[EL] reporter seeking expert opinion on campaign finance question

[Smith, Brad]

Their bet is almost certainly unenforceable as a matter of law, and it sounds as though Alex put no strings on the money when he gave it to Jordan. Thus, the money is Jordan's and there is no violation.

But even if there is, the real crime is the prosecutor stupid enough to bring the case.


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

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

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Craig Holman [holman at aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 8:03 PM
To: mbeckel at publicintegrity.org; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] reporter seeking expert opinion on campaign finance question

Hello Michael:

The situation you describe is a conduit contribution, better known as an earmarked contribution. It is legal as long as the proper reporting requirements and contribution limits are followed. Jordan may take $300 in cash from Alex and then forward it within 10 days via a credit card transaction to the campaign committee. However, it is Jordan's responsibility to inform the campaign committee of the true source of the contribution. Since Jordan did not solicit the contribution, it gets credited against Alex's contribution limit.

Attached is a brief FEC memo explaining the proper procedure.


Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
Holman at aol.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Beckel, Michael <mbeckel at publicintegrity.org>
To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Fri, Sep 2, 2016 1:21 pm
Subject: [EL] reporter seeking expert opinion on campaign finance question

Hello:

My name is Michael Beckel, and I am a reporter at the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, DC.

I’d like to pose a hypothetical question to this esteemed group of campaign finance experts:

Let’s say that two of my friends — call them Jordan and Alex — are looking to motivate themselves to work out more. They are also scared of the prospect of Donald Trump becoming president.

So, Jordan and Alex each agree to go to the gym three days a week. For each day they miss, they’ll have to donate $100 to Donald Trump’s campaign. They are hoping that this bet motivates them both enough to not skip working out.

However, a month goes by, and while Jordan has met his goals, Alex has not met his. So, Alex gives Jordan $300 cash, and Jordan makes a campaign contribution to Trump online with his credit card. They are sad, but ever more determined to meet their workout goals next month. (Jordan’s name and personal information was entered in the donor form, and, I presume, will show up on an FEC filing.)

Question: Is this a conduit contribution? That is, did Alex or Jordan violate the law by making a contribution in the name of another?

I’d be interested in on-the-record responses to this question.

Thanks, all, for your time and consideration. Happy (almost) Labor Day weekend!

Sincerely,
Michael Beckel
Reporter
Center for Public Integrity
202-481-1249
_______________________________________________
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/20160903/09d6614c/attachment.html>