My writings primary deal with why super PACs are illegal. It concerns me since I have a lawsuit against super PACs and their donors.
I have studied the laws and Court rulings forwards and backwards. I have detailed the key points in my posts on EMILY's List and SpeechNow. When I compare law and rulings against super PAC websites, and super PAC information I always arrive at the same conclusion. Super PACs are being operated illegally since there are understandings.
Understandings are how people are sent to jail
You, are now sitting in the jury box. You are a jury member and watching a recording of a crime caught on closed circuit camera.
#1 The defense attorney pushes PLAY and sure enough you see the gangster guns down the store owner.
#2 The defense attorney declares: "My client is innocent it is the gangster at fault!"
#3 The prosecutor gets up and plays an earlier part of the recording. The part where the luxury car pulls up and a hand reaches out with a big envelop clearly stuffed with cash.
#4 The prosecutor declares: "See that. The Defendant and that gangster had an "understanding".
Super PACs have a problem with the word understanding
In a court ruling on January 31, 2012 the Courts detailed how to recognize a campaign contribution that was made based on an "understanding".
It is basically impossible to attract contributions unless there are prior understandings.
Picture for a second what a legally operating super PAC looks like.
1. A legally operating super PAC cannot have any prior history.
If it has a history of supporting a specific candidate or type of candidate, then a contributor giving to the PAC would do so with an expectation that the contribution would be spent in a similar way. This would be grounds to conclude there was an "understanding".
2. A legally operating super PAC cannot advertise support for a specific candidate, or type of candidate.
If the super PAC advertises a position, then funds it receives come with a prior "understanding".
3. A legally operating super PAC cannot generally be known to support a specific candidate, or type of candidate.
If the media or any other source reports the super PAC will in the future act in a certain manner, then contributors arrive with a prior "understanding".
In short, a legally operating PAC and contributor must have no mutual understanding as to how the money will be spent. It appears a super PAC cannot spend any money that exceeds individual contribution limits unless it is based upon a 100% random and verifiable nature.
Philip B. Maise
Plaintiff
super PAC Lawsuit