Tag: Super PAC

Watchdog Files Complaint Claiming Illegal Trump, Clinton Super PAC Coordination

Hillary Clinton Super PAC Donald Trump Super PACA campaign finance watchdog group is calling on federal election regulators to investigate whether Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns have illegally coordinated with super PACs supporting them.

Two pro-Trump super PACs — Make America Number 1 and Rebuilding America Now — may have made prohibited in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign, the Campaign Legal Center said Thursday. The Washington-based organization said a pro-Clinton organization, Correct the Record, may be guilty of similar violations.

Because super PACs can accept unlimited contributions, federal law requires them to operate independently of campaigns. Super PACs are relatively new political entities, created in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. Candidates and outside groups have tested the legal boundaries surrounding them, especially in the current election cycle. So far, super PACs have raised more than a half-billion dollars in support of the 2016 presidential nominees.

The Campaign Legal Center filed complaints against the campaigns and super PACs on Thursday with the Federal Election Commission. It’s unlikely the commission will decide before the election whether to take any actions.

The pro-Clinton group, Correct the Record, has been testing the rules virtually since its inception. Correct the Record has long asserted it can work directly with Clinton’s campaign. The super PAC says it’s only producing and posting communications online, and that its work is exempt from FEC rules regarding “coordinated communications.” In a statement last May, Correct the Record said it “will not be engaged in paid media and thus will be allowed to coordinate with campaigns.”

Lawyers from the Campaign Legal Center say that argument is misleading, because Correct the Record has made “coordinated expenditures,” which would also be considered in-kind contributions. They add that Correct the Record’s payments to its staff would represent prohibited donations if its employees’ work was done in coordination with the Clinton campaign.

“The factual record demonstrates that the vast majority of Correct the Record’s expenditures have been for activities like opposition research, message development, surrogate training, reporter pitches, media booking, video production, ‘rapid response’ press outreach, and other ‘earned media,’” the complaint says. “Any such expenditures made in ‘cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of’ Clinton’s campaign committee constitute in-kind contributions to the campaign.”

Since June 2015, the Clinton campaign has paid $282,000 to Correct the Record, which the super PAC has characterized as payments for “research,” according to campaign finance records.

Trump was slow to warm up to super PACs, disavowing support from outside groups during the Republican primary, but his campaign is deeply tied to two groups that want to help him defeat Clinton this November. One of those organizations, Rebuilding America Now, is headed by former top staffers to the Trump campaign.

Campaign staffers who have knowledge of a candidate’s strategy and plans are required to go through a 120-day “cooling-off period” before joining a supportive super PAC. However, an investigation published in August found that Rebuilding America Now began paying its political director, Ken McKay, only days after he left his job as a senior adviser to the Trump campaign. Reuters subsequently reported that Rebuilding America Now paid another operative, Laurance Gay, right after he left a position with Trump.

Rebuilding America Now has said both consultants were only unpaid volunteers for the Trump campaign and possess no strategic knowledge from their time working for the real estate mogul.

According to the Campaign Legal Center, McKay and Gay qualify as employees of the Trump campaign, regardless of whether they were paid for their services. The group asserts the Rebuilding America Now operatives acquired “inside information” while they were with the Trump campaign, and adds that there’s “strong reason to believe” that McKay and Gay have used that information in crafting communications in support of Trump.

The complaint also concerns the closeness between the Trump campaign and Make America Number 1. The Campaign Legal Center says that the super PAC may have made prohibited “coordinated communications” by employing common vendors.

The anti-Clinton super PAC was originally created by hedge fund billionaire and GOP mega-donor Robert Mercer as a way to support U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’ unsuccessful bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Around the same time the super PAC shifted its focus to defeating Clinton, Trump’s campaign began hiring staff and vendors associated with the Mercer family’s businesses.

Cambridge Analytica, a Mercer-owned data firm, has done work for both the Trump campaign and Make America Number 1. In August, the firm was paid $250,000 by Trump and more than $400,000 by the super PAC. That same month, the Trump campaign hired Breitbart News chief Stephen Bannon as its chairman, reportedly at the behest of the Mercer family. Robert Mercer has invested in Breitbart, and Bannon helped Mercer launch Cambridge Analytica, according to RealClearPolitics.

Kellyanne Conway, who’s serving as campaign manager for Trump, previously helped lead Make America Number 1 when it was a pro-Cruz effort. Her consulting firm has since been paid by both the super PAC and the Trump campaign. Make America Number 1 paid $247,000 to Conway’s firm, The Polling Company, on Aug. 23. One week later, the Trump campaign paid the company $128,000.

The Trump and Clinton campaigns and the super PACs included in the Campaign Legal Center complaints did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

ARTICLE BY Frank Bass of MapLight

© Copyright MapLight

GOP Super PAC Men Seek to Overturn Donation Limits: Conservatives Set Sights on Repealing Election-Cycle Contribution Limits to Candidates

An article by Michael Beckel of the Center for Public Integrity was recently published in The National Law Review.  The article discussed Donation Limits from PAC’s:

GOP super PAC men want to make it easier to donate to dozens of candidates

Conservatives set sights on repealing election-cycle contribution limits to candidates

As unlimited contributions flow into super PACs this year, one man is at the center of a new effort to allow people to donate more money, to more candidates, at the national stage.

“I don’t believe government is there to limit us,” Shaun McCutcheon told iWatch News.

McCutcheon is a 44-year-old general contractor in Alabama. He’s the owner, founder and president of Coalmont Electrical Development. He’s a member of the Republican Party who admits he may have a bit of a libertarian streak. And he’s also the treasurer of a super PAC called the “Conservative Action Fund.”

That’s a group that spent more than $43,000 opposing House Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) in Tuesday’s GOP primary in Alabama, although it has mostly targeted Democrats with its attacks.

In one advertisement it produced last fall, the super PAC accused President Barack Obama of implementing “draconian laws and regulations.” And it aired another adthat featured a “surfing rabbi” and computer-animated versions of Obama, along with New York Democrats Anthony Weiner and David Weprin, dancing in hot dog costumes — all while encouraging voters to support Republican Bob Turner in the special election to replace Weiner after his sexting scandal.

Now McCutcheon is requesting that the FEC repeal the existing biennial limit on how much money individuals can donate to federal candidates.

McCutcheon wants to donate at least $51,900 to multiple federal candidates ahead of the elections this November, spread across more than two dozen conservative politicians, according to documents released by the FEC on Wednesday.

Campaign finance laws, however, currently cap the amount of money individuals can donate to federal candidates at $46,200. (That amount is increased slightly for inflation during odd-numbered years. In 2010, the aggregate limit for donations to candidates during the two-year election cycle was $45,600.)

Federal rules prohibit a person from giving more than $2,500 per candidate per election, with the primary and general election being viewed as separate elections. McCutcheon says he doesn’t want to exceed that amount to any one candidate; he just wants to be able to donate to more candidates than the current cap allows.

Some simple algebra indicates a person would reach the current aggregate limit by giving $2,500 a piece to about 18.5 candidates, or by giving $5,000 a piece to about 9.25 candidates. McCutcheon, according to the request filed with the FEC, wants to donate to 27, all of whom are challengers, with the exceptions of incumbent Reps. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the founder of the House Tea Party Caucus who unsuccessfully ran for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

A question of corruption

In his request before the FEC, McCutcheon is represented by attorneys Steve Hoersting, and Dan Backer of the D.C.-based DB Capitol Strategies and Jerad Najvar of the Houston-based Najvar Law Firm.

Hoersting, who co-founded the First Amendment rights-focused Center for Competitive Politics, and Backer are experienced campaign finance litigators. Their successes include 2011’s Carey v. Federal Election Commission federal court ruling, which granted most political action committees the ability receive unlimited contributions to fund independent political advertisements in a segregated bank account, separate from the money they typically collect to dole out donations to candidates.

These men believe that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions on political advertisements, provides a “solid” foundation for bringing forward McCutcheon’s request at this moment in time.

“The Supreme Court has been clear: campaign finance laws are constitutional when they prevent the corruption of candidates, and unconstitutional when they constrain some speakers to equalize others,” Hoersting told iWatch News.

“An aggregate limit on how much one individual can give to all candidates,” he continued, “constrains speakers without preventing either any additional corruption of candidates or circumvention of the $2,500 limit that any single candidate may receive.”

But not all campaign finance observers agree.

Paul Ryan, an attorney at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, which favors campaign finance regulations, says the limit reduces the threat of corruption.

Absent that limit, Ryan argues, a wealthy donor, if he or she wanted, could give $2,500 or even $5,000 to all 535 members of Congress. Furthermore, that donor could also write $5,000 checks to each and every challenger to “ensure access” even if the incumbents lose. And if a wealthy donor gave millions of dollars to every candidate and officeholder, “the public would most certainly be left with the reasonable impression that the wealthy donor had all of Congress in [his or her] pocket.”

“This would surely undermine the electorate’s faith in our democracy,” he said.

For his part, McCutcheon has already donated more than $143,000 to federal candidates and political committees, according to an iWatch News analysis of campaign finance filings with the FEC.

He’s only donated $7,500 to federal candidates — $2,500 to Alabama Republican House candidate Scott Beason and $5,000 to Ohio Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel. The bulk of McCutcheon’s giving this cycle has been to his super PAC, the Conservative Action Fund, to which he has contributed $82,300, including $75,000 in loans.

This election cycle, he also loaned a hefty chunk of change to another super PAC that he was involved with: “America Get Up,” which he gave $31,500, about half of which was repaid before the super PAC, which was formed in March of 2011, closed its doors last summer.

McCutcheon served as the treasurer of the now-defunct group, which was founded by Dale Peterson, the quick-talking, horse-riding, cowboy hat-wearing, gun-toting candidate for the Alabama Agriculture Commissioner whose first campaign ad in 2010 became an internet phenomenon.

Backer, of DB Capitol Strategies, was also involved with both America Get Up and the Conservative Action Fund, and as the assistant treasurer for each group, he regularly filed their paperwork with the FEC.

FEC may not have final say

While individuals are free to donate as much as they please to super PACs, that’s not the case with federal candidates, party committees or traditional PACs. And some say this new request before the FEC is unlikely to change that any time soon.

“The FEC has absolutely no authority to grant this request,” Larry Noble, an attorney who specializes in campaign finance law at D.C.-based firm Skadden, Arps, toldiWatch News. “A federal agency cannot declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.”

The existing contribution limits were set by Congress in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often called the “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance law after its chief sponsors in the U.S. Senate.

Action by the judicial branch of government would be required to declare the election-cycle aggregate contribution limits unconstitutional. And if the courts become involved in this fight, some political observers say the U.S. Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts may be sympathetic to McCutcheon’s case.

One such person is Rick Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California-Irvine law school.

“I’ve thought for a long time that the aggregate limits could be in trouble before the Roberts Court,” Hasen told iWatch News.

That may be precisely where McCutcheon’s legal team hopes their case goes.

“I would not be surprised if the FEC is not the final stop in this matter,” said attorney Backer.

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®

Help for Super PACs on its Way: At Least Four Cabinet Members May Go to Bat for Democratic Super PACs

An article regarding Super PAC’s was recently published in The National Law Review by Michael Beckel of the Center for Public Integrity:

Fundraising activities are limited, but star power brings in the bucks

At least four Cabinet members appear ready and willing to answer President Barack Obama’s call to help fill the coffers of Democratic outside spending groups, which have to date been badly outgunned by better-funded Republican organizations.

After previously denouncing the so-called “super PACs” as a “threat to democracy,” Obama signed off last week on a move to allow top campaign aides and high-level White House officials to raise money.

Some of those going to bat for the president have long histories of raising money for their own political careers, and even bundling money for Obama’s campaign four years ago.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Education Secretary Arne Duncan and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk have all indicated they would be open to participation in activities designed to help the nascent Democratic super PACs, like “Priorities USA Action,” raise money.

“Arne has spoken at campaign-related events in the past on his personal time,” Education spokesman Justin Hamilton told iWatch News. “While he doesn’t yet have any invitations to future events, any that he might attend will be done in strict compliance with the law.”

A similar willingness was also expressed by Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher, whose boss raised more than $13.5 million for his own U.S. Senate campaigns before Obama asked him to become Secretary of the Interior in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“Any invitation for the Secretary to speak at campaign events will be considered in the same way we evaluate all scheduling requests, which includes making sure that all appearances fully comply with rules governing political activity,” Fetcher told iWatch News.

A spokesperson in the office of the U.S. Trade Representative likewise noted that whatever campaign-related activities Kirk may engage in would be cleared by the general counsel’s office in advance.

This wouldn’t be the first time that Kirk has helped Obama’s team raise money: He personally bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s campaign four years ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

This nexus of power and the chase for campaign cash doesn’t sit well with many good-government advocates, especially when there’s no limit on how much money donors can give to super PACs.

“This brings into focus the whole issue of access and influence,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that frequently supports campaign finance reforms. “When you give money, you get access and influence – a way to be heard differently from everyone else.”

Obama’s change of heart was clearly due to the fundraising disadvantageDemocratic super PACs and nonprofits have experienced compared to their Republican counterparts.

Generally speaking, federal law prohibits top White House officials like Cabinet secretaries from using their positions to raise money for candidates. The Hatch Act allows government officials to personally donate money to political committees or engage in a variety of partisan activities, so long as they do so during their personal time and do not use government resources.

They may not solicit campaign contributions — but that doesn’t prohibit them from appearing at political fundraisers.

Last year, several administration officials, including Duncan and Chu, appeared at fundraising events for the Obama campaign, as part of a “speakers series,” in which donors contributed money and mingled with high-level White House officials.

Those events, even while upholding the letter of the law, earned criticism from many Republicans, including Karl Rove, the former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

“What they’re doing is establishing a process by which you can buy influence,” Rove said at the time.

Rove himself had appeared at fundraisers for Bush during his time as a White House aide. He also helped operate a “political boiler room” within the White House that was criticized in an official Office of Special Counsel report last year.

Meanwhile, some other seasoned rainmakers in Obama’s Cabinet won’t be on the fundraising stump.

United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who bundled between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s campaign four years ago, will not be participating in any fundraising events for either the new super PACs or the president.

The same is true of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who raised more than $200 million during her unsuccessful presidential run in 2008 – and more than $80 million during her two U.S. Senate bids after leaving the White House.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Attorney General Eric Holder, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are among other top Obama administration officials who are not expected to appear at any fundraisers.

“Longstanding Department of Defense policy requires that the Secretary and all Senate-confirmed and non-career senior executive service officials refrain from participating in partisan political activities,” said Carl Woog, a DOD spokesman.

LaHood — who raised about $7 million over his career as a congressman, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — “hasn’t and won’t be participating in any political fundraising,” said DOT spokesman Justin Nisly.

Super PACs were created last year in the wake of two federal court rulings, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. They can collect unlimited amounts of money from individuals, unions and corporations to spend on advertising to elect or defeat candidates, but cannot illegally coordinate with the candidates themselves or make direct contributions.

Not everyone is concerned about Cabinet members being involved in the super PAC money chase.

“You don’t lose your rights to free speech just because you hold public office,” conservative attorney Dan Backer of DB Capitol Strategies said. “You may have a public trust, but you shouldn’t lose your free speech rights.”

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®.