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.
105 EMILY's List ruling
Introduction
On May 24, 2012 the FEC admitted that it erred when changing the 3 key statutes after the EMILY's List ruling.
I'm a very queer bird. That will come up again later. However, for now you need to know I have an odd habit.
I don't believe reporters and newspapers, and even doubt university law professors when they tell me what something means. Instead I like to see for myself. I carry scars from doing this and don't recommend always copying me. Climbing the summit and looking into the mouth of the volcano was pretty dumb.
This said, I highly encourage you to go and review original documents and track back and back as far as you can go.
You might find something odd. I did.
People, People! Forget about Citizens United already!
The massive amounts of money coming into elections has been from individuals and individuals with control over corporate/foundation funds. If you have any interest in stopping unlimited campaign funds flowing into elections, you need to focus on what I already covered. Lets review and put it into sound bites:
#1 A defendant class action allows you to sue many defendants at once.
#2 Congress gives power to citizens to act if the Executive branch fails.
#3 The United States is based on common law and what the law means not says.
#4 The reasonable person test looks for understandings.
#5 The United States is not France.
Really that is it. That really is all you need to get a passing grade on the final exam.
If you want an A in this course on election law you can continue.
For those staying, Pop quiz
That's right! Get out a sheet of paper and answer the following question.
Why is it illegal in the United States for an individual to give unlimited campaign contributions via a corporation or foundation?
Come on people! Put your thinking caps on! Review the previous lectures. All the notes are on-line for you. I know you can do it.
What was that? Say again? I can't hear you? Shout it to me!
If you took more than 6 words to answer the question you are wasting my bandwidth.
The six word answer is:
The United States is not France.
Who can elaborate. The question once more:
Why is it illegal in the United States for an individual to give unlimited campaign contributions via a corporation or foundation?
Okay I give up on you guys. Fail, fail, FAIL. What did I just say was all you needed to pass this course?
Okay write this down carefully.
It matters not if an individual gives money via his pocket, bank, in-laws, corporation, children, dog, cat, an envelop in a dark alley, or foundation IF the money was under his personal control. If that money was his to direct in any other manner then it is an individual contribution subject to limit.
EMILY's List ruling
Okay I know I bark at you guys a lot, however, I know you can take it. I'm not trying to say you guys are dumb. I'm just trying to dumb the lecture down enough so that you get some sound bites you can use with people that fail to understand basic facts.
What was the big one again? That's right The United States is not France.
EMILY's List's sound bite just as easy to remember.
The United States is not Hawaii
Okay, it is my home State but the point is U.S. Federal Government is not one of the State Governments.
All the EMILY's List ruling said was The United States is not Hawaii
EMILY's List question
Well now that you know the Court's answer I guess I should tell you the question. The question before the Court was:
Is Hawaii the entire United States?
Well the question was asked in a slightly more elaborate way but that was the gist of it. What EMILY's List wanted the Court to rule on was whether the Federal Election Commission could regulate what State Election Commissions regulated on their own.
The Court basically told the FEC to stop trying to regulate State elections and mind it's own business.
So what's the problem?
Sounds logical doesn't it. The problem is what the FEC did with the EMILY's List ruling. The FEC went and basically rewrote parts of Federal Election Campaign Law (FECL) and indeed said they will not monkey in the affairs of State elections.
However, they did so in a manner that went one step to far.
They changed the law such that they would stop controlling the flow of election money in BOTH Federal and State elections.
Important point let us repeat that
When the Court told the FEC it could not control State election spending, it turned around and complied by stopping any control.
The FEC took itself out of the business of controlling Federal election money.
The action by the FEC was illegal and I know who is going to file a lawsuit soon if not already to get that rule fixed. However, it is no concern in the suit.
Even if the FEC monkeyed around with the wording of the written law what remained?
Common law and the reasonable person test.
Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff