[EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

[Larry Levine]

And what if the money stays with the campaign committee for communications with voters and eliminates the cause for independent expenditures?

Larry

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Joe Birkenstock
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:52 AM
To: JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

 

"Who gets the $100k?" That's a good question, isn't it? 

 

In practice it goes back to the campaign committee that paid for the weekend. So if you accept that money is fungible it seems as true to say the weekend attendees get it - at least get the benefit of it (including the senator). 

Sent from my iPhone


On Jul 3, 2014, at 9:47 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

As Trevor's "example" demonstrates, there is a lot of sloppy, vague and broad language used by "reformers" here.  So, as to Joe's hypo, who get the $100K -- assuming it does not violate any contribution limits?  Jim

 

In a message dated 7/3/2014 9:40:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com writes:

Sure does. What if a US senator (also a public official) raises the same $100k from the same sources for a private ski weekend in Aspen all paid by campaign funds. Still a bribe?

Sent from my iPhone


On Jul 3, 2014, at 9:34 AM, "JBoppjr at aol.com" <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

Can the Director of the IRS -- a government official -- charge and pocket $100,000 for a meeting with him at IRS headquarters?  Sounds like a bribe to me  Jim Bopp

 

In a message dated 7/3/2014 9:30:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com writes:

Now *this* is an interesting way to start a long holiday weekend.  Serious question: this is "already illegal" under what law?

 

___________________________________

Joseph M. Birkenstock

Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, P.C.

1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005

202.479.1111

*also admitted to practice in CA

 

 

From: Jim Bopp <jboppjr at aol.com>
Date: Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 8:18 AM
To: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] WARNING: SNARK AHEAD RE: Supreme Court and campaign finance

 

Trevor, you are so silly.  This is already illegal and should be.  Jim

 

In a message dated 7/2/2014 7:37:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tpotter at capdale.com writes:

right to buy and sell meetings with government officials 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140703/e15369c9/attachment.html>