[EL] Congressional CR

[David Keating]

I agree, let the parties spend the money the way they want and let them raise more of it as proposed.  Half the states have no limits.

If it passes, next year they should remove the segregated account requirement and allow the parties to spend the funds without artificial spending limits.

After all, why do we want to incentivize cushier office space or ritzier conventions either?

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org<http://www.campaignfreedom.org>

From: Derek Muller [mailto:derek.muller at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:39 PM
To: David Keating
Cc: Ray La Raja; JBoppjr at aol.com; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Congressional CR

Without speaking to the merits about much of this proposal, who thought it would be a good idea to increase the amount of money to spent specifically on "election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings"? With all due respect to the practicing election lawyers that will benefit from segregated funds designed solely to give them more money, it strikes me that incentivizing litigation--and, more specifically, incentivizing political parties to seek still more judicial intervention in the political process--is a significant decision that, perhaps, merits additional discussion beyond the existing discussion about campaign finance. But perhaps I'm simply overlooking the true purpose and likely effect of this provision.
Derek T. Muller
Associate Professor of Law
Pepperdine University School of Law
24255 Pacific Coast Hwy.
Malibu, CA 90263
+1 310-506-7058
SSRN Author Page: http://ssrn.com/author=464341

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:12 AM, David Keating <dkeating at campaignfreedom.org<mailto:dkeating at campaignfreedom.org>> wrote:
Sounds right to me.

What, if any, significance do you think there to the omission of “which is solely to…” from the segregated account “used to defray expenses incurred with respect to the preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings?”  The other increased amounts use language that states “which is solely to….”

I’ve posted a redlined version of the proposed changes to the statute here (it makes it easier to follow what’s going on):
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/party-amendments.pdf

David
_________________________________________________
David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
703-894-6799<tel:703-894-6799> (direct) | 703-894-6800<tel:703-894-6800> | 703-894-6811<tel:703-894-6811> Fax
www.campaignfreedom.org<http://www.campaignfreedom.org>

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Ray La Raja
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:11 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com>
Cc: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] Congressional CR

My initial interpretation is that each of national committees will get (in addition to the current $32,400/year), the following:

-$97,200/year for building funds
-$97,200/year recount/legal funds

The national committees (DNC, RNC) will also get $97,000/year for nomination convention

By my calculation this indicates that the RNC or DNC could get as much as $648,000 per cycle from a single individual donor
The NRSC, NRCC, DSCC or DCCC could get as much as $453,600 per cycle from an individual donor (it is less because they don't get the convention donations)

Sound right to you?
-Ray

On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Ray La Raja <laraja at polsci.umass.edu<mailto:laraja at polsci.umass.edu>> wrote:

Here's the rider, passed to me by a journalist covering the story.

SEC. 101. SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO NATIONAL PARTIES TO SUPPORT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING CONVENTIONS, NATIONAL PARTY HEADQUARTERS BUILDINGS, AND RECOUNTS.
(a) Separate Limits.—Section 315(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30116(a)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: “, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;”;

(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: “, or, in the case of contributions made to any of the accounts described in paragraph (9), exceed 300 percent of the amount otherwise applicable under this subparagraph with respect to such calendar year;”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(9) An account described in this paragraph is any of the following accounts:

“(A) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (other than a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to a presidential nominating convention (including the payment of deposits) or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses, except that the aggregate amount of expenditures the national committee of a political party may make from such account may not exceed $20,000,000 with respect to any single convention.

“(B) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used solely to defray expenses incurred with respect to the construction, purchase, renovation, operation, and furnishing of one or more headquarters buildings of the party or to repay loans the proceeds of which were used to defray such expenses, or otherwise to restore funds used to defray such expenses (including expenses for obligations incurred during the 2-year period which ends on the date of the enactment of this paragraph).

“(C) A separate, segregated account of a national committee of a political party (including a national congressional campaign committee of a political party) which is used to defray expenses incurred with respect to the preparation for and the conduct of election recounts and contests and other legal proceedings.”.
(b) Conforming Amendment Relating To Determination Of Coordinated Expenditure Limitations.—Section 315(d) of such Act (52 U.S.C. 30116(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(5) The limitations contained in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection shall not apply to expenditures made from any of the accounts described in subsection (a)(9).”.
(c) Effective Date.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to funds that are solicited, received, transferred, or spent on or after the date of the enactment of this section.




On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:51 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com<mailto:JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

anyone know the details of this

Among the riders, the convention provision was a late arrival, added to the bill only hours before filing and a leadership effort to help each party raise up to $20 million to finance the quadrennial presidential events.
The donations would be reported publicly — unlike much of the undisclosed corporate money now involved in politics. But traditional caps are greatly relaxed to the point where a wealthy individual could give as much as $324,000 per year to a national party.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/11-trillion-spending-package-reflects-republican-priorities-113455.html#ixzz3LVEEZXus
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election


_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141210/7d8cf013/attachment.html>