[EL] Super Joint Fundraising committees

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Yup.  You can count on the Democrats to do what they said all along is  
corrupt.  Jim Bopp
 
 
In a message dated 9/22/2015 10:50:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:

_“The Warnings About  The Supreme Court’s Dangerous Campaign Finance 
Ruling Are Now Coming  True”_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76114) 
 
Posted  on _September 22, 2015 7:45  am_ 
(http://electionlawblog.org/?p=76114)  by _Rick  Hasen_ (http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3) 

 
_Paul  Blumenthal_ 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joint-fundraising-committee-hillary-clinton_56006006e4b00310edf819c2)  for HuffPo: 
During  courtroom debate over the  McCutcheon decision, Solicitor General 
Donald Verrilli expressed concern  that political parties could create joint 
fundraising committees to allow a  single candidate to solicit a $1 
million-plus contribution, which could be  distributed to a collection of federal 
and state party committees. State  parties could then transfer this money to 
other, more important state  parties (for example, those in swing states) to 
benefit the candidate. 
Justice  Samuel Alito, _without any apparent knowledge of similar prior 
arrangements  by parties and candidates_ 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/mccutcheon-v-fec-alito_n_4065441.html) , declared, “Now, how — how 
realistic is that?  How realistic is it that all of the state party committees, 
for example, are  going to get money and they’re all going to transfer it to 
one candidate?”  Alito went on to call such situations “wild hypotheticals”
 that “certainly  lack any empirical support.” 
Chief  Justice John Roberts also dismissed these concerns, among others 
raised by  supporters of the aggregate limits, as “divorced from reality.” 
However,  Clinton’s campaign proved that Verrilli and other critics were 
right on  September 16, when her campaign expanded the _Hillary Victory Fund_ 
(http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00586537/1024982/) , the super joint 
fundraising  committee it created earlier this year with the Democratic 
National  Committee, to include 33 state parties. 
A  maximum annual donation of $666,700 (totaling approximately $1.3 million 
in  two years) will be split up among committees — with $2,700 going to the 
 Clinton campaign, a maximum of $334,000 to the DNC and $10,000 to each 
state  party committee. If Clinton wins her party’s nomination, those state 
party  accounts could transfer funds she raises to the party accounts in swing  
states, enabling donors to exceed the $10,000 “base” contribution limit to 
 an individual state party… 
In  exchange for their contributions, the new million-dollar donors sought 
by  parties and presidential candidates will receive access to dinners,  
retreats, insider phone calls and opportunities to talk to top lawmakers and  
candidates. 
This  dynamic now mimics the soft money landscape Congress banned in 2002 
and the  Supreme Court upheld in 2003. In its 2003 McConnell  v. FEC 
decision, the  Supreme Court found that candidates’ practice of soliciting large  
contributions for their direct benefit raised concerns about both actual  
corruption and the appearance of corruption. In the court’s eyes, this  
justified new restrictions on campaign contributions and  spending.
Yup.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150922/df0e0d0c/attachment.html>