[EL] Pro-Romney Super PAC Fined $50K for 2012 Activities,

[Paul Ryan]

Robbin,

The Supreme Court’s rationale in Buckley that expenditures made “totally independently” of candidates do not pose a sufficiently serious threat of corruption to justify the FECA independent expenditure limit rested significantly on the Court’s belief that “such independent expenditures may well provide little assistance to the candidate's campaign and indeed may prove counterproductive.”  By contrast, the Court viewed favorably the fact that FECA treats payments by someone other than the candidate for the candidate’s “media advertisements or for other portions of the candidate's campaign activities” as in-kind contributions, because such payments “might well have virtually the same value to the candidate as a contribution and would pose similar dangers of abuse.”  Buckley, 424 US at 46-47.  The SCOTUS cited and quoted from this passage in Citizens United.

The FEC’s regulation treating payments for republication of candidate materials as in-kind contributions rests on this sound foundation.  Paying to distribute a TV ad created by a candidate—or to distribute yard signs, as in your hypo—has clear and definite value to a candidate, and is of great “assistance” to the candidate, as evidenced by the fact that the candidate produced the materials in the first place.  There is no risk that such payments would be “counterproductive” to the candidate.

Restore Our Future spent more than $5 million to air a “media advertisement” created by Mitt Romney’s political committee.  ROF engaged in precisely the type of payment that the Buckley Court assured us would be treated as an in-kind contribution—not an independent expenditure.

Happy holidays. Best,

Paul Seamus Ryan
Deputy Executive Director
The Campaign Legal Center
Ph. (202) 736-2200
Mobile Ph. (202) 262-7315
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/
Twitter @ThePaulSRyan

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Robbin Stewart
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 12:28 AM
Cc: law-election at UCI.edu
Subject: [EL] Pro-Romney Super PAC Fined $50K for 2012 Activities,

Offhand to me when an independent expenditure group picks up a "Vote For Smith" sign and has their printer run off 1000 more, or a million more such signs, that looks like an independent expenditure protected by the First Amendment, rather than a prohibited contribution.

This case settled with a plea bargain and there's no discussion of First Amendment implications of the rule. But maybe this is something that's already well settled. Has this issue been litigated?


Pro-Romney Super PAC Fined $50K for 2012 Activities<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78286>
Posted on December 11, 2015 3:01 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78286> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Release<http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/clc-complaint-leads-fine-romney-super-pac-s-illegal-spending-2012>:

Today, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) received notification that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) has fined pro-Mitt Romney Super PAC Restore Our Future (ROF) $50,000 for illegally spending millions of dollars airing an advertisement in 2012 that was originally produced and aired by the 2008 Romney presidential campaign.  ROF treasurer Charles S. Spies signed a conciliation agreement on behalf of ROF, agreeing to pay a civil penalty of $50,000.

Just wait till 2020 for the 2016 fines!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151214/0358b524/attachment.html>