This is an on going educational effort to explain the super PAC lawsuit.
If you missed a section please use links below. If you think you might be a party to this suit please start with Notice and Introduction to the super PAC lawsuit. You can also check out Facebook site SuperPacFederalLawsuit
101 What is a defendant class action lawsuit
102 The citizen/private attorney general
103 Common law
104 Reasonable person test
105 EMILY's List ruling
201 Standing and jurisdiction
202 What is an excessive contribution?
203 What is a prohibited contribution?
301 Pre-trial motions
302 Summary judgment
303 Trial
304 Court rulings
305 Settlement offers
Graduate level:
401 Civil fines and payment
402 Criminal court
403 Criminal court trial
404 Criminal court rulings
405 Settlement offers
Post-graduate level:
501 U.S. Supreme Court appeals.
More details:
Case number: 12-CV-00004
Date filed: March 19, 2012
Plaintiff: Philip B. Maise proposed Plaintiff and Citizen Attorney General of the United States acting on the behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission (Plaintiff).
Defendants: “Political Action Committees-Class I, et al.”
Suggested PACER search: Maise,Philip
Court phone: (617) 473-9100.
Court date and time: The Court is across the international date line and 10 hours ahead of eastern time.
Facebook: SuperPacFederalLawsuit
What is an excessive contribution?
Introduction
This case gets almost no attention in the press for one really good reason. Everyone is busy shouting the Federal Election Commission says This and That.
Alternately, they might be saying the law says This or That.
If you are unaware why the word "says" stands out in the lines above, you need to back up and reread materials on the common law page.
What is important is what the law means.
Great. Now everyone should now be on the same page. The question of interest is not what the law says, but what it means. Because Mr. Malfoy?
Right! Our laws are based upon Anglo-Saxon principles and this is how are Courts operate.
Three judges in Guam have been busy. They have been very busy. I presented to them a fairly large case. It encompasses billionaires, Washington insiders, and names you hear in the press. This lawsuit may very well affect the course of a U.S. Presidential election.
These three Ninth Circuit judges know that no matter how they rule, either party is likely to appeal. Further that their ruling is appealed right to the U.S. Supreme Court. The reason? That is exactly what Congress said.
Therefore, their primary focus is on one question:
What does Federal Election Campaign Law mean?
Yes, they will look at what the FEC says, however,
They will also look at:
1. What is the written law?
2. What is the history behind the law?
3. What was the intention of Congress when they wrote the law?
4. How have other courts interpreted the law?
On all three counts it is the position of the Plaintiff that the Courts will conclude that excessive individual campaign contributions made in Federal elections was illegal.
1. What is the written law?
The written law is quite clear. Excessive individual campaign contributions are illegal. The FEC provides a tableand phone number to call with questions.
2. What is the history behind the law?
There has been a very long history associated with limits on individual contributions. The history runs back to Teddy Roosevelt.
3. What was the intention of Congress when they wrote the law?
This also was clear. FECA intended individual limits to remain.
4. How have other courts interpreted the law?
U.S. Courts have stated time and again that it doesn't matter if the person getting the money doesn't say the "8 magic words", or their advertisements are "issue versus express advocacy".
What matters is common law and the reasonable person test.
Courts want to know the intentions and understandings of the parties before it.
If the intention was the campaign contribution would support candidate X then it is legally is as if given to candidate X. That makes it subject to the same regulation as if given directly.
This is not my conclusion. This conclusion is based on
a ruling appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
How are Defendants convicted?
It is quite simple. The guidelines are already established.
#1 Present any evidence the receiver would spend the money in a certain way.
#2 Present any evidence the contributor exceeded the contribution limit.
If a reasonable person looking at the evidence would conclude the money would be spent on a Federal election, then it becomes subject to the laws governing personal limits in Federal election.
I, as the plaintiff have already gone around and copied the websites of the big super PACs* that are defendants. In each case it was crystal clear that contributions to the super PACs in question would be used in a Federal election. One site even stated if you exceeded your maximum already, we can help you continue to support the candidate. The next step is to just match up the contributors to these PACs and those that benefited.
Think of this another way.
Who is telling you unlimited individual campaign contributions are legal?
....Are they the super PACs that are collecting them?
....Are they the insiders that benefit from them?
....Are they the press that benefit from them?
....Are they people that believe everything they read?
or, in other words.
....Do they have the title Judge in front of their name?
The challenge!
Can anyone find me 2 out of 3 random U.S. District Judges that would disagree with this statement?
If a reasonable bystander observes a transaction between two parties, and there is no other reasonable explanation that they intended to commit an act that would break the law, then the purpose of their dealings was to evade the law, and both parties are guilty of breaking the law. Further the money from the transaction becomes tainted. It is illegal money originated from an illegal act. Those that ultimately received the money may be required to give it back or held liable for collaborating.
If you want some homework before the next lecture, check into how super PAC operators, that receive a small salary, get
kick backs from vendors they pay using election contributions.
Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff
*Note: super PACs are not the only defendants that have received excessive funds. These other persons are also defendants if they received excessive individual contributions. The source of funds can be tracked back to the original donor and it doesn't matter how many organizations tried to wash them. Further, this lawsuit is a Federal suit regarding Federal campaign law enforcement.