Any lawyers in the house? Can a PAC raise funds through a MB for an Official Campaign?

[orenbus]

Question:

1. Can a PAC raise funds through a MB for an Official Campaign where individuals donate to the campaign but the promotion costs for the event are covered by the PAC?

2. If a PAC cannot raise funds, can a private individual spend his own funds to hire a team with its goal to work on a project to raise funds for an official campaign which people would be donating directly to the campaign, without having to form a PAC or be employed by the campaign?

[PolicyReader]

good question, I don't have the expertise to officially answer it but I'd love to hear the response :)

[Danke]

//

[angelatc]

Not a lawyer. I would call the FEC and ask them - they're actually quite polite and helpful. (Not that I think that they should exist, but they are what they are.)

Thinking out loud, I think a lot of what you're asking depends on whether the official campaign is involved in the decision making. If they're not, it's a grassroots effort, right?

[PolicyReader]

quick bump :)

[Titus]

I would say no and no.

The first one is blatantly illegal probably. PACs must be separate from the campaign. A PAC cannot contact the campaign at all regarding expenditures or donations. I am 99.9% certain without looking knee deep into election law.

The second one is harder but still likely problematic.

If you want to do something like this, sell stuff until you personally are maxed out. Then give to a SuperPAC that favors RP.

+rep for the effort.

[orenbus]

The first one is blatantly illegal probably. PACs must be separate from the campaign. A PAC cannot contact the campaign at all regarding expenditures or donations. I am 99.9% certain without looking knee deep into election law.



I'm not suggesting that the PAC and a campaign would have any communication or coordination. The act would be much like how grassroots organize money bombs right now completely separate from the campaign. The campaign may wish to adopt a same date for a fundraiser, but this would only happen after hearing publically learning about a MB event scheduled as others learn about it too. There would be no premeditated coordination or communication on the part of the PAC or the campaign in this scenario which is why I ask if it may be okay.




The second one is harder but still likely problematic.

If you want to do something like this, sell stuff until you personally are maxed out. Then give to a SuperPAC that favors RP.



I guess I'm not really explaining the question clearly. Basically what I'm asking is if for example Peter Thiel (former CEO of PayPal) decided to give someone 20k or hired a number of individuals to organize a MB for Ron Paul would that be legal? Under this scenario again the campaign would not be involved at all other than taking in donations on a random day that's been chosen by others to do mass donations to them and have decided to do that based on the advertising, promotions, viral marketing etc. of the aforementioned project motivating people to donate? The individuals making their donations decide on their own without coordination or communication with the official campaign to donate on their own directly to the campaign on MB day.

If I'm not explaining this questions clearly let me know.

[orenbus]

Thinking out loud, I think a lot of what you're asking depends on whether the official campaign is involved in the decision making. If they're not, it's a grassroots effort, right?

The official campaign would not be involved in any of the decision making. Since the budgets I'm talking about would probably be 10K+ I'm wondering if a group working with that budget would have to form a PAC and if so would it be legal to run a MB to benefit the campaign without it's involvement directly. If that is not possible then would an individual be able to spend 10k+ on a project that would focus on running a MB to benefit a campaign indirectly without any prior communication, coordination or decision making on the behalf of the campaign.

[kylejack]

I'm not sure about your specific question. One thing I did read: A candidate may attend and speak at a super PAC event so long as he does not personally ask for people to donate to the PAC. Others at the event are free to ask for the donations, though.

[Titus]

I think you are somewhat. However, there is a little discussed (publicly at least) legal doctrine called "piercing the corporate veil". Basically, it allows the law to treat a corporation's behavior as if the individual did it. As you know, there are individual limits on campaign contributions.

If that happens with the PayPal founder's SuperPAC it would present a problem for the donations he did for the campaign because it would put him over the individual contribution limits. Here the PayPal founder is the largest donor and would exert a serious amount of control over the PAC.

Neither the SuperPac nor the PayPal founder could contribute the initial 20,000 dollars for the start up. The 20K would put the individual over the limit and the PayPal founder may exert too much control over the SuperPAC to use it as a method donating the 20,000 dollars for a start-up.

The best solution for that would be a crowd-sourced group. No one person could have authority over the total expenditures or donations. The veil usually is not pierced if the corporation cannot be controlled by any particular individual. Ex: John, Jane, and I contribute 250 dollars worth of goods and sell them for a total of less than 1,000 dollars.

Once that 1,000 dollar level has been met, a danger zone is readily apparent if the individuals do not have enough room to give to the campaign. After that point, a PAC would be formed and reporting would be required by law. However, a PAC cannot directly contribute to a campaign.

Overall, I do find this idea dangerous. One caveat, I do not practice election law. If you want to pursue the idea and have the money, consult with an attorney in your state. Do not let me stop you I just want to alert you to the issues.

[orenbus]

I'm not sure about your specific question. One thing I did read: A candidate may attend and speak at a super PAC event so long as he does not personally ask for people to donate to the PAC. Others at the event are free to ask for the donations, though.

LOL I read something completely different when researching this, that a candidate could ask for donations to a PAC, but the reverse wasn't possible. This is why I wanted to get clarification and ask the question here.

[orenbus]

I think you are somewhat. However, there is a little discussed (publicly at least) legal doctrine called "piercing the corporate veil". Basically, it allows the law to treat a corporation's behavior as if the individual did it. As you know, there are individual limits on campaign contributions.

If that happens with the PayPal founder's SuperPAC it would present a problem for the donations he did for the campaign because it would put him over the individual contribution limits. Here the PayPal founder is the largest donor and would exert a serious amount of control over the PAC.

Neither the SuperPac nor the PayPal founder could contribute the initial 20,000 dollars for the start up. The 20K would put the individual over the limit and the PayPal founder may exert too much control over the SuperPAC to use it as a method donating the 20,000 dollars for a start-up.

The best solution for that would be a crowd-sourced group. No one person could have authority over the total expenditures or donations. The veil usually is not pierced if the corporation cannot be controlled by any particular individual. Ex: John, Jane, and I contribute 250 dollars worth of goods and sell them for a total of less than 1,000 dollars.

Once that 1,000 dollar level has been met, a danger zone is readily apparent if the individuals do not have enough room to give to the campaign. After that point, a PAC would be formed and reporting would be required by law. However, a PAC cannot directly contribute to a campaign.

Overall, I do find this idea dangerous. One caveat, I do not practice election law. If you want to pursue the idea and have the money, consult with an attorney in your state. Do not let me stop you I just want to alert you to the issues.

Yea I understand the points your making but in the case of the individual or even the PAC per say the donations are not flowing through them. They are influencing others to donate of their own action through an advertisement.

An individual spending their own money on an advertisement that is put together by other individuals has happened in the past for example in 2007 You'll remember Larry Lepard bought a couple of ads one in which he spent $85,000 in order to put the message out in USA Today: "Ron Paul is the best hope America has to restore the Constitution and get our country back on track."
http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/17908

I'm wondering what would stop an individual like that to spend a certain amount of his own personal money on doing an advertisement for a money bomb? Unless of course this has changed in the past four years and Larry would not be able to do now what he did in 2007? I supposed there could be specific laws stopping a PAC from doing the same but I have not found them, if there is no level of coordination and donations are not flowing through the PAC then why would there be a restriction? It would never be considered part of a individual limit as donations are not managed by the PAC in this situation so they should have no responsibility as those who promote a money bomb event to make sure each individual does not surpass their donation limit for campaign contributions.

[itssimplyjeff]

Don't listen to Titus...First of all PACs don't even have donation limits. anyone can donate whatever amount of money they want to you, and you can do whatever you want with the money afterwards.

i don't know why people here cant understand your question its really simple.

the basic answer is that as long as you dont coordinate with the campaign, then it should not be a problem. If the campaign hears about your planned money bomb, even then, it doesn't matter, they can then do whatever they want. you're just announcing the money bomb, and they're hearing your announcement. you're not coordinating with them at all.

basically what they just dont want you to do is to go to the campaign, BEFORE anything and plan the moneybomb together.

The daily show/colbert report did a bunch of really good spots, basically explaining it. you may think "oh its just a comedy show" but as far as i know, its all factually true [with regards to the super pacs] i suggest you take a look at them, youll find them very informative [its on their respective websites, just search pac or super pac and watch them]

[orenbus]

Yea I can't see why Super PACs would not be doing this, but have yet to see one support a MB for donations directed at a campaign. If a Super PAC ever does fundraising it's usually to fill it's own coffers, have never seen a Super PAC do it to indirectly fill the coffers of the candidate's campaign, but just because it hasn't been done doesn't necessarily make it illegal is what I'm thinking. Since money bombs are a newish concept from '07 I wonder if it's possible that the laws just have not caught up to consider this yet? And even if it is covered by some law or inference of a law regarding a PAC, what about the case of the individual buying an advertisement or a set of advertisements to promote a MB? Hmm... anyone know an election lawyer?

[orenbus]

bump for the day walkers

[angelatc]

Yea I can't see why Super PACs would not be doing this, but have yet to see one support a MB for donations directed at a campaign. If a Super PAC ever does fundraising it's usually to fill it's own coffers, have never seen a Super PAC do it to indirectly fill the coffers of the candidate's campaign, but just because it hasn't been done doesn't necessarily make it illegal is what I'm thinking. Since money bombs are a newish concept from '07 I wonder if it's possible that the laws just have not caught up to consider this yet? And even if it is covered by some law or inference of a law regarding a PAC, what about the case of the individual buying an advertisement or a set of advertisements to promote a MB? Hmm... anyone know an election lawyer?

There's no law against an individual buying an ad for a candidate. That's what the Citizen's United decision did.

Individuals can spend as much as they want on advocacy, but they have to fill out a form. That's what Larry Lepard did.

The conflict starts if and when you decide to collect a bunch of money from a bunch of people to fund that ad. Then you're a PAC.

[dusman]

Orenbus,

I actually considered doing the same thing earlier in the year for the other moneybombs. From what I researched on the subject, there didn't seem to be any conflicts from what I could find.

1) You aren't collecting donations FOR the campaign.
2) You aren't coordinating WITH the campaign.
3) You aren't even collecting money, but using PAC resources purely for advertising purposes.

In my opinion, it's not much different than a PAC organizing a GOTV initiative that a campaign they support knowingly will attend.

The main limitation I see is that the campaign may trip up on their mailouts to promote the date. That's not to say they can't run their own branded fundraiser, necessarily, like they essentially have been doing recently (I'm assuming for the same concern), but I imagine it could be a grey area.