I am trying to understand the limitations MAYDAY is imposing on itself under the "coordination" rules.
Yesterday, on the MAYDAY Reddit, I posted a link to The limitations of MAYDAY. MAYDAY deleted my post, and I wish to understand why.
It would be helpful if MAYDAY would expressly state whether or not there is an absolute prohibition that no candidate may post anything on Reddit.
If there is not an absolute prohibition, would MAYDAY please state guidelines for what a candidate is allowed to post on Reddit.
If there is a prohibition that a candidate may not post on Reddit, would MAYDAY please state whether MAYDAY will take any steps to prevent the candidate from tweeting to MAYDAY followers on Twitter (i.e., will MAYDAY block a candidate from accessing MAYDAY's Twitter account page and its follower list)?
Will MAYDAY seek to regulate how candidates use the MAYDAY name, such as if a candidate says to the voters in the district that he or she will best advance MAYDAY's objectives? If MAYDAY will seek to regulate how the MAYDAY name is used, could MAYDAY please give an indication at this time about possible regulation that MAYDAY will attempt?
Could MAYDAY please post on the MAYDAY website guidance for candidates that answers some or all of the foregoing questions?
Thank you.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules
I have discovered a campaign finance law blog More Soft Money Hard Law.
An April 3rd posting in the blog, entitled Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules, should be read for greater understanding of how hemmed in MAYDAY may be under the "coordination" rules in how MAYDAY is able to carry out its plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016.
Also, the complaint that was made to the FEC about MAYDAY is discussed at Cause For Complaint to FEC.
Copied and pasted below is the Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules blog entry.
An April 3rd posting in the blog, entitled Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules, should be read for greater understanding of how hemmed in MAYDAY may be under the "coordination" rules in how MAYDAY is able to carry out its plan to elect a reform minded Congress by 2016.
Also, the complaint that was made to the FEC about MAYDAY is discussed at Cause For Complaint to FEC.
Copied and pasted below is the Fresh Questions About "Coordination" Rules blog entry.
The Brennan Center regularly devotes space to a review of the literature on the money-in-politics debate, and this week, Benjamin Brickner discusses an insightful paper on “coordination” by Professor Michael Gilbert of the University of Virginia and Brian Barnes, a J.D. candidate there. The authors present the case that anti-coordination rules don’t operate to prevent corruption achieved through independent spending–and that they can’t, even if strengthened. There are too many ways around coordination restrictions: a spender can comply with the law, spending “independently” for a candidate, but still offer the politician value that can be “cashed in” later. If coordination rules do not deter corruption but do limit speech, then their constitutionality is thrown into question.
It is not difficult for an independent group to figure out what the politician may need and appreciate. Public sources of useful information are plentiful and these can be supplemented by private polling and other expert advice; and if there is a risk of missing the mark and timing or targeting an ad imperfectly, there remains value to be conveyed. As Gilbert and Barnes point out, this is a question only of the efficiency of the expenditure, and some ground can be made up by just spending more money. A politician can still be grateful for $75,000 of discounted benefit from an ad that cost $100,000. As Gilbert and Barnes frame the point, “[U]nless the law prohibits candidates from publicizing their platforms and strategies, and outsiders from paying attention, then outsiders will always have enough information to make expenditures that convey at least some value.”
And corrupt deals can be stuck without “coordinating” in violation of existing rules. Bargaining over a paid ad needs to be distinguished from making a corrupt deal that value of some kind will be provided in return for an official act. The politician need not know that payment will be in the form of an ad, and she does not have to request, control or directly influence the timing or content of an ad so long as she has confidence that ads eventually run will have this threshold value: “some value,” perhaps enhanced by the level of funding that is committed to it.
The tightening of coordination rules can’t solve this problem. Mr. Brickner seems to believe otherwise. But the example of one reform proposal, among the more aggressive, tends to support a skeptical view. It would compel a finding of “coordination” in the event that the candidate privately or publicly expresses appreciation for or approval of an ad. If constitutional—not a condition this proposal could easily satisfy—it still presents little problem for the value exchange described by Gilbert and Barnes. The well-advised candidate would simply say nothing about any ad, anywhere and at any time, and press questions could be answered with a simple “I don’t discuss these matters.” This is a key point made by Gilbert and Barnes: discussion of the ad is not necessary to the extraction of exchange of value in which the independent expenditure is the “pay-off”—the quid of the quid pro quo.
The problem here can be traced back to the beginning. Independent groups now stirring up controversy are not the ones the Court in Buckley had in mind: outfits springing up to voice voice concerns as they please, indifferent or insensitive to the candidate’s needs. Now we have highly professional groups finely tuned to those needs and savvy about satisfying them.
The first type of group envisioned by the Buckley Court might be seen as dedicated to expressing its own reasons for wishing a candidate elected or defeated. The second type, at the center of the “coordination” debate today, is more looking to speak as the candidate would on her own behalf. The conception of independence underlying these two cases are quite different. It is a difference between independence of advocacy and strategy, and independence understood as keeping a group from speaking too much like the candidate.
When reformers proposing tighter coordination rules speak of the requirement of “total independence,” the second type is the one they have in mind – – no close ties to the candidate, no sophisticated means of acquiring information about what broadcast appeals would be most consistent with her campaign’s strategic interests, no dedication to mimicking the candidate’s arguments or themes on the stump or on the air. The reform program is keep independent speech from becoming too helpfully like the candidate’s own. It is a dubious proposition and it has nothing to do with illegal coordination.
When the Court was doing the best it could, on the fly, in 1976, its conception of independence may have made some sense. As Gilbert and Barnes show, it makes little sense now.
Concern about the rise of Super PACs and their independent spending can be based on reasons other than the risk of corruption: the danger that they will weaken or eclipse the parties, or raise costs and other complications for candidates in running their campaigns, or worsen the ills as some perceive them of “negative campaigns,” and more. But “corruption” is not the problem, if the problem is one that rules to prevent “coordination” rules are expected to solve.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Can MAYDAY allow candidates to post?
I have been doing research on the question of whether MAYDAY can allow candidates to post on its website and Facebook pages.
As I said in the preceding entry, The limitations of MAYDAY, MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules. I said that my impression is that MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages, and that I did not know whether this decision was set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Related to these matters, here is part of what I am able to piece together from Appendix D of the FEC Candidate Guide:
First, the "Content Prong" divides communications between "electioneering communications" and "public communications."
"Public communication" is defined as a communication made by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of substantially similar mail within any 30-day period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially similar telephone calls within any 30-dayperiod);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
There is a footnote that says:
1 The term general public political advertising does not include any Internet communication except for a communication placed for a fee on another person’s website.
If a candidate posts on the MAYDAY website or Facebook pages, it would not appear that a "public communication" is being made.
"Electioneering Communication" is defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before an election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.100.29. See Appendix D.
The periods of time in question are 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
Even though there may be some safe harbors here that MAYDAY could avail itself of in allowing candidates to post, I can appreciate that MAYDAY could still choose to go for a blanket prohibition against allowing Congressional candidates to post.
If MAYDAY adopts such a blanket prohibition. there are significant questions for MAYDAY to address about candidates.
What will MAYDAY do if a a candidate wants to wave the MAYDAY banner to the effect of "I back MAYDAY, and if you back MAYDAY, you should support me."
What if a candidate in a state, say California, tries to start a group, trumpeting "We are the MAYDAY supporters of such and such Congressional district in California?"
Does MAYDAY consider the foregoing use of the MAYDAY name and of expenditures that MAYDAY has made to publicize the MAYDAY name as creating a risk of "coordination"?
I know these questions may be viewed by MAYDAY as not yet ripe, but they are ripe for me.
As I said in the preceding entry, The limitations of MAYDAY, MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules. I said that my impression is that MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages, and that I did not know whether this decision was set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Related to these matters, here is part of what I am able to piece together from Appendix D of the FEC Candidate Guide:
First, the "Content Prong" divides communications between "electioneering communications" and "public communications."
"Public communication" is defined as a communication made by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of substantially similar mail within any 30-day period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially similar telephone calls within any 30-dayperiod);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
There is a footnote that says:
1 The term general public political advertising does not include any Internet communication except for a communication placed for a fee on another person’s website.
If a candidate posts on the MAYDAY website or Facebook pages, it would not appear that a "public communication" is being made.
"Electioneering Communication" is defined as "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before an election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.100.29. See Appendix D.
The periods of time in question are 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.
Even though there may be some safe harbors here that MAYDAY could avail itself of in allowing candidates to post, I can appreciate that MAYDAY could still choose to go for a blanket prohibition against allowing Congressional candidates to post.
If MAYDAY adopts such a blanket prohibition. there are significant questions for MAYDAY to address about candidates.
What will MAYDAY do if a a candidate wants to wave the MAYDAY banner to the effect of "I back MAYDAY, and if you back MAYDAY, you should support me."
What if a candidate in a state, say California, tries to start a group, trumpeting "We are the MAYDAY supporters of such and such Congressional district in California?"
Does MAYDAY consider the foregoing use of the MAYDAY name and of expenditures that MAYDAY has made to publicize the MAYDAY name as creating a risk of "coordination"?
I know these questions may be viewed by MAYDAY as not yet ripe, but they are ripe for me.
The limitations of MAYDAY
This morning I posted on the MAYDAY Reddit a post with the title "Doing it the old fashioned way." The text of my post was:
Those "coordination" rules potentially impose significant limitations on how MAYDAY will be able to pursue its goal of electing a reform minded Congress by 2016.
MAYDAY supporters should be aware of those limitations so that they know how MAYDAY is limited in what MAYDAY does, and so supporters can make decisions about whether there are things they (or others) can do (which MAYDAY believes it cannot do) and decide whether they should do such things.
MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules.
I believe MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
I do not know whether this decision is set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Such a ban on Congressional candidates would be detrimental for MAYDAY's plan. It will curtail the ability of Congressional candidates to inform MAYDAY supporters about the candidates' positions on campaign finance reform and curtail engagement by Congressional candidates with MAYDAY supporters about the same. The ban will limit Congressional candidates who back MAYDAY in learning about one another and in having discussions about their respective campaigns and their tactics and strategies.
One of the reasons I started this blog in 2014 was to create an alternative venue for the foregoing activities to take place if the activities could not take place on MAYDAY venues. See the entry Engaging with Congressional candidates.
Any venue set up as an alternative to MAYDAY's venues would need to be evaluated under the Federal campaign finance law. Below I have indicated some provisions of Federal campaign finance law, which are described in this FEC Candidate Guide. Please note the favored treatment that is given to Internet activity. I think an alternative venue to MAYDAY's venues is a realistic possibility.
Also, consider the posting that MAYDAY apparently believed it needed to delete by reason of the "coordination rules. I am about the only person posting on the MAYDAY Reddit who is strenuously urging messaging to persons outside of MAYDAY to tell them about MAYDAY and telling about the messaging I have been doing and the results I have been getting.
I don't know what is going to be in the platform MAYDAY announces on May 1st to support the biggest citizen lobbying campaign that MAYDAY possibly can, and maybe there will be a lot in that platform. Thus far, MAYDAY has chosen to make no comment or give any encouragement regarding ideas that I and others have put forth on Reddit and elsewhere.
All of what I am doing is in the public domain, and MAYDAY is aware of it is in the public domain. Instead of just deleting things that MAYDAY thinks may violate the coordination rules, MAYDAY should be proactive in searching out ideas, and writing up the ideas itself on its website and Facebook pages.
CANDIDATE GUIDE
The Glossary in Appendix H of the Guide has these definitions to consider.
Candidate – An individual seeking nomination
for election, or election, to federal office becomes
a candidate when he or she (or agents
acting on his or her behalf) raise contributions
that exceed $5,000 or make expenditures that
exceed $5,000.
Contribution – A gift, subscription, loan,
advance or deposit of money or anything of
value given to influence a federal election; or
the payment by any person of compensation
for the personal services of another person if
those services are rendered without charge
to a political committee for any purpose. 100.52(a) and 100.54. See Chapter 3, “Understanding
Contributions.”
Coordinated Communication – A communication
that satisfies a three pronged test:
• The communication must be paid for by a
person other than a federal candidate, authorized
committee, or a political party committee,
or any agents of the aforementioned
entities with whom the communication is
coordinated. (See, “Party Coordinated Communication,”
below);
• One or more of the five content standards
set forth in 109.21(c) must be satisfied; and
• One or more of the five conduct standards
set forth in 109.21(d) must be satisfied.
• A payment for a communication satisfying all
three prongs is an in-kind contribution to the
candidate or political party committee with
which it was coordinated. 109.21. See Appendix
D, Section 2.
Electioneering Communication – Any
broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate
for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed
within certain time periods before an election
and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.
100.29. See Appendix D.
Expenditure – A purchase, payment, distribution,
loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money
or anything of value made for the purpose of
influencing a federal election. A written agreement
to make an expenditure is also considered
an expenditure. 100.111 and 100.112. See
Chapter 8.
Independent Expenditure – An expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates
the election or defeat of a clearly identified
candidate and that is not made in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request
or suggestion of, any candidate, or his or her
authorized committees or agents, or a political
party committee or its agents. 100.16. See
Appendix D.
Mass Mailing – A mailing by U.S. mail or facsimile
of more than 500 pieces of mail matter
of an identical or substantially similar nature
within any 30-day period. This does not include
electronic mail or other Internet communications.
100.27. See Public Communication.
Public Communication – A communication
by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite
communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone
bank to the general public, or any other form
of general public political advertising. The term
general public political advertising does not include
communications made over the Internet,
except for communications placed for a fee on
another person’s website. 100.26, 100.27 (definition
of mass mailing) and 100.28 (definition of
telephone bank).
There are these substantive provisions in the Guide:
Definition
Goods or services offered free or at less than
the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution.
Similarly, when a person pays for services on
the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind
contribution. 100.52(d)(1) and 100.111(e)(1). An
expenditure made by any person in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request or
suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered
an in-kind contribution to the candidate.
109.20. See Appendix D, “Communications.”
Coordinated Communications
If a committee, group or individual pays for a communication
that is coordinated with a campaign or
a candidate, the communication may result in an
in-kind contribution to the campaign committee.
For more information on determining whether a
communication is coordinated, see Appendix D.
Personal Services
An individual may volunteer personal services to a
campaign without making a contribution as long as
the individual is not compensated by anyone for the
services. 100.74. Volunteer activity is not reportable.
Internet Volunteer Activity
General Exception
An uncompensated individual or group of uncompensated
individuals may engage in certain
voluntary Internet activities for the purpose of
influencing a federal election without restriction.
These exempted Internet activities would not result
in a contribution or an expenditure under the Act
and would not trigger any registration or reporting
requirements with the FEC. This exemption applies
to individuals acting with or without the knowledge
or consent of a campaign or a political party
committee. 100.94 and 100.155. Exempted Internet
activities include, but are not limited to, sending or
forwarding electronic mail, providing a hyperlink to
a website, creating, maintaining or hosting a website
and paying a nominal fee for the use of a website.
11. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES
An independent expenditure is an expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
and which is not made in coordination with any
candidate or his or her campaign or political party.
100.16, 109.21 and 109.37. Independent expenditures
are not subject to any limits but may be
subject to reporting requirements. (The campaign
of a candidate benefiting from an independent expenditure
has no reporting obligation.) See Citizens
United v. FEC and AOs 2010-11 and 2010-09.
Appendix D provides detailed information on independent
expenditures. The appendix may be reproduced
and distributed by a campaign to anyone who
requests FEC guidelines on independent spending.
Campaign staff should pay special attention to the
section “Coordinated Communications” which explains
when the independence of an expenditure is
compromised through contact with a campaign and
thus results in an in-kind contribution, subject to
contribution limits, to the campaign. If a corporation
or labor organization funds the coordinated expenditure,
it results in a prohibited contribution
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
12. ELECTIONEERING
COMMUNICATIONS
Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that is publicly distributed within 30 days of a
primary or 60 days of a general election, refers to
a clearly identified federal candidate and is targeted
to the relevant electorate is an electioneering communication.
100.29(a).
If a registered political committee makes an electioneering
communication, it must report it as it
reports an expenditure or independent expenditure
under the Act. 104.20(b).
Coordination of Electioneering
Communications
If a communication is considered coordinated
under the Commission’s three-part test, it results in
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
2. DISCLAIMERS
Any public communication made by a political committee,
even those that do not contain a solicitation
or express advocacy, must include a disclaimer. 52
U.S.C. §30120(a); 110.11(a)(1).
Public Communications
Public communications include electioneering communications
and any other form of general public
political advertisement, including communications
made using the following media:
• Broadcast, cable or satellite;
• Newspaper or magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 substantially
similar mailings within 30 days);
• Phone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar calls within 30 days); and
• Communications placed for a fee on another
person’s website.
100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
The following communications are not considered
to be public communications, but still require a
disclaimer:
• Electronic mail: More than 500 substantially
similar communications sent by a politic
similar communications sent by a political
committee; and
• Web sites of political committees.
110.11(a)(1).
Appendix D
Communications
NOTE: This section discusses communications that
are not made by the campaign, but that are made by
others in support of, or opposition to, a candidate.
Candidates and their campaigns may reproduce and
distribute this appendix to anyone who requests
FEC guidelines on such communications. Citations
refer to Federal Election Commission regulations,
contained in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(11 CFR). Advisory opinions (AOs) issued by
the Commission are cited as well. If you have any
questions after reading this appendix, please call the
Commission: 800/424-9530 (toll free) or 202/694-
1100.
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
It is important to understand how the Act and FEC
regulations define “public communication” because
many of the rules regarding political communications
depend upon whether the communication in
question is a public communication.
Definition
A public communication is a communication made
by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of
substantially similar mail within any 30-day
period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar telephone calls within any 30-day
period);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another
person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political
advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
1 The term general public political advertising does not include
any Internet communication except for a communication
2. COORDINATED
COMMUNICATIONS
When a committee, group or individual pays for a
communication that is coordinated with a campaign
or a candidate, the communication is either an inkind
contribution or, in some limited cases, a coordinated
party expenditure by a party committee.
Coordination Defined
Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation
or concert with, or at the request or suggestion
of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized
committee, or their agents, or a political party
committee or its agents.2 109.20.
Determining Coordination
FEC regulations provide for a three-pronged test to
determine whether a communication is coordinated.
A communication must satisfy all three prongs
of the test to be considered a coordinated communication
(and as a result, count against contribution
limits). 109.21(a).
The three prongs of the test consider:
• The source of payment (payment prong);
• The subject matter of the communication
(content prong); and
• The interaction between the person paying
for the communication and the candidate or
political party committee (conduct prong).
When the payment prong, the content prong and
the conduct prong are all satisfied, then the communication
is a coordinated communication and
results in an in-kind contribution. (See Chapter 13,
Section 10 for instructions on how to report such a
contribution.)
Payment Prong
The payment prong is satisfied when a coordinated
communication is paid for, in whole or in part, by
a person other than the candidate, an authorized
committee or a political party committee with
whom the communication is coordinated. 109.21(a)
I would be interested in your comments on "Doing it the old fashioned way," as described in this blog entry http://maydaysupporters.blogspot.com/2015/04/doing-it-old-fashioned-way.html.MAYDAY deleted my posting. I was not provided with an explanation of the deletion. Until I am informed otherwise, I am assuming the deletion was made by reason of the "coordination" rules under Federal campaign finance law as applicable to "independent expenditures" by Super PACS.
Those "coordination" rules potentially impose significant limitations on how MAYDAY will be able to pursue its goal of electing a reform minded Congress by 2016.
MAYDAY supporters should be aware of those limitations so that they know how MAYDAY is limited in what MAYDAY does, and so supporters can make decisions about whether there are things they (or others) can do (which MAYDAY believes it cannot do) and decide whether they should do such things.
MAYDAY has not publicly articulated much about the limitations MAYDAY considers itself to be under by reason of the coordination rules.
I believe MAYDAY made a decision for 2014 that Congressional candidates would not be allowed to post on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
I do not know whether this decision is set in concrete for MAYDAY for 2016, and whether Congressional candidates will continue to be banned from posting on the MAYDAY website and Facebook pages.
Such a ban on Congressional candidates would be detrimental for MAYDAY's plan. It will curtail the ability of Congressional candidates to inform MAYDAY supporters about the candidates' positions on campaign finance reform and curtail engagement by Congressional candidates with MAYDAY supporters about the same. The ban will limit Congressional candidates who back MAYDAY in learning about one another and in having discussions about their respective campaigns and their tactics and strategies.
One of the reasons I started this blog in 2014 was to create an alternative venue for the foregoing activities to take place if the activities could not take place on MAYDAY venues. See the entry Engaging with Congressional candidates.
Any venue set up as an alternative to MAYDAY's venues would need to be evaluated under the Federal campaign finance law. Below I have indicated some provisions of Federal campaign finance law, which are described in this FEC Candidate Guide. Please note the favored treatment that is given to Internet activity. I think an alternative venue to MAYDAY's venues is a realistic possibility.
Also, consider the posting that MAYDAY apparently believed it needed to delete by reason of the "coordination rules. I am about the only person posting on the MAYDAY Reddit who is strenuously urging messaging to persons outside of MAYDAY to tell them about MAYDAY and telling about the messaging I have been doing and the results I have been getting.
I don't know what is going to be in the platform MAYDAY announces on May 1st to support the biggest citizen lobbying campaign that MAYDAY possibly can, and maybe there will be a lot in that platform. Thus far, MAYDAY has chosen to make no comment or give any encouragement regarding ideas that I and others have put forth on Reddit and elsewhere.
All of what I am doing is in the public domain, and MAYDAY is aware of it is in the public domain. Instead of just deleting things that MAYDAY thinks may violate the coordination rules, MAYDAY should be proactive in searching out ideas, and writing up the ideas itself on its website and Facebook pages.
CANDIDATE GUIDE
The Glossary in Appendix H of the Guide has these definitions to consider.
Candidate – An individual seeking nomination
for election, or election, to federal office becomes
a candidate when he or she (or agents
acting on his or her behalf) raise contributions
that exceed $5,000 or make expenditures that
exceed $5,000.
Contribution – A gift, subscription, loan,
advance or deposit of money or anything of
value given to influence a federal election; or
the payment by any person of compensation
for the personal services of another person if
those services are rendered without charge
to a political committee for any purpose. 100.52(a) and 100.54. See Chapter 3, “Understanding
Contributions.”
Coordinated Communication – A communication
that satisfies a three pronged test:
• The communication must be paid for by a
person other than a federal candidate, authorized
committee, or a political party committee,
or any agents of the aforementioned
entities with whom the communication is
coordinated. (See, “Party Coordinated Communication,”
below);
• One or more of the five content standards
set forth in 109.21(c) must be satisfied; and
• One or more of the five conduct standards
set forth in 109.21(d) must be satisfied.
• A payment for a communication satisfying all
three prongs is an in-kind contribution to the
candidate or political party committee with
which it was coordinated. 109.21. See Appendix
D, Section 2.
Electioneering Communication – Any
broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate
for federal office; (2) is publicly distributed
within certain time periods before an election
and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.
100.29. See Appendix D.
Expenditure – A purchase, payment, distribution,
loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money
or anything of value made for the purpose of
influencing a federal election. A written agreement
to make an expenditure is also considered
an expenditure. 100.111 and 100.112. See
Chapter 8.
Independent Expenditure – An expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates
the election or defeat of a clearly identified
candidate and that is not made in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request
or suggestion of, any candidate, or his or her
authorized committees or agents, or a political
party committee or its agents. 100.16. See
Appendix D.
Mass Mailing – A mailing by U.S. mail or facsimile
of more than 500 pieces of mail matter
of an identical or substantially similar nature
within any 30-day period. This does not include
electronic mail or other Internet communications.
100.27. See Public Communication.
Public Communication – A communication
by means of any broadcast, cable or satellite
communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor
advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone
bank to the general public, or any other form
of general public political advertising. The term
general public political advertising does not include
communications made over the Internet,
except for communications placed for a fee on
another person’s website. 100.26, 100.27 (definition
of mass mailing) and 100.28 (definition of
telephone bank).
There are these substantive provisions in the Guide:
Definition
Goods or services offered free or at less than
the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution.
Similarly, when a person pays for services on
the committee’s behalf, the payment is an in-kind
contribution. 100.52(d)(1) and 100.111(e)(1). An
expenditure made by any person in cooperation,
consultation or concert with, or at the request or
suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered
an in-kind contribution to the candidate.
109.20. See Appendix D, “Communications.”
Coordinated Communications
If a committee, group or individual pays for a communication
that is coordinated with a campaign or
a candidate, the communication may result in an
in-kind contribution to the campaign committee.
For more information on determining whether a
communication is coordinated, see Appendix D.
Personal Services
An individual may volunteer personal services to a
campaign without making a contribution as long as
the individual is not compensated by anyone for the
services. 100.74. Volunteer activity is not reportable.
Internet Volunteer Activity
General Exception
An uncompensated individual or group of uncompensated
individuals may engage in certain
voluntary Internet activities for the purpose of
influencing a federal election without restriction.
These exempted Internet activities would not result
in a contribution or an expenditure under the Act
and would not trigger any registration or reporting
requirements with the FEC. This exemption applies
to individuals acting with or without the knowledge
or consent of a campaign or a political party
committee. 100.94 and 100.155. Exempted Internet
activities include, but are not limited to, sending or
forwarding electronic mail, providing a hyperlink to
a website, creating, maintaining or hosting a website
and paying a nominal fee for the use of a website.
11. INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES
An independent expenditure is an expenditure
for a communication that expressly advocates the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
and which is not made in coordination with any
candidate or his or her campaign or political party.
100.16, 109.21 and 109.37. Independent expenditures
are not subject to any limits but may be
subject to reporting requirements. (The campaign
of a candidate benefiting from an independent expenditure
has no reporting obligation.) See Citizens
United v. FEC and AOs 2010-11 and 2010-09.
Appendix D provides detailed information on independent
expenditures. The appendix may be reproduced
and distributed by a campaign to anyone who
requests FEC guidelines on independent spending.
Campaign staff should pay special attention to the
section “Coordinated Communications” which explains
when the independence of an expenditure is
compromised through contact with a campaign and
thus results in an in-kind contribution, subject to
contribution limits, to the campaign. If a corporation
or labor organization funds the coordinated expenditure,
it results in a prohibited contribution
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
12. ELECTIONEERING
COMMUNICATIONS
Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication
that is publicly distributed within 30 days of a
primary or 60 days of a general election, refers to
a clearly identified federal candidate and is targeted
to the relevant electorate is an electioneering communication.
100.29(a).
If a registered political committee makes an electioneering
communication, it must report it as it
reports an expenditure or independent expenditure
under the Act. 104.20(b).
Coordination of Electioneering
Communications
If a communication is considered coordinated
under the Commission’s three-part test, it results in
limitations,
source prohibitions and reporting. To avoid
receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution,
campaigns should avoid certain interactions
with those making electioneering communications.
See 109.21(d) and Appendix D, Section 2 for more
information.
2. DISCLAIMERS
Any public communication made by a political committee,
even those that do not contain a solicitation
or express advocacy, must include a disclaimer. 52
U.S.C. §30120(a); 110.11(a)(1).
Public Communications
Public communications include electioneering communications
and any other form of general public
political advertisement, including communications
made using the following media:
• Broadcast, cable or satellite;
• Newspaper or magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 substantially
similar mailings within 30 days);
• Phone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar calls within 30 days); and
• Communications placed for a fee on another
person’s website.
100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
The following communications are not considered
to be public communications, but still require a
disclaimer:
• Electronic mail: More than 500 substantially
similar communications sent by a politic
similar communications sent by a political
committee; and
• Web sites of political committees.
110.11(a)(1).
Appendix D
Communications
NOTE: This section discusses communications that
are not made by the campaign, but that are made by
others in support of, or opposition to, a candidate.
Candidates and their campaigns may reproduce and
distribute this appendix to anyone who requests
FEC guidelines on such communications. Citations
refer to Federal Election Commission regulations,
contained in Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(11 CFR). Advisory opinions (AOs) issued by
the Commission are cited as well. If you have any
questions after reading this appendix, please call the
Commission: 800/424-9530 (toll free) or 202/694-
1100.
1. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
It is important to understand how the Act and FEC
regulations define “public communication” because
many of the rules regarding political communications
depend upon whether the communication in
question is a public communication.
Definition
A public communication is a communication made
by means of:
• Any broadcast, cable or satellite communication;
• Newspaper;
• Magazine;
• Outdoor advertising facility;
• Mass mailing (more than 500 pieces of
substantially similar mail within any 30-day
period);
• Telephone bank (more than 500 substantially
similar telephone calls within any 30-day
period);
• An advertisement placed for a fee on another
person’s website; or
• Any other form of general public political
advertising.1 100.26, 100.27 and 100.28.
1 The term general public political advertising does not include
any Internet communication except for a communication
2. COORDINATED
COMMUNICATIONS
When a committee, group or individual pays for a
communication that is coordinated with a campaign
or a candidate, the communication is either an inkind
contribution or, in some limited cases, a coordinated
party expenditure by a party committee.
Coordination Defined
Coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation
or concert with, or at the request or suggestion
of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized
committee, or their agents, or a political party
committee or its agents.2 109.20.
Determining Coordination
FEC regulations provide for a three-pronged test to
determine whether a communication is coordinated.
A communication must satisfy all three prongs
of the test to be considered a coordinated communication
(and as a result, count against contribution
limits). 109.21(a).
The three prongs of the test consider:
• The source of payment (payment prong);
• The subject matter of the communication
(content prong); and
• The interaction between the person paying
for the communication and the candidate or
political party committee (conduct prong).
When the payment prong, the content prong and
the conduct prong are all satisfied, then the communication
is a coordinated communication and
results in an in-kind contribution. (See Chapter 13,
Section 10 for instructions on how to report such a
contribution.)
Payment Prong
The payment prong is satisfied when a coordinated
communication is paid for, in whole or in part, by
a person other than the candidate, an authorized
committee or a political party committee with
whom the communication is coordinated. 109.21(a)
Doing it the old fashioned way
Yesterday I tweeted in Alabama this message and link:
I got 45 page views of the link, and had the following email interchanges ensue:
What is the Alabama Congressional delegation doing to defeat the Washington machine? http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2015/04/who-in-al-wants-to-defeat-washington.htmlI considered several possible follower lists to tweet to and selected the follower list for @MadisonCoDems. There were 126 followers shown. I was selective in tweeting to individuals with an Alabama geographic location.
I got 45 page views of the link, and had the following email interchanges ensue:
@Crumpton_US_Sen Please consider whether @MAYDAYUS is for you. https://t.co/WiZiWYjrlO
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 14, 2015@MorteDeMocknbrd Can you get with MAYDAY? https://t.co/WiZiWYjrlO
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 13, 2015@konoboe Do you expect to enjoy the Presidential War for the next 18 months? And rest of America will enjoy with you? http://t.co/Sot44MbG1h
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 13, 2015@konoboe Why don't you contact MAYDAY? https://t.co/WiZiWYjrlO
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 13, 2015Wednesday, April 8, 2015
"Defeat the Washington machine"
Rand Paul has handed out the campaign slogan: "Defeat the Washington machine. Unleash the American dream." See campaign poster at Who in AL wants to defeat the Washington machine?.
MAYDAY is advancing with its bipartisan effort. "To prove that reform is possible, we need to close the gap on a majority in Congress — both Republicans and Democrats — committed to reforming the system of corruption in Washington, D.C., by changing the way campaigns are funded."
On its Twitter page @MAYDAYUS is tweeting to numerous Republican and Democratic members of Congress, soliciting them as allies.
The bipartisan nature of the effort is showing in the news: See USNews: A Case for Reform; Concord Monitor, "My Turn: A remedy for bipartisan political corruption", by Republican Jim Rubens.
Following this path, I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
I have sent the tweets to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington that are appended below.
What do you think of how I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
Will you join me and start using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in your state and Congressional district?
Please put your comments on MAYDAY Reddit, where I am posting a link to this.
MAYDAY is advancing with its bipartisan effort. "To prove that reform is possible, we need to close the gap on a majority in Congress — both Republicans and Democrats — committed to reforming the system of corruption in Washington, D.C., by changing the way campaigns are funded."
On its Twitter page @MAYDAYUS is tweeting to numerous Republican and Democratic members of Congress, soliciting them as allies.
The bipartisan nature of the effort is showing in the news: See USNews: A Case for Reform; Concord Monitor, "My Turn: A remedy for bipartisan political corruption", by Republican Jim Rubens.
Following this path, I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
I have sent the tweets to the Alabama legislative delegation in Washington that are appended below.
What do you think of how I am using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in Alabama.
Will you join me and start using Rand Paul and "Defeat the Washington machine" in your state and Congressional district?
Please put your comments on MAYDAY Reddit, where I am posting a link to this.
What is @SenShelby doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @SenatorSessions doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepTerriSewell doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @USRepGaryPalmer doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepMoBrooks doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is Rep. @Robert_Aderholt doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepMikeRogersAL doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is @RepMarthaRoby doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
What is Rep. @BradleyByrne doing to defeat the Washington machine? …http://t.co/UEP0wtsS6A …@MAYDAYUS
— Rob Shattuck (@RobShattuckAL06) April 8, 2015
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Organizing "silence on airwaves" proposal
@bearskey has posted on MAYDAY Reddit the following proposal:
My main suggestion for the proposal is for it to be organized in its various facets, including organized in publicizing the proposal, organized in its implementation, and, once it starts to get implemented, organized in publicizing youtube videos, etc., which are created under the proposal.
A starting point for publicizing the proposal could be for MAYDAY to post the proposal on its website and on its FB pages and to tweet to MAYDAY's followers a link to the proposal.
I am trying to get going #TweetToDefeatMoney tweeting campaigns. I would be pleased to include tweets and links for publicizing the "silence on the airwaves" proposal. The tweeting campaigns require people willing to tweet. I am willing to tweet and have been tweeting, but the campaigns will only work if others join in and tweet as well.
If anyone is interested in joining in to tweet to publicize the "silence on the airwaves" proposal, please contact me.
Please click on the above link and read the proposal.
My main suggestion for the proposal is for it to be organized in its various facets, including organized in publicizing the proposal, organized in its implementation, and, once it starts to get implemented, organized in publicizing youtube videos, etc., which are created under the proposal.
A starting point for publicizing the proposal could be for MAYDAY to post the proposal on its website and on its FB pages and to tweet to MAYDAY's followers a link to the proposal.
I am trying to get going #TweetToDefeatMoney tweeting campaigns. I would be pleased to include tweets and links for publicizing the "silence on the airwaves" proposal. The tweeting campaigns require people willing to tweet. I am willing to tweet and have been tweeting, but the campaigns will only work if others join in and tweet as well.
If anyone is interested in joining in to tweet to publicize the "silence on the airwaves" proposal, please contact me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)