[EL] Congressional CR

Wed Dec 10 09:59:25 PST 2014

Derek,

I have no inside information as to the making of these amendments. (I am
absolutely for them, however; they are needed.)

But as to your question about whether it is a "good idea" to expand limits
for these specific purposes (and to provide reporting specifically for the
same) -- rather than to lift limits to party committees, generally -- was
likely done to assuage the camp who thinks *enough money* has gone into
campaigns in recent years. I am betting it was an attempt to reassure those
opposed to *more money in campaigns* that these funds would go to specific
purposes that have long been anemic since the passing of BCRA (the building
fund increase, for example, is sorely needed) and would not go into
increased advertising.

(David may have just said the same thing in his email. But I'll hit SEND
here without skimming his, just the same).

Best,

Steve

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Derek Muller <derek.muller at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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> 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 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
>>
>> www.campaignfreedom.org
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* 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
>> *Cc:* 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> 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 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
>> http://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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> 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
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Steve Hoersting
CENTER for COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 S. West Street
Suite 201
Alexandria, Va. 22314
(703) 894-6800
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141210/dcc4ca0f/attachment.html>