Posted on 04/07/2016 9:26:00 AM PDT by Red Steel
After Ted Cruz‘s big win in Wisconsin, Donald Trump immediately went on the offensive, claiming that Cruz ‘illegally’ coordinated with a super PAC to produce damaging anti-Trump ads. Under FEC rules, candidates are not supposed to directly coordinate with super PACs which are allowed to raise unlimited funds from individuals, companies, and other groups. We did some digging into Trump’s claim, and found that he may, in fact, have a case. The rules around what it means to ‘coordinate’ are murky. LawNewz.com consulted with election law experts who agree that Cruz got himself into some gray area with at least one super PAC ad in which he was featured.
First, some background.
When confronted Wednesday morning on MSNBC about what evidence the Trump campaign had of this so-called illegal coordination, Trump’s Senior Campaign Advisor Barry Bennett said: “They (super PAC) set up an event — paid for by the super PAC, and he (Cruz) comes and gives a speech. It’s total coordination…they then film it and turn it into commercials.”
Okay, so let’s break this down. According to a 2011 FEC advisory opinion, Cruz is allowed to show up at super PAC-sponsored events. In fact, according to The Washington Post, the pro-Cruz super PAC Keep The Promise “has been effectively serving as an extension of Cruz’s official campaign, hosting major rallies for him from South Carolina to Utah. The senator from Texas appears at the events as a ‘special guest.'” As we said, that is allowed. Nothing is illegal. In fact, the FEC website says: “The Act and Commission regulations state that federal candidates and officeholders may not solicit non-federal funds, but may attend, speak at, or be a featured guest at fundraising events where non-federal funds are being raised.”
However, where Cruz entered into some muddy water is the allegation that “(the super PAC) then filmed it and turn it into a commercial.” Under federal regulations, super PACs can’t exclusively videotape interviews with the candidate that they are promoting. For example, Ted Cruz would be barred from scheduling a video shoot with a super PAC for an ad they plan to air in New York. That would be coordinating. So now, the interesting legal question for Cruz’s case, can the super PAC use footage and sound from Ted Cruz at one of their events in a campaign ad? He’s allowed to be at the event, but can they film it and then use it as an ad? Does that count as violating the rules? The answer is: we don’t know, it could be.
“This activity arguably falls into the gray area — it’s unclear how the FEC rules would apply to this political advertising strategy,” Paul Ryan with the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center told LawNewz.com. Here’s an example of an ad featuring Ted Cruz that appears to be shot at least partially shot at a Keep The Promise super PAC event:
To be clear, election experts we consulted for this story agree that the FEC has not determined whether what Cruz did is legal or not. An official from the FEC told LawNewz.com that this isn’t something that Commission has ever addressed. It is definitely a murky area.
“Sham (super PAC) events could be used as a way of getting around the coordination rules,” Ryan said, noting, though that the FEC guidelines on coordination are very lenient, and ‘woefully inadequate.”
Now, it’s not clear when the footage from the super PAC-sponsored event was shot, or who shot it. Keep The Promise has not returned an email asking for their response to this story. Neither has Ted Cruz. In order to violate coordination rules, there is a three prong test. One of the elements prohibits “material involvement of candidate or party or the agents of either in the development or dissemination or the communication.”
“What used to be a black and white line between the super PAC and the campaign is totally merging into some kind of fuzzy middle. It’s got to be stopped,” Bennett, Trump’s Senior Campaign Advisor said.
In order to find out for sure whether or not Ted Cruz violated the law, the Federal Election Commission would have to issue an opinion. But what can be said, is the super PAC entered into some uncharted waters in a post-Citizens United campaign season, where cash-infused super PACs can heavily influence the election.
He may have unpaid parking tickets. He may have beat up Harry Reid. He may have used a personal email server. What difference does it make?
“Inadvertent” ranks up there too.
He’s already there in some of the Trumpette’s eyes.
Lol.
Lawnewz.com website created June 11, 2015. Trump campaign announced June 16, 2015. Hmmmmmm...
Any time a post title starts “It’s True” followed by “May Have” you know it’s bogus.
If you have purchased the mattress, you as the consumer can remove it.
It’s actually ridiculous that sponsoring an event that the candidate speaks at isn’t coordination anyway. (Though I know it’s the guideline provided.)
How do you get “It’s true” and “may have” into the same headline?
“This activity arguably falls into the gray area — it’s unclear how the FEC rules would apply to this political advertising strategy,” Paul Ryan with the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center told LawNewz.com. Here’s an example of an ad featuring Ted Cruz that appears to be shot at least partially shot at a Keep The Promise super PAC event:
“To be clear, election experts we consulted for this story agree that the FEC has not determined whether what Cruz did is legal or not. An official from the FEC told LawNewz.com that this isn’t something that Commission has ever addressed. It is definitely a murky area.”
Trump gets nothing but negative press from Fox. All negstive, all the time.
>>>It’s True, Ted Cruz May Have Violated Election Law With Super PAC Ads<<<
That is a misleading headline on so many levels.
Either he did or he didn’t, but you can’t say “It’s a fact! Cruz MIGHT have . . .”
Most people; however, wouldn’t get past the “IT’S TRUE!” and then see what they want to see.
Ah the culture of Luze, and the comments down thread confirm that any belittling of ethics and legal principles are just fine for their holy roller lawyer.
A decanter of Nixon doused over a bed of ignorance is what is found here.
The Party of Reagan, this foolery is nowhere near.
The Party of Romney holds these leashed Luze monkeys of Rovery while the skullduggery of Bush conveys their repugnant odor.
Carry on Luzers.
The article states Cruz “may” have coordinated but only sites the PAC may have violated by using his speech. Seems to be grasping.
“Could have”, “May have”’ Are these legal terms? Are these what Trump uses to sue people?
I find it odd that his SuperPAC was allowed to host the event where Glenn Beck offered him the fake oath.
That one seemed like it crossed the line.
The Super-PAC can’t violate the anti-coordination laws by itself.
A. " The answer is: we don’t know, it could be."
/s
Which of course also means "we don’t know, it may not be."
Since complaints to the FEC take years to resolve, this is something we will not know, definitively, until the election is long over. Of course, that is assuming a complaint is ever filed. And the point of a lot of these accusations that fly in the midst of a campaign is not to resolve the issue, but merely to make the charge. So, my money is that this will never evolve into a complaint before the FEC. Or maybe it will, just as soon as Trump's legal team is done drafting that often referred to suit over ballot eligibility.
////My ass he did
Trump surrogates have little blogs all over the place and try to pitch for him. They cannot win on issues and always turn to lying and cheating. As if. If any of the hundreds of tiny blogs with stories about Cruz lying or cheating had any credibility the major papers and TV outlets would be all over it like white on rice. I don’t get why they think it will work as it won’t, oh well.
Just send iCarly another $500,000. She will fix it for him.
If the rules are murky ... you can bet lawyer Cruz exploited the rules to 'coordinate' with his super PACs. He is in 'do anything to win' mode right now ... since he is loosing badly in the voting booth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.