Jeb Bush exploits non-candidate status to rewrite campaign finance playbook

BY ALEX LEARY AND ADAM C. SMITHTAMPA BAY TIMES
03/01/2015 1:00 AM 03/02/2015 5:06 PM

WASHINGTON

"As Jeb Bush continues a torrid fundraising schedule across the country, he is pushing new boundaries of campaign finance law, exploiting his status as a noncandidate to avoid contribution limits and amass a cash pile already in the tens of millions.

The effort, which supporters call “shock and awe,” is designed to assert Bush’s dominance in the 2016 Republican presidential field, but it also represents a new chapter in the era of unlimited money in politics and raises numerous questions, beginning with the most basic:

How can Bush, who acts and sounds every inch the candidate for president, not be a candidate?

The former Florida governor says he is merely exploring the idea of possibly running for president. He drops disclaimer after disclaimer — If I decide . . .

That may seem laughable given Bush’s actions — including campaign-style speeches and visits to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, courting the wealthiest donors and best political talent in the country, and resigning from corporate boards that pose potential conflicts of interest — but it is part of a carefully planned strategy.

It also underscores campaign finance regulations awash in loopholes and lax enforcement in the fast-evolving world of Super PACs unleashed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.

As an actual candidate, Bush’s direct source of funds would be limited to $2,700 per person per election. But because he’s not officially running, his legal advisers contend he can chase unlimited amounts for his Right to Rise Super PAC.

“At the moment, it looks like a brilliant strategic move,” said Dan Tokaji, an election law expert at Ohio State University.

Watchdog groups are alarmed, saying Bush’s actions are highly questionable, if not a direct violation of law, and could lead others to do the same, threatening to upend what is left of campaign finance law.

“It’s one of the great charades of American politics,” said Fred Wertheimer of Washington-based Democracy 21. “It’s simply thumbing your nose at the American people and saying, ‘We’re shrewd, we’re going to circumvent these laws and you have to live by it.’ ”

Paul S. Ryan of the Campaign Legal Center said: “The Supreme Court has recognized that a check above $2,700 directly to someone who admits they are a candidate could corrupt them and therefore can be limited. But we’re to believe that the corruptive potential is miraculously washed from a $100,000 contribution handed to Jeb Bush for his Super PAC. It’s absurd.”..."

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article11843192.html#storylink=cpy

Ignoring the fact that Hillary has been doing the same thing - except longer. But that's different, right??????

Hillary, Jeb and $$$$$$

Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Fund-Raising for the 2016 Presidential Race

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-and-fund-raising-for-the-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0

Activists bristle at Hillary Clinton fundraising pleas
Constant solicitations for cash in the absence of an actual candidate aren’t sitting well.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/activists-hillary-clinton-fundraising-pleas-115199.html#ixzz3VQ5z2xLV



The team of fundraisers tasked with raising more than $1 billion for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s expected presidential bid will start with two major assets: a national grass-roots operation two years in the making and a network of wealthy Democratic donors much broader than the one that backed her first White House run."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-mighty-fundraising-operation-awaits-clinton-as-well-as-financial-hurdles/2015/03/19/c405a162-cd74-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html

Dems have two sets of rules

Chirp Chirp Chirp

As expected.....

Being it the case that any entity, foreign or domestic, with America's best interests in mind or not, can spend unlimited amounts of money in the political process, this story is essentially irrelevant.  Who cares how much Bush or any other politician raises on their own when others can spend unlimited amounts in the shadows.


If Bush raises $1.00, outside spending will be $999,999,999.00.

If Bush raises $999,999,999.00, outside spending will be $1.00.

There is nothing currently in place to stop this, and only one party even sees this as a problem at all.

Who cares how much Bush or any other politician raises on their own when others can spend unlimited amounts in the shadows.


Bingo. Yea....your guy or gal is cheating......oh Yea.....your guy or gal is cheating.......totally irrelevant. What is relevant is the dicta in the Citizens Supreme Court Case which allows Congress to regulate election financing where there is a presumption of public corruption. Scalia almost made the standard: Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other. This is a very difficult standard if the threshold is direct proof of the same, however, if congress were to pass rational restrictions on INDIRECT quid pro quo, I am certain that the majority of the court would enforce those regulations. I do not think one forum member disagrees that rational campaign finance law is needed. However, we will not hear this issue in the media. It will ignore this issue entirely because so much of the media bottom line is now connected to the unlimited amount of money which is coming into political campaigns. This problem should be solved in the next five years with good faith standards and consensus on both sides of the aisle. Certainly Hillary challengers and Jeb challengers are getting screwed with campaign financing abuses, and it really is a bipartisan issue where all should reach consensus.

2seaoat wrote:Who cares how much Bush or any other politician raises on their own when others can spend unlimited amounts in the shadows.


Bingo.   Yea....your guy or gal is cheating......oh Yea.....your guy or gal is cheating.......totally irrelevant.   What is relevant is the dicta in the Citizens Supreme Court Case which allows Congress to regulate election financing where there is a presumption of public corruption.  Scalia almost made the standard: Quid pro quo ("something for something" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other. This is a very difficult standard if the threshold is direct proof of the same, however, if congress were to pass rational restrictions on INDIRECT quid pro quo, I am certain that the majority of the court would enforce those regulations.   I do not think one forum member disagrees that rational campaign finance law is needed.   However, we will not hear this issue in the media.   It will ignore this issue entirely because so much of the media bottom line is now connected to the unlimited amount of money which is coming into political campaigns.   This problem should be solved in the next five years with good faith standards and consensus on both sides of the aisle.    Certainly Hillary challengers and Jeb challengers are getting screwed with campaign financing abuses, and it really is a bipartisan issue where all should reach consensus.

Hillary has been doing that with their foundation for years.