A controversial fundraising committee run by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was slapped with a $21,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission for enabling Pelosi to funnel more than $100,000 in illegal contributions to Democratic candidates in late 2002 as she was vying to become Democratic leader.
And I'll bet her forehead didn't even move when she was slapped with the fine.....
No luck finding on Google. Not trying too hard, but just curious if it can be found.
I smell her little help mate....Hillary...of the famed lying, cheating, Clinton duo.
Back-up info:
NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER
"Promoting Ethics in Government"
107 Park Washington Court
Falls Church, VA 22046
703-237-1970 Fax 703-237-2090
www.nlpc.org,
nlpc@nlpc.org
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
In the Matter of: )
)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi )
PAC to the Future ) MUR: 5328
Team Majority )
Respondents )
)
)
COMPLAINT
NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER, a corporation organized and existing under the District of Columbia Non-profit Corporation Act and having its offices and principal place of business at 103 West Broad Street, Suite 620, Falls Church, VA 22046 [NLPC address will change to 107 Park Washington Court, Falls Church, VA. 22046 on November 1, 2002], files this Complaint with the Federal Election Commission in accordance with the provisions of 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(1) in the belief that Respondents violated provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 2 U.S.C. §§431, et seq.
The primary purpose of the National Legal and Policy Center, a charitable and educational organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, is to foster and promote ethics in government. In furtherance of that purpose, National Legal and Policy Center educates the public about the “Code of Ethics for Government Service,” as adopted by a Joint Resolution of Congress on July 11, 1958. It endeavors to ensure compliance by government officials with provisions of the Code and the laws of the United States. The apparent violations alleged herein represent a serious lack of compliance with the law by an elected official and her leadership political committees.
RESPONDENTS
REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI, 2457 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515, (hereinafter “Pelosi”) is a Member of Congress representing the 8th Congressional District of California.
PAC TO THE FUTURE, PMB 3230, 268 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94104, is a political action committee affiliated with Pelosi. Leo McCarthy is the PAC’s treasurer.
TEAM MAJORITY, 921 Front Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, is a political action committee affiliated with Pelosi. Leo McCarthy is the PAC’s treasurer.
FACTS
The facts supporting this complaint are all to be found in materials openly available to the public. The principal documents providing background facts include an article by Ethan Wallison entitled “Pelosi’s PAC Stirs Questions” in the October 24, 2002 issue of Roll Call as well as reports of PAC to the Future and Team Majority filed with the Federal Election Committee.
None of the essential facts are in dispute.
Nancy Pelosi, a Member of Congress representing California’s 8th Congressional District and Minority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives, had established a leadership PAC called PAC to the Future in addition to her principal campaign committee, Nancy Pelosi for Congress. PAC to the Future operated for some years as a leadership PAC allowing Pelosi to make contributions to federal candidates.
The Roll Call article recounted the formation and purpose of Pelosi’s second leadership PAC, Team Majority, as follows:
Pelosi’s second PAC, Team majority, came on line Oct.
16, but has been collecting money and making contributions
since April. As of Sept. 30, the committee had made
$1,000 contributions to five key House Democratic challengers:
Martha Fuller Clark (N.H.), Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) Dutch
Ruppersberger (Md.), Joe Turnham (Ala.) and Dan Wofford
(Pa.) as well as one Senate challenger, Chellie Pingree (Maine).
“The main reason for the creation of the second PAC, frankly,
was to give twice as much hard dollars” to candidates, McCarthy
said in an interview this week.
When Mr. McCarthy, as treasurer of both of Pelosi’s leadership PACs, candidly admitted that the “main reason” for the establishment of a second PAC was to “give twice as much (sic) hard dollars,” he was admitting that the purpose of the second PAC was to evade the contribution limits of the FEC Act and regulations.
Affiliated PACs, such as Pelosi’s two leadership PACs, share a joint contribution limit. The policy rationale for joint contribution limits for affiliated PACs is to prevent an individual or individuals from undermining the legal contribution limits by setting up closely affiliated PACs.
The Roll Call article quoted former Federal Election Commission commissioner Trevor Potter on the Pelosi twin PAC arrangement as follows:
“They’ve got a real problem here,” said Trevor Potter,
a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission,
citing ‘affiliation rules’ that are intended to ensure that
PACs observe the $5,000 limit on gifts.
“It sounds like a circumvention scheme to double the
contribution limits. The law doesn’t allow that,” said
Potter, who based his assessment on a verbal description
of the PACs. “they’re probably going to have to ask for
that money back.”
The intended purpose of the second Pelosi PAC as a circumvention scheme is borne out not just by Mr. McCarthy’s statement but by the the reports filed by the two PACs. Team Majority, the newer PAC, reported five contributions of $5,000 each from donors who had already contributed the maximum to Pelosi’s original leadership PAC, PAC to the Future.
The facts clearly show that the twin leadership PAC arrangement set up by Pelosi and McCarthy allowed twin abuses of the Federal Election Campaign Act and regulations. First, the PACs could - and did - allow donors who had provided the maximum contribution to the first Pelosi PAC to then contribute to the second Pelosi PAC. Second, as admitted by the PACs’ treasurer, McCarthy, the arrangement was established for the purpose of giving “twice as much (sic) hard dollars” to Pelosi-favored candidates.
APPARENT VIOLATIONS
The gravamen of this complaint is quite simple: Pelosi’s establishment of two leadership PACS, PAC to the Future and Team Majority, had both the intent and the effect of circumventing the contribution limits of the Federal Election Campaign Act as well as Federal Election Commission regulations.
The Federal Election Campaign Act, at 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a), explicitly forbids any person from making a contribution “...to any other political committee in any calendar year which, in the aggregate, exceed $5,000.”
The statutory language found a 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a) (5) goes on to treat contributions made to affiliated PACs to be “...considered to have been made by a single committee...”
Pursuant to the federal law just cited, the Federal Election Commission enacted 11 C.F.R. 110.3 which states:
110.3Contribution limitations for affiliated committees.
(1) For the purpose of the contribution limitations of
CFR 110.1 and 110.2, all contributions made or received
by more than one affiliated committee, regardless of whether
they are political committees under 11 CFR 100.5, shall be
considered made or received by one political committee.
Moreover, the facts in this case make it beyond dispute that the two PACs are closely affiliated so as to be covered by the statutory and regulatory restrictions. Both PACs are affiliated with Pelosi, both have the same treasurer, the main purpose of the second PAC was to give hard money beyond the contribution limits to certain candidates and to collect contributions from major donors beyond the contribution limits. The Roll Call article quotes FEC guidelines as stating that affiliation between two PACs “results when they are established, financed, maintained or controlled by the same persons or organization.”
No one associated with Pelosi’s PACs is on record as disputing the affiliation relationship. To the contrary, the treasurer confirmed the affiliation.
The only defense offered by Mr. McCarthy, the PACs’ treasurer, is that he claims the FEC somehow approved the improper PAC relationship in a phone call. He cannot even provide the name of the FEC official with whom he allegedly spoke or provide any evidence that such a call occurred. Indeed, anyone familiar with FEC practice or who reads the procedures found on the FEC web page knows that Advisory Opinions must be obtained in writing. Mr. McCarthy further acknowledges that he obtained no legal counsel on the issue despite the fact that Pelosi’s PACs have collectively raised well in excess of a million dollars in recent years and a member of the House leadership clearly has access to attorneys for guidance.
Further, the affiliation rules are both clear and long-standing. Speaking of the potential evasion of contribution limits by a single person setting up multiple affiliated PACs, the Roll Call article quoted former FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter as follows:
Potter said lawmakers recognized this potential when they wrote
the original campaign finance law and “specifically forbade it” in
1974. “The affiliation rules are pretty clear,” he said. “And those
laws have been around for a long time.”
Potter said he had never seen an instance where a lawmaker has started a second leadership PAC in order to raise and spend hard dollars.
The Roll Call article went on to quote Paul Sanford, a former FEC official and currently with the Center for Responsive Politics, as saying that PACs “would multiply like rabbits” if the affiliation rules were not enforced.
The article also cited the possibility that Pelosi may run for the House Minority Leader position if the current Minority Leader vacates that position. Allowing Pelosi to use multiple maximum contributions to her twin PACs to aid her political operations would violate the FEC Act and make a mockery of the contribution limits.
CONCLUSION
All of the information on which this complaint is based is from the public record.
None of the essential facts are in dispute.
Pelosi’s two leadership PACs are unquestionably affiliated. They have already violated the restrictions on contribution limits to affiliated PACs by contributions to the second PAC from donors who already gave the legal maximum to the first PAC.
And there’s no doubt that the “main purpose” of establishing the second PAC was to give twice the hard money to favored candidates. The PACs’ treasurer, Mr. McCarthy, confirmed that. The only problem is that giving twice the legal limit in hard dollars from two affiliated PACs explicitly violates the FEC Act. Indeed, the clear purpose of that provision was to prevent exactly what McCarthy and Pelosi have organized their PAC to do.
Without swift and sure action by the Federal Election Commission to stop these violations of federal election law, there might as well be no campaign contributions limits. Without strong enforcement, setting up second, third or even fourth affiliated PACs would become standard practice to evade the law. PACs would truly multiply like rabbits and contribution limits would be treated as a joke.
Given the compelling pattern of facts present in this case, the public is entitled to a full and prompt investigation.
NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER
By:
Kenneth F, Boehm, Chairman
Subscribed and sworn before me this 25th day of October 2002
State of Virginia
HILLPAC...That's the first thing I thought of. Indiana congress critters in the "D" column are so indebted to her they've forgotten who the represent.
