[EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”

Sat Jan 23 14:01:08 PST 2016

Re Larry Levine's point: audits are generally done by checking a random
sample of transactions.

Edward Still
Edward Still Law Firm LLC
429 Green Springs Hwy, STE 161-304
Birmingham AL 35209
205-320-2882
still at votelaw.com
www.votelaw.com/blog
www.edwardstill.com
www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/edwardstill>

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
wrote:

> I would imagine that the $5 threshold causes a number of cash
> contributions, which are legal but present difficulties when it comes to
> providing the necessary documentation to the Ethics Commission. It also is
> an open invitation to mischief. It would be an administrative nightmare for
> the commission to track down a verify the accuracy and honesty of these
> small contributions.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> *From:* Lillie Coney [mailto:coney at lillieconey.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 23, 2016 12:03 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net
> *Cc:* David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com>; [EL] <
> law-election at uci.edu>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign
> donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
>
>
>
> Enforcement could be very costly.
>
>
>
> The forms and methods of payment are no longer predominately check or
> credit cards.
>
>
>
> There are gift cards, which would be my preference for small dollar single
> purchases or in this case contributions.  I would view it like a purchase
> from a street fair--if the card is compromised it's only a few dollars, it
> is also great for privacy.
>
>
>
> The other issue is determining that the billing addresses and the voters'
> residential addresses are the same.  The credit card information on bills
> makes them a target for thrives who may not be deterred by the mailbox lock
> if you have one--it makes it easier for some credit or debit card users to
> get a PO Box instead of a home address to protect against ID theft.
>
>
>
> Could this ordinance create other problems--like challenges to voting
> because the method of payment address does not match registration
> information?
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:12 AM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> The issue here seems to be whether some of these people may not actually
> have contributed. A local ordinance requires a candidate to collect 200
> contributions of at least $5 from people living within the city council
> district to become eligible for matching public funds for the campaign. The
> inference from the L.A. Times article, though I don’t see an express
> accusation, is that some of those contributions may have been faked –
> people listed who never contributed. One of the many problems with this is
> that some, if not many, people might not even recall having made such a
> small contribution.
>
> On another front, this ordinance is driving campaign fundraisers and
> treasurers crazy. For a $5 contribution they may have to spend hours
> verifying that the donor actually lives in the district and providing proof
> to the city ethics commission. And if someone who lives in the district
> writes a check from the account of a business that is out of the district
> the problem of time and expense in verification is compounded.
>
> Then there is the matter of the vast disparity in the economic levels of
> people living in various council districts. $5 to someone in the wealthier
> districts is far different than $5 from someone in the poorer districts. Of
> all the crazy campaign reforms that have been foisted on our political
> system across than nation this one would be a leading competitor for the
> title of the craziest.
>
> Larry Levine
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] *On Behalf Of *Lillie
> Coney
> *Sent:* Friday, January 22, 2016 9:35 PM
> *To:* David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com <David at holtzmanlaw.com>>
> *Cc:* [EL] <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign
> donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
>
>
>
> If campaign contributions are viewed as speech then smaller donor speech
> in the form of contributions has the same protection as large dollar donors.
>
>
>
> What are the rules for what donors can get in exchange for contribution?
> In recent elections donors contributing to campaign fundraising drives are
> offered opportunities to be in lotteries to win time with the candidate.
>
>
>
> These are putting in to the small donor arena activity that large donors
> routinely experience and expect.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:55 PM, David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com
> <David at holtzmanlaw.com>> wrote:
>
> My favorite quote in here:  "My money is my money, and I can do whatever
> I want with my money"
> Prompts a question: Can the FBI ask *any* reported campaign donor why she
> gave money?  (Or do they have to have a reasonable suspicion the donor got
> something in return?)
> And a question about honesty in reporting: Can a campaign accept and
> report lots of donations (to boost its apparent support) with a promise to
> (wink, wink) return them if the campaign doesn't spend the money?
>
>
>
>
> “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A.
> Councilwoman Nury Martinez” <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207>
>
> Posted on January 22, 2016 8:42 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207>
> by *Rick Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Alleged fraud in securing $5 donations to qualify for campaign financing.
> Unusual
> <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-martinez-donors-grand-jury-20160122-story.html>
> .
>
>
>
>
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to an
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error
> and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
> email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email in error,
> please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://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/20160123/0e772fcf/attachment.html>