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
203 What is a prohibited contribution?
Introduction
Much of this topic was covered under the section reasonable person test. That section covered the question if an individual in a company controlled the donation, does it count as an individual donation?
The upshot of the matter is it may be both an excessive and a prohibited contribution. To understand where the suit is headed with this aspect lets begin with what is not in dispute.
The Citizen's United ruling is not in dispute
This ruling came from the U.S. Supreme Court. That ruling does permit certain types of legal entities to make unlimited contributions from their own funds.
Corporate PACs, Trade union PACs, and most other PACs are not in dispute
The great majority of PACs are member based PACs. Members of the organization each contribute towards the PAC but stay within a relatively low maximum contribution. This type of PAC is then free to spend unlimited amount of money. The only provision is that individual contribution limits from the members must be within Federal limit.
There might be a few cases where a member PAC, accepts a contribution that was within their normal range and they were unaware that the contributor had already maxed out their individual contribution limit. That does not give rise to a concern on the part of the member PAC, however, does place the contributor into the Defendant class of this suit.
The Plaintiff wishes to remind member PACs to be on the watch for such contributions and to handle them according to FEC procedures.
Prohibited contributions in this action are really an individual contribution
First recall what was covered in the sections on common law and the reasonable person test. Overall, it matters not what the law says but what it means.
I just put you in the jury box again. Here is the evidence you are reviewing:
....1. Defendant #1 maxed out his individual contribution limit.
....2. Someone suggested Defendant #1 form a corporation.
....3. Defendant #1 formed a corporation and deposited his personal funds.
....4. The new corporation sent off a big check signed by Defendant #1.
Is Defendant #1 guilty?
Of course. This is a clear violation of the law. Despite operating within what the law says according to Citizens United, they ran afoul of what other laws using the reasonable person test.
Its a busy day in Court and Defendant #2 is up on review. The evidence:
....1. Defendant #2 maxed out her individual contribution limit.
....2. Defendant #2 works for a company 100 years old with 50,000 employees.
....3. The company has a long history of supporting candidates named Smith.
....4. Defendant #2 controls less than 5% of company stock.
....5. Four other company executives approved the expense.
....6. Collectively all those that approved held less than 15% of company stock.
....7. The old corporation sent off even a bigger check signed by Defendant #2.
Is Defendant #2 guilty?
Most likely not. However, corporations according to these two extreme examples should be aware that whether or not a corporate contribution is truly a corporate or individual one can be questioned.
Questions? Yes the attorney in the suit.
But what about the gray area between the two extremes?
Excellent question!
The definition of when it does and doesn't qualify is part of the process called class certification. You and I need to work out clear terms that are easy for the Court and Defendants to understand.
If you want to be involved in the process please consider filing an appearance to represent this class. Read up on Bebchuk and Jackson Jr's article in the Harvard Law Review so we are at least beginning on the same page.
Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff