[EL] L.A. school board president faces felony charges over campaign contributions - LA Times

[D. A. Holtzman]

I haven't seen this case mentioned yet on the [EL] list.

Assume allegations are true here:
Politician gave a relative money.
People who got money from the relative gave money to politician's campaign.
Politician reported the campaign donations.

Politician has been charged with a crime (a felony, even).

Could a law or regulation be unconstitutional as applied to the 
politician here?

Politician's lawyer weighed in:  "Daniel Nixon, a lawyer for Rodriguez, 
suggested his client would be able to work through his legal problems.  
'*As I understand it, candidates fund their campaigns often,' Nixon 
said. 'I think it’s a question of simply the details, the nuances, 
concerning how that takes place.*'"

Does the timing matter?
If the politician gave the money before receiving the donations, and the 
relative and later recipients of the money had no obligation to donate, 
would that help the politician's case?
If the politician knew the relative would reimburse the donors, does 
that hurt the politician?

Does the government's asserted interest matter?
Has the public's desire for information been found sufficient to uphold 
campaign regulation?  (Personally, I would like to see all candidates 
without makeup.)
Or must there also be possible corruption or appearance of corruption?  
And if so, is there a new form of that that here?

Also, what's the harm in misrepresenting your supporters as bigger 
spenders than they actually are?
Is campaign finance regulation intended to help voters find and vote for 
candidates with broad financial support?
Is that a legitimate intent?


http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-school-board-rodriguez-ethics-20170913-story.html

   - d

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20170915/77ae8916/attachment.html>