A good portion of the history and legal basis for super PACs to exist has to do with those that wanted to give unlimited contributions to stop same-sex marriages. Today super PACs are receiving funds from big anti-gay donors and organizations like the National Organization for Marriage are requesting candidates to pledge to implement nation-wide bans on same-sex marriages and "sack" judges that disagree. I as a gay man have had enough of this and have filed a lawsuit that is now before a 3 judge panel. It includes a preliminary injunction request to judge all super PAC money as legally suspect that in turn requires it to either be returned or not spent till the lawsuit is concluded. Spread the word. Details are at: Those that wish to make comment before a 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. (Account required) https://ecf.gud.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?9131 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=0B5K...VXctd3RFVkpoUQ Complaint - and Brief 105 Pages https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5K...NHN6Q2hsdVNuQQ Exhibit 1 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5K...UWQtYUV5NDlWZw Exhibit 2 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5K...bWN5M0hfaEl4QQ Exhibit 3 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5K...RXg3NlJ2M29hQQ Exhibit 4 https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5K...dlRiQjNLX3Nxdw Other case notes are on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/SuperPacFederalLawsuit
I wonder if the OP would have an issue about gay-rights groups who donate? it cuts both ways by the way, that's a rhetorical question
The links to Google Docs produce an error. The case notes can be accessed through the Facebook link by following a link there. First, I'm skeptical that you'll be able to qualify as having standing. Second, I don't think playing the gay angle on this is going to get you anywhere. Ball in your court. Explain why you think you have any chance of success.
I support gay rights. But you're better off not connecting your sexuality with this. Ending Super PACs is a popular idea. Being gay is not. You're shooting yourself in the foot politically. Be open if you want. But don't turn this into a gay issue. You'll alienate supporters. I wish you good luck though.
indeed, seems like an odd angle. Why would a court call that money suspect... is it illegal to support a position against same-sex marriage? I suppose it could be illegal to pay people on the condition that they "sac" judges, but I'm not actually educated enough on the law to say if that's true or not. Either way, if it doesn't end superpacs all togeather, than it kinda misses the mark.
He is gay. Dont need much more than that these days. Special rules for homosexuals, because they are so special. Now, they just naturally expect it.
Personally I don't see this issues as having anything to do with gays or gay rights. Really the pac's are just absolutely a horrendous policy. It allows special interest groups to practically buy a presidential candidate.
The fact that I'm gay and I disagree with making this into a gay thing pretty much blows that out of the water. Just further evidence of your inability to see us as individuals with diverse opinions.
You live in the political world you live in. Deal with it. I'm telling you right now your campaign will fail if you continue to link it to your homosexuality. Tackle them both. But tackle them separately.
In order to show a Lujan type injury that is specific to me personally. I have connected the fact that I own a business that caters to gay tourists. Gay same-sex partners travel on honeymoons too so those that try and stop gay marriages have hurt my business. So I have a direct past injury owing to huge million dollar contributions that flowed into stopping gay marriages. Further, the Court has already ruled that the money was illegal, therefore I was victim of an illegal activity. The National Organization for Marriage has had people pledge to ban same-sex marriages nationwide and I have demonstrated in the suit that they act against those that refuse to join pledge. This means I have a direct threat to use to help justify granting the preliminary injunction. Standing occupies about 35 pages of the suit and I spent a long time researching many articles on standing before Federal courts for citizen attorney generals in accordance with Acts. I appear to be the first person from what I can see to use the clause in the Federal Election Campaign Act. The links into Google Docs sometimes work for me and sometimes don't sorry if you didn't get in there and glad Facebook works. I phone court this morning and still no opposition to the preliminary injunction. Philip B. Maise
I worried about that too. However, it was important to establish standing to show as in the words of Justice Scalia,..that I have a personalized injury. It wasn't enough in his view that I claimed a general wrong to society as a whole. This is what gives me the separation to prevent everyone from using the provision in FECA to sue on the behalf of the FEC. It was critical I showed this personalized injury, and I am rather unique since very few gay men own bed and breakfast establishments in Hawaii that have been effected by candidates that get super PAC money from donors that have this as their driving issue.
The argument about being gay is only something that gives me standing before the Court. The argument that super PAC money is suspect has to do with the fact that no court eliminated the individual campaign contribution limit. Further Courts have already ruled using common law and reasonable person test that campaign money is as if given directly when there is an understanding. That was on Jan 31, 2012. An understanding it will be used to support the candidate is as good as giving directly. That is the legal argument. Cause of the injury and injury are different. Philip B. Maise
So if I understand correctly, the issue is that the money was given with a purpose: to sac or act against those who support same sex marriage. And this makes it "as though" an individual gave it, and is thus subject to limits. Frankly I don't understand the laws about campaign contributions enough to speak for or against this. It still strikes me as odd, as I can't imagine any money given by anyone that didn't come with expectations for what the candidate supports. Perhaps the fact that it was actually negotiated and given on the condition that they would make those actions is what makes the difference, and thus subject to individual limits. In any event, if those are the facts and it eliminates superpac money that comes with strings attached, it sounds like a move in the right direction.
Yes, you have the idea. There is no public opinion I need to win here. There is a 3 judge panel that will rule on my case. Further, hot off the press, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced they essentially agree with my position by refusing to hear the appeal by the National Organization for Marriage in the Maine Case. That Maine ruling was part of the logic and basis of my suit. Article Dated March 23, 2012. http://www.campaignsandelections.co...why-the-high-court-deserves-some-credit.thtml Read this twice to understand: But Citizens United declared that advertisements containing language that is the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” may now be given a dose of sunlight. That means disclosure for any ads that, to a reasonable mind, the purpose is to influence an election. I have now in front of the court an injunction request and declaratory judgment. Philip B. Maise p.s. Here are corrected links to google Docs. Complaint https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNRXdhUV9PeFpURVdsNHN6Q2hsdVNuQQ (Supplemental filing. Not yet reach court in mail from Malaysia) https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5KRWkGWgENNVXVSOURqSldRU0NFVXctd3RFVkpoUQ If you have PACER account search by my name.
I don't believe you can show that any injury you claim to your business is a direct result of the existence of Superpacs. Even if you could show that a particular Superpac's actions have been injurious, that wouldn't necessarily doom them all. I remain highly skeptical.
Got it, I think I have a good understanding now. Thank you for the link. The issue is that "issue advocacy groups", like gay marriage supporters/opponents are subject to regulation and disclosure when their advertising is intended to influence an election (i.e. support or oppose particular candidates). That section of your linked article was specifically related to advertising the advocacy groups did themselves, but the theory of your case is that the money itself is still suspect when it is given to a superpac. That relies on a couple premises: 1: That the superpac is attempting to influence the election. This is pretty well assumed. 2: That the money the "issue advocacy group" gave to the superpac was conditional on the candidate's advocacy of their issue - to sack judges, or otherwise fight on behalf of their issue. This essentially turns the superpac itself into an issue advocacy group which becomes subject to regulation and disclosure. I imagine that second premise is the hardest one to prove. I'm still an ignorant when it comes to the complexities of what can and can not be advertised and what does and does not have to be disclosed, but the case makes sense. Since the "gay issue" is only tangentially related to the case to give you standing, this doesn't really seem appropriate for the "gay rights forum". Not that it doesn't have impact on gay rights, but it's a broader question about how issue advocacy groups can interact with campaign finance. There's a lot more people who browse the "political opinions and beliefs" and "current event" forums where this might be more appropriate, and would get more attention. Of course, if you wish to post this there, I'd avoid highlighting it as a gay issue that gives you standing, and focus on its broad impact which is far more relevant.
Nope, it will probably not doom all superpacs, it would just give some limits on how they can be funded. It's a move in the right direction at least.
There are many different classes listed in the suit and some will be easier to prosecute than others. Some are as easy as looking at the legal limit and checking it against how much they gave. When it comes to organizations that act like conduits for campaign monies, prosecutions may have to be broken out into separate actions. This said they are easy enough to identify and name as a class in the suit. This allows them to utilize the initial "conciliation" phase that stops their trial. If they object to a negotiated agreement then it will be necessary to break them out for the discovery process and individual trials. These groups fall into Class II (e). Their needs to be some reasonable suspicion to believe the group has been acting in a manner to circumvent campaign finance law. Example behavior is acceptance of large donations, allowing donors to take tax-deductions for campaign contributions, passing money to super PACs, and large payments to candidates for things like speaking engagements. It is anticipated that there may be about 10 initial break out actions. Prosecution can go back for donations made as long as 5 years ago so it isn't necessary to bring all that desire a full trial before the Court at the same time. Further, it is anticipated that trials will go badly enough for the initial set that those may change their minds about "conciliation". Philip B. Maise
Absolutely correct! The super PAC can still accept funds that are legal. However, I speak of the end of super PACs as we know them today as the bulk of their funds comes from individuals. This business of some individuals that setup LLCs to hide individual contributions is also something that adds to their peril as it is known as Making a contribution in the name of another. There is a good reason I have stated in the case several times that some parties may be transferred into criminal court. Some actions are criminal in nature and come with up to 1 or 5 year prison sentences depending on the offense.
