[EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father

Thu May 12 08:23:29 PDT 2016

I don’t see anyone proposing any such thing. A parent’s contribution to a
campaign of a son or daughter is a far cry from the kind of sky-is-falling
scenario you fear.

Larry

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Kathay
Feng
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:26 AM
To: Thomas J. Cares <Tom at tomcares.com>; Election Law <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father

I am sympathetic to the argument of a dad just wanting to help his son out.
But I worry that once you open an exception for certain family members, it
becomes an open invitation for interests to "hire" the spouse, subsidize the
house sale of a relative, or cover the tuition of a son as a way of passing
money to or currying favor with a candidate. Sadly, none of these examples
are hypothetical. It may not be right that a few bad apples taint our
concern about the appearance or existence of corruption of all, but it is
the reality.

‎ 

From: Thomas J. Cares

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 1:09 AM

To: Election Law

Subject: Re: [EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father

Much-or-all of this quibbling over family lines sounds sarcastic. One's
grandparents or any descendants thereof and any of their spouses sounds like
an extremely reasonable line - a natural law PAC if you will, with a
constitutional right to coordinate or donate to each other's campaigns
freely. I don't think it should be hard to recognize this constitutional
right of families to participate in politics without this restriction, which
doesn't appear to survive any scrutiny. Its purpose would appear
illegitimate - to deliberately suppress the disproportionate ability of an
affluent family to participate in politics - not to prevent corruption. This
would indeed feel like incumbent-favoritism. Of course incumbents can raise
money - even get it from their party or safe-seat colleagues en masse, as
well as special interests. To unseat an entrenched incumbent, you might need
a candidate supported by family wealth. 

I feel like this is kind of how Citizens United happened. It was wrong for
the government to challenge that anti-Hillary film. Very wrong. Doing so
provoked the courts to gut all restrictions on IEs.

Prohibiting contributions from a father to a candidate is very wrong. It
feels like the kind of thing that could eventually provoke a court to void
all restrictions on campaign contributions.

Tom Cares

On Thursday, May 12, 2016, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu> > wrote:

Sure, parents, spouse and siblings is fine. Easy to understand. Personally,
I'm fine with first cousins and aunts and uncles if you want. I really doubt
there's much going to be much corruption there. But I can see a pretty good
argument that allowing them to contribute would be more problematic. So
again, let's just start with spouses and parents. Or just spouses. That
seems reasonable, right? Does anyone really want to argue that "reasonable
regulation" requires prohibiting spouses from contributing to their spouses?
I'm getting curious about just what regulation is "unreasonable regulation."

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317 <tel:614.236.6317> 

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

  _____  

From: Larry Levine [larrylevine at earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:19 PM
To: Smith, Brad; 'Trevor Potter'
Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> 
Subject: RE: [EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father

Parents, spouse and siblings? Step-parents, step children? First cousins?
Aunts and uncles?

Larry

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 Smith,
Brad
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:45 PM
To: Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com <mailto:tpotter at capdale.com> >
Cc: law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> 
Subject: Re: [EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father

I've suggested a statutory or constitutional line, not unfettered agency
discretion. 

You ask where the line should be drawn. I think immediate family would work
pretty well. Almost any of the lines you suggest, however, would be clear
and more targeted at fighting corruption. So I don't see any of questions as
posing a serious problem.  Limiting it to parents only would be an
improvement, and should not be very controversial amongst those who favor
"reasonable regulation."

Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com
<mailto:tpotter at capdale.com> > wrote:

But the point Mark raises is really broader-where should the line be drawn
to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption? And should an
enforcement agency have discretion in deciding the line on an ad hoc basis?
Brad suggests that parents should be on the non- corrupt side of that line.
How about siblings? Parents in law? Cousins? To what degree? Aunts, Uncles ?
By blood or marriage or both?

All of those are questions that will arise when drawing the line between
contribution limits for the public and unlimited contributions for "
family". And if the family member owns a large industrial corporation and
the relative is running for Congress or the Presidency, then the corruption
rationale may not be so clearly irrelevant....

Trevor Potter
Sent from my iPhone

On May 11, 2016, at 5:17 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu%3cmailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:

No, I think a law that says parents aren’t likely to corrupt this kids is
sensible, and doesn’t leave much discretion in the hands of bureaucrats.
It’s not the agency we’re discussing, but the statute, and whether the
constitution should protect that behavior.

For what’s it worth, I would also be comfortable with a law saying if a
donor says, "I just wanted to give that candidate lots of money because I
thought he was really attractive," then the contribution is legal. But that
seems like a very different discussion with lots more room for disagreement.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317 <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317> 
bsmith at law.capital.edu
<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu%3cmailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp<http://www.law.capital.ed
u/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp>

From: Mark Schmitt [mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:03 PM
To: Smith, Brad; law-election at uci.edu
<mailto:law-election at uci.edu%3cmailto:law-election at uci.edu>
<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father

I'm surprised that some of you who are on the more libertarian side of
things would be comfortable with an agency selectively deciding which
individuals' contributions might be likely to lead to corruption, and which
would not. That's an awful lot of power to put in the hands of bureaucrats!

If you accept that *some* large contributions from *some* donors might have
a potential for corruption, then wouldn't the cleanest, fairest law be one
that simply limits contributions, regardless of the identity and interests
of the donor? What if a donor says, "I just wanted to give that candidate
lots of money because I thought he was really attractive." If that's really
the motive for giving, there's probably less potential for corruption than
if the donor says, "He's on the Financial Services Committee and I'm a
banker." But I don't want some agency parsing that distinction.

Some of you may believe that there's no such thing as corruption or
dependence corruption, and I've seen that argument. But if that's the case,
then it doesn't matter that the donor is the candidate's father anyway.

Mark Schmitt
Director, Political Reform
Program<http://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/>, New
America<http://www.newamerica.org/>
202/246-2350 <tel:202%2F246-2350> 
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
twitter: @mschmitt9

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu%3cmailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
Let’s try this link, then:
http://www.myplainview.com/article_a9d1622d-8e2b-5cd4-b5a8-dc221c33a730.html
<http://www.myplainview.com/article_a9d1622d-8e2b-5cd4-b5a8-dc221c33a730.htm
l>

The answer to your question is, “yes, the FEC has the authority to
investigate parental gifts” if it believes that those gifts are being used
to fund political campaigns in amounts in excess of the contribution limits
of the Federal Election Campaign Act.” We did this several times during my
time on the FEC, including the case linked to above.

You are correct that Mr. Bera could have formed a single candidate super PAC
and then spent to his heart’s content (or at least his bank account’s
capacity) independently of his son and the compaign. As Allen Dickerson
points out, that he did not choose that option suggests that it may be a
poor substitute for direct contributions. And of course, it still leaves us
without an answer as to why the law should prohibit Bera from contributing
directly to his son’s campaign, and why one wouldn’t think the Constitution
should protect that right.

Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317 <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317> <tel:%28614%29%20236-6317>
bsmith at law.capital.edu
<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu%3cmailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
<mailto:bsmith at law.capital.edu>
http://www.law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp<http://www.law.capital.ed
u/faculty/bios/bsmith.asp>

From: Gabriel Gopen [mailto:gabe.gopen at gmail.com
<mailto:gabe.gopen at gmail.com%3cmailto:gabe.gopen at gmail.com%3e>
<mailto:gabe.gopen at gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 10:29 AM
To: Smith, Brad
Cc: David A. Holtzman; Election Law

Subject: Re: [EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father

Mr. Smith, your link was on 527s. (Could be evergreen, FEC criticized for
failure to act).

Without getting into a discussion about the rule governing intergenerational
transfers of wealth, does the FEC have authority to investigate parental
gifts? Who would even know to rip them of as happened here?

I suppose I could have said Bera Sr. could have set up a single candidate
super Pac ("citizens for Elk Grove" Ceg) and a 501(c)(4) ("Elk Grove social
club" EGSC). Then he could give unlimited contributions to EGSC, solicit
unlimited contributions from relatives abroad for EGSC and dump it all into
CEg to run ads in support of his son. I'd go on but Mr. Potter did this bit
on Colbert already.

On May 11, 2016, at 9:57 AM, Smith, Brad <BSmith at law.capital.edu
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu%3cmailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>
<mailto:BSmith at law.capital.edu>> wrote:
If, as suggested below, Bera gave his son gifts, and the son then spent his
own money on the campaign, the FEC would still consider that an illegal
contribution in the name of another. See e.g.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/14/nation/na-fec14.<http://articles.lat
imes.com/2003/jun/14/nation/na-fec14.> Mr. Gopen's proposed solution might
satisfy the tax man, but it would not satisfy the FEC.

Nor does this change the fact that if "supporting your own child's political
ambitions is laudable," we really ought to question why it is illegal. Any
other law Bera violated stems from that illegality when combined with his
laudable goal. I doubt our democracy would be poorly served if the
Constitution had been properly interpreted to protect Mr. Bera's right to
support his son's campaign without restrictions on the amount.

Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317 <tel:614.236.6317> <tel:614.236.6317>

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx<http://law.capital.edu/facul
ty/bios/bsmith.aspx>

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto: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<mailto:law-election-bounces at d
epartment-lists.uci.edu>] on behalf of Gabriel Gopen
[gabe.gopen at gmail.com<mailto:gabe.gopen at gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 9:35 AM
To: David A. Holtzman
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] "Illegal contributions" from Ami Bera's father
With the caveat that I did not see the original version of the article,
Babual Bera's deceitful intent appears clear to me. As a max donor, he knew
precisely the legal limit he could give to his son. He could also have given
Ami cash gifts up to the limit of $14k ($28k if as a couple) per calendar
year without a tax penalty. If he wanted to exceed that, he would have to
pay the tax. Instead, the senior Bera found 90 other individuals to give
maximum contribution which he reimbursed. To the public record, it looked as
if candidate Bera had a wider array of supporters than he did.
I agree that supporting your own child's political ambitions is laudable.
But unfortunately the method Babual Bera used to provide support was
criminal.

On May 11, 2016, at 12:05 AM, David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com
<mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com%3cmailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com>
<mailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com>> wrote:
Thomas, you may have seen an earlier version of the article. Note:
"UPDATES
. . .
2:37 p.m.: This article was updated with a quote and additional information
from the U.S. attorney."
Without that I might have been baffled too.
The illegality was money laundering and fraud.
- dah

On 5/10/2016 7:05 PM, Thomas J. Cares wrote:
'I have, in fact, done the crime': Rep. Ami Bera's father admits illegal
campaign contributions
http://lat.ms/1sbbYts<http://lat.ms/1sbbYts>

I really would have thought constitutional rights to self fund would include
the right of a very close relative, like a parent, to fund a campaign
without restrictions. This feels very wrong. I don't see why such a
restriction would survive any scrutiny - a large contribution from a parent
is highly unlikely to create any conflict of interest that wouldn't already
be there by virtue of them being your parent (especially if they are the
kind of parent who would have made a large contribution, but for a law
prohibiting it - (a parent who has surely otherwise been a supportive figure
to the candidate)).

I am incredibly baffled by the contents of that LA Times story.

Also, I think it's kind of great if a candidate is so lucky to have a parent
to fund them (I was a candidate once, but don't have parents with those
kinds of resources). Much better for society to have candidates funded by
parents than candidates funded by executives whose companies have business
before Congress, albeit in smaller aggregated amounts. (Baffled).

Tom Cares

--

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu%3cmailto:Law-election at departme
nt-lists.uci.edu> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://departm
ent-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election>

--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com
<mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com%3cmailto: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%3cmailto:Law-election at departme
nt-lists.uci.edu> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://departm
ent-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%3cmailto:Law-election at departme
nt-lists.uci.edu> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election<http://departm
ent-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%3cmailto:Law-election at departme
nt-lists.uci.edu> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

<116051117315003337.png>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160512/3116e1f2/attachment.html>