[EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 5/17/11

Tue May 17 15:22:29 PDT 2011

Jim argues in effect: "This 'soft money' is now 'hard money' . He says
this is so because the courts have said the statutory requirement that
only hard money ( no corporate, no union, only up to $5,000 from an
individual) may be accepted by a federal PAC cannot be applied to an
entity that makes only independent expenditures. This does not change
the nature of the money, or the solicitation ban -only the ability of IE
Pacs to accept and spend it. 

As Steve points out, Section  441i(e)(a)(1) of the Statute prohibits
solicitations "unless the funds are subject to the limitations,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act." SuperPac funds
are subject to the reporting requirements of the Act, but no longer to
the "limits and prohibitions of the Act. They therefore may not be
solicited by federal officeholders, candidates, parties, or party
officials or agents. 

Trevor

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 6:12 PM
To: steve at actblue.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 5/17/11

    Very perceptive Steve. RSPAC complies with all applicable
limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the Act. Not
only have the federal courts ruled that the contribution limits and
corporate prohibitions of the FECA are unconstitutional as applied to
IE-PACs, the FEC has agreed with this and in several advisory opinions
have said so. See FEC AOs 2010-09 (Club for Growth) and 2010-11
(Commonsense Ten). So under the FECA, there are no contribution limits
on IE-PACs required by the FECA and, therefore, none to comply with.
This is hard money, because this is a federal PAC, so federal
officeholders can solicit these funds, just like they do for state and
national parties that do independent expenditures on their behalf.  

    Thank you for the compliment, but here I do not think I am pushing
any envelop.  I am simply recognizing that two completely legal
activities can work together (1) that there are not limits on
contributions to federal IE PACs, and (2) that federal candidates and
political parties can raise money for any federally-compliment entity,
including entities that do IE in favor of the very candidate raising the
money, to conclude that federal candidates and political parties can
raise money for IE-PACs. Jim

In a message dated 5/17/2011 4:57:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
steve at actblue.com writes:

	As always, I'm impressed with Jim Bopp's ability to push the
envelope.  Judging from the Politico article, it appears his legal
theory is that the funds solicited by federal officeholders to the
Republican Super PAC are raised in accordance with the limitations and
prohibitions of BCRA since super PACs were freed from these restrictions
in the SpeechNow.org case.  Therefore, the solicitations don't run afoul
of 2 U.S.C. 441i(e).

	I wonder if Jim would be willing to share his thinking with the
list.  And I wonder if other listers think this theory is correct.
441i(e)(a)(1) prohibits solicitations "unless the funds are subject to
the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act."
Jim is correct when he says the funds will be reported, but the funds
are not subject to the amount limitations and source prohibitions since
the DC District Court declared those limits unconstitutional as applied
to contributions to super PACs.  It does not seem to me unconstitutional
to apply the plain language of 441i(e) to federal officeholders'
solicitations, even for contributions to super PACs.

	--
	Steven Gold
	General Counsel
	ActBlue
	steve at actblue.com
	617.517.7636
	www.actblue.com <http://www.actblue.com/> 

	On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Rick Hasen
<rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

	May 17, 2011 

	"GOP 'Super PAC' seeks surplus cash"

	Politico reports
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55091.html> .

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:30 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019514.html>  

	"Business groups to Obama: Drop order on contractor disclosure"

	The Hill reports
<http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/161573-business-coalition-tells-
obama-to-abandon-draft-contractor-order> .

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:27 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019513.html>  

	Why is Kloppenberg Continuing the Recount?

	In her own words
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/121958509.html> :

	The recount has uncovered significant and widespread errors and
anomalies in the securing of ballots and recording of votes on election
day. There have been changes to vote totals in every county due to
miscounted or missing votes.

	Many bags of ballots have been found to be essentially unsealed
or ripped to the extent that ballot security is compromised. A stack of
ballots, unbagged, was found in a clerk's office. Ballots were found in
voting machines where they had been left. Seal numbers on ballot bags
and tags were not recorded in the inspector's reports, creating doubt
that the bags were properly sealed on election night.

	Touchscreen voting machine tapes were missing votes, or worse,
were entirely blank and had to be reproduced from machine memory to
allow a recount of the vote.

	The most widespread and systemic errors and anomalies have been
discovered in Waukesha County. That county was already under a cloud,
and this recount has revealed more questions about elections practices
there. 

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:22 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019512.html>  

	More Coverage of Eighth Circuit Opinion

	WSJ
<http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/05/16/eighth-circuit-companies-must-discl
ose-campaign-spending/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Flaw%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Law+Blog%29> ; AP
<http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/05/16/general-mn-corporate-donation
s-disclosure_8469018.html> ; Star Tribune
<http://www.startribune.com/politics/121895804.html> .

	It is interesting that all of these reports focus on the
disclosure issue. What I think is at least equally important is the
Court's decision to uphold the ban
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019498.html>  on direct corporate
contributions to candidates.

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:15 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019511.html>  

	"Public Citizen Seeks Silent Citizens"

	Eric Wang has written this oped
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/16/public-citizen-seeks-si
lent-citizens/print/>  in the Washington Times.

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:05 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019510.html>  

	Three Judge Federal District Court Issues Opinion in
Redistricting Challenge in Mississippi

	See here
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/55555733/Order-NAACP-v-Haley-Barbour-Et-Al> .

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 08:01 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019509.html>  

	"IRS Seeks to Impose Gift Taxes on 501(c)(4) Donors"

	Harmon, Curran offers this eUpdate
<http://www.harmoncurran.com/?fuseaction=eUpdate.getArchives&newsletter_
id=89> .

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:57 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019508.html>  

	"At fundraiser, Obama introduced by civil rights hero who
pleaded guilty in campaign finance probe"

	Josh Gerstein blogs
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0511/At_fundraiser_Obama_int
roduced_by_civil_rights_hero_who_pled_guilty_in_campaign_finance_probe.h
tml> .

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:50 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019507.html>  

	Quote of the Day

	"Colbert Super PAC will also pay usual and normal administrative
expenses, including but not limited to luxury hotel stays, private jet
travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."

	---Colbert Super PAC Advisory Opinion Request
<http://www.colbertpac.com/AO_REQUEST.PDF>  to FEC

	Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:48 AM
<http://electionlawblog.org/archives/019506.html>  

	-- 
	Rick Hasen
	Visiting Professor
	UC Irvine School of Law
	401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
	Irvine, CA 92697-8000
	949.824.3072 - office
	949.824.0495 - fax
	rhasen at law.uci.edu
	http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html

	William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
	Loyola Law School
	http://electionlawblog.org <http://electionlawblog.org/> 

	_______________________________________________
	Law-election mailing list
	Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
	http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

	_______________________________________________
	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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110517/a6762874/attachment.html>