[EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500 companies

Mon Jan 13 05:57:24 PST 2014

Or perhaps the agency statutorily empowered to interpret the law (2 USC
437c) will conclude that the prohibition does not apply to the transaction
at issue since Chevron has stated that the contribution was make by a
corporation (legal person) that is not a government contractor.

Dave Mason

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Craig Holman <holman at aol.com> wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
>  I also note that Public Citizen and others have a complaint pending
> against Chevron for its $2.5 million contribution to Boehner's super PAC,
> the Congressional Leadership Fund, for violating the federal law designed
> to protect the integrity of the governmental contracting process. 2 U.S.C.
> 441c prohibits federal contractors from making campaign contributions to
> candidates, parties and PACs, including super PACs.
>
>  2 U.S.C. 441c reads in part:
>
> (a) Prohibition
> It shall be unlawful for any person—
> (1) who enters into any contract with the United States or any department
> or agency thereof either for the rendition of personal services or
> furnishing any material, supplies, or equipment to the United States or any
> department or agency thereof or for selling any land or building to the
> United States or any department or agency thereof, if payment for the
> performance of such contract or payment for such material, supplies,
> equipment, land, or building is to be made in whole or in part from funds
> appropriated by the Congress, at any time between the commencement of
> negotiations for and the later of
> (A) the completion of performance under; or
> (B) the termination of negotiations for, such contract or furnishing of
> material, supplies, equipment, land, or buildings, directly or indirectly
> to make any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise
> expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political
> party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any
> political purpose or use; or
> (2) knowingly to solicit any such contribution from any such person for
> any such purpose during any such period.
>
> This complaint is pending before the Federal Election Commission. I am
> most curious to see if the new FEC decides not to enforce federal law in
> this case as well.
>
>
>  Craig Holman, Ph.D.
> Government Affairs Lobbyist
> Public Citizen
> 215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
> Washington, D.C. 20003
> T-(202) 454-5182
> C-(202) 905-7413
> F-(202) 547-7392
> Holman at aol.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beckel, Michael <mbeckel at publicintegrity.org>
> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; law-election at UCI.edu <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> Sent: Sat, Jan 11, 2014 1:02 pm
> Subject: [EL] Corporate contributions to super PACs from Fortune 500
> companies
>
>   Clearly, many people have been debating the role of corporate spending
> since Citizens United, but the assertion, made by Prof. Gora, that "not a
> single Fortune 500 company [has] spent a single dollar to support a super
> PAC" is demonstrably false.
>
>  For instance, in October of 2012, Chevron<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/385.html>
>  contributed $2.5 million<http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?13962172773> to
> the Congressional Leadership Fund, which aimed to boost House Republicans.
>
>  Similarly, in 2010, the American Financial Group<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/3108.html>contributed
> $400,000 <http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?10931311093> to the
> pro-GOP American Crossroads super PAC, and MGM Resorts International<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2013/snapshots/10269.html>contributed
> $300,000 <http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?11930538937> to the
> pro-Democratic Patriot Majority PAC.
>
>  Some other high-profile corporate donors, some of which are Fortune
> 1,000 companies, include<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/11/05/11689/mystery-firm-elections-top-corporate-donor-53-million> the
> Apollo Group, B/E Aerospace, QC Holdings, White Castle and 7-Eleven.
>
>  I'll be the first to note that individuals have been larger boosters<http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/12/20/11970/top-25-super-pac-donors-2012-election-cycle>of super PACs than corporations, but some well-known companies have been
> taking the leap into the super PAC waters.
>
>  Regards,
>
>  Michael Beckel
> Reporter
> Center for Public Integrity
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu <
> law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 11, 2014 12:27 PM
> *To:* law-election at UCI.edu
> *Subject:* [EL] ELB News and Commentary 1/11/14
>
>   <http://electionlawblog.org/>
>   “Bozeman legislative candidate asks court to halt vote-reporting law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57881>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:25 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57881> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  The Missoulian<http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/bozeman-legislative-candidate-asks-court-to-halt-vote-reporting-law/article_b2096482-7a53-11e3-8a52-001a4bcf887a.html>:
> “A Bozeman legislative candidate has asked a federal court to temporarily
> block enforcement of a new state law that requires published campaign
> materials about a legislator’s record to include every vote taken by the
> lawmaker on that issue.”
> Chances of this challenge’s success: sky high
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57881&title=%E2%80%9CBozeman%20legislative%20candidate%20asks%20court%20to%20halt%20vote-reporting%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> “In Defense of ‘Super PACs’ and of the First Amendment”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57879>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:23 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57879> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  Joel Gora has posed this draft
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2376894>on SSRN (*Seton
> Hall Law Review*).  Here is the abstract:
>
> This article is a defense of “Super PACs” and of the First Amendment
> principles that they embody, namely, that we need a robust, wide-open and
> uninhibited discussion of politics and government in order to make our
> democracy work. Like the famous Citizens United ruling in 2010, Super PACs
> have gotten a bad press and have been widely condemned as threats to
> democracy. But Super PACs are really nothing new. They trace their origins
> back to Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 free speech
> ruling which rejected any justification for limiting the independent
> expenditures for political speech. Thus, the day after Buckley, individuals
> and groups were free to spend whatever they wished to support or oppose
> political candidates. Whether they were allowed to join together for such
> purposes was less clear. But Citizens United removed any lingering doubt by
> holding that any speaker – individual, corporate, union, non-profit – was
> free to make independent expenditures without prohibition or limitation.
> Based on those principles, a federal appeals court easily and unanimously
> ruled that what one person or group could do individually, several people
> or groups could do cooperatively, namely, pool their resources to get out
> their common message. That is a Super PAC.
> As a result, Super PACs played a noticeable role in the 2012 federal
> elections. But despite popular misconception, they did not dominate or
> control those elections, accounting for only 10 percent of the campaign
> spending, almost all contributions to them were fully and publically
> disclosed, and almost no corporations played any role in any such Super PAC
> spending. Indeed, so far as is known not a single Fortune 500 company spent
> a single dollar to support a Super PAC. Rather, Super PACs enabled more
> speech and debate in our political process, a result to be desired most
> significantly under the First Amendment. So, rather than being a threat to
> democracy, Super PACs have been a boon.
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57879&title=%E2%80%9CIn%20Defense%20of%20%E2%80%98Super%20PACs%E2%80%99%20and%20of%20the%20First%20Amendment%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> “U.S. justices agree to hear challenge to Ohio speech law”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57877>
> Posted on January 11, 2014 9:17 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57877> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  Reuters reports<http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/10/us-usa-court-freespeech-idUSBREA091AI20140110>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57877&title=%E2%80%9CU.S.%20justices%20agree%20to%20hear%20challenge%20to%20Ohio%20speech%20law%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> Republican FEC Commissioners Issue Statement on Why Crossroads GPS Need
> Not Register as Political Committee <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57875>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:23 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57875> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  See here <http://eqs.fec.gov/eqsdocsMUR/14044350970.pdf>.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57875&title=Republican%20FEC%20Commissioners%20Issue%20Statement%20on%20Why%20Crossroads%20GPS%20Need%20Not%20Register%20as%20Political%20Committee&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> Key figures in #Bridgegate–Baroni, Samson–also key figures in suit to
> block Lautenberg replacement of Torricelli<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57872>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:20 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57872> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  Remember New Jersey Democratic Party v. Samson<http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2002/a-24-02-opn.html>
> ?
> I have an extensive discussion of  the case in the Democracy Canon<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344476>
> .
> Baroni, Forrester’s lawyer, wrote his own article: William E. Baroni, Jr.,
> Administrative Unfeasibility: The Torricelli Replacement Case and the
> Creation of a New Election Law Standard, 27 SETON HALL LEGIS. J. 53 (2002).
>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57872&title=Key%20figures%20in%20%23Bridgegate%E2%80%93Baroni%2C%20Samson%E2%80%93also%20key%20figures%20in%20suit%20to%20block%20Lautenberg%20replacement%20of%20Torricelli&description=>
>  Posted in Uncategorized <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>
> “Supreme Court to mull right to lie in political ads”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57869>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 9:07 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57869> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  Politico reports<http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/supreme-court-to-mull-right-to-lie-in-political-ads-180995.html>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57869&title=%E2%80%9CSupreme%20Court%20to%20mull%20right%20to%20lie%20in%20political%20ads%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
> Democratic FEC Commissioners Issue Statement on Why Crossroads GPS Should
> Register as Political Committee <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57867>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 4:19 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57867> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  Here <http://t.co/CxAzTPwnnx>.
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57867&title=Democratic%20FEC%20Commissioners%20Issue%20Statement%20on%20Why%20Crossroads%20GPS%20Should%20Register%20as%20Political%20Committee&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, federal
> election commission <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=24>
> “Bitcoin Takes Stage In Texas Senate Campaign”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57865>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 4:05 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57865> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  NPR reports<http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/01/10/260572933/bitcoin-takes-stage-in-texas-campaign>
> .
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57865&title=%E2%80%9CBitcoin%20Takes%20Stage%20In%20Texas%20Senate%20Campaign%E2%80%9D&description=>
>  Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>
> Breaking: Supreme Court Takes Case Involving False Campaign Speech<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57863>
> Posted on January 10, 2014 12:06 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=57863> by
> Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>  Today the Court issued an orde<http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011014zr_bp24.pdf>r
> granting cert in *Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. *
> The cert. petition <http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/SBA_Cert_Petition.pdf>raises
> two questions, the second of which is substantive on the question of false
> campaign speech laws:
>
> Did the Sixth Circuit err by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth
> Circuit, that state laws proscribing “false” political speech are not
> subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker
> maintains that its speech is true, even if others who enforce the law
> manifestly disagree?
>
> Marcia Coyle’s preview of this case<http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202615481907&kw=Campaign%20Lies%20Are%20Common%2C%20But%20Are%20They%20Actionable%3F&et=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&cn=20130814&src=EMC-Email&pt=Supreme%20Court%20Brief%20Headlines&slreturn=20140010150405>is here. It is not clear to me that the Court in this case is going to
> reach the merits of the constitutionality of laws barring false campaign
> speech (the Court may instead simply say that courts have to decide such
> challenges). But if the Court reaches the merits, I believe the Court is
> likely to hold at least some state laws barring false campaign speech
> unconstitutional. I’ve addressed the issues of the constitutionality of
> limits on campaign lies after *US v. Alvarez* in A Constitutional Right
> to Lie in Campaigns and Elections?<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151618>
>  [image: Share]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D57863&title=Breaking%3A%20Supreme%20Court%20Takes%20Case%20Involving%20False%20Campaign%20Speech&description=>
>  Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>    _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140113/c4ee9425/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140113/c4ee9425/attachment.png>