RNC sues to halt Super PACs: RNC laments being a mere social coordinator. (Congress, campaign)

[pbmaise]

The Republican National Committee (RNC), feeling it has lost power, filed suit to halt
money flowing to Super PACs in an action called “McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC”.
They concluded in their own words:

Super PACs “have now become powerful players in American politics.”

In other words, the national parties have no longer the power players.

The Republican Party has recognized that they are now just a social group with the
duty to organize a convention where candidates will arrive that toe the Super PAC
line. Why bother adhering to a Republican platform when far more money is available
at the Super PAC feeding trough?

Joining the suit with the RNC was a campaign contributor named Shaun McCutcheon.

Paragraph 75 Page 25 “Mr. McCutcheon desires to make a series of
contributions… that will exceed the biennial contribution limits.”
(McCutcheon wants to change laws so he can legally exceed current limit.)

Something is odd isn’t it? If Super PACs were legal what is stopping McCutcheon?
If he wants to support Republicans why not give to a Super PAC like Young Guns
Action Fund? It is a "super PAC established to elect Republicans." Some claim giving
to Super PACs is money better spent since Super PACs can bid higher on key advertis-
ing slots.

What is motivating McCutheon to hire 6 attorneys and file a lawsuit to give more
money directly when most people believe unlimited contributions can just be directed
to Super PACs? Isn’t that kind of expensive? (Or was the real purpose just to put a
"real" situation before the Court so they could achieve a strategic end?)

Or maybe just maybe McCutheon knows something. Like somethings are illegal.
Now that is admirable. Bully on you Mr. McCutheon! A Republican that asks first!

[SIZE=4]If he has anything to worry about it is this:[/SIZE]

It is called the reasonable person test. In a ruling January 30th, 2012 that was
appealed and held all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court detailed: That if a
contribution is made with a prior understanding it will be used to support a candidate
or party, then it is legally as if given directly and subject to regulation.
(Subject to regulation means disclosure and limit.)

To understand how the test works just examine this sentence.

”Young Guns Action Fund, is a super PAC established to elect Republicans”.

Isn’t that exactly what the RNC does? Doesn’t the RNC help elect Republicans?

The former powerful Republican Party must have been pondering this question:
How can a new group “established to elect Republicans” get unlimited funds yet, we,
the real Republican party can't?

So they launched their lawsuit. But did they seal their fate?

The question they are playing with is like asking why matter and anti-matter don't
play together well. The RNC may find a nasty explosion and the Courts concluding
that the reasonable person test applies to all contributions anywhere. Then a whole
bunch of campaign donors will find out the hard way their contributions were against
the law.

The lawsuit claims current law “substantially burdens McCutcheon’s right to free
speech and association with the national party committees of his choosing.”
(Page 35).

Three problems:

1. They made a claim with no supporting evidence.
2. Evidence shows unlimited funding is hurting free speech not helping it.
3. What is stopping his free association just because he can't give big money?

The answer here to the RNC’s problem isn’t to make contributions more and more un-
limited. The answer in my belief is to enforce existing campaign law. This means
bringing individuals to trial for making excessive and prohibited campaign contributions
That is something the FEC is failing to do. However, the FEC isn’t the only one that
can enforce the law. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), a private citi-
zen can enforce campaign finance laws. It is a right granted to citizens by Congress.

The reason the FEC has failed to enforce campaign law regarding contributions to
Super PACs may rest with the fact that 3 out of 6 commissioners are Republicans.
Unless a Republican commissioner defects and agrees to prosecute Super PACs
that largely support Republicans, the FEC’s hands are tied. The provision in FECA
to allow a citizen to step forward to enforce campaign finance law appears to be
wisely placed into the law when Congress passed it in 1972.

So I filed a suit.

The Super PAC lawsuit is a defendant class action. It charges all Super PACs
and donors that have exceeded individual campaign contributions as well as those that
benefited from them.

Owing to the similarities between the RNC’s case and arguments in my own, I filed to
consolidate cases. See:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5KR...TEE/edit?pli=1

Check to see if you are defendant in that suit by reading the Notice at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...vlNC1AQL4/edit

or see Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/SuperPacFederalLawsuit

One other development is the FEC itself has announced that it is reconsidering the
rules it changed that allowed Super PACs to thrive. See:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...Cs-are-illegal

PHILIP B. MAISE pro se
PLAINTIFF AND CITIZEN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ACTING ON THE
BEHALF OF THE U.S. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

p.s. The above title does sound a bit over the top. However, according to Court rules,
when filing a suit to enforce an Act of Congress the citizen must do so in the name of
attorney general of the United States.

[Dale Cooper]

you're linking to the Daily KOS?

No thanks.

And btw, didn't OBoy try to stop superpacs once upon a time?

[BentBow]

He wants to be able to buy just one politician, not a fund distributed to all politicians in that party, that the superpac's want to spend it on.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by BentBow

He wants to be able to buy just one politician, not a fund distributed to all politicians in that party, that the superpac's want to spend it on.

Actually it sounds like the other way around, that the SuperPACs are simply becoming fronts for wealthy "kingmakers"... and are siphoning both money and control away from the party.

[mb1547]

I don't know anything about daily Kos, but it's a real law suit.

[banjomike]

This issue is very similar to the issue that broke the Catholic Church in half.

The Church mandated that the faithful had no direct access to God. All prayers had to be directed to the Saints, who would pass them on to God on their behalf. The Church also decreed that freedom from punishment for sin could be bought with earthly money.
Martin Luther, a monk, a priest, and a Christian scholar, disagreed and declared everyone had direct access to the Heavenly Ghost. And only repentance could bring the forgiveness of sins, not money.

Which do you believe?

We all know what becomes of any group who has no limits on how much money they can pull in while others are shut out at the same time.

Good luck on your lawsuit. I hope it pulls this rotten decision out of the law books, and forever prohibits similar decisions from ever happening again. Our Constitution cannot live without two opposing parties made up by citizens, not tiny groups of money gatherers, and can only survive when all, however rich or poor, can give as their beliefs dictate, in whatever amount they can muster. We do not need intercession by the Super PACs, and should not desire it. They are a cancer in our nation.

[pbmaise]

Interesting points on the Catholic church split and Luther. Money and the direction and flow of money has what brought about the splits of many organizations.

The Republican Party itself lamenting about the Super PACs getting all the money hopefully will finally call the attention to the Court that the solution isn't to just continue to allow more money in violation of 100 years of campaign law.

I live abroad and the United States is one laughing stock around the world. They all see the U.S. claiming to be this great democracy when in fact we can look back over how we elect our Presidents and see very questionable activity. The Swift Boats for Veterans was judged guilty on the reasonable person test of violating the law. That's right. They were guilty..or rather that is, they were allowed to pay a fine called a "reconciliation". Now doesn't that sound Catholic. They were allowed to pay a tiny punitive fine that was really just the cost of doing business. They weren't even fined anything close to the amount they spent.

Now think about that. If you spend several million dollars, get the President of your choice in office, what is a fine of a few dollars? After all that new President will remember your help.

[pbmaise]

I don't know of Oboy's efforts. I've been at this for a while. Phil

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Actually it sounds like the other way around, that the SuperPACs are simply becoming fronts for wealthy "kingmakers"... and are siphoning both money and control away from the party.

SuperPacs are made so the rich can give more than the $2500 they can give to a personal campaign.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by banjomike

This issue is very similar to the issue that broke the Catholic Church in half.

The Church mandated that the faithful had no direct access to God. All prayers had to be directed to the Saints, who would pass them on to God on their behalf. The Church also decreed that freedom from punishment for sin could be bought with earthly money.
Martin Luther, a monk, a priest, and a Christian scholar, disagreed and declared everyone had direct access to the Heavenly Ghost. And only repentance could bring the forgiveness of sins, not money.

Which do you believe?

We all know what becomes of any group who has no limits on how much money they can pull in while others are shut out at the same time.

Good luck on your lawsuit. I hope it pulls this rotten decision out of the law books, and forever prohibits similar decisions from ever happening again. Our Constitution cannot live without two opposing parties made up by citizens, not tiny groups of money gatherers, and can only survive when all, however rich or poor, can give as their beliefs dictate, in whatever amount they can muster. We do not need intercession by the Super PACs, and should not desire it. They are a cancer in our nation.

In your scenario the two major parties is the Catholic Church saying that everything must past through them. It's pretty amazing that it can't be seen that this is what this suit is about. The two parties are pissed that the courts struck them down when they tried to make it illegal for others to give their side of things directly to the public as opposed to going through the parties.