WestVirginiaRebel Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 Breitbart: A newly released email via WikiLeaks from Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to the candidate herself, Hillary Clinton, suggests the campaign crafted a formal strategy to coordinate with at least two super PACs, Correct the Record and Priorities USA, potentially violating political campaign laws. Madame Secretary, Attached is a memo Marc prepared on some issues related to superpacs and state parties we wanted to discuss with you next week, specifically (1) coordination of rapid response with Correct the Record; (2) coordination of some ads with Priorities; (3) use of state parties to defray costs; and (4) suing the FEC to compel action against Bush and Republican superpacs. I’ve talked with Huma and Alex about finding a time that might be convenient for you. This is probably best to do in-person, but if your schedule doesn’t permit, we’ll arrange for a call. Let us know if you have any questions in advance! Robby The email comes with a memo as a pdf attachment addressing how the campaign believed it could use a reading of current law to coordinate legally. The memo, in part, outlines the strategy, as such: II. Coordinated Non-Express Advocacy Ads with Super PAC As noted above, federal law prohibits Super PACs from coordinating with campaigns on public communications that include words of express advocacy or the functional equivalent of express advocacy or that republish campaign materials. However, the plain language of FEC regulations suggest that a campaign may collaborate with a Super PAC on communications that lack express advocacy or its functional equivalent, do not republish campaign materials, and air more than 120 days before the primary in each state.1 We believe that such collaboration is legally permissible. Under this theory, the campaign could collaborate on television ads sponsored by Priorities USA Action more than 120 days before the primary in each state, as long as the ads lacked express advocacy, its functional equivalent, or republished campaign materials. The advertisements would focus on a public policy issue; praise your position on the issue or criticize an opponent’s; and urge viewers to take an action in support of your position (or in opposition to your opponent’s). The advertisements would not focus on your qualifications or fitness for office, and would not refer to elections, candidacies, political parties, or voting by the general public. Finally, while your campaign may have significant input on such a communications program, Priorities ultimately would have to direct and control it. While we believe that such a program is legally permissible, it would be breaking new ground – more so than what CTR is doing. As evidenced by the press scrutiny of CTR’s announcement, the media reaction to such a program could be toxic. In 2011, the FEC divided 3-to-3 on a request by American Crossroads to engage in a similar coordinated issue advocacy program; that division between the commissioners has persisted over the past four years. The FEC cannot find a violation without the support of four commissioners, so the ongoing deadlock reduces (though by no means eliminates) the likelihood of adverse action by the FEC. However, the Department of Justice and both houses of Congress retain separate authority to investigate alleged campaign finance violations, and there is no indication of what their views are on this issue. It would appear they may have been willing to bend current campaign laws to the point of risking a court test to determine whether or not they may actually be breaking them. ________ They needed to know which laws they wanted to break... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now