many years.
David J. Becker
Project Director, Election Initiatives
The Pew Center on the States
901 E Street NW | 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20004
p: 202.552.2136 | f: 202.552.2299
e: _dbecker at pewtrusts.org_ (mailto:dbecker at pewtrusts.org) |
_www.pewtrusts.org_ (http://www.pewtrusts.org/)
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 5:54 PM
To: tpotter at capdale.com; rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center
ChallengeLegality of Pr...
Now Trevor is weighing in on behalf of his clients and co-PEW-money
recipients to claim that "I’m sure he’ll next be telling us that the new PAC
has nothing to do with the RNC (of which he is a leading Member)." Since
when is control by one organization of another determined by a participant
being a "leading member" of an organization. I am a leading member of the
Republican National Lawyers Association, Federalist Society, Uniform Law
Commission, James Madison Center for Free Speech, National Right to Life
Committee, National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled,
Indiana Republican Party, etc. Next Trevor, who loves to throw arround that
everyone else is a criminal who does political spending he doesn't like, will
"be telling us" that RSPAC is controlled by all of these organizations that
I am a "leading member" of. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 5/17/2011 5:42:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tpotter at capdale.com writes:
I so respect these measured, lawyerly, communications on the List Serve. “
Fred is so ignorant”, Jim posts. That’s right, Fred Wertheimer has no
idea what’s in McCain-Feingold, and is ignorant of federal campaign finance
law. Of course, I can see why Jim feels this way—it’s only a federal
statute (with what Jim always reminds everyone is “criminal penalties”) —no
one really needs to look too closely. The fix is already in, after all! To
quote Jim from yesterday:
"Who cares," Mr. Bopp said of good government groups that may oppose his
latest enterprise. "The Supreme Court doesn't care, and I don't care, and
the [Federal Election Commission] doesn't care. No one that matters cares."
_http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/16/super-pac-or-pack-of-trouble/_
(http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/16/super-pac-or-pack-of-trouble/)
I’m sure he’ll next be telling us that the new PAC has nothing to do with
the RNC (of which he is a leading Member) or the other national party
committees (which are featured in his press release). I personally expect this
venture ends as well as the attempt to get the federal courts to declare
soft money legal after all in RNC v FEC…
Trevor Potter
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 5:25 PM
To: rhasen at law.uci.edu; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Fwd: Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center
ChallengeLegality of Pr...
Fred is so ignorant. The RSPAC is a federal PAC and therefore
contributions to it are HARD MONEY which political parties and candidates can
solicit. It is an IE-PAC which the FEC says and federal courts have required have
not source or amount limits on contributions. And it is set up by Roger,
Solomon and I and is not controlled by anyone but us. More bluster from
the guys that think all political spending is illegal. Jim Bopp
In a message dated 5/17/2011 5:00:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
in response to Steve Gold's post, see below (not yet up on the CLC or D21
websites).
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center Challenge Legality of Proposed Soft
Money Activities by RNC Shadow Group Formed by RNC Committeeman James Bopp
Date:
Tue, 17 May 2011 13:54:01 -0700
From:
_wertheimer at democracy21.org_ (mailto:wertheimer at democracy21.org)
_<wertheimer at democracy21.org>_ (mailto:wertheimer at democracy21.org)
Reply-To:
_ekesler at democracy21.org_ (mailto:ekesler at democracy21.org)
_<ekesler at democracy21.org>_ (mailto:ekesler at democracy21.org)
To:
Hasen, Richard _<rhasen at law.uci.edu>_ (mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu)
Democracy 21 - Campaign Legal Center
_________________________________________________________________
Press Release, May 17, 2011, _www.democracy21.org_
(http://www.democracy21.org/)
_________________________________________________________________
Democracy 21 and Campaign Legal Center Challenge Legality of Proposed Soft
Money Activities by RNC Shadow Group Formed by RNC Committeeman James
Bopp
Statement of Fred Wertheimer, President of Democracy 21 and
Trevor Potter, President of Campaign Legal Center and former FEC Chairman
Recent press reports have revealed the formation of a new "Republican
Super PAC" whose planned operations would appear to violate multiple federal
campaign finance laws because of the involvement of members of the RNC in
establishing and controlling the PAC and because of the planned use of
federal officeholders and candidates to solicit unlimited contributions for the
PAC. Such solicitations by federal officeholders and candidates are
explicitly prohibited by provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that
have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
According to recent press reports, three members of the Republican
National Committee - Indiana RNC Committeeman James Bopp Jr, Oregon RNC
Committeeman Solomon Yue and Louisiana State party Chairman Roger Villere - have
established a new political committee called “Republican Super PAC.”
They have indicated that the purpose of this PAC is to make independent
expenditures in federal elections and that it will use funds solicited in
unlimited amounts by, among others, federal candidates who will benefit from
those expenditures.
In our view, the proposed efforts of this RNC “shadow group” would
violate multiple provisions of the federal campaign finance laws.
First, this constitutes an illegal scheme to violate the ban on the
raising or spending of soft money by national party committees. Second, the
proposed activities would violate the ban on federal officeholders soliciting
unlimited soft money donations in connection with a federal election. Each
of these bans has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and neither of them was
affected by the Court’s decision in Citizens United.
Indeed, in RNC v. FEC, Mr. Bopp failed in his attempt to overturn the
decision in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the constitutionality of both the
ban on political party soft money and the ban on federal officeholders and
candidates soliciting unlimited contributions.
Mr. Bopp urged a three-judge lower court to declare provisions of the soft
money ban unconstitutional but the lower court unanimously rejected the
argument and the Supreme Court last year summarily affirmed the lower court
decision. The party soft money ban remains the law.
Mr. Bopp is now apparently attempting to ignore the statutory ban on
political party soft money and to overturn by fiat the Supreme Court decision.
The soft money ban prohibits the RNC “or any officer or agent acting on
behalf of ” the RNC or “any entity that is directly or indirectly
established, financed, maintained or controlled” by the RNC from soliciting,
receiving, spending or directing to another person any contributions that are not
subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the
law.
The “Republican Super PAC” has been set up by three members of the RNC,
including Mr. Bopp, who is, according to press reports, unveiling the scheme
in a presentation to all RNC members tomorrow.
Press reports also indicate that party officials and agents will raise
funds for the “Republican Super PAC,” in unlimited amounts. According to an
article in POLITICO:
“We are not going to do any fundraising,” Bopp told POLITICO. “We are
harnessing the fundraising operations of those entities, the RNC and all the
state parties and federal candidates, who will be raising money first for
themselves and then they would tell their donors, if they have extra money,
to send it to the Republican Super PAC.”
Given these circumstances, this PAC is exactly the type of group that is
described by the law as an entity “that is directly or indirectly
established, financed, maintained or controlled” by a national party committee and
that is a group controlled by “agents” of the RNC who are acting on behalf
of the RNC.
As such, the soft money ban applies directly to “Republican Super PAC”
and the PAC is subject to the contribution limits that apply to national
party committees. It would be illegal for the PAC to accept, or for any agent
of the national party to solicit, a contribution in excess of the limits
that apply to contributions that can be accepted by the national parties.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus should be on notice that it would be a
violation of law for the RNC and “Republican Super PAC” to solicit or receive any
corporate or labor union contributions, and a violation of the law for the
RNC and "Republican SuperPac" to solicit or receive contributions from an
individual that in the aggregate exceed $30,800 per year.
Mr. Bopp has also said that he intends to have federal candidates solicit
unlimited funds for “Republican Super PAC.”
Every member of Congress and every federal candidate should be on notice
that it would be a violation of the law for them to solicit unlimited
contributions for “Republican Super PAC” or for any other Super PAC.
According to press reports, “Republican Super PAC” is taking the position
that it is intending to make only “independent” expenditures, and
therefore can accept contributions that are not subject to any limitations. (The
DC Circuit Court of Appeals held in SpeechNow v. FEC that contributions to
an independent expenditure-only PAC are not subject to contribution
limits).
The federal campaign finance law prohibits federal officeholders and
candidates from soliciting or directing any funds in connection with a federal
election “unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions and
reporting requirements” of the law.
If “Republican Super PAC” raises unlimited contributions under SpeechNow,
it will be raising funds that are not “subject to the limitations” of the
federal law.
Even if it is permissible for “Republican Super PAC” to accept such
unlimited funds, it is not permissible for federal candidates and officeholders
to solicit such funds as they are not “subject to the limitations” of the
federal law.
Any contrary view would lead to the absurd and obviously corrupting result
that an incumbent federal officeholder can solicit a $1 million or $5
million donation to “Republican Super PAC” with the understanding that the PAC
will then spend the money on “independent” expenditures to benefit that
officeholder.
The D.C. Circuit in the SpeechNow case found that a PAC which makes only
independent expenditures can accept unlimited contributions on the grounds
that such contributions do not pose any threat of corruption. SpeechNow,
however, said it operated wholly independently of candidates and parties, and
the court did not consider a situation where the contributions raised by
the PAC are to be solicited by federal candidates. There is nothing in the
court’s opinion to suggest that it would permit solicitations of unlimited
amounts by federal candidates.
Federal law prohibits federal candidates and officeholders from soliciting
funds that are not subject to any contribution limit. That provision was
upheld by the Supreme Court in the McConnell case and even Justice Kennedy
- who otherwise dissented in that case, and who subsequently authored the
Citizens United decision- said this solicitation ban was the one
provision that “satisfies Buckley’s anticorruption rationale and the First
Amendment guarantee.”
As Justice Kennedy wrote, “The making of a solicited gift is a quid both
to the recipient of the money and to the one who solicits the payment (by
granting his request). Rules governing candidates’ or officeholders’
solicitation of contributions are, therefore, regulations governing their
receipt of quids. This regulation fits under Buckley’s anticorruption rationale.”
Any federal candidate or officeholder who solicits unlimited contributions
to the “Republican Super PAC” or any other super PAC will be violating
federal law.
# # #
Released: Tuesday, May 17, 2011
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,
we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise,
any tax advice contained in this communication (including any
attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting,
marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related
matter addressed herein.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient only. It is
from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,
copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication
by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110517/3fadaa3d/attachment.html>
View list directory