[EL] Dick Morris's foreign money claims
Steve Hoersting
hoersting at gmail.com
Mon Oct 15 12:09:21 PDT 2012
Before you go back to work, please send me the article where these
allegations of 2012 have been closely and competently reviewed and found
lacking. I began my post saying I haven't seen it.
I'd like to read more about it -- that's been my point all along,
Thanks, Joe,
Steve
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Joseph Birkenstock <
jbirkenstock at capdale.com> wrote:
> I'm writing from the certainty that these allegations have been closely
> and competently reviewed and found lacking. As for the rest ... well, I'm
> going back to work.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, "Steve Hoersting" <hoersting at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> You're talking 2008. This is 2012, and you're basing your entire argument
> on reporting thresholds from an FEC formula.
>
> Look at all you are ignoring to wrap yourself in the certainty there's
> nothing to see here.
>
> Yours is a ripeness argument: You will welcome press accounts of this
> matter after the FEC has run its models and not before. Nice political
> tactic to deflect attention, "du jour," as I think you put it.
>
> You write as if you've never heard of Hsi Lai or the Thompson hearings. In
> fact, I remember reactions much like yours before those matters fully saw
> the light of day.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Joseph Birkenstock <
> jbirkenstock at capdale.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Steve – helpfully, the FEC posts its materiality thresholds from
>> 2009-10 here: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/Audit_Procedures.pdf.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Not so helpfully, at page 5 those procedures confirm that a matter will
>> be addressed with respect to prohibited contributions if: ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> • the dollar value of the apparent prohibited contributions is greater
>> than [REDACTED] of the total reported amount of contributions from
>> individuals (as reported on Line 11(a)(iii) of the Detailed Summary Page of
>> FEC Form 3)****
>>
>> AND****
>>
>> • the dollar value of the apparent prohibited contributions exceeds
>> [REDACTED].****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> So while I presume neither one of us knows the actual figures behind
>> those redactions (I sure don’t, but I’d love to), it does appear that (1)
>> at least as of two years ago, the relevant materiality threshold involved
>> both a proportional test and an absolute dollar test; and that (2) those
>> foreign contribution issues, if any, that were identified in the audit of
>> the 2008 Obama campaign fell below either or both of those tests.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> OTOH, the same document also explains that: ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Any matter, *whether or not it meets the materiality threshold for
>> inclusion in the interim*
>>
>> *audit report or referral to the Office of General Counsel*, can still
>> be referred to OGC if the****
>>
>> auditor suspects there is a Knowing and Willful Violation of the Act (2
>> U.S.c. 437g (a)(5)****
>>
>> and (d)).****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> (Emphasis added.) So if there had been a reasonable suspicion that the
>> Obama campaign was knowingly participating in a scheme to raise foreign
>> money through unitemized credit card contributions, Audit could have – and
>> in my experience, undoubtedly would have – referred that issue for further
>> enforcement attention regardless of the proportion or absolute amount of
>> money involved. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> So especially on that basis, I just don’t see the double standard – but I
>> do recognize that “failure to condemn [manufactured outrage du jour]” is a
>> time-honored and perfectly valid political tactic and I wish you well with
>> it.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Best,****
>>
>> Joe****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Steve Hoersting [mailto:hoersting at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, October 15, 2012 12:30 PM
>> *To:* Joseph Birkenstock
>> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Dick Morris's foreign money claims****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> 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****
>>
>> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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
>
>
> <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> 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/ffb72718/attachment.html>
View list directory