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

Sat Jan 23 17:39:05 PST 2016

I agree with each of your points. It would be nuts. But when you have a team of volunteers out there in the quest for 200 “small” donations, you can’t control everyone. Each volunteer wants to look good. Then the candidate and his or her team will pay the price if the random audit turns up one of these bogus contributions. 

This campaign was not desperate for funding. I doubt that it was a dirty trick, but it’s an open invitation for one. 

You don’t even need the voter rolls because I don’t think the contributor need be a registered voter. If so, then the whole thing may well be unconstitutional since an elected official represents everyone in the district, not just the registered voters. 

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Lillie Coney
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 4:22 PM
To: Edward Still <still at votelaw.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 audits are routine it would politically nuts to put false contributions in an application for matching funds.  Did the candidate have an in experience campaign manager.

Problems in doing this to the candidate and campaign go far beyond:

-First you will get caught

-The consequences will be greater than forgoing matching funds.

The campaign could have been desperate for funding, but there are another possibility.

This could be a dirty trick exploit.

You only need the voter rolls and the funds to make bogus qualifying contributions.

I hope they conduct a thorough investigation.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 23, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Edward Still <still at votelaw.com <mailto:still at votelaw.com> > wrote:

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 <mailto:still at votelaw.com>   
www.votelaw.com/blog <http://www.votelaw.com/blog> 
www.edwardstill.com <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto:coney at lillieconey.net> ] 
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 12:03 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net> 
Cc: David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com <mailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com> >; [EL] <law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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>  [mailto: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 <mailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com> >
Cc: [EL] <law-election at uci.edu <mailto: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 <mailto: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?

 <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207> “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”

Posted on  <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207> January 22, 2016 8:42 am by  <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen

Alleged fraud in securing $5 donations to qualify for campaign financing.  <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-martinez-donors-grand-jury-20160122-story.html> Unusual.

-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/d63e1c36/attachment.html>