[EL] Dick Morris's foreign money claims

[Steve Hoersting]

Duly noted. I hear that is the title.

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com>wrote:

>  It should be noted that this is the same Dick Morris who is currently
> plugging a book with the unironic title, *Here Come the Black Helicopters*,
> in which he reveals Obama's secret plan to create a one-world government in
> which we will pay all our taxes to the UN.
>
>
>
> Mark Schmitt
> Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org>
> 202/246-2350
> gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
> @mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
> On 10/15/2012 3:09 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://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
>



-- 
Stephen M. Hoersting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20121015/b63ba641/attachment.html>