[EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?

[Doug Hess]

Not sure I can agree on the "no matter to what ends" language (by agree, I
mean thinking through my own views, not what this or that court has said).
Surely there is some line, where if the fundraiser is not taking money for
their own office or own campaign, they are raising money for mobilization
and public organizing that is not candidate focused. I guess the area in
between is when they are raising money that then supports another
candidate. I.e., three scenarios:

1) donor --> official --> official's election campaign
2) donor --> official --> another person's election campaign
3) donor --> official --> organizing the public on issues

The first seems bad, the second I'd be concerned about as it quickly could
equal the first, but the third one doesn't strike me as necessarily corrupt
or appearing corrupt (although it could need regulating to keep it "clean")
. Presumably wealthy donors, in the end, have plenty of ways of "buying
off" the fundraiser or organization's board/staff through other donations
nowadays.

Doug


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Paul Ryan <PRyan at campaignlegalcenter.org>wrote:

> Doug,****
>
> ** **
>
> You wonder, in your email, whether President Obama plans to help raise
> funds for OFA while in office.  The President “announced the relaunch of
> his remaining campaign apparatus as a new tax-exempt group called
> Organizing for Action . . . .”  (
> http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/obama-campaign-to-relaunch-as-tax-exempt-group-86375.html)
> If press accounts are accurate, the President and his political team will
> be very involved in all aspects of running OFA and this presumably includes
> fundraising for the group.****
>
> ** **
>
> My concern/objection is that an officeholder will be soliciting very large
> (i.e., unlimited) contributions from unlimited sources (e.g., individuals,
> corporations, unions, foreign nationals—quite possibly with business before
> the officeholder) and that the law doesn’t even require public disclosure
> of these contributions/sources.   (Though OFA is apparently planning to
> voluntarily disclose some degree of information about its donors, other
> officeholders may emulate this strategy without the voluntary disclosure.)
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> As I explained in my email to the listserv yesterday, the Supreme Court
> has recognized, in upholding limits on candidate/officeholder fundraising
> and related disclosure requirements, that unlimited officeholder
> fundraising gives rise to “corruption or the appearance of corruption”
> “regardless of the ends to which those funds are ultimately put.”  I agree
> with the Court on this point.  In my view, officeholder fundraising for a
> 501(c)(4) dedicated to promoting that officeholder’s political agenda gives
> rise to precisely the same threat of corruption as officeholder fundraising
> for his/her reelection campaign.  The threat of corruption exists
> “regardless of the ends to which those funds are ultimately put.”****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul Seamus Ryan****
>
> Senior Counsel****
>
> The Campaign Legal Center****
>
> 215 E Street NE****
>
> Washington, DC 20002****
>
> Ph. (202) 736-2200 ext. 214****
>
> Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315****
>
> Fax (202) 736-2222****
>
> Website: http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/****
>
> Blog: http://www.clcblog.org/****
>
> To sign up for the CLC Blog, visit:
> http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/index.php?option=com_forme&fid=1&Itemid=63
> ****
>
> Follow us on Twitter @CampaignLegal <http://bit.ly/j8Q1bg> ****
>
> Become a fan on Facebook <http://on.fb.me/jroDv2>****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of *Doug Hess
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:54 AM
> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] OFA: A Shot Heard 'round the World?****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> I don't understand the objection to an organization (the new OFA) that
> promotes mobilization around community and national issues receiving
> donations. If the members don't like who funds the group, they won't fund
> it (i.e., donate or join it) either. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I guess for appearances, Obama's involvement raises questions, but there
> are ways to limit that involvement in reality and in appearance. It will be
> interesting to see if he plans to help raise funds for it while in office.
> If it endorses, then things are trickier, I guess. But a 501(c)4
> organization (I think that is what it is) can only inform members of its
> endorsement, right? And it would be odd for a sitting president to endorse
> many people in a primary fight in a systematic way (FDR learned that) and
> even odder that he would endorse members of the opposite party. So, what is
> the concern? That people may organize and a president encourage it?****
>
>
> On another topic: It is interesting to note that an extra-party
> organization is needed to do more creative political organizing in American
> politics. ****
>
> ** **
>
> -Doug ****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130206/2773025e/attachment.html>