[EL] Question about Crossroads AOR

[John Pomeranz]

Actually, I believe that American Crossroads is a federal
independent-expenditure-only political committee (unfortunately dubbed
"SuperPAC"), but Crossroads GPS, which paid for the anti-Warren ad in
question is a self-described 501(c)(4) -- permitted to make independent
expenditures but not a federal political committee.
 

John Pomeranz 
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 600 
Washington, DC  20036 
p: 202.328.3500 
f: 202.328.6918 
e: jpomeranz at harmoncurran.com 


________________________________

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Matthew Sanderson
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:17 PM
To: Rick Hasen
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Question about Crossroads AOR


I believe the answer is that FEC rules at 110.11 dictate that
disclaimers must be placed on any "public communication ... made by a
political committee." Because Crossroads is a Super PAC, it must place
the appropriate disclaimers on its ad (connoting sponsorship identity
and candidate authorization), even if the ad is not an independent
expenditure, electioneering communication, or "campaign ad," as you put
it.
 
So an ad can potentially feature disclaimers without being a
"coordinated communication" because the disclaimer rules and coordinated
communication test have different scopes.
 
Matt

 
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:


	copying to the listserv....
	Rick
	
	On 11/29/2011 9:35 AM, Bob Biersack wrote:
	> Hi Rick,
	> Sorry to send this to you directly - its really intended for
the listserv.  I have a question about one specific element in the
Crossroads AOR.  In question 2, they describe their intent to include
what amounts to "stand by your ad" language. (page 5 of the request) How
can including language that exists in the statute only for campaign ads
not be the functional equivalent of express advocacy? Doesn't this make
it susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation than an appeal to
vote for the candidate?
	>
	> Interesting that the burden of stand by your ad has now
apparently become a valuable branding technique. . .?
	>
	> Sent from my iPad
	
	--
	Rick Hasen
	Professor of Law and Political Science
	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
	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
	




-- 
www.PlayoffPAC.com <http://www.playoffpac.com/>  - Beat the BCS. Save
College Football.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111129/27f8ed53/attachment.html>