[EL] Sanders Complaint & Glass Houses

[Steve Klein]

It didn’t get much traction two months ago, and I’m reminded of it in light
of the recent complaint by the Sanders campaign:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7kPtWAzvU4

Wrath for the source aside, the Democratic commissioners have written
scathing SORs supporting investigations based on far weaker RTBs (and not
without supportive comments from the reform community).

(Disclosure: I represent Project Veritas Action (fun
<http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/project-veritas-action-v-conley-undercover-newsgathering-and-the-first-amendment>!),
independent of my work at Pillar.)


----

Bernie Sanders Campaign Oddly Accuses Clinton and DNC of Troubling, Perhaps
Illegal, Fundraising Practices <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996>
Posted on April 18, 2016 3:27 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=81996> by Rick
Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

This letter
<https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bernie-2016-Letter-to-DNC-1.pdf>from
Sanders’ lawyer Brad Deutsch (and see this accompanying press release
<https://berniesanders.com/press-release/clinton-dnc-joint-fundraising-raises-serious-campaign-finance-concerns/>)
say there are some “serious apparent violations” of campaign finance law.
I’m not so sure that’s right, and suspect this letter is less about
legality and more about feeding into the Sanders’ campaign theme that
Hillary Clinton is corrupt in her campaign finance dealings.

Here’s the deal. Clinton, like Sanders and other presidential candidates,
has set up a joint fundraising committee with her political party. The JFC
allows you to raise a huge chunk of change (more now than in past
campaigns, thanks to the Supreme Court blowing out the aggregate federal
limits in the *McCutcheon *case). A small bit goes to the candidate’s
committee under the federal limits (currently $2,700 for the primary and
$2,700 for the general). The next bit goes to the DNC, and the rest so
state parties in $10,000 chunks.  Sanders is accusing the joint committee
of raising really big donations, and then having the JFC using some of
those really big donations to engage in direct mail and internet targeting
of small donors.  When those small donors donate small amounts,
contributions up to the first $2,700 benefit Clinton under the JFC
agreement, and because these are small donors, it means Clinton gets all
that small donor money.

The Deutsch letter cites no authority showing that this use of the JFC is
not allowed, and it is hard to see what provision of the law it violates
when donors give only small amounts that happen to benefit only Clinton.
The letter says that maybe this is like an in-kind contribution from the
DNC to the Clinton campaign, but I don’t see how it is that if the money is
coming from the JFC not from the committee. The letter even says this means
that those giving big checks to the DNC might thereby be giving more than
the $2,700 to Clinton, which is not literally true—it is what the JFC is
doing with the money, over which the donors have no control.

So legally this seems weak.

And politically, it is quite odd for Sanders, who would need the DNC’s
support to win the presidency should be be the Democratic nominee, to be
attacking the DNC. (Then again, Trump has relentlessly attacked the RNC, so
this must be the celebration of the season.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160420/fd1a90e9/attachment.html>