Skip to main content


I really have to hand it to all KOS Romney supporters for the great and creative attacks on my dairies.  I've been trying to show why the election has been lost and suggest ways to fix it.  Yet, Kos members rather make personal attacks.

Yes, I am a dingdong and didn't know I wasn't supposed to write recommended in the TAG list.  So a whole bunch of you spun the conversation that way.  

This type of deflection is called spot a procedural error and focus on that.  
I'm really impressed at all those that called me racist.  What are you children?  I'm from Detroit ding dongs.  I was schooled in integrated schools, have minority Fraternity brothers, and housemates too.  I know I'm not every permitted to use words or refer to color unless it is highly relevant.  I was revolted by all those that refer to President Obama and incorporate a mention of his ethnic makeup.  

The subject of the two lasts posts was factual accounts of pastors of color saying they would do all in their power to have members boycott President Obama because Obama no longer agrees to hide the fact that same-sex marriages should by all rights and logic be allowed.  Further I was saying that owing to swing states and tiny margins that this essentially gives the keys to the White House to Romney.

Yet I'm called a racist?   What are these pastors that spout hate and what is Romney for taking his stance to ban same-sex marriages and same-sex adoption nationwide?  Are these saints?

Hmmm...I thought no personal attacks?  Yet no one complains that comments in my dairy are filled with personal attacks, calling me names.

About my posting and then leaving.  Hit run someone said.  It is 11:30 pm at night here and I have several miles to walk home.  I have no internet aboard and won't be back for about 24 hours if the weather is good.  48 hours if it is raining tomorrow.

So enjoy your day.  Get ready for Romney as your new President.  

p.s. Don't recall all the sermons you heard that said the Church needed to be strong to defend marriage against attack...give generously.

p.p.s.  Tomorrow I will discuss why almost everything the most Churches claim about homosexuality is wrong.  

Discuss

Introduction:
A theory is needed to explain this sentence:  Most black churches fall into two main camps: adamantly opposed to it and disappointed in Obama and; or they support the measure but vehemently refuse to marry anyone other than a man and a woman.

Exactly why are they taking this position?  My theory is it is MONEY!  When President Obama moderated his position on same-sex marriages, the net result is asking for more acceptance of the LGBT community and this will hurt fundraising.

My dairy of yesterday sparked a lot of comments.  It was called The race of "color" that discriminates for Romney.

Yes I have to pick a title that sparks your interest, however, my purpose is not to divide people but to unite them.  

Before moving forward, lets make a few definitions and summarize that post.

Definition of a Fact:  Something that can be supported with conclusive proof.

Definition of a Theory: An explanation of something that is a situation based upon facts.  Theories can explain a reasoning behind past or present situations.  They can also predict future situations.

Definition of a Myth:  An explanation of something that isn't a real situation, or offers reasoning based upon things that are not facts.

Definition of a Race:  A group of individuals that can be classified according to a particular characteristic.  Under my definition of "race" the LGBT community is a race and discrimination on the basis of sexuality is a form of racial discrimination.

Summary of yesterday's post:

Facts:
1. In 2008 polls revealed people of color voted 70% against same-sex marriages in California.

2. Most swing States have laws against same-sex marriage.

3. Romney has taken a pledge to end all same-sex marriages and adoptions on a national basis.  Obama moderated his stance.

4. Some pastors of "color" vowed to do everything in their power to "influence" members to stop Obama.

A large coalition of African-American pastors, snubbed by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder in their demand for a meeting to discuss same-sex marriage, are calling on blacks to boycott the president and sign a petition demanding that the administration withdraw support for gay marriage.
 

5. The race between Romney and Obama is close.

Theory:
Enough people of "color" in swing states will switch to Romney or stay at home and boycot to ensure Romney's victory.

That sums up yesterday's post.  However, I didn't explain to you the reason why people of "color" agree so much with Romeny's anti-LGBT stance.  I have a theory.
My theory is largely based upon personal observation. Yes this will spark many comments.  However, come up with a theory if you don't like mine that explains the following facts.

Here are the facts:

1. When I moved to Hawaii I noticed it was kind of like Detroit.  In Detroit I was trained that references to a person's color should not be made.  People were people.

2. The difference in Hawaii were references to a person's sexuality seemed absent.  People were people.  

3. At the lumber yard I worked at, I recall gay and lesbian couples that were building houses together.  Never once did I hear any employee refer to their sexuality.  

When David and Peter came in to buy lumber, we knew they were a couple.  When the lumber was pulled and stacked and delivered it went out to David and Peter's construction site.  No one ever said that lumber is going to the home of those two gay guys.
4. Hawaii has some politicians that were generally known to be members of the LGBT family, however, not once did I see a reference to this in print, on the radio, or mentioned by a candidate.  Unlike most of the United States, who slept with whom was none of our business.  Which Hawaiian politicians these were wont' be listed here as it isn't relevant.

5. My employer said certainly to my request that my same-sex partner be covered by the company medical plan.

6. Hawaii is one of the wealthier States.  It is in the top 10.

Part One of Theory:

Churches need to raise money for salaries, buildings, repairs etc.  Churches with memberships that are not very wealthy may have a more difficult time of it.  These churches need to give their membership a strong reason to give money.  Defending against an "evil" or "danger" and "protecting" or "defending" the family or marriage brings in MONEY!

Here is a typical request for money:

Support ADF with a generous gift to continue the ongoing legal battle to protect marriage in America.

In Hawaii, where people are wealthier, it may not be necessary to resort to scare tactics.

Part Two of Theory:
This part of the theory is necessary to account for why other wealthy States are not as accepting of the LGBT community as Hawaii.  What is so different in Hawaii?

My believe is that answer is found in its unique history.  Until relatively recently, a few families controlled nearly all the wealth, most of the land, and were the largest employers.  Two of the very wealthiest of these families had sons that were generally known as being gay.  

Exactly who they are/were, is not relevant.  What is relevant is your imagination.

What would it be like in your State right now if two gay men between about 1940 and 1975 owned a huge portion of everything in your State?

Would a preacher dare to take the pulpit and rail against the LGBT community?

Absolutely not.  They may make a comment in private, however, they wouldn't dare call the employer of a good deal of people in the church a villain.  

Conclusion:
A theory is needed to explain this sentence:  Most black churches fall into two main camps: adamantly opposed to it and disappointed in Obama and; or they support the measure but vehemently refuse to marry anyone other than a man and a woman.

My theory as advanced here was that we can account for this by examining places like Hawaii where the citizens have an Aloha spirit and largely accept the LGBT community.  We can then ask why Hawaii is different.

That answer is in part due to a wealthier congregation that can afford to support the church better.  It is also linked with Hawaii's history of a few families with gay sons controlling vast amounts of the wealth.

Therefore:  When President Obama, by his example, essentially asked people of color to begin accepting members of the LGBT community he was taking away the ability of pastors of color to continue to vilify them.    Not being able to bash the gays takes away a proven fundraising tactic.  Why should poorer members of the congregation dig deep to give to the Church when there isn't an immediate threat and no reason to defend against them?

In How to Write Fundraising Materials That Raise More Money (2008), Tom Ahern offers insight into the top fundraising emotional triggers: anger, and fear were right at the top of the list.

Note: I really like this group.  Some of you are really on the ball and realize I am up to something.  I most certainly am.  I am making connections, and trying to spark reactions.  I may be wrong on this, however, I believe strongly that the prime issue of the 2012 election is same-sex marriage and those that support or contest it.  

The issue of same-sex marriage goes hand in hand with the Super PAC lawsuit I launched.  

The reason I placed that poll at the end of the previous post, is I wanted to see how many of you would consider Romney's large contribution to the National Organization for Marriage to have potentially violated State laws.  Fifteen out of seventeen so far said YES, or he would get away with it.   This I find interesting since when I ask a similar question about violating Federal laws by giving excessive money to a Super PAC, it is about 50/50.

So where am I headed?  Simple, as stated before again and again the only way to derail Romney is to show him for what he really is and to derail the Super PAC money train.  

In regards to pastors of color, it is a gentle and difficult process which makes you subject to personal attacks, however, it is worth it.  Pastors have to be shown that the real evil is someone like Romney that rises to the White House by bashing the LGBT community and baiting President Obama to reveal himself to be an accepting and loving person.

Now who do you want in office?  

Go find a pastor of color, assure them their church will survive this frightening change to become more accepting.

P.S. I think the GOP has found me here so expect a whole bunch of deflection comments.

Discuss

Does it sound to you like President Wilson speaks of anyone today?

There are citizens of the United States ... who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to ring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt ... to destroy our industries ... and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue.... [W]e are without adequate federal laws.... I am urging you to do nothing less than save the honor and self-respect of the nation. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty,and anarchy must be crushed out.  

President Woodrow Wilson December 7, 1915

Discuss

Shortly after the 2008 election, when people of color were the tipping point to defeat/outlaw same-sex marriages, they looked different to me.

I was surprised at a new feeling in my gut:

That person that just walked past me is a member of "that race".  The race that voted 7 out of 10 to discriminate against me based on the way that God made me different from the majority.
What drove people of color to the polls to vote against me?  It was lies and racism perpetuated and orchestrated by the Republican Party.  That was their agenda in 2008 and now their power play in 2012.  Racism against the LGBT community will carry Romney into the White House and confirm a GOP Congress.

Playing the racist anti-gay card in the GOP is done with no backlash.  Romney himself contributed his own money to encourage it.  The contribution went to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  He took their pledgeto work towards national bans on same-sex marriages and to end same-sex adoption.

It’s practically impossible to be more conservative Republican than NOM

Shortly after sighting that person of color, I walked past my local Mormon church.  I saw a nice sign out front that said "Everyone Welcome".  Yeah right.  Everyone except millions of Americans that happen to be members of my family.  My greater gay (LGBT) family.  There was that feeling in my gut again.  This is where people that support racism worship.  Surely I thought, not Mormons in my own community.  Perhaps I wished they were different and more accepting.  I found it hard to believe people like that would live in my area.

But who am I kidding?  Manufactured fear, hate, racism, and being un-American is alive and well in politics these days.  It's proven right in the Court documents.
The Republicans are happy.  What matters is the vote in the swing states. Seven of nine swing states expected to be close in the presidential election have laws or constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriage.  Further, many States have ballot measures against same-sex marriage that will draw conservatives like bees to honey (or should that be toe tapping anti-gay Republicans to restrooms in airports).

So lets face it people, racism and combating racism, is the key issue for 2012.

So what should you do if you don't support Conservative agenda?
1. Call a spade a spade.  Romney is a racist bully.  His own pledge confirmed that.

2. Republicans feed off hate and discrimination.  Make sure others know you are above that.  Ask is that being American?  Does Romney's pledge to have a Presidential investigation into those that support same-sex marriage sound American to you?

3. Talk about, meet, and learn about this minority community that walks among you.

4. Endorse and show affirming examples of same-sex couples, and same-sex adoptions.

The choice is clear.  Accept a Conservative Republican president, or the nice family down your street.  Black power brokers are already telling people of color to stop supporting President Obama.  The division is real, and the situation is bleak.  

Please take the poll.

p.s. I see a lot of angry denials in the comments.  If you have trouble believing the truth, follow the links above.  Truth hurts.  Further sorry if you support that party.  Maybe you can help change it.  Any party that depends upon racism to gain votes and promises at the highest level to eliminate judges that protect minority rights is evil.  Plan simple evil.  

I think any political party that seeks to create division for its own gain rings too close to this famous quote:

There are citizens of the United States ... who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to ring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt ... to destroy our industries ... and to debase our politics to the uses of foreign intrigue.... [W]e are without adequate federal laws.... I am urging you to do nothing less than save the honor and self-respect of the nation. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty,and anarchy must be crushed out.  

President Woodrow Wilson December 7, 1915

Poll

A Federal Court ruled that, when a contribution is made with an "understanding", it is as if given directly. If Romney's contribution went to a State with contribuiton limits, did he potentially violate the law?

29%5 votes
11%2 votes
58%10 votes

| 17 votes | Vote | Results

Discuss

Dan Brown, the author who brought us The Da Vinci Code, in his book Deception Point certainly tells some whoppers.  Granted Brown is a fiction writer, however, can you image:

1. In the book a business orientated Senator running for President accepted campaign contributions from businessmen.  That is just outrageous.  Certainly no politician would do that; further

2. Some business men were told "With your help I will soon be in the White House...and you will be launching your dreams." (Page 253); and

3. Despite benefiting from contributions that exceeded the individual contribution limit, the Senator claimed "Perfectly Legal" (Page 332)

4. Brown listed some campaign assistance the Senator received were "upward of half a million dollars." Page 483

What kind of fiction does Dan Brown write?  Surely no one would believe business people would make contributions and expect policy changes in return.  Further the size of these contributions he described were outlandish.
Where is that ban the book committee when you really need it?  The American public certainly shouldn't be given the idea our fine upstanding business people would contribute for anything except altruistic reasons.

Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff and citizen attorney general of the United States acting on the behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission

Discuss

The super rich are pouring the money in and the GOP will swamp candidates for the Democratic party.  If care about that read on.  Ask yourself:

Does money given to Super PACs influence federal elections?
If you said yes, great.  I think it is also likely 2 out of 3 judges will also agree.   That is important since 3 things follow:

1. Since money given to super PACs influence federal elections, then they are federal campaign contributions.

2. Individuals represent the bulk of contributions to Super PAC money, and individuals have contribution limits.

3. Under U.S. common law, Courts care about whether something has the same net affect.  Therefore, since the net affect is affecting federal elections, they are federal contributions and subject to personal limit.

When you read what the FEC has published closely, they say Independent expenditures provide yet another way to support Federal candidates.

This came from the SpeechNow Court that concluded:

We should be clear, however, that we only decide these questions as applied to contributions to SpeechNow, an independent expenditure—only group. Our holding does not affect, for example, § 441a(a)(3)'s limits on direct contributions to candidates.

The key to stopping Super PACs and the GOP is focus on that last sentence.  Focus on what is legally under common law a "direct contribution".  

The challenge must be made in a different Circuit of the Federal Court system.  If a Court in another Circuit agrees that campaign contribution given with a prior understanding it would support one candidate is the same as a "direct contribution" then individual contribution limits apply to Super PACs.  Rather, it would apply to those that live in that Circuit.  

This in turn would prompt an appeal the U.S. Supreme Court to rule which Circuit is correct.

The Ninth Circuit is perhaps the best Circuit to launch this challenge.  I have already done that.  However, the case will die unless someone takes interest.

Are you interested in the unlimited campaign contributions and how it affects federal elections?  Does this concern you?
If so find someone that will depend against the lawsuit I have launched.  This will force the Ninth Circuit Court to rule.   My bet is the Ninth Circuit will rule in the same manner of the First Circuit when asked a similar question.  The First Circuit stated a contribution was subject to State regulation when there is an understanding it would be used to influence a State campaign.

It really is up to you.  

By August 21, 2012 someone must act if they want to fulfill the wishes of 69% of Americans that believe Super PACs should be illegal.  Unless someone challenges that SpeechNow ruling in another Circuit, just as I have done, Super PACs will decide who is in the White House.

Philip B. Maise (Self)

Discuss

The U.S. Federal Court in a case known as the “Super PAC” suit on June 18th, 2012 extended for 60 days the discovery hearing.  To date, no attorneys for the Defendants have filed notice of appearance to defend as Class counsels.  Attorneys wishing to represent the various Classes must file their notice of appearances and meet with the Plaintiff to prepare and submit documents before August 21, 2012.

Background:
 This action seeks to charges individuals and persons that have made, received, or benefited from excessive or prohibited individual campaign contributions in Federal elections.  

It is a legal impossibility, under common law, for contributions limits to exist that effect the outcome of Federal elections, and at the same time permit “unlimited” contributions to third parties that has the same outcome.
The suit contends the U.S. Court system has not invalidated Federal Election Campaign Law and the will of the U.S. Congress remains in tact and individual campaign contributions are limited.  The general public is reminded that the U.S. Federal Election Commission is not a Court of law and any advisories they issue do not represent a ruling of the U.S. Federal Courts.

Detail:  Details of the case can be found on the Notice of the case found at this link.  Please note the corrected dates above for the new hearing date and deadline to provide documents to the Court.  The consequence of failing to defend against this action may include default judgment against you and/or a binding settlement agreement.

Defendants:  Initially, the Plaintiff did not name the Defendants and described them as members of various Classes.  Since anyone checking FEC filings can also identify these same individuals, essentially, the Defendants were named.  No Defendants to date have taken sufficient notice of the action to understand that they are party to a lawsuit for their actions.  Therefore, in the interest of clarity and to give Defendants the chance to mount an effective and strong defense against the charges against them as a Class, the Plaintiff has decided to announce the names of some of the members of the main Classes.  

Please note that the appearance of your name in the lists below does not constitute a guilty verdict against you, however, it does inform you there is an action currently pending against you.  Further the list is only a sample of names, and final definition of the various Classes as not been approved by the Court and subject to change.  

Class I Defendants:
Political action committees or other organizations that retained excessive or prohibited individual campaign contributions within the past 5 years that were intended to support or contest against candidates and political parties for Federal office.  To be in this Class a group needs to have had the appearance of retaining at least $30,400 from a member of Class II Defendants.  

Class I Defendants are being requested as part of this action to comply with FEC directives 11 CFR 103.3(a) or (b).  This action disputes the legality of funds from Class II Defendants and reminds Class I Defendants that according to the FEC “If a  committee finds that a contribution is prohibited based on evidence not available when the contribution was deposited, the committee must refund the contribution within 30 days of discovery. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(2)”.  Treasurers of Class I Defendants are advised to build reserve funds to refund Class II Defendants should the Court rule in favor of the Plaintiff.  Proposed defendants include:

American Crossroads
Citizens for a Working America
Club for Growth Action
EMILY's List
Endorse Liberty
Freedom Works for America
House Majority PAC
Liberty for All Super PAC
Make Us Great Again
Majority PAC
National Organization for Marriage
Our Destiny PAC
Priorities USA Action
Red White and Blue Fund
Restore our Future
Revolution PAC
Santa Rita Super PAC
Strong America Now
Texas Conservative Fund
Winning our Future
Women Vote!
Class II Defendants: Individuals, and non-individuals that acted on the behalf of individuals, are Defendants that made, within the past 5 years of the filing date of the Complaint, contributions intended to effect the results of a Federal election that were prohibited or excessive. This Class is divided into sub-classes as follows:

Class II(a) Defendants: Individuals who, within the past 5 years of this filing, made contributions that were prohibited or exceeded the annual or biennial limits, as set by the FEC, by $75,000 or more.  The list is subject to change based upon new contributions made and a more detailed examination of prior contributions.  See Notice is you are the partner of an individual that made a contribution and did not intend to make the contribution yourself.  If you obtain a refund of an excessive contribution as recommended by the FEC notify the Plaintiff and be certain that the refund is reported to the FEC.  Members of this Class included at time of filing the following:

ADELSON, MIRIAM DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
ADELSON, SHELDON LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
AINSLIE, LEE NEW YORK, NY 10153
ANWAR, S JAVAID MIDLAND, TX 79701
ARNOTT, ROBERT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
BACON, LOUIS MOORE NEW YORK, NY 10020
BARNES, DEBORAH DOVER, MA 02030
BARNES, STEVEN DOVER, DE 02030
BEEUWKES,  NANCY CONCORD, MA
BEEUWKES, REINIER III CONCORD, MA
BERTHIAUME, DOUGLAS ANDOVER, MA 01810
BING, STEPHEN L ENCINO, CA 91436
BLOOM, BRADLEY WELLESLEY, MA 02481
BONDERMAN, DAVID FORT WORTH, TX
BOYCE, RICHARD PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028
BULLOCK, DAVID HIGHLAND, UT 84003
BUZBEE, TONY MR HOUSTON, TX 77002
CARSEY, MARCIA L. LOS ANGELES, CA
CARTER, DONALD MR ADDISON, TX 75001
CAVENEY, MARGARET C NORTH PALM BEACH, FL 33408
CHAZEN, STEPHEN I MR PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272
CHILDS,  MARLENE I. VERO BEACH, FL
CHILDS, JOHN VERO BEACH, FL 32963
CLOOBECK, STEPHEN J LAS VEGAS, NV 89135
COLLIER, MILES C. NAPLES, FL
COLLIER, PARKER J. NAPLES, FL
CONARD, EDWARD NEW YORK, NY 10028
CONNAUGHTON, JOHN WEST NEWTON, MA 02465
COX, HOWARD E JR PALM BEACH, FL 33480
COX, HOWARD STATESBORO, GA 30458
CRAFT, JOSEPH W TULSA, OK 74119
CROW, HARLAN R DALLAS, TX 75219
CUSHMAN, JOHN C III LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
DALTON, MARK GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
DAVIS, JAMES S BOSTON, MA 02135
DEASON, DARWIN A DALLAS, TX 75204
DEBONIS, LAURA BOSTON, MA
DODGE, STEVEN MANCHESTER, MA 01944
DONAVAN, JAMES UPPERVILLE, VA 20184
DORE, WILLIAM J LAKE CHARLES, LA 70605
DUCHOSSOIS, JANET J OAK BROOK, IL 60523
DUNN, TIM MIDLAND, TX 79710
EARHART, ANNE G. CORONA DEL MAR, CA
EDGERLY, PAUL BROOKLINE, MA 02445
EDGERLY, SANDRA BROOKLINE, MA 02445
EGERMAN,  JOANNE H. WESTON, MA
EGERMAN, PAUL  WESTON, MA
ESHELMAN, FRED WILMINGTON, NC
EYCHANER, FRED CHICAGO, IL
EYCHANER, FRED CHICAGO, IL 60614
FAULKNER, GORDON T.  MADISON, WI
FAULKNER, JUDITH R. MADISON, WI
FERNANDEZ, MIGUEL MIAMI, FL 33134
FERRANTE, DOMENIC NAPLES, FL 34108
FINDLATER, CHRISTOPHER MIAMI BEACH, FL
FIREMAN, PAUL BOSTON, MA 02110
FISCHER, DAVID TROY, MI 48084
FLAUM, DAVID ROCHESTER, NY 14610
FLEISCHMAN, WILLIAM O LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
FORST, EDWARD C BRONXVILLE, NY 10708
FOSTER, PAUL L MR EL PASO, TX 79901
FOX, JEFFREY ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
FOX, SAM ST. LOUIS, MO 63105
FRANTZ, L SCOTT RIVERSIDE, CT 06878
FRIESS, FOSTER JACKSON, WY 83002
GEIER, PHILIP H NEW YORK, NY 10022
GILLIAM, LESLIE F. KESWICK, VA
GILLIAM, RICHARD BAXTER KESWICK, VA 22947
GORDY,  GLENDA J. HOUSTON, TX
GORDY, RUSSELL D. HOUSTON, TX
GRIFFIN,  ANNE D. CHICAGO, IL
GRIFFIN, JOHN A TARRYTOWN, FL 10591
GRIFFIN, KENNETH C CHICAGO, IL 60611
GROFF, HOWARD NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324
GROFF, SUSAN NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324
GUNDLACH, GUY D LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
HARRIS, JOHN A. IV BERWYN, PA
HAUG, DAVID L MR HOUSTON, TX 77056
HAYDEN,  MARILYN J. BARRINGTON, IL
HAYDEN, JERRY L.  BARRINGTON, IL
HERRO, DAVID G. CHICAGO, IL
HERTEL, KRISTEN H WINNETKA, IL 60093
HILES, MARCUS D MR GRAND PRAIRIE, TX 75050
HUBBARD, RANDALL D MR RUIDOSO, NM 88345
HUGHES, B. WAYNE SR. LEXINGTON, KY
HUNTER,  RACHEL HOUSTON, TX
HUNTER, MICHAEL  HOUSTON, TX
HUNTING, JOHN R. GRAND RAPIDS, MI
HUNTSMAN, JON M SR SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84108
JACOBS,  JOAN K. LA JOLLA, CA
JACOBS, IRWIN M.  LA JOLLA, CA
JAMES, VIRGINIA LAMBERTVILLE, NJ
JOHNSON, FRANKLIN P. JR. PALO ALTO, CA
JONES, PAUL TUDOR II GREENWICH, CT 06830
KAPLAN, THOMAS NEW YORK, NY 10022
KATZENBERG, JEFFREY UNIVERSAL CITY, CA 91608
KELLETT, SAMUEL PINETTA, FL 32350
KENNEDY, JOHN KENTWOOD, MI 49512
KOCH, WILLIAM WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
KOVNER, BRUCE NEW YORK, NY 10022
KROUSE, RODGER BOCA RATON, FL 33496
LAVERACK, WILLIAM, NEW YORK
LEACH, HOWARD SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
LEDER, MARC BOCA RATON, FL 33496
LEMELSON, ERIC SHERWOOD, OR
LINBECK, LEO III HOUSTON, TX 77227
LISONBEE, DAVID SANDY, UT 85070
LITTLE, WILLIAM E JR NEW YORK, NY 10128
LUKATZ, OREN LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
LUKATZ, YASMIN LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
MAFFEI, GREGORY CHERRY HILLS VILLA, CO 80113
MARCUS,  JUDITH PALO ALTO, CA
MARCUS, GEORGE M. PALO ALTO, CA
MARKSTEINER, GUNTER PALM CITY, FL 34990
MARRIOTT, JW JR BETHESDA, MD 20817
MARRIOTT, RICHARD POTOMAC, MD 20854
MARTINO, MICHAEL E NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
MATTHEWS, JJ ABILENE, TX 79604
MCBARRY, RAY MCDONOUGH, GA 30253
MCCORMACK, WIN PORTLAND, OR 97219
MCKNIGHT, ROSS MR THROCKMORTON, TX 76483
MCLANE, P ANDREWS WESTON, MA 02493
MCLANE, ROBERT DRAYTON MR JR TEMPLE, TX 76504
MCNAIR, ROBERT C MR HOUSTON, TX 77054
MELWANI, PRAKASH NEW YORK, NY 10154
MERCER, DIANA EAST SETAUKET, NY
MERCER, ROBERT EAST SETAUKET, NY 11733
MICHAELS, LAURIE F. FORT WORTH, TX
MORSE, H. GARY THE VILLAGES, FL 32162
MORSE, RENEE B THE VILLAGES, FL 32162
MUGAR, DAVID BOSTON, MA 02116
MUMFORD, JOHN MR PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028
NATHAN, SCOTT A.  BOSTON, MA
NAU, JOHN L III HOUSTON, TX 77219
NAVAB, ALEXANDER NEW YORK, NY 10022
O'KEEFE, ERIC SPRING GREEN, WI 53588
OCHSHORN, SIVAN LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
OETERS, DONALD CINCINNATI, OH 45249
OSKOUI, STEPHEN AUSTIN, TX 78701
PALMER, GEOFF LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
PAULSON, JOHN NEW YORK, NY 10020
PEARSON, THOMAS L. BIXBY, OK
PENCE, ROBERT WASHINGTON, DC 20007
PERENCHIO, A. JERROLD  LOS ANGELES, CA
PERENCHIO, A. MARGARET LOS ANGELES, CA
PERRY, DOYLENE HOUSTON, TX
PERRY, ROBERT J. HOUSTON, TX
PETERSON, JOEL SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84121
PLUMERI, JOSEPH SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866
PROPST, WS HUNSTVILLE, AL 35801
PUZDER, ANDREW CARPINTERIA, CA 93013
REES-JONES, JAN DALLAS, TX
REES-JONES, TREVOR , TX
REYNOLDS, ROBERT CONCORD, MA 01742
RICKETTS, J JOE DENVER, CO 80223
RICKETTS, JOHN J.  OMAHA, NE
RICKETTS, MARLENE M. OMAHA, NE
ROBERTSON, JULIAN LOCUST VALLEY, NY 11560
ROLLINS, KEVIN DOVER, MA 02030
ROSS, STEPHEN NEW YORK, NY 10023
ROTH, STEVEN NEW YORK, NY 10106
ROWLING, ROBERT B IRVING, TX 75039
ROWLING, TERRY H. DALLAS, TX
RYAN, BRINT MR DALLAS, TX 75240
RYAN, VINCENT J. BOSTON, MA
SATTER, MUNEER CHICAGO, IL 60606
SCHORR, PAUL C IV NEW YORK, NY 10022
SCHWARTZ, BERNARD L NEW YORK, NY 10021
SEIU COPE WASHINGTON, DC 20036
SHUMWAY, CHRIS W GREENWICH, CT 06830
SIEBEL, STACEY PALO ALTO, CA
SIEBEL, THOMAS  PALO ALTO, CA
SILBERSTEIN, STEPHEN M. BELVEDERE, CA
SIMMONS, HAROLD C DALLAS, TX 75240
SIMONS, JAMES H NEW YORK, NY 10022
SINGER, PAUL NEW YORK, NY 10019
SMITH, EDWARD D LAS VEGAS, NV 89145
SMITH, STUART H. MIAMI, FL
SOROS, GEORGE NEW YORK, NY 10106
SPRECHER, JEFFREY ATLANTA, GA 30328
STEPHENS, JACKSON T JR LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
STRYKER, PATRICIA FORT COLLINS, CO
SUDLER, PETER TEQUESTA, FL 33469
SUSSMAN, S. DONALD GREENWICH, CT
TEECE, DAVID J. EMERYVILLE, CA
TEECE, LEIGH G. EMERYVILLE, CA
TEMPLETON, ANN J SARASOTA, FL 34236
TEMPLETON, JOHN M DR JR BRYN MAWR, PA 19010
TEPPER, DAVID LIVINGSTON, NJ 07078
THIEL, PETER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94129
TOOMEY, MIKE MR AUSTIN, TX 78701
TROUTT, KENNY A DALLAS, TX 75225
UIHLEIN, LYNDE B. MILWAUKEE, WI
UIHLEIN, RICHARD PLEASANT PRAIRIE, WI 53142
VARVEL, ERIC GREENWICH, CT 06831
WALTON, ALICE BENTONVILLE, AR 72712
WALTON, JIM BENTONVILLE, AR 72712
WARREN, KELCY L DALLAS, TX 75219
WEBSTER, STEVEN HOUSTON, TX 77002
WETENHALL, ROBERT C NEW YORK, NY 10022
WHALING, R GRAHAM HOUSTON, TX 77019
WHITMAN, MEG ATHERTON, CA 94027
WILSON, DAVID LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ZELL, SAMUEL CHICAGO, IL 60606
ZIDE, STEPHEN OLD GREENWICH, CT 06870
Class II(b) Defendants: Individuals who, within the past 5 years of this filing, made contributions that were prohibited or exceeded the annual or biennial limits, as set by the FEC, by more than $10,000 but less than $75,000.  

Class II(c) Defendants: Individuals who, within the past 5 years of this filing, made contributions that were prohibited or exceeded the annual or biennial limits, as set by the FEC, by $10,000 or less.

Class II(d) Defendants: Non-individuals such as corporations, LLCs, foundations, or similar entity that were utilized by an individual(s) as an intermediary, within the past 5 years of this filing, to make contributions to a campaign for Federal Office that exceeded a category limit or the biennial limit for an individual(s), as set by the FEC, by $25,000 or more.  Individuals who have the power to direct funds spent by non-individual entities are cautioned that they may be found guilty of two infractions of law.  Firstly the contribution may be ascribed as being an excessive individual contribution, and secondly it may be ascribed to having been made in the name of another.  Defendants in this class include:

2GIG TECHNOLOGIES LEHI, UT 84043
ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS TULSA, OK 74121
ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES LLC ABINGDON, VA 24212
BLUE RIDGE CAPITAL LLC NEW YORK, NY 10065
CONSOL ENERGY, INC CANONSBURG, PA 15317
CONTRAN CORPORATION DALLAS, TX 75240
CROW HOLDINGS LLC - DISTRIBUTIO DALLAS, TX 75219
ELAINE MCKAY FAMILY INV LP LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651
ELI PUBLISHING INC PROVO, UT 84601
F8 LLC PROVO, UT 84601
FORESIGHT MANAGEMENT LLC BECKLEY, WV 25801
G H PALMER ASSOCIATES LOS ANGELES, CA 90049
GLENBROOK LLC REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065
HERITAGE BAG COMPANY CARROLLTON, TX 75006
HUBBARD BROADCASTING INC ST. PAUL, MN 55114
JERRY PERENCHIO LIVING TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
JET SET SPORTS HOLDINGS, LP FAR HILLS, NJ 07931
JHJM NEVADA I, LLC LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
KIMBER MANUFACTURING INC YONKERS, NY 10705
LARRY H MILLER GROUP OF COMPANIES SANDY, UT 84070
MBF FAMILY INVESTMENTS MIAMI, FL 33134
OXBOW CARBON, LLC WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401
PAUMANOK PARTNERS LLC NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
ROONEY HOLDINGS, INC TULSA, OK 74146
RTTTA, LLC PROVO, UT 84604
SCHWERTNER FARMS, INC SCHWERTNER, TX 76573
SCI EXECUTIVE SERVICES, INC HOUSTON, TX 77019
SELECT MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, LLC ALPHARETTA, GA 30005
SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UN WASHINGTON, DC 20036
SLOCUM AND ASSOCIATES SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
THE VILLAGES OF LAKE SUMTER, INC THE VILLAGES, FL 32162
TROTT AND TROTT PC FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48334
W/F INVESTMENT CORP LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
WEAVER POPCORN COMPANY INC INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46256
WHITECO INDUSTRIES INC MERRILLVILLE, IN 46410
Class II(e) Defendants: Individuals that made excessive or prohibited contributions to organizations that purportedly support a cause or special interest that ultimately has an effect on the election of candidates for Federal office.  Included in this Class are those that made contributions to groups like the National Organization for Marriage and similar issue related groups that are issue oriented and generally supported by candidates for Federal office along partisan lines.  This is specifically intended to close a loop-hole wherein individuals that want to support a specific party give money to groups that support issues that fall generally according to party lines.  Please note this is different than in the Notice.  The Notice describes groups that received the funds and not donors to the groups.  Groups that receive the funds are Class I Defendants.  

Final Class definition is subject to approval of the Court.

Class III(a) Defendants:
Individuals or organizations that conspired with Class II Defendants to disguise contributions, and/or frustrate the intent of FECA to either limit or disclose funds used in Federal elections.  This class specifically includes any attorneys who assisted their client to commit actions that are illegal according to FECL.  This class was prompted in part from Court documents that were revealed in another case.  That case demonstrated some organizations anticipate legal fees as the cost of doing business and violating the law and that the purpose of the funds were to help donors evade the law.

Class III(b) Defendants:
Individuals or organizations that received payments in excess of $50,000 in a single year that originated from campaign contributions that were excessive or prohibited for salaries, bonus, rewards, kickbacks, consulting fees, or commissions etc.  The intention of the limit is to exclude the majority of workers for organizations that may have had no idea the funds they were receiving were illegal.  Further, this excludes individuals that may have earned more from organizations where the bulk of their monies received are not from illegal funds.

Class III(c) Defendants: Individuals or organizations that received payments in excess of $250,000 in a single year that originated from campaign contributions that were excessive or prohibited in exchange for services rendered such as consulting, advertising, telephone campaigns, and voter mailings.  Since the Plaintiff doesn't know without discovery requests the exact amounts that Class III(c) Defendants have received the appearance of an organizations name below means only that it is suspected to have received more than $250,000 in total payments.  Further this list is not comprehensive and only a sample:

Amazon.com
Apple
Begala, Paul
Blakemore & Assoc
Burkett, Rebecca
Cablevision Systems
CBS
CC Media Holdings
Clark Hill PLC
Comcast
Crossroads Media
DISH Network
Gannett Company, Inc
General Electric
Google
GSG Communications
Hubbard Communications (Also appears as Class II defendant)
Journal Communications
Lee Enterprises
Liberty Media Revenue
MSN
Mundy Katowitz Media
National Public Radio
News Corp.
Nmb Research
Perry, Bob
Podium Capital Group
Target Point Consulting
The Denver Post
The E.W. Scripps Company
The McClatchy Company
The Minneapolis Star Tribune
The New York Times Company
The Washington Post
Time Warner Cable
Viacom
Virgin Media
Walt Disney
Yahoo

What to do if you are named or believe you will be named:

If you were named in the lawsuit, or believe you may be a member of a Class according to the definitions.  Be certain to read the Notice prepared for Defendants.  The Notice contains links to on-line documents you can review.  Documents are also available on a system called PACER that provides public access to official Court documents.  

Defendants are encouraged to work together to mount a strong defense against the action and identify qualified attorneys to represent them in their defense.  

Contact information for the Plaintiff can be found in the Notice.

Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff and citizen attorney general of the United States acting on the behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission

Discuss

Fri Jun 15, 2012 at 08:26 PM PDT

Why Obama must sue "his" super PAC

by pbmaise

President Obama must sue his super PAC in order to distance himself from it.  

#1 Why not take the moral high ground? There is nothing to be gained by having one as he has all the money he needs.  

#2  Individual contributions are limited by law.  Most super PAC money will eventually be found to be illegal owing to the reasonable person test.  This means in a Court of law donations to super PACs will be judged to be as if given directly.  

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.  (James Whitcomb Riley)
#3 Foreign contributions are completely illegal in all forms. Just today Sen. John McCain recognized that millions of dollars of foreign money are being funneled into elections by individuals.

#4 Many super PACs are run by questionable individuals. The press has reported that some super PAC managers set up the firms that they send money to, and hide the kickbacks.  

qui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent, "He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas (Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanack)
#5 Elephant in the room  The obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed is Congress set individual contribution limits.  No where did Congress say it was okay to give to a third party to escape this clause.  It was the FEC that changed the law after the EMILY's List ruling that allowed people to claim campaign contributions were not against their individual limit.  

#6 The FEC is now reviewing their changes.  If the FEC and the Courts agree on ducks, dogs, and elephants, a whole lot of donors will be found guilty of violating campaign law.

By filing suit against "his" super PAC Obama gets to stand proud and say "See that is what my opponent does to try and get elected.  My opponent embraces this questionable money.  Please only contribute the maximum set by Congress and ignore the loop-holes."

Philip B. Maise

Discuss

If you feel guilty making the sound boo.  Practice in the mirror, or just remember:

1. Romney is a hired tool of billionaires that believe they can continue to make unlimited campaign contributions.  Something that is illegal.

2. Romney will honor his commitments to get that money by making the super rich richer.

3. Romney uses the same-sex marriage issue to draw conservative voters to the polls.  These voters care more about what goes on in the bedroom next door than future wars in places like Iran to fulfill commitments to billionaires.

4. Romney was a bully, is a bully, and will always be a bully.

5. Now pretend the bully isn't there, or, go shout boo collectively.

Discuss

When you look at an organization, you can look at what they claim and what they do.

EMILY's List claims:  

"EMILY’s List looks for viable political opportunities and recruits strong pro-choice Democratic women candidates to run."
If that is the case, then why did EMILY's List enable conservative rich Republican men to get unlimited donations?

Yes, that is right it was women, or women manipulated by men, that were responsible for super PACs.

EMILY's List sued the FEC so "they" could get unlimited contributions.  

Who were these women at EMILY's List who thought that opening the door so they could get unlimited financing would benefit women?  Ten to one the door they opened is money against their cause.

I would prefer to think women are not that short cited and that women were being manipulated to do exactly the opposite of what the group claims:

The result of EMILY's List actions is more conservative Republican men.

So are there women at EMILY's List now that realize what they have done?  Or is EMILY's List just a front for conservative Republican men?

Philip B. Maise

p.s. If I have given charge or fire to any women left in America that still cares, and I hope I did, read the Court rulings if you want to know the sad story of how EMILY's List was the source of super PACs.  The FEC is going to revisit the rules that EMILY's List forced the FEC to change.  Provide comment to the FEC so they get it right this time.

Links:
FEC to revisit laws changed on request of EMILY's List that led to super PACs

The most productive way EMILY's List can promote women, like they claim, is undo the damage they caused to the campaign finance laws.

Discuss

Below, I try and write with a little humor, but this subject is very serious and your input in rewriting campaign law as requested by the FEC is vital.  By all means contact the FEC and oppose or support my views below.

Many complain the triumvirate meetings are too secret. However, the fact is few of you go even when you have the chance.   Some of you haven't been to a meeting in so long you have forgotten the triumvirate decides who gets to rule.  

This years meeting is about as open to the public as we dare make it.  You have a chance to provide your input.  So please, don't come complaining to me when the triumvirate announces its decisions after this silly thing called a "fair election".  

This years triumvirate will be hosted by the Federal Election Commission. Washington D.C.  Yeah!  I'm so tired of going to Texas so many times in a row.  

James, as usual, will represent the Republicans.  Expect him to push for more loop-holes and to defend the ones made wide so the Texan gang can spend spend SPEND!  

Fred looks like this meeting's surprise third player.  Bully Fred!  Expect Fred to start by pitching Chevron and Ashwander.  If he succeeds to convince the FEC, then super PACs will be declared illegal and we will use that to tell Romney to sit out another 4 more years.

Triumvirates meetings, unlike what most people believe, are rarely set in stone so there still may be a surprise or two down the road.  

So get off your butts people, do something.  Send your comments to the FEC give your input.

I'm posting my open letter here.  

If written this letter with to the FEC with the public in mind so that at least a few of you may actually learn about the campaign finance laws that decide who is elected.

Regards,

Philip B. Maise

p.s. I know many of you are busy discussing potato salad on this website, so please ignore subjects like mine that actually involve politics.

********************  
Open letter to the FEC on how to revise statutes.

To: Federal Election Commission
Attention: Chair Caroline C. Hunter,
               Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub

CC: Attorneys Herman, Kolker, Deeley, Chlopak, James, and Fred

Aloha,
Please accept the following input in regards to reinstatement and revision to 3 statutes that were deleted in the wake of EMILY's list.

I have requested that the Court in my lawsuit against super PACs and their donors to  issue a preliminary injunction that would reinstate the 3 deleted statutes as they were previous until new ones are revised.

I do not think it is necessary for the FEC to wait for this injunction, and think it should act immediately to reinstate the previous rules until new ones are drafted.

The FEC is congratulated!  It is so good it has decided to revisit statutes it changed that led to super PACs.   It has finally realized it was in error and I can't believe you are seeking public input at this time.  I want to get my input into the FEC ASAP.  

So here goes:

When addressing any problem, the FEC should begin with three points in mind:

1. There is a strong group of wealthy individuals that will spend money in anyway possible to influence elections so their desired candidates and party are elected.
2. For over 100 years, Congress has recognized this is bad for democracy. Congress set campaign contribution limits on individuals to try and prevent this from occurring.
3. The FEC was charged with the duty of enforcing the intention of Congress.
When considering any solution, the FEC should complete the following check list:
1. Is the solution in keeping with the intention of Congress?
2. Does the solution open up loop-holes to allow unlimited spending?
3. Will it stop simple illegal advertisements?
With these points in mind lets begin by summarizing the 3 statutes that were changed, and changed in this particular case means that they were completely deleted:

11 CFR 100.57 states that if a solicitation indicates that any funds received will be used to support or oppose the election of a clearly identified Federal candidate, those funds must be treated as contributions, unless such a solicitation also refers to a non-Federal candidate, in which case at least half of the funds received must be treated as contributions;

11 CFR 106.6(c) requires nonconnected political committees to use Federal funds to pay at least half of their administrative expenses, generic voter drives, and public communications that refer to a political party but no clearly identified  andidates; and

11 CFR 106.6(f) requires nonconnected political committees to use Federal funds to finance voter drives and public communications that refer to one or more clearly identified Federal candidates, but do not refer to any clearly identified non-Federal candidates, and requires such activities that refer to both Federal and non-Federal candidates be financed with a proportionate mix of Federal and non-Federal funds.

By far 11 CFR 100.57 is the most important change the FEC made and what really led to super PACs.  To correct this statute we must work on the FEC definitions.  

Contribution:  A contribution in a Federal election is anything of value given to influence a Federal election.
Fine, but not clear enough.  Who decides whether something influences a Federal election?  That answer is easy.  It is the reasonable person.  So reworking the statutes we must build in that test.

Notice now in the old statutes notice the use of the phrase “clearly identified Federal candidate”.  That is not going to fly.  This is obviously an attempt to establish a “bright-line” that defines electioneering in a way that allows people to evade the statute.  

The FEC cannot build loop-holes into statutes so they can be exploited.
 

It is not possible to avoid the reasonable person test when rewriting these statutes. It is not possible for the FEC to build in the ability for groups to make indirect references, use satire, or other creative expressions to evade the intention of Congress.

Either a reasonable person understands from the message that the sponsor of the message desires that they vote in one way or doesn't. There may be an occasional instance when the intentions of the speaker is uncertain, and a voter has no idea what fashion the speaker desired the voter to cast their vote. In these instances it is because the person that created the message intended it for narrow focus  audience that does understand exactly what was intended. The reasonable person in an instance like this becomes a reasonable person that is a member of that focus audience.

The statutes and attempts of the FEC to enforce the intentions of Congress are an utter failure if do not address simple ways to influence Federal elections.
If FEC statutes don't cover even the most simple forms of marketing the FEC needs to work on the statutes till they get it right.
In revamping the laws keep these hypothetical advertisements in mind:
First hypothetical television commercials seen by voters:
        Bright happy dancing people
        Swaying green palm trees
        Nice clean beach front
        Fun happy song
        Green shirts

        Nothing more,
            No text
            No party
            No message
            No candidates
            No slogans on shirts
            No mention of an election

                Disclaimer: Paid for by 24#*([&]

Would the above advertising be effective and influence a Federal election.  It most certainly would.  There probably isn't a person out there reading this that doesn't know exactly what this message meant.  Yet FEC statutes, as currently written, would permit a group to spend unlimited amounts of money to market a political party and candidates for Federal office on an unlimited basis.

The FEC must accept the fact that, particularly around election time, when someone is paying to advertise a message, there is some intention involved. Unless it is readily apparent that the intention is the consumer buy a particular product, it is more than likely that the intention is that they vote in a certain manner. Therefore, the FEC must watch and build within statutes language that encompasses the intention.

Second hypothetical television commercials seen by voters:
        Minister & marriage
        Wedding bells
        Flower girl
        Big church
        Big cake

        Nothing more,
            No text            
            No party
            No message
            No candidates
            No slogans on shirts            
            No mention of an election

            Disclaimer: Paid for by Nationwide Council to Protect Marriage

Again, this is another example of a very clear message to voters that influences a Federal election.  During the 2012 election one major party candidate signed a pledge to protect marriage and work towards a nationwide ban on same-sex marriages. Another candidate has come out in favor of same-sex marriages. The push to get voters to the polls of the party that will elect the candidate of your choice is clearly influencing a Federal election. Therefore, the hypothetical advertisement despite any claims it isn't about the Federal elections is suspect.

The FEC has to do its job. The commissioners of the FEC sit around all day and vote 3 to 3 against nearly everything and collect taxpayer money for doing nothing. So it is high time the FEC actually did what Congress intended. Unless the FEC can produce revised statutes that cover the most simple advertisements it should admit that it is nothing but a tool of the wealthy so they can control elections.

The FEC must recognize the lie. The bold face lie that stares them in the face.  “Issue only advertising" is largely a shame.

There is one and only one test to see if an issue group is really an issue group or a political action committee in disguise. That test is made by one and only person. Yup, same guy.  The reasonable person.  

Therefore, in revamping the statutes the FEC must also address the definition of a PAC so that it encompasses PACs that operate under the thin guise of an “issue group”.

As I personally wrote or rewrote most of the pages on Wikipedia regarding Political Action Committees, 527 Organizations, Issue advocacy, Dark money, Eight magic words, and related topics, I think have a little more ability then most to assist with redefinitions of some key terms. Here goes:

Non-Connected Political Action Committee (PAC): One or more than one individuals that receives or expends items of value that, when viewed by a reasonable person, is intended, or has the net effect, to influence voters.

Candidate Political Action Committee (PAC): The candidate himself, or candidate along with others that receives or expends items of value that, when viewed by a reasonable person, is intended, or has the net effect, to influence voters.

Federal Political Action Committee: A PAC wherein items of value exceed $1000 within a calendar year, and the intention of the contributor or net effect of the expenditures, when viewed by a reasonable person, influence voters in a Federal election.  

Individual Federal Campaign Contribution: The transfer of an item of value from an individual that, when viewed by a reasonable person, was made with the intention, or net effect, to influence a Federal election.

Federal Electioneering: The act of expending anything of value that, when viewed by a reasonable person, was intended, or has the net effect, to influence a Federal election.

Issue Advocacy Group: A group consisting of one or more individuals that receives or expends items of value that exceed $1,000 within a calendar year, and advocates for or against a position that, when viewed by a reasonable person, helps or hinders the election prospects of a candidate for Federal office that shares or opposes the groups position. Specifically included in this category are groups advocating for or against issues that concern citizens nationwide or across multiple states. Issues may encompass a variety of topics including abortion, same-sex marriages and adoptions, immigration, minimum wage, natural resources, medical insurance, medicare, social security, and the large construction projects that
extend across State multiple state lines.

Specifically cautioned in this regard are organizations that may not otherwise recognize their actions to actively support or oppose a specific position or cause may constitute electioneering owing to their issue advocacy. Organizations like this are human rights groups, churches, fraternal associations, non-profits, and leadership groups.

These definitions may require some slight polish. However, compare them against the hypothetical advertisements presented. Notice in both cases the clear intention of the those that paid for the advertisements are governed now according to the intention of Congress.  One argument presented to the FEC in the past is people are very stupid. Those that made this  argument tended to be high priced attorneys that were trying to maintain or build in loop holes. They whined that advertisers wouldn't accept messages from groups trying exercise their of free speech because advertisers are too stupid to discern that is electioneering.

This argument is completely groundless and know how much trouble the Court can get into (violation of Ashwander) and FEC can get into (violation of Chevron).


Back up the beginning of our meeting when recited the tenants of the FEC.

1. There is a strong group of wealthy individuals that will spend money in anyway possible to influence elections so their desired candidates and party are elected.

2. For over 100 years, Congress has recognized this is bad for democracy. Congress set campaign contribution limits on individuals to try and prevent this from occurring.

3. The FEC was charged with the duty of enforcing the intention of Congress.
The duty of the FEC has nothing to do with protecting free speech. Further, anyone can see right through those that fabric this argument. Those claiming they want to “protect free speech”, or have the audacity to slander the name James Madison are doing so to enable wealthy individuals to violate the intentions of Congress.

Anyone that suspects a message they are about to transmit to a voter constitutes electioneering need only ask a few questions.
1. Is the group legally operating PAC (super PACs are not), or is it a shame issue group supported by wealthy campaign contributors hiding their illegal actions? If so no problem.

2. Did the group asking for the broadcast of the message show up right around election time and did it seem to spring from no where? If so it is suspect.

3. Does the message itself contain content that a reasonable person when viewing would conclude supported a particular candidate or candidates position?
When in doubt, the television station, or newspaper, that suspects or worries that the message they are about to broadcast is really a political advertisement and constitutes electioneering only need ask the reasonable person

.

The reasonable person is everywhere and available to answer questions at anytime.
There is no need to bother the FEC nor the Courts. The board cast executive, if in personal doubt based upon his own personal knowledge, need only ask fellow staff members. In the two hypothetical examples given one or more of the staff members would no doubt know about the Green Party or heard that Mitt Romney has pledged to work towards a nationwide ban on same-sex marriages or adoptions.
It is basically illogical that the broadcast executive wouldn't know these things given the nature of their business.

Notice in this example the advocacy for or against the issue constitutes advocacy for or against a Presidential candidate. These means 100% of the funds used for or against the issue count as Federal election campaign contributions. The funds influence voters on the issue and drives voters to vote one way in a Federal election.
The reasonable person test in general can be thought of as something that blocks the loop-holes. It is not possible to get around the test and come up with a creative way to support a candidate by trying to evade the law. As the real example above demonstrates anyone that made large donations to groups in favor or against same-sex marriages may very well be doing so, not because of their on believe on the
issue, rather it is an attempt to influence a Federal campaign.

According to the ruling of EMILY's List v. the FEC, the Court requested that the FEC to stay within it's own jurisdiction and only control monies associated with Federal electioneering and to allow organizations that wanted to spend at the State level to be controlled by State level election commissions.

In order to incorporate the desire of the Court and the reasonable person test into one set of rules, the principle problem is determining what monies are truly spent to influence State level elections, what monies are spent to influence Federal elections, and whether some monies are spent to influence both.  At the State level, there are the same political parties as at the Federal level. Voters have a tendency to vote based upon party affiliation. Therefore, campaign contributions at the State level influence Federal elections.

If big campaign donor desired a particular Federal candidate or Federal party, all they need do is make contributions at the State level to candidates of the same party that will in turn influence the Federal election.

As the two examples given demonstrate there can be clear influences upon Federal elections with no mention of any election whether it is at State or Federal level. A large portion of money currently spent at State level influences Federal elections and there is no bright-line rules the FEC can impose to differentiate the two.

It isn't until elections get down to the City and local level that the connection between the State and Federal elections begins to breakdown. For example, many areas have non-party specific elected city councilmen, city mayors, county officials, etc.. Fortunately, the spending at local levels on these types of offices tends to be on orders of magnitude far smaller than on either State of Federal level.

Therefore, the question that the FEC posed regarding PACs and how they should subdivide accounts into Federal level and State level is rendered easily answered by accepting the above facts.

The reality is there is no such thing as significant State level spending that doesn't influence Federal elections.
It is certainly true, this flies in the face of both EMILY's Court and SpeechNow.org Courts. However, both of these Courts are clearly in error and the FEC can tell confidently inform these Courts to take a hike. It was not possible for these Courts to demand the FEC to change the law and these Courts were in error for considering constitutional issues owing to Ashwander. At best these judges were overworked individuals who fail to understand Chevron.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Hollen appears to be the only rational judge in the D.C. Circuit who understands common law. She correctly pointed at the exact Supreme Court precedence cases. The cases that vex the FEC violated the intention of Congress and ask the FEC to violate its basis for being.

To set matters in a forward fashion, the FEC must look back at the original intention of Congress when it created the Acts that it was charged to enforce. These Acts clearly indicate Congress's intention that there be individual contribution limits.

It is impossible for these three things to co-exist:

A. A limit when making contributions directly to candidates.

B. No limits when making contributions to third parties.

C. Common law and reasonable person test.

The FEC knows which direction it must go. It can't eliminate the reasonable person test and stop the United States from using common law. Congress clearly intended individual contribution limits.

Therefore, it has only one option. It must remove its stance that unlimited individual contributions to third parties used to influence a Federal election are legal.
The FEC is reminded that in SpeechNow.org the court specifically stated that it did not wish the FEC to consider its ruling to change limitations on contributions direct to a candidate. That ruling was subsequent to EMILY's List and by the same Court sitting en blanc. Further the First Circuit Court in NOM v. McKee on January 31, 2012 ruled again how the reasonable person test is utilized to determine if a contribution counts as if made directly. All the contributions made to PACs when there is prior knowledge by contributor that it will support a particular candidate or party constitute contributions directly to candidates.

Therefore, clearly the FEC must address what goes into the PACs account before the issue of dividing it into State and Federal levels. The amount that is eventually attributed between accounts must be legal on both Federal and State levels.
Now lets return the the bigger problem. What is Federal level versus State level electioneering and where is the line between jurisdiction between the FEC and State level commissions?

However, before we get to that lets talk seriously about the D.C. Circuit Court. I mean real seriously.
Why was the FEC convicted in EMILY's List and SpeechNow.org?
#1 The FEC wasn't the real party of interest. Come on this is law school 101. The FEC allowed itself to be drawn into suits because it was named. The real party of interest was the one that created the law, not the one charged to enforce it. Both EMILY's List and SpeechNow.org wanted to change the law.  However, the FEC can't do that according to Chevron. Only the U.S. Congress could. FRCP Rule 17.

#2 I know this is difficult. Understanding the law usually is. The FEC was wrongly convicted. There is no doubt about it. Look again carefully at the questions before the Court, look at the Court rulings, and ask yourself in light of Chevron, could the FEC change the law? Could the FEC do what the Court asked? Could the Court go against Ashwander? The answers are a resounding NO.

#3 So why was Hollen different? Hollen didn't seek to violate the intention of Congress. Hollen sought the enforcement of the law as intended by Congress. The Court did not need to consult with Congress regarding the question of Congressional intention. It was clear from the plan text of the Act that led to the creation of the FEC. Both EMILY's List and SpeechNow.org ignored the plain text of the Act that said limits applied, and claimed limits did not apply to their particular case. In short Hollen sued to get the FEC do to the job it was charged with doing and the others sued to change the rules.

#4 Oh does this make this so easy. The FEC can go back in the court room and announce. Hey! You convicted the wrong guy and both of these Courts can only do one thing. There rulings must be set aside. Again it is absolutely impossible for the FEC to fulfill the intention of that Court, and comply with Congress at the same time. As Congress was the real party of interest in those cases the FEC was wrongly convicted.

#5 Here are a few tangential points.  Did the Plaintiff's file a separate independent action to comply with the ruling? FRCP Rule 64(b). I have not seen a Courts signature upon the changes made to the statutes as a result of the rulemaking meetings. I've seen no notice of satisfaction of judgment. Perhaps if the FEC and the Plaintiffs actually followed basic FRCP procedures the Court would have finally realized that it was asking the FEC to do something it couldn't comply with.

#6 Having the Courts rethink whether they wrongly convicted the FEC tosses both EMILY's List and SpeechNow.org into the waste bin where they belong. They belong there because a reasonable person when looking at a tremendous amount of money spent on State elections to support one party would conclude that the money will also influence a Federal Election. The two cannot be separated. Further, a tremendous amount of money spent against same-sex marriages directly influences and supports the Federal candidate for office that supports a national ban.

So where do we go?

Again easy. There can be no division in common law and the reasonable person test between money contributed to special interest groups, State level elections, or Federal level elections. Further there is no division between funds sent directly to a candidate and funds sent to a third party. They are all one in the same.
There are two sets laws in play here. Federal laws and State laws. Fortunately, we are only discussing one campaign contributor and one action by a PAC or special interest group at a time. Looking on this basis here are the suggested rules;
All contributions made to any organization that, when viewed by a reasonable person, intends to expend the money to influence the outcome of any election, or ballot measure, where there is a Federal candidate for office on the same ballot will be considered to be a Federal campaign contribution and subject to disclosure and limitation according to FEC rules as if it were made to a candidate or party directly.

The same applies to expenditures made by individuals directly. When the contribution is
made to any organization that, when viewed by a reasonable person, supports a single issue, or supports a single candidate, the maximum individual contribution is equal to the maximum as if given directly to a single Federal candidate for office. When the contribution is made to any organization that, when viewed by a reasonable person, supports 5 or more candidates roughly equally, the maximum individual contribution is equal to the maximum as if given directly to a political party. Contributions
in all cases whether given at the State level, or Federal level count against an individuals maximum Federal contribution limits whether there is a candidate for Federal office on the same ballot.

Exception: Candidates for office may contribute to their own campaigns from their own personal funds according to the regulations.

Notes:
#1 To avoid this regulation, States may not separate Federal candidates for office onto a special ballot so a claim can be made that they are not on the same ballot.

#2 It is up to the individual States how they address spending in their State. In general, a State should consider any money spent within their State whether it is claimed as Federal or State spending to be State spending.

#3 All special interest groups and PACs the expend money to influence any election on which a Federal candidate appears for office must report to the FEC and provide disclosures and reports even if their spending is only on State level elections. This specifically includes groups that campaign for against ballot measures that, while being voted upon at the State level, nonetheless represent a national concern extending beyond State boundaries. For example: State ballot measures for or against abortion,
adoption or marriage by same-sex couples, immigration, environmental issues, right to life, etc applies.

Local ballot measures that have little or no national significance are exempt. For example: electioneering regarding a ballot measure for or against a new sports stadium, convention center, or airport are not significant national concerns.

#4 Treasurers do NOT have to keep separate funds is special segregated accounts according to State and Federal elections. This said, they must still adhere to State and Federal maximum contribution limits and reporting procedures. At time of receipt, 100% of the funds are counted against an individual's contribution limits at the Federal level.

Based upon the above the rewrites to the 3 statues would be as follows:

11 CFR 100.57 If a reasonable person when viewing the totality of the situation would conclude that the intention of an individual's contribution, or the net effect of the anticipated expenditure resulting from the contribution, would influence a Federal election, those funds must be treated as federal campaign contributions and are subject to an individual's Federal contribution limits.

The limits to non-candidate committees and issue advocacy groups are the same as if given to an individual candidate's committee. When non-candidate committees can demonstrate the monies they receive are ear marked and utilized to support a minimum of 5 candidates for State or Federal offices on a roughly equal basis, the limit is the same as if giving to directly to a national party committee. All contributions to non-candidate committees or issue advocacy groups count against an individual's annual and biennial contribution limits.

Treasurers of committees are specifically cautioned to be on the look out for contributors that claim they are exempt from contribution limits owing to a claim that they are a corporations, non-profits, LLCs, foundations, or other like legal entities. The ultimate source of funds from groups like these may have been individuals that were attempting to avoid the individual contribution limits. If the group making the donation is relatively new, cannot be located by simple searches on the Internet, or carries the personal name of the individual signing the check are some clues that should prompt further exploration.  When an individual has declared his candidacy for Federal office, or when an individual is  generally thought of in the press as being a likely candidate for office, all payments made to that candidate or to a firm the candidate works for, may be considered to be campaign contributions if, when viewed by a reasonable person, the likely reason the candidate or candidate's firm were hired was to provide support for the candidate future Federal campaign.

For example: an
individual, who is thought to be a likely candidate for office, could in theory be hired by
individuals or groups to make lucrative speaking engagements or to conduct expensive
consultancies that channel funds to the candidate. Any voter within the district of the
candidate, or any competing candidate, may lodge a formal complaint with the FEC containing a reasonable justification that the payments were intended to assist the candidates campaign efforts. The FEC will consider the size, timing, and nature of the services rendered and if there is a reasonable suspicion that payments were questionable, the FEC must request answer the complaint and request details regarding the transaction from any of those associated. If the FEC deems it reasonable to conclude the payments were intended to assist the candidate's Federal
election, the payments will be considered to be a campaign contribution. When groups have made the payment, the source of the campaign contribution may be ascribed back to those individuals that supported the group and any excessive contribution on the part of individuals handled in accordance with FEC policy.

11 CFR 106.6(c) Nonconnected political committees have no special status that differentiates them from a candidates committee. A nonconnected political committee must deposit funds it has received, as viewed by a reasonable person, to influence a Federal election, or a State election that contains a candidate for Federal office on the same ballot, into a separate account that may be drawn upon for any purpose. Treasurers of nonconnected political committees are required to act in the same manner required by treasurers of a candidate or a candidate’s authorized committee and return any the excess contribution to the person who made the
contribution.

11 CFR 106.6(f) Issue advocacy groups may receive and retain funds in excess of a persons individual campaign contribution limit. Treasurers of groups like this must maintain three separate funds. No expenditures of any items of value may be made by the issue advocacy group that, when viewed by a reasonable person, influence the chances of a candidate for Federal office unless the source of the funds is a separate account called the Federal fund account. Monies that go into the Federal fund account may come from two sources. These two sources are new monies received for direct deposit into the account, and monies held over in the Reserve account.

When monies are received into the Federal fund, they must be reported to the FEC. Monies from individuals are subject to the Federal individual campaign contribution limit for one election as if the donation was made to a Federal candidate for office directly. Currently, that contribution limit is $2,500 per election, however, each calendar year, the Federal fund may receive the maximum per election.

Monies from non-individuals may be received into the Federal fund are currently not limited, however, treasurers reminded to be cautious regarding receipt of such funds to ensure they are not really originating from private individuals.

When an issue advocacy group receives individual contributions that exceed an individuals contribution limits, the treasurer shall make an attempt to provide the individual with one of the following three options:

A. Return the excess funds to the contributor.

B. Retain the funds in a Reserve account that can be drawn upon by the group in future years.  This option should include a notice to the contributor that when the funds are withdrawn they will count against the individuals maximum limit.

C. Transfer the funds into the organizations General fund that may be utilized by the
organization provided the activity isn't, when viewed by a reasonable person, issue advocacy.

Note: Notice to the contributor of excess funds should include a note regarding the ability of the individual to take a tax deduction. In many situations, the amount of the money contributed into the Federal and Reserve funds will not be eligible for a tax deduction, whereas monies transferred into the General fund may be eligible.
All payments for issue advocacy must come from the Federal fund and be reported to the FEC.  Issue advocacy groups are cautioned that individual States may also have limitations and disclosure requirements regarding monies spent on ballot initiates. These may have lower thresholds for reporting and smaller maximums. The fact that Federal thresholds and maximums may be higher than State levels do not override any spending that takes place within a State. The converse does not apply. When State maximums and thresholds exceed those set by the Federal government, the Federal government's standards apply.

Issue advocacy groups are free to select multiple states to expend their Federal funds.
At the end of each accounting year any remaining funds in the Federal fund must be transferred to the Reserve account. The balance of each account holder in the reserve account must be inflated equally. When funds are drawn from the Reserve account, the draw must be ascribed to individual account holders, and notification must be sent to the FEC, and State regulators if applicable, as well as the account holder so the original account holder knows how much was utilized.

Issue advocacy groups may not draw upon their General account to make payments into either the Federal or Reserve account. The General account may be used for any activity accept for the transfer of funds to another group or candidates for office that in turn uses it for issue advocacy or electioneering. Issue advocacy groups are specifically not organizations that may make donations to other groups in accordance with Citizen's United. If they were, this would defeat the whole purpose of the Federal fund since they could simply transfer funds to the General account and from there to another group. Treasurers are cautioned that activity of that nature is a form of money laundering and it will not be tolerated by the FEC.

Once these changes are enacted, the FEC's will be doing the job Congress intended, and its job will be easier.

Philip B. Maise
 

Discuss

The following request was sent to the Court on May 31, 2012

The Plaintiff in accordance with U.S. States. FRE 201(b)) requests that this Court take Judicial Notice of a document published on May 24, 2012 by the United States Federal Election Commission.
The Court may view the document at:

http://www.fec.gov/...

The subject of the document is "RULEMAKING PRIORITIES FOR 2012"
The paragraph of interest for the Court to take note reads:

"Political Committees That Engage in Independent Spending
Several cases, including two cases decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -SpeechNow.org v. FEC and EMILY's List v. FEC affect portions of the Commission's regulations regarding contributions to, and disbursements by, certain committees not authorized by candidates. The proposed rulemaking would provide guidance to these committees on how to establish and maintain a separate account for their independent spending, how to allocate their administrative and fundraising expenses, and how to report their receipts and disbursements."

The Plaintiff contends that this document is an acknowledgement on the part of the FEC that the 3 statutes it changed in the wake of EMILY's List were improperly deleted.  See Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 in the Complaint that lists the 3 statutes, page 41 of 105 of the Complaint, other mentions throughout the Complaint, as well as discussion in the Preliminary Injunction on page 95 of 105.

The Plaintiff contends that the FEC document the Court takes Judicial Notice of is sufficient proof to the Court that legality of campaign contributions that exceed individual contribution limits are in doubt.  Further, that sufficient notice has been provided to Defendants.

Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court issue the preliminary injunction as proposed by the Plaintiff, or as modified by the Court, to reflect:

1. That funds received by organizations that exceed individual contribution limits intended to influence a Federal election are to be treated as being in legal question and cannot be expended.
2. Funds in legal question are to be handled in accordance with FEC procedures.
The Plaintiff cannot stress the urgency of this request more since Class I Defendants are receiving funds on a daily basis from individuals that may potentially become Class II Defendants and be found eventually guilty of violating elections laws.
Discuss
You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.

RSS

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site