The United States is based upon Common Law. No Court rulings removed individual contribution limits. If Jack gave $10,000 to Bob to commit a crime...then Jack also committed a crime. It doesn't matter if Jack gave it first to Jane who gave it to Bob. If a prosecutor can show Jack expected Bob to commit the crime, Jack is also guilty. This is accomplished using common law and the reasonable person test. Jack can claim he gave the money to wash his car money, however, if a reasonable person looking at the totality of the situation concludes otherwise.... Jack goes to jail. The Courts have already demonstrated they will apply this reasoning back on January 31, 2012. The only thing missing is a prosecutor winning to take Jack to Court. The US Federal Election Commission won't do that. Congress anticipated problems like this. It built in a provision for a citizen attorney general to step forward and prosecute on the FEC's behalf. This is exactly what I have done.. and links to the 105 page complaint can be found on my profile.
Perhaps, he has already filed the case in Federal District Court. The nearest one was Guam (yes that is part of the USA and his closest court). Understanding why a gay man is almost essential to defeat super PAC money you first need to consider what super PAC money does. It has caused 3 potential presidential candidates to take a "Pledge" to ban same-sex marriages nation-wide and they have agreed to "sack" judges that disagree. This is all detailed in a 105 page brief submitted to the Court. To gain standing in a case like this, it is important to demonstrate injury in the past, and injury is likely to occur in the future. It just so happens that same-sex couples like to go on honeymoons too. Hawaii receives 450,000 honeymooners per year. The gay man who filed the case co-owns a bed and breakfast there that has suffered from laws banning same-sex marriages. Since presidential candidates have made a "pledge" this constituted a threat. Outlined are three legal arguments that most super PAC money is illegal. The United States is based upon Common Law. No Court rulings removed individual contribution limits. If Jack gave $10,000 to Bob to commit a crime...then Jack committed a crime. It doesn't matter if Jack gave it first to Jane who gave it to Bob. If a prosecutor can show Jack expected Bob to commit the crime, Jack is guilty of the crime and can go to jail. Showing Jack is guilty is made in court using common law and the reasonable person test. Jack can take the stand and claim he gave the money to get his car washed, however, if a reasonable person looking at the totality of the situation concludes otherwise.... Jack goes to jail. The Courts have already demonstrated they will rule regarding campaign contributions back on January 31, 2012.
It is basically a rant against superpacs. Other than that, the OP does not know WTH he/she is talking about.
Jack can claim he gave the money to wash his car money, however, if a reasonable person looking at the totality of the situation concludes otherwise.... Jack goes to jail. The Courts have already demonstrated they will apply this reasoning back on January 31, 2012. The only thing missing is a prosecutor winning to take Jack to Court. The US Federal Election Commission won't do that. ya ya i like this!!!!!!!!!!
The suit is 105 pages long and condensed down: If a reasonable person believes the contributions were to elect a candidate than legally it went to that candidate and was subject to campaign limits. There is no such thing as bright-line here. The US is common law.
Superpacs do not coordinate with the candidates they support, therefore the money raised by the superpacs are never physically given to those candidates. You argument is now dead. Please go away.
Yes a lot of people will soon wish I went away and not sleep well. There is a reason I request the ability to transfer defendants to criminal court. Those that do know the criminal penalties for excessive or prohibited campaign contributions might want to do some reading. Court documents finally reached Guam's Federal Court today Monday March 19th 2012. They are not entered in PACER yet. Thankfully I was not out in Micronesia visiting friends when I wrote the suit. That would have taken longer. A three judge panel will decide the case. If not ruled in my favor, I will next be allowed to take it directly to Supreme Court. However, I anticipate a favorable ruling based upon evidence against super PACs and rulings in First Circuit Court of Appeals. In light of research over the weekend as described below I have asked for an expedited preliminary injunction. Here is a small part of the supplemental brief. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 12, 2012 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) air mailed a COMPLAINT and BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE for the instant case. The Plaintiff informed the Court that supplemental information will be provided. Along those lines the Court is informed of the following: 1. The package sent by DHL from Malaysia to Guam took one full week to deliver and is now expected to reach the Clerk of the Court on March 19th, 2012. DHL's route is Miri, to KL, then Hong Kong, then LA, then Honolulu, and finally a flight to Guam that doesn't occur daily so the package sat two days. The cost to send this package was approximately $40 USD. 2. During this time the Plaintiff established his PACER account. It is pm2641. The Plaintiff also phoned the Clerk regarding electronic submission. He submitted forms with the initial complaint to gain CM/ECF access so documents can be uploaded. While Guam may not have approved approved a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff requests that the Court view the difficulty and expense required for the Plaintiff to submit physical documents. Therefore, please approve the access request. 3. Over this past week the Plaintiff attempted to inform proposed Class I Defendants as follows: 2 Of 9 a) On March 12th, and 13th major Class 1 class defendants were contacted via their websites. Websites typically had a page to enter comments or submit a press inquiry. The e-mail the Plaintiff sent was generic in nature and didn't specifically state they were being sued. Rather it informed them a suit was being filed regarding campaign contributions and that according to the Court some may be deemed excessive or prohibited. Links to the full complaint that was uploaded onto Google Docs were provided. b) The Plaintiff was able to reach all but one of the major defendants listed on Open Secrets website that during the month of February were still actively spending on the 2012 elections. One proposed Defendant, about 5th on the list, didn't have an e-mail or contact form. The Plaintiff uses the term actively spending since there were a few political action committees (PACs) that operated early in the 2012 election season for candidates that were no longer running. Since their activity is nearly zero except for housekeeping, they will not be effected by any preliminary injunction however, will most likely be Defendants owing to having received large contributions from individuals. c) Since the proposed Class I Defendants contacted are attempting to solicit contributions from the general public, or publicize their candidate, the Plaintiff believes the e-mails sent to them were read. How far up the chain of command the emails went is not known. However, from the Plaintiff's experience working at firms any mention of a court case was to be immediately brought to the supervisor level. Until the case is filed there is no way they could reply. d) While looking for contact information on websites of the Class I Defendants the Plaintiff copied many pages from their sites that demonstrate: 3 Of 9 Defendant activity is nearly identical and prosecution of them as a class is justified. Defendants clearly list if they are supporting one candidate or multiple candidates. Support Plaintiff's contention that money is being targeted to buy television commercials just before elections. Support Plaintiff's contention that Class I Defendants are operated with the expressed purpose of helping contributors exceed individual donation limits. The following is a direct citation from one from one proposed Defendant: For those who have already contributed the maximum $2,500 per person to the ______ presidential campaign, the _____ Super PAC allows you to continue to support the cause of______. Donating to the ______ PAC is a great way to continue to support ____ if you have already contributed the maximum directly to his campaign! (Candidate and PAC name as well as cause removed to avoid disclosure of PAC under investigation.) One website provided an indication how PAC operatives prey upon senior citizens and solicit contributions: The three political activists in their mid-20s gave pep talks and election tips to the white- and gray-haired men and women that dominated the _______ Party's bimonthly meeting (Party name removed to avoid disclosure of PAC under investigation.) This same potential Class I defendant on their contribution page stated: Unlike traditional Political Action Committees (PACs), _________ has no individual contribution limits, so please give generously. (PAC name removed to avoid disclosure of PAC under investigation.) 4 Of 9 One PAC on their contribution page near the top listed: As the official Super PAC supporting _____ for President, we need your most generous contribution today so we can help spread the word that ______ is the committed ________ who can win. (Candidate name removed and type of political leaning removed to avoid disclosure.) Farther down the page they had a tick box to make a $25,000 contribution representing 10 times the maximum if given directly to the candidate. Followed by that was a blank box for any amount up to $9,999,999. Near the bottom of the page is the statement Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. e) In general it really is that simple to look at the solicitation from the proposed Class I Defendants. A reasonable person clearly understands their monies will go towards specific candidate, party, or cause. f) The Plaintiff anticipates simple summary judgments against Class I defendants.
Those that wish to comment before 3 judge panel in Ninth Circuit Court rules upon preliminary injunction request are encouraged to do so as soon as possible. The Plaintiff has requested a ruling on an expedited basis owing to reports of senior citizens being pressured into exceeding individual campaign contribution limits at group meetings. This notice does not indicate you or your organization will be effected by the case. The Plaintiff is unable to publicly disclose who is effected. Case information is now available on PACER. 1:12-cv-00004 Maise v. Political Action Committees-Class I et al Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, presiding Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr, referral Date filed: 03/19/2012 Date of last filing: 03/19/2012 Parties Philip B. Maise Proposed Plaintiff and Citizen Attorney General of the United States Acting on the Behalf of the U.S. Federal Election Commission CO Sarawak Land (Kemena Park) Miri Bay Marina - S.V. Hot Buoys Lot 271 Brighton, Jalan Temenggong Datuk Oyong Lawai Jau Miri, Sarawalk MY 69-019-879-5673 pbmaise@yahoo.com Added: 03/19/2012 (Plaintiff) PRO SE Defendants Political Action Committees-Class I Added: 03/19/2012 (Defendant) Individual Defendants-Class IIa, Class II-b, Class II-c Added: 03/19/2012 (Defendant) Non-Individual Defendants-Class II-d Added: 03/19/2012 (Defendant) Organization Defendants-Class II-e Added: 03/19/2012 (Defendant) Other Defendants-Class III-a, Class III-b, Class III-c Added: 03/19/2012 (Defendant) For those without access to PACER documents have been posted on Google Docs and may be viewed free of charge. Supplemental Brief 9 pages (Not yet filed) https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNVXVSOURqSldRU0NFVXctd3RFVkpoUQ Complaint - and Brief 105 Pages https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNRXdhUV9PeFpURVdsNHN6Q2hsdVNuQQ Exhibit 1 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNMGVZQy0za1RUNldsUWQtYUV5NDlWZw Exhibit 2 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNZTFCMzhIWlFSVDI4bWN5M0hfaEl4QQ Exhibit 3 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNN3hsYVA3amVTN3VpRXg3NlJ2M29hQQ Exhibit 4 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNSjdUYzdYNFRSaXlFdlRiQjNLX3Nxdw
