You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
How can the other Paul Ryan's technically-non-solicitation of a $30 million contribution possibly be legal? Let me break it down for you. Spoiler: Democrats played a BIG part. @CommonCause @politicoalex @JakeSherman https://politi.co/2KaPUI9 via @politico
Once upon a time, in 2002, a bipartisan Congress and President Bush enacted a so-called "soft money ban" that prohibits fed candidates, officeholders and party officials from soliciting or directing $$ in connection with any election unless $$ complies with contribution limits.pic.twitter.com/Cc2F5l5F43
In 2003, the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC upheld the "soft money ban," concluding solicitation ban was an important way to prevent politicians, party officials and special interests from pulling an end-run around candidate and party contribution limits.
But in 2008, the forces of evil invented a plaintiff for a lawsuit that would lead to the creation of super PACs: SpeechNow v. FEC.
SpeechNow was a PAC that challenged the $5k contrib limit, based on theory that it was "independent" of candidates/parties and would not coordinate its activities with candidates/parties. So, SpeechNow argued, it's unlimited fundraising posed no threat of corruption.pic.twitter.com/eeToH27as9
SpeechNow took years to litigate. In March 2010, right after the SCOTUS decided Citizens United, the DC Circuit held that because SpeechNow would only make independent expenditures, and the Citizens United Court said IEs can't corrupt, SpeechNow's fundraising couldn't be limited.pic.twitter.com/82YsQ7SbHS
DC Circuit decision in SpeechNow was the birth of super PACs--i.e., political committees that can raise unlimited funds and use those funds for so-called "independent" political expenditures.
This is when the Dems and their very skilled lawyer @marceelias got involved in the deregulation festivities!
In 2011 @marceelias, on behalf of 2 Dem super PACs filed an advisory opinion request with @FEC (AOR 2011-12) asking whether federal candidates could solicit unlimited funds for super PACs or, in the alternative, participate in super PAC fundraisers without making the "ask."pic.twitter.com/AvJmGyKbXM
In AO 2011-12, @FEC said: (1) candidate/officeholder solicitations for super PACs are subject to $5k limit BUT (2) candidates/officeholders may attend, speak and be featured guests at super PAC fundraisers without breaking the law, so long as they don't make the big-money "ask."pic.twitter.com/QDTb5nS4U8
Then in 2015, @marceelias went back to @FEC on behalf of same 2 Dem super PACs and asked whether such fundraising event could have as few as 2 attendees! In other words, can federal candidates/officeholders attend private meetings with super PACs and wealthy donors?pic.twitter.com/qZGnAGo10x
And in AO 2015-09, @FEC said sure, federal candidates/officeholders may attend private super PAC meetings "as proposed" by @marceelias and his Dem super PAC clients. @EllenLWeintraub and @AnnMRavel dissented from this decision.pic.twitter.com/97LmxLZC7P
So there you have it. Federal law says officeholders can't solicit more than $5k for a super PAC and @FEC says officeholders can attend private meeting with super PAC and billionaire to close the deal on $30 million contrib--as long as the officeholder doesn't make the "ask."
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
