Re: Preliminary thoughts on Today's Supreme Court decision

From:robbymook@gmail.com To: cheryl.mills@gmail.com CC: john.podesta@gmail.com Date: 2014-04-03 03:51 Subject: Re: Preliminary thoughts on Today's Supreme Court decision

Sounds like we are all in the same page. Gotta have the state parties in the joint--so much money on the table. I think you'd have to restrict to battlegrounds because otherwise the money goes to who-knows-what but Obama had all this in place for 2012 so it shouldn't be hard. > On Apr 3, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > cdm > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Eric Kleinfeld <eric@up-law.com> >> Date: April 2, 2014, 1:53:48 PM EDT >> To: Cheryl Mills <cheryl.mills@gmail.com> >> Cc: Lyn Utrecht <lutrecht@up-law.com>, Eric Kleinfeld <eric@up-law.com> >> Subject: Preliminary thoughts on Today's Supreme Court decision >> >> Cheryl: >> >> We think that there are a couple of impacts of today's Supreme Court decision. That decision found the two-year aggregate limits on individual giving to federal candidates, PACs and political parties to be unconstitutional. The decision does not affect the underlying limits that an individual can max out at, e.g., $2600 to a candidate for the primary and for the general elections, $5000 annually to a PAC, $10,000 annually to a state party, and $32,400 annually to the DNC, DSCC or DCCC. These limits all stay in effect. >> >> The aggregate limit is where an individual is capped at $123,200 to all federal committees over two years, within which there are additional caps of $46,600 total to all federal candidates and $74,600 to all parties and PACs. These were thrown out. Now, an individual can give to (1) as many federal candidates ad he/she wants, observing the $2,600 per election max, (2) as many PACs as he/she wants, observing the $5000 annual max, (3) as many state parties as he/she wants, observing the $10,000 annual max, and (4) all three national party committees (DNC, DSCC, and DCCC), still observing the $32,400 annual max. >> >> Consequently: >> >> · The notion that out-of-cycle candidates are siphoning off funds from in-cycle candidates will no longer be true. In the past, it was argued that presidential candidates should not start fundraising prior to the mid-term elections, because they will draw donors away from the mid-term candidates, and then the donors will have less funds available to help with the Senate and the House due to the overall cap. Since a donor may now give to as many federal candidates as he/she see fit, that is no longer true. >> >> · Parties will be able to raise more federal funds. In the past, donors had to choose between the DNC, DSCC and DCCC (and similarly for their Republican counterparts), because the aggregate overall limit of $74,600 did not leave enough max-out room for three contributions of $32,400 each. Now donors can max out to each committee if they wish, as well as to as many of the state parties as they desire. >> >> · Parties will be able to hold joint fundraising events among the three national party committees and all of the state party committees and ask the wealthiest and willing donors to max out, or at least to contribute as much as possible. Theoretically, the joint fundraiser could ask a donor to max out at $607,200 consisting of $32,400 for three party committees, and $10,000 to fifty state parties plus DC (or double that at $1,214,000 for spouses). >> >> · Presuming that most donors have limited funds available to contribute, this result could move some money from the SuperPACs where no candidate coordination is permitted back to the political parties, where some candidate coordination is permitted. In other words, donors may see a benefit in giving to the parties where they can have discussions about party spending, knowing that the parties are talking to the candidates. Campaigns may see a benefit in encouraging wealthy donors to give to the parties, because in the general election the campaigns can have more influence, if not control, over the coordinated party spending (party independent expenditures must still be walled off and not coordinated; nothing changes about that). >> >> Let us know if you have any questions. Also let me know if you would like me to send this to anyone else.