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
Syllabus
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 Civil 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.
104 Reasonable person test
Introduction
I realize that I may be turning inside out all your previous understanding about the law in the United States so please backup whenever you need to and review previous chapters. Also seek out your own evidence on the web to confirm what you learn here.
Very few people ever heard of the most powerful person in the entire world. By the end of this lecture you should know this person's name and what power it gives you.
Who is the most powerful person in the world?
He used to be called the reasonable man but for political reasons we now call him the reasonable person.
Now I know I just said in the last lesson the United States is not France, however, we will now switch the lecture into French. His original name was.
l'homme moyen
There, that wasn't too painful? Don't worry I can't say that either and it isn't on your final exam. However, the following typical translations are on your exam:
"Average man", "Common man", and "Reasonable man"
Yes, yes it is okay to use person too.
The power of the reasonable person
Nobody, and I mean nobody is more powerful than the reasonable person. After you read just a few more paragraphs, hopefully you will accept the fact that no person in Washington D.C. has more power, and neither does any billionaire.
It is the reasonable person that decides on any dispute. And we have a dispute.
Some people claim individual federal campaign contributions can be unlimited when given to a third party.
I say that isn't true.
Ooops
I better make that more clear as the primary legal basis of the super PAC lawsuit just flew over your head.
I say that when you give money to a super PAC it is just as if you gave it to the politician directly.
Now things quickly start to get a little more complicated but I'm confident you can stay with me. We must now introduce some more concepts.
The understanding
Now don't fret. You are now on jury duty.
You are a member of the jury in a Courtroom and the accused stands before you. His name is Z.
Here is the evidence:
1. A letter from group Y asking for funds to support candidate X.
2. Proof group Y supported candidate X in the past.
3. Newspaper accounts showing group Y supports candidate X.
4. No evidence group Y does anything but support candidate X.
Here is the question.
Is it likely, that candidate X will receive support from group Y if they get money from defendant Z?
Stop stop STOP!
The question wasn't are you certain beyond any reasonable doubt that the money given by Z absolutely positively would only be spent to support candidate X.
I only asked given the evidence, does it seem likely?
If you answer is: It seems likely.
You have just done two important things.
#1 You acted like a reasonable person bystander. You were someone that observed what was going on and made a conclusion.
#2 Your conclusion was that party Y and Z had an understanding.
Understandings and common law
Has anyone in the class heard something to the effect there is no such thing as a written contract? Parties in the United States have understandings.
I understand you will do THAT if I do THIS.
So all of you. Where are we headed?
Boston of course. It is a good time to break for tea.
Something happened in Boston on January 31, 2012.
Okay I will cut to the chase. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the second highest court of the land ruled:
That if a reasonable person would conclude there is an understanding between parties that a campaign contribution would go towards candidate X, then legally that contribution is as if given directly.
There was a very desperate effort to get that ruling overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. They denied to hear the case.
The law of the land is the reasonable person decides
No fancy dancing about not coordinating this or that with the political candidate means anything. No special wording, no indirect mentions matter whatsoever.
The only thing that matters is what the reasonable person thinks that contribution will be used for.
Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff