ActBlue, public financing, and the FEC

The Edwards campaign asked the FEC whether contributions donated via ActBlue could be counted for matching grant purposes. Adam Bonin, who represents this site on regulatory matters, explained the situation a few weeks ago:

So here's the problem -- as you know by now, not everything is matchable.  The main category is "contributions over $250", but also listed in the regulations regarding the list of sources for funds that can be matched is the explicit statement that for a check to be matchable, it must be "written on a personal, escrow or trust account representing or containing the contributor's personal funds."  And, what's worse, listed among those sources of funds which are explicitly not-matchable are

Contributions in the form of a check drawn on the account of a committee, corporation, union or government contractor even though the funds represent personal funds earmarked by a contributing individual to a Presidential candidate;

And ActBlue is, indeed, a committee that's writing checks which represent personal funds earmarked by a contributing individual to a Presidential candidate.

Now, common sense would dictate that this law was enacted decades ago to prevent the matching of illegal funds. As the Edwards campaign argued (PDF):

The basic thrust of Commission regulations at 11 C.F.R. §9034.3(f) is to clarify that contributions from illegal sources such as corporations, unions or government contractors cannot be matched, even when the ultimate source of those contributions is individual personal funds. As discussed above, ActBlue's process is designed to avoid such contributions. Therefore, there is little danger that contributions processed through ActBlue would result in matching contributions that do not qualify for such. Nor is this a situation in which contributions made through ActBlue count both as a contribution from the individual contributor, and a contribution from ActBlue. Rather, such donations are treated only as contributions from the individual contributor.

...this regulation was adopted approximately 30 years ago and reflects an early focus of the law and the Commission on the use of committees as a subterfuge enabling wealthy or illegal donors to evade contribution limitations. Given technological developments, including computerized reporting, the Commission and the public have available efficient and effective methods for tracking and monitoring contributions.

So the FEC has two ways to go -- be literal and apply the law in a way it was never intended to be applied, or work with the intent of the law and carve out an exception for PACs like ActBlue, which don't do their own fundraising, but rather facilitate that of regular small dollar donors all over the country.

Well, the initial word out of the FEC, in a draft opinion, is that they're going the literal route (PDF) (link fixed). They're saying that donations through ActBlue are not matchable for public financing purposes, a patently ridiculous conclusion.

People have a week to provide comments to the FEC, and I have asked Bonin to draft a comment on behalf of Daily Kos asking the FEC to toss this draft for a more common-sensical approach. Anyone who cares about this issue can do the same:

1. Comments must be submitted in writing to the Commission Secretary with a duplicate copy to the Office of General Counsel. Comments in legible and complete form may be submitted by fax machine to the Secretary at [phone] and to OGC at [phone].

2. The deadline for the submission of comments is 12:00pm noon (Eastern Time) on December 13,2007.

People are trying to set up an email address as well.

Note that the FEC has proven itself a very reasonable agency. Their draft report on blogger regulation was far more restrictive than their ultimate decision, so they are eager to be educated by the public, and willing to let that feedback influence their ultimate decisions.

The public financing system is designed to let campaigns match small dollar contributions from supporters. ActBlue helps facilitate those small dollar contributions. There's no reason contributions via ActBlue should not count for public financing purposes.

Update: And here's the email address for public comments: Mary Dove at [e-mail].

•  what does this mean

  in terms of how much in matching funds could be lost by Edwards?

  by taylormattd on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:23:19 AM PDT

  •  Roughly $4.3 million.

    by joy sinha on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:24:46 AM PDT

    •  hmm

      so that's how much he's raised via ActBlue?

      by taylormattd on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:26:00 AM PDT

      •  yep

        http://actblue.com/...

        by John DE on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:27:36 AM PDT

        •  It would be less though.

          It's only the first $250 that can be matched and not everyone would have given ONLY $250. Nor, would all donors on ActBlue have given their first $250 through ActBlue.

          All in all, I think this will have a small impact on the matching $$$ that Edwards is bringing in, and in any event I think he'll have enough to win in Iowa and New Hampshire - at which point new funds will be steamrolling in to the campaign from unions/progressives/newbies.

          by chuckles1 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:54:41 PM PDT

      •  Yup. That's what Ben Smith is reporting

        over at Politico. Link

        by joy sinha on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:27:39 AM PDT

      •  but some of that wouldn't be matchable anyway

        I maxed out to the Edwards campaign using ActBlue, but only the first $250 of my contributions would have been matchable anyway.

        Many repeat donors who have contributed much more than $250 total have used ActBlue.

        by desmoinesdem on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:36:05 AM PDT

        •  oh, OK.

          Do you know whether there any way of telling how much could be lost if the FEC draft stands?

          by taylormattd on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:41:12 AM PDT

          •  Who knows, that doesn't really matter anyway.

            The issue isn't about the money, it is about ActBlue and public financing.

            by jsamuel on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:42:27 AM PDT

            •  of course it's about the money

              Why else file the AOR in the first place?  As Danny DeVito said in David Mamet's HEIST, "Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money!"

              by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:44:21 AM PDT

              •  Very Funny n/t

                by SMucci on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:53:22 AM PDT

              •  what about love?

                yeah. love of gold

                -same movie

                by Hey BB on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 01:58:30 PM PDT

            •  I don't understand what you are saying

              the point of this is that JRE (nor any other candidate) who employs a grassroots fundraising tool such as ActBlue shouldn't have to give up matching funds.

              by taylormattd on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:47:11 AM PDT

              •  What I mean is that it isn't about THIS money.

                I mean it is about the PRECEDENT and the fact that ActBlue will be useless to democrats and public financing will take a hit if the draft is upheld.  Just my view, you don't have to agree.

                by jsamuel on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:50:36 AM PDT

                •  oh agreed totally

                  obviously this would be bad for any candidate who seeks to use public matching funds.

                  by taylormattd on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:53:22 AM PDT

        •  Question then

          If you are maxed via Act Blue, which is a committee, are you infact maxed to the Edwards campaign.  Could you donate the Max directly to the campaign since your funds to Act Blue were to that committee?

          by UTLiberal on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:45:18 PM PDT

          •  It's different...

            When you make a contribution to a campaign via ActBlue, it's an earmarked contribution that ActBlue doesn't keep.  It counts against your contribution limit to that candiate, not to ActBlue.

            So yes, if you max out contributing to a candidate via ActBlue, you'll be unable to legally make additional contributions directly to the candidate's committee.

            by jbradach on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:10:38 AM PDT

•  This wouldn't be a problem...

  if we had public funding of all federal elections.

  by filmgeek83 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:23:39 AM PDT

•  very disturbing

  I'm no lawyer, but it is very disturbing that the Edwards campaign might be hammered for doing the right thing.

  by John DE on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:25:35 AM PDT

  •  also

    While obviously it would be too late for this cycle, it would be nice to see Democrats in Congress act to fix this problem.  They should be working on behalf of bloggers, unions, and other progressive/grassroots groups.  Somehow I don't have the sense that they do.

    by John DE on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:29:37 AM PDT

  •  Yes, they are the campaign

    that went through ActBlue to help create a progressive structure that could help out more and more candidates.

    by philgoblue on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:30:34 AM PDT

  •  Disturbing Indeed

    Here is a man who has not taken a dime of lobbyist money for any of his political campaigns and they want to punish him for his integrity.  It just plain sucks.  This means that not only he, but the contributors to ActBlue are also being punished.

    by JohnnysGirl on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:31:59 AM PDT

    •  Consistant?

      If contributions through Act Blue are not counted as coming from the individual, could we set up hundreds of ActBlue sites and get around the individual contributions limit?

      by Helpless on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:34:36 AM PDT

      •  they are attributed to the individual

        ActBlue is just a conduit.

        by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:39:00 AM PDT

        •  thank you for your work on this Adam B

          by emmabrody on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:01:48 PM PDT

•  We're all Democrats in the end.

  Elections shouldn't be decided on technicalities.

  by Geekesque on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:26:21 AM PDT

  •  I agree. This sucks.

    If the FEC won't change this, we should put some pressure on Congress to make it happen...

    by mistersite on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:45:25 AM PDT

    •  yes, this

      is undemocratic and we must forget our primary fights to band together to fight this.
      As an obama supporter, I am 100% behind Kos' take on this and will support the edwards camp on this unfair ruling.

      by Hawkjt on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:16:38 PM PDT

•  If it's considered a LEGAL donation

  it should be allowed to be counted. Period.

  by DJShay on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:27:59 AM PDT

  •  Actually, no. The reason this law exists is good

    and basically prevents hidden corporate/lobbyist donations from overtaking the system. The problem here is the letter of the law is  being used for a purpose it was never intended to, by treating a grassroots network like it was a corporation or lobbyist group.

    by CKDexterHaven on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:39:01 AM PDT

•  What Moulitsas Zuniga said

  Anyone who has something nice to say about ActBlue and how non-corrupting it is, post it here or let me know via email, and I may well use it.

  by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:29:03 AM PDT

  •  You two on a last-names basis now?

    My one question: Given that ActBlue allows for the hiding of one's employer on FEC filings (based on the fact that when you look at Top Contributors for the Edwards campaign at OpenSecrets, ActBlue is listed way at the top; plus I've looked at filings and employers weren't listed for those contributing via ActBlue), doesn't that present somewhat of a problem?

    I've wondered about that for a while.

    by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:32:57 AM PDT

    •  I always make contributions through actblue

      and I am always asked for my Employer and my Job Title.

      by DJShay on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:34:33 AM PDT

    •  They still track that info

      And the campaigns have it.

      by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:35:13 AM PDT

      •  Yeah, that's the problem. That allows a loophole

        where campaigns can know they got a large amount of money from people at X corporation, but the American people don't.

        by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:36:31 AM PDT

        •  Or are you saying that it's not actually hidden

          and I wasn't looking hard enough?

          by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:36:56 AM PDT

        •  not really

          Because once you cross $250, it's public.

          by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:37:07 AM PDT

          •  Oh, so that's only applying to contributions

            under $250. I see.

            by DemocraticLuntz on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:39:42 AM PDT

          •  So, if you're contribution

            is less that 250, it is not made public? Is that for individual contributions under 250, or combined?

            by DJShay on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:46:30 AM PDT

            •  ContributORS under $250

              If you aggregate above the amount, they all get disclosed.

              by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:48:17 AM PDT

              •  This is what really sucks about this

                Most of the people that contribute through ActBlue do so with donations of less that 250. Way less. Playing devil's advocate here, wouldn't the FEC come back and say that since such small amounts are not made public, then they are not easily traced, therefore we shouldn't include them?

                by DJShay on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:57:20 AM PDT

                •  It's only contributions < $250 ...

                  ... that can be matched.

                  by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:59:09 AM PDT

                  •  Ah.... Thanks for the clarification

                    My face is red. But hey, this crap is complicated.

                    by DJShay on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:00:24 PM PDT

                    •  thank goodness

                      I once tried to explain it all.

                      by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:04:16 PM PDT

              •  Actually

                Any contribution over $200 is itemized and must be listed on FEC disclosure reports.

                by jbradach on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:16:43 AM PDT

                •  whoops.

                  Above $200 for disclosure, under $250 for match.

                  by Adam B on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 07:36:55 AM PDT

            •  This holds true even if you contribute directly

              to the campaign, I believe, though Adam B may be able to clarify it.  Public disclosure hits when you've made $250 cumulative.  As a practical matter, most campaigns collect the info regardless because they don't know that you aren't going to accumulate over the $250 level and because it's easier to get the info on every contribution.

              by edgery on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:18:35 PM PDT

  •  There's a Congressional Rep. in the thread

    asking for you to email him.

    I know I'm being an interfering busybody, but my OCD paranoia that you might miss it and disaster would inevitably result overcame me.  Sorry.

    by martianchronic on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:45:56 AM PDT

  •  Act Blue

    in the early days the fact that the major candidates were participating gave me (an online neophite)the confidence to look into it further.  Since that time, I had a fundraising link when I ran for state office, so family and friends (even some from Kos)from around the country could donate and I didn't need a merchant account and Our County committe used it to sell tickets to our annual fundraiser. This is a tool which works for large and small participants and while it's simplicity is great for the small players the participation of the big guys gives it credibility.

    by SMucci on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:02:46 PM PDT

  •  Act Blue brings more people

    into the political process. Having a secure and easy way to contribute to a candidate of their choice gives many people an opportunity to participate that they otherwise would not have.

    We know Act Blue is secure and is legitimate. To cut matching funds for contributions made through Act Blue seems to me to hurt internet fundraising and discourage the grass roots candidates who use it. Ultimately this would discourage internet fundraising and lead future candidates to focus on fundraising events where checks can be written. How sad to leave out so many people out.

    Bloggers at Daily Kos support many different candidates. It is wonderful to see you and Marcos take a firm stand on this issue. When progress is at stake, everyone pulls together for the good of the future of grassroots campaigns.

    by bettync on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:28:04 PM PDT

•  Adam, please email me at my House email

  Rep dot Jeremy dot Kalin at House dot mn.

  I serve on the MN House Gov. Ops. and Elections Committee.

  Thanks.
  -Jeremy

  by JK Minnesota on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:29:54 AM PDT

•  So the funds sent directly to him are ok?

  I only used Act Blue so far these last two years, but when Kerry was running I sent several contributions directly to his site charged to my credit card.  If the contributions were sent directly to the Edwards site, would they be ok then?

  by BarnBabe on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:30:34 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    When sent through the campaign site it's to the candidate.

    When sent to ActBlue it's to a PAC.

    PAC funds cannot be matched under FEC regs. ActBlue is the oddball PAC that doesn't operate like most of them do, receiving money in large sums from a few people and using it to bypass campaign finance law.

    My question is, how will anyone easily catch a person giving $2,300 through a campaign and then another $2,300 through ActBlue?

    by Eddie in ME on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:36:53 AM PDT

    •  very easily

      The names are tracked via both means.  That said, you can give $2300 for the general election anyway.

      by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:40:10 AM PDT

      •  Here is my question

        who initiated the questioning of this? Is it because nobody has ever used public financing in conjunction with actblue?

        by LaEscapee on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:55:53 AM PDT

        •  the Edwards campaign initiated this

          They submitted an advisory opinion request to the Commission -- essentially, it's a preemptive "here's what we want to do -- let us know if it's legal" process.

          by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:58:38 AM PDT

          •  Thanks Adam

            I wasn't sure how all this started, probably good for them that they started early identifying what could be a problem.

            Thanks for working on this.

            by LaEscapee on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:05:36 PM PDT

    •  The same way

      they would catch that person doing it twice to the campaign -- by matching name and address.

      by kos on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:41:57 AM PDT

      •  Good enough.

        I support the ActBlue system, was mostly just a question of logistics.

        by Eddie in ME on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:04:42 PM PDT

  •  Yes, this pending ruling only affects ActBlue

    contributions.  If you make contribution please go to JRE's website to make a donation.

    Thanks.

    by santamonicadem on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:37:07 AM PDT

  •  Yes. It is onlt matching on Act Blue as

    I understand it.  Since the first $250 is all that is matched, if you contributed $250 through other means, then it is not relevant to you.

    For example, I paid a check at a fundraiser that was more than $250 last summer.  I made a lot of smller Act Blue donations, but my $250 is matched based on that check.

    by TomP on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:38:33 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for the answers but

      it still sucks and I will tell you why I think so. When you are contributing on ActBlue, you are giving to a candidate of your choice and not what the Pac says. ActBlue is just a efficient means of sending in your funds to your candidate.I do not see them as a PAC with the exception of the Blue=Democrats. I view Act Blue as a Clearing house of funds. Just like a lock box bank that is different from the final bank.

      by BarnBabe on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:47:59 AM PDT

      •  Oh, I agree. It is a poor interpretation of

        the regulation and contrary to the purpose of the underlying statute.  As such, even with the deferential standard applied to administrative law decisions, I believe that an FEC decision following this legal opinion ultimately will be overturned.  But it may not get that far.  The FEC has to vote and reason may prevail.

        by TomP on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:03:15 PM PDT

•  As someone dear to my heart my say ...

  ...yeeeeearrrrghhhh!

  They're literalists up in DC when it suits their interests. And they go with intent when it suits their interests. Oh how I wish for the day when they will do what suits the interests of rank-and-file Americans. They'll have to hurry up. I don't have all century.

  by Meteor Blades on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:32:09 AM PDT

  •  Reason #1,054,549 to get a Democrat

    in the White House and to widen our margins in Congress.

    The more crystal clear we can make it, the less they can screw us.

    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

  •  Nonsequitur Response

    Or didn't you get the memo?

    by greenskeeper on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:59:05 AM PDT

•  I would hate to see that happen.

  ActBlue is hardly dirty money. It helps small donors get more involved - exactly what these regulations are trying to encourage.

  I hope that Edwards will be able to re-raise that money if he really can't match it, but for other candidates it may not be so simple.

  by brklyngrl on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:32:59 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, exactly.

    The truth is, the Edwards campaign has more than enough to win in the early states without this, and at that point, it would be easy for him to raise more money.

    But smaller campaigns, which, if I'm not mistaken, often use ActBlue to save on credit card fees, not to mention it's a fundraising avenue that's already set up, so that they don't have to set up their own proprietary one - those smaller campaigns will more likely be truly hampered by this.

    by be inspired on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:09:40 PM PDT

    •  There's not much left to raise

      Even without the $4M matched from ActBlue, he'll still be pretty close to the cap in January.

      by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:12:33 PM PDT

      •  Not if they're smart about it.

        There are a lot of exceptions to the cap, and the Edwards campaign seems to be very cognizant of them. They will definitely spend the money in ways where they can make the most impact with it.

        by be inspired on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:39:12 PM PDT

        •  that's just wrong

          There are no exceptions to the national, overall cap ($53M or so), which includes legal/"fundraising".

          by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:53:04 PM PDT

•  I agree with the diarist that ActBlue is unlike

  those other committees, but what purpose does it actually serve when it comes to candidates who have electronic fundraising on their own websites?  We should stop using it immediately unless the candidate in question has no way to give online.

  I don't really understand why anyone giving to Edwards would give thru Act Blue.

  by Anaxamander on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:33:24 AM PDT

  •  Simplicity

    and also for smaller campaigns the difference between on line fund raising and not - it's a good vehicle for handeling small contributions.

    by SMucci on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:41:00 AM PDT

  •  This is a possible issue for presidential

    campaigns seeking matching federal funds, not for other campaigns.  Don't stop using ActBlue for campaigns not seeking matching federal funds -- they're a great organization and have done a lot to help advance the cause of increasing small-dollar donations.

    by edgery on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:24:01 PM PDT

•  Thanks for posting this information and

  how to take action.  I'll call them this week.

  by santamonicadem on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:33:39 AM PDT

  •  Fax or email

    by kos on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:43:02 AM PDT

    •  Noted. And Thanks!

      by santamonicadem on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:04:59 PM PDT

•  I'm going to get crucified for saying this

  But if a law is outdated, shouldn't we work to update the law itself rather than its interpretation?

  If we were to reinterpret every old law, we'd have an untenably complicated set of regulations on top of the laws themselves.  My opinion is that adding a level of interpretation to something intended to be clear-cut would erode our freedom, since it would give too much wiggle room for badly intentioned people.

  The Constitution is another matter -- it was written broadly on purpose.

  by OneRandomScientist on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:33:51 AM PDT

  •  We should do both. Not an 'either/or" eom

    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:35:21 AM PDT

    •  Alright, I'll buy that

      I certainly hope they make an exception in this case considering the circumstances (since ActBlue is obviously intended for direct person-to-candidate donations).  But I hope we can also get legislation so that the exception is intended to be short-term while we update the law.

      It's great that Rep. Kalin is getting involved -- I love the ability of this site to enable the democratic process :)

      by OneRandomScientist on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:46:31 AM PDT

  •  The law had a purpose

    And that "intent" plays a large role in interpretation of law at both the regulatory and judicial levels.

    by kos on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:43:50 AM PDT

    •  But intent is only supposed to be considered if

      the language is not clear.  At least at the judicial level. I'm not familiar with the standard at the regulatory, but would think it would be at least, if not more stringent.  

      From the little I know about this one, it sounds as though the language is clear, and the argument is that the obvious interpretation should be ignored, and the regulators should decide that If the lawmakers knew then what we know now, we think they'd write it differently.

      Seems to me if that approach can be taken when we want it used, then how do we stop the other side from revamping the interpretation of all our laws whenever it suits their purpose?

      I fully understand how different ActBlue is from the danger the law intended to avoid, but I question whether deviating from using the clear language standard is the wisest long term approach.

      by gustynpip on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:21:57 PM PDT

      •  If you have an absurd result

        where the "clear" language doesn't match the intent of the law, and actually frustrates it as this does, its fairly safe and actually standard practice for them to look to the policy and intent of the law for guidance. This is what regulatory bodies do. The obvious interpretation is not always the correct one; Kos even mentioned an example in the post.

        The Board especially are arbiters of the policy just as much as of the written law. They could just as easily find that this law wasn't written to apply to an Act Blue type of situation and okay it. With technology and advances in grassroots outreach, we need an FEC that is flexible and that can understand the uniquess of certain situations.

        A completely rigid FEC that doesn't care about the implications of its rulings is a lot more frightening than the scenario you propose.

        by okamichan13 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 02:34:04 PM PDT

•  This would be bad if they go with it

  I'm not speaking just about Edwards but also about the process in general.

  I beleive this ruling by the FEC would be tanamount to regulating speech given historical precendence regarding money and election law.

  - Albert Einstein

  by Walt starr on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:34:34 AM PDT

  •  Good point...

    The FEC would be doing a real disservice to EVERYONE using new online fundraising tools, not just John Edwards, by ruling against ActBlue. Why should one form of speech be favored over another? Why should one type of campaign contribution be favored over another? I don't get it.

    by atdnext on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

    •  The problem is...

      ...the wording of the law seems to back up the FEC's position.  The intent was different, but the wording says that, basically, that contributions from one committee to another are specifically not matchable.  ActBlue is a committee, therefore, anything ActBlue gives to the Edwards campaign committee is not matchable.  Edwards argues (correctly) that that wasn't the point of the law, but...

      If Edwards used a commercial credit card proccessor, and not ActBlue, that wouldn't be a committee and there wouldn't be a question.

      by Geotpf on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:45:33 AM PDT

  •  That's the argument the rich have been

    making against any sort of limits on how much one can give - or by what means.  

    by gustynpip on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:23:49 PM PDT

•  Can people who gave that way request a refund

  and re-give directly?

  by Anaxamander on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:34:35 AM PDT

•  I encourage others to comment

  ActBlue should be an avenue to support candidates, period, and it is not a PAC that endorses a particular candidate.  

  by benny05 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:34:54 AM PDT

•  Um, the two PDFs are the same link

  They are both the filing from the Edwards campaign.  I assume the second one was supposed to be the FEC's response.

  by Geotpf on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:35:12 AM PDT

  •  fixed it

    go here

    by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:36:33 AM PDT

    •  Thanks :) n/t

      by Geotpf on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:37:31 AM PDT

•  It is really good that

  you are providing a comment on behalf of Daily Kos.

  Act Blue is analogous to a credit card company.  It has total transparency, which is the purpose of the statute and the regulation based on that statute.  For small contributions to balnace out big money in our political process, even in presidential elections, enties like Act Blue are essential.  

  by TomP on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:36:28 AM PDT

•  May want to mention Rightroots

  which was an unsuccessful attempt by some rightwingers which they said was designed to be the Actblue of the right (although it seemed more like a Blue Majority page of the right, and a failed one at that).  

  Still, it allows you to say "this isn't a partisan issue, Actblue allows direct donations, etc."

  by bosdcla14 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:38:28 AM PDT

  •  Yeah... I think they have something else too.

    Slatesomething... I don't recall the exact name right now.  It might not be a bad idea for Adam B and kos to send them a missive as this affects them too... this is the kind of situation where we could band together with people on the Right to help get things accomplished.

    by mistersite on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:49:20 AM PDT

    •  Slatecard, I think n/t

      by DarthParadox on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:11:51 PM PDT

  •  You know, I just took a look at the Rightroots

    page, and they actually deduct their operating costs from your campaign donation.  I wonder if it's "tip included" because they assume the donors on their side will stiff them.

    They also have the campaigns pay them a percentage to cover credit card fees.  I don't know if ActBlue does that also.

    I wonder if any of that puts them into a slightly different legal category than ActBlue.  They're charging for their services, in effect.

    by martianchronic on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:06:05 PM PDT

•  Yes, but for now, donate directly to the campaign

  until this is settled.  Do you all agree?

  by santamonicadem on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:40:03 AM PDT

  •  If you are a supporter

    of a campaign that has taken public financing, then sure.

    by kos on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:45:44 AM PDT

    •  As of now

      Edwards, Dodd and Biden have all applied for public financing; we'll see who actually seeks the money.

      by Adam B on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:49:52 AM PDT

    •  When I was thinking about what issues

      were most important in choosing who to support, public financing actually never made the list - shocking as that may be.

      by okamichan13 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 02:12:01 PM PDT

  •  Yes.

    I think until this is settled that is best. And not that you asked, but in case anyone wants to do that, here's my grassroots fundraising page on johnedwards.com, which goes directly to campaign, not through an intermediary.

    by be inspired on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:18:40 PM PDT

•  Had he decided to accept public financing when he

  first announced would this be an issue right now?

  by ParaHammer on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:40:13 AM PDT

  •  Yup

    The only difference is this question would have come up sooner.  It's a glitch in the system and needs to be handled.

    by SMucci on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:45:28 AM PDT

•  This is the Edwards campaign's own fault.

  Look at their Act Blus page.

  http://www.actblue.com/...

  A total of $4,364,863 has been raised for Edwards via Act Blue.

  But $4,209,875 of it came directly from the Edwards campaign's own Act Blue page.

  So only about $155000 come from other sources.

  Had the Edwards people simply solicited those donations directly through tehir campaign website, for example, rather than via Act Blue they wouldn't be having this problem.

   
   

  by Hesiod on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:43:27 AM PDT

  •  Not "their fault"

    It makes sense for campaigns to use Actblue for their online fundraising. The fees are much lower, which means more of their donors' money in their pockets (where it should be, not the credit card companies and banks), and they also get the money faster.

    And all that time, you don't have to worry about managing a secure online operation. ActBlue does it for you.

    ActBlue is a wonderful service, and one that should be used by all Democratic campaigns.

    by kos on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:47:50 AM PDT

    •  But its in a legal grey area.

      The Edwards people made a mistake in not making sure that the contributions were matcheable. And, there is a ready made existing example to look at to make taht determination: EMILY's list. Are EMILY'S list channeled contributions matcheable? Only if you donate directly to an endorsed campaign.

      I do not doubt the many advantages of Act Blue.

      But, as of right now, the MAJOR disadvantage 9not qualifying for federal matching funds) overwhelms the benefits.

      by Hesiod on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:52:43 AM PDT

      •  I think they've been planning on asking about thi

        since the decision to go with public financing was made.  But as someone said above, they're still on target for the amount of money budgeted so this isn't a deal-breaker for them.

        They supported ActBlue because, as Kos says, it is a wonderful service.  By using ActBlue, they've made it possible for that organization to really flourish this year.  ActBlue is a great service for all Democratic campaigns, and this issue will get worked out.

        by edgery on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:32:30 PM PDT

    •  One drawback is that a campaign can't play

      the expectations game with ACTBlue and I think this might be one of the reasons why Edwards isn't doing very well.

      by Yoshimi on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:55:00 AM PDT

    •  Except for Presidential candidates.

      For all other Democrats running for officem it's a great tool. Especially US House and Senate candidates.

      There is not federal matching fun issue to worry about.

      I do have to wonder, though, about the impact on state campaigns where public finanacing is available. That issue better be cleared up!

      by Hesiod on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:58:38 AM PDT

  •  That doesn't change the issue

    which is that ActBlue is a valid mechanism for processing small campaign contributions.  I believe that the Edwards Campaign was being a "team player" utilizing a Blue tool which will be helpful to small campaigns and politicla committees etc. that don't have their clout.

    The "fault" is that the regulation in outdated and doesn't reflect the current on line reality.

    by SMucci on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:51:15 AM PDT

    •  I don't disagree with you or Kos on that.

      I am just saying it was a mistake for the Edwards campaign to use Act Blue for this purposes without making danm sure they could get those donations matched down the road if necessary.

      We are talking about $4.6 million here!

      by Hesiod on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 11:54:29 AM PDT

      •  I'd be very surprised

        if it turns out to be that much. But, that's sure enough incentive to fight the fight and then we all (little guys) benifit by having the glitch fixed.  I'm sure the Edwards campaign was prepared for this possibility but they had to take the first step to get to the place where the battle begins.

        by SMucci on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:11:19 PM PDT

        •  Edwards raised $4.3 million on Act Blue.

          by Hesiod on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:50:57 PM PDT

          •  But not all of that in matchable donations

            we don't really know how much of that is matchable and how much isn't.

            Some of those are contributions from the same people that may reach over $250, some are in larger single ammounts, some people give through Act Blue as well as directly to the campaign (like myself).

            So its pretty doubtful all $4.3 million of that would be matchable.

            by okamichan13 on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 02:10:24 PM PDT

  •  They were being a team player.

    The Edwards campaign apparently knew the move to take matching funds for ActBlue donations might be challenged, but wanted to be the test case to have this clarified, to hopefully pave the way for other campaigns to be able to safely use ActBlue for this in the future. In other words, they have not been absolutely counting on having matching funds for this money.

    by be inspired on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:00:52 PM PDT

    •  Might have made sense to more actively encourage

      more direct contributions and fewer through ActBlue, though, just to limit the potential loss.  If I'd yet decided that Edwards was "my man", I'd be much more concerned with doing what needed to be done to get him elected than with what the status of ActBlue contributions might mean to future elections.  OTOH, ActBlue is a good organization, and it would be good to get that law changed so it can be as effective as possible.

      by gustynpip on Mon Dec 10, 2007 at 12:29:36 PM PDT

  •  Hate to say it, but thats right.

    This is the kind of nuts and bolts stuff that campaign lawyers are supposed to give the candidate a heads up on. Edwards could have easily done both: get ActBlue money, and get the money directly like the Obama campaign does.

    Now he finds his financial position precarious, forcing him to husband his resources more conservatively than he should have to.

    Still, this ruling CLEARLY should be put in favor of ActBlue just on the merits. ActBlue is j