[EL] Dick Morris's foreign money claims
Steve Hoersting
hoersting at gmail.com
Mon Oct 15 09:29:53 PDT 2012
Joe,
I really don't know much about how to beef up audits or about the findings
in 2008. But among the few things I know are these:
There is such a thing as a materiality threshold in pursuing repayment or
denoting problems in a Presidential campaign audit. What amount
constitutes a "material" violation on $.75B in overall activity? $2M? $3M?
More?
There is much to be pursued by journalists and reformers in the allegations
as they stand now: the reported profile of the owner of the website, the
site's reported target audience, that the site redirects to the donate page
of an authorized committee.
That these questions aren't being pursued by journalists or reformers
vigorously, let alone at all -- how to put it? -- "meets the materiality
threshold" for double standards?
Steve
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Joseph Birkenstock <
jbirkenstock at capdale.com> wrote:
> Steve - serious question: if foreign credit card contributions to the
> Obama campaign really are a serious problem, why weren't any violations
> identifed in the FEC's audit of the 2008 campaign? (Rick links below to
> his blog post on the subject from April of this year, and - as I'm sure you
> already know - the report itself is available here:
> http://www.fec.gov/audits/2008/Obama_for_America/FinalAuditReportoftheCommission1206263.pdf
> .)
>
> We know the auditors saw much more detailed information about Obama's
> unitemized contributions than is available to the public via FEC reports -
> so are you suggesting that there's more to these allegations now than there
> was the last time we saw this movie? (And if so, what is it?)
>
> Or are you suggesting that the FEC's audit process needs to be beefed up?
> (And if so, how?)
>
> ________________________________
> Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
> Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
> One Thomas Circle, NW
> Washington, DC 20005
> (202) 862-7836
> www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
> *also admitted to practice in CA
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu on behalf of Steve
> Hoersting
> Sent: Mon 10/15/2012 10:46 AM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Dick Morris's foreign money claims
>
>
> Rick,
>
>
> 1. Are you calling for enhanced disclosure of contributions to authorized
> committees? -- because that is the allegation here. My memory is you're for
> enhanced disclosure of social welfare organizations and for removing the
> regulation at issue in Van Hollen v. FEC.
>
> 2. Things are evolving quickly. Is the GAI report evolving as quickly? Are
> you or others at, say, Politico, interested at all in the fact that the
> website Obama.com -- purportedly owned by a third-party and distributed
> throughout the world -- goes straight to the DONATE page at Obama Victory?
>
> 3. So, there is no "journalist[ic]" interest in "sensationalism," eh?
> Sticking to campaign finance and not Lindsay Lohan, I saw Palin's
> campaign-wardrobe budget lead the news for a full weekend one year. I saw
> sensationalism drive the news cycle for three days in October 2010: "The
> Chamber is using foreign money."
>
> I think someone needs to yawn, grab another mug of coffee and get about
> the business of exposing Morris and Breitbart for the hacks they really
> are. Easy enough to do, I'm sure...
>
> ...and so much more in keeping with the mission of the reform
> organizations and the bent of the nation's editorial boards.
>
> All the best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Steve,
> Three things.
> 1. I hope you will join me in supporting enhanced disclosure laws
> to ensure that foreign money is not secretly flowing into our elections.
> 2. I believe the reason you don't see a lot of discussion of this
> on the editorial pages is that there's really nothing new in the GAI
> report. Here's what I wrote about it in a recent Slate column <
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/will_republicans_accept_if_barack_obama_defeats_mitt_romney_.html>
> :
>
>
> This week features what conservative <
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/dubious-donations-peter-schweizer-speaks.php>
> blogs are touting <
> http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/obama-bundler-tied-to-chinese-government/>
> as an "explosive" new report <
> http://campaignfundingrisks.com/wp-content/themes/cfr/images/AmericaTheVulnerable.pdf>
> suggesting that the Obama campaign is illegally accepting massive foreign
> contributions via credit card. The so-called proof comes from a number of
> foreign visits to the Obama campaign website, the lack of any federal
> requirement to publicly disclose contributions from individuals who give
> less than $200 overall, and the Obama campaign's supposed failure to use
> credit card verification tools to make sure the contributions are coming
> from inside the United States.
>
> Never mind that the Obama campaign has denied similar
> reports in the past and has confirmed <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33935>
> it does use the verification tools; that an extensive Federal Election
> Commission audit of the 2008 Obama campaign found no evidence <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33193> of illegal foreign contributions;
> that foreign visits to the website does not mean that foreign contributions
> are being made; and that U.S. citizens (including those in the military)
> living abroad have the right to contribute to federal campaigns. The claims
> are a way to delegitimize the Obama campaign, even as Republican leaders in
> Congress stymie efforts to fix our broken disclosure laws <
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/07/campaign_finance_after_citizens_united_is_worse_than_watergate_.html>
> and argue for less disclosure of campaign finance information.
>
>
>
> 3. Dick Morris lacks fundamental credibility with journalists and
> others. So his sensationalism won't bring attention to an important issue.
> In fact, it will convince journalists to ignore the issue.
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/15/12 7:14 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
>
>
> http://www.dickmorris.com/is-obama-running-on-foreign-money-dick-morris-tv-video-alert/
>
>
> We often argue about corruption -- what makes up
> corruption, what kinds of corruption matter, and which do not.
>
> Given Judge Kavanaugh's discussion in Bluman, I get the
> feeling that this matter -- yet to be proved or discredited in any news
> outlet I follow -- would far outrank unlimited IEs by the local Right to
> Life, the US Chamber or even the dreaded Kochs.
>
>
> If we do not see meaningful discussion of this issue here
> and in the editorial pages, will it be fair to conclude, as many have
> surmised, that campaign-finance purists are campaign-finance
> instrumentalists or partisans?
>
> Or is the relative silence just more evidence that
> retribution, or the prospect of it, is real?
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's 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/>
> Now available: The Voting Wars: http://amzn.to/y22ZTv
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->
> 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.
> <-->
>
>
>
--
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121015/2ce4cd4b/attachment.html>
View list directory