[Lnc-business] Suing the FEC...again

Vicki Kirkland vickilp12 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 11 15:13:11 EST 2014


I also agree with Dan.
Vicki Kirkland
Region 2 Rep LNC


On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I like Dan's idea.  It just makes sense to fund the lawsuit out of the
> first installment.  Also, I find Dan's points at least partially
> persuasive as to the principles involved, and find myself becoming
> more friendly to the idea that there are principles at stake here that
> supercede political or economic gain.  Additionally, a good point I
> hadn't fully considered would be that the old parties have so many
> ways around the law that just about any restriction works to their
> benefit.
>
> Is a period of silence problematic legally, or are we alright as long
> as we commence within the 6-8 month window?
>
> Or, as an alternative, is it possible the attorney would be willing to
> forgoe compensation until the first installment arrives?
>
> Joshua Katz
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
> > I presume that it could take some time to settle the estate (these things
> > often drag on longer than expected), so we will not necessarily be
> getting
> > the money immediately.  Although it would sure be nice if we could get
> the
> > first installment before the end of the year, so that it fit within the
> 2014
> > contribution limits.  Until then, a lawsuit would require us advancing
> money
> > at a time when money is very tight.
> >
> > My reaction is that we should wait until we actually have the first
> > installment in the bank, and then use a portion of that to fund a
> lawsuit.
> > I see no reason to rush before then.  If we expect the bequest to
> otherwise
> > be spread over 6 to 8 years, that's plenty of time to sue and get the
> issue
> > resolved before it again becomes moot.  And I don't see how it would
> legally
> > hurt our case by waiting a few months until we were sure of getting the
> > money before filing the lawsuit.
> >
> > This is a clear freedom of speech and freedom of association issue.  The
> > government should not be restricting political speech by imposing
> > contribution limits, especially since by doing so it is effectively
> > insulating the established political parties from competition.  This is
> > definitely a case the Libertarian Party should want to win on principle.
> > And it sounds like we have a good case as a practical matter.
> >
> > In addition, there are strong political reasons we should pursue this.
> (1) A
> > legal victory will add to our credibility.  (2) The present value of
> money
> > is always greater than than having it spread out over a long time period.
> > (3) The legal precedent may be crucially important in the future.
> >
> > To expand on that last point, it may turn out that this particular
> bequest
> > is nearly as valuable to us by being spread over 6 to 8 years rather than
> > being received in a lump sum.  But what if someone were to leave a much
> > bigger bequest (say $20 million) to the LP?  It would take us sixty
> years to
> > receive that amount in installments.  Whereas a large one-time influx of
> > cash might allow us to do some major membership prospecting or take on
> other
> > significant projects which would have far greater long-term benefits.
> > Correspondingly, if an individual knew that too large an amount would
> have
> > to be spread out over many years, that would serve as a disincentive
> > regarding the size of any bequest.
> >
> > So I would support a motion to proceed with a lawsuit on the condition
> that
> > it not commence (or at least that there be no LP expenditure) until we
> > received the first installment of this new bequest.
> >
> > Dan Wiener
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 1.  So the principle we're arguing is a person's choice in how they
> >> spend their money.  I agree that a person has the right to spend their
> >> money as they choose.  It's also unlikely that dead people very
> >> effectively buy political influence.  But this dead person hasn't been
> >> prevented from giving us money, the timing is being impacted.
> >> 2.  Well, yes.  That unlimited contributions would lead to a larger
> >> gap between the old parties and us seems intuitive to me.  Again, not
> >> a reason to advocate for government intervention - and likely swamped
> >> by their ability to get around the laws as they exist anyway.
> >> 3.  I agree with the math, but I don't see how the math means it
> >> doesn't exacerbate our current financial situation.  It's moving
> >> income 6-8 years down the road to maybe 3 years down the road - but I
> >> expect (unless I'm wrong) that we'll need to pay $5,000 in the next
> >> month, unless the attorney has agreed to wait longer than that to be
> >> paid.  But our cash crunch isn't 3 years down the road, it's right
> >> now.
> >> I stand corrected on the tax question and the lump-sum comment, and
> >> I'm glad to hear it.
> >> 5.  Paying extra in taxes to receive a refund seems to be the opposite
> >> of what I'm talking about, not a parallel.  People buy service
> >> contracts on expensive machinery because they'd rather pay a
> >> predictable amount each year than a large amount once.  We buy
> >> insurance for the same reason.  Similarly, we talked before about the
> >> value of donors who commit to a fixed amount each month, year, etc.,
> >> even if the amount isn't huge, because it lets us plan programs.  Here
> >> we have the opportunity, through circumstances, to have a donor of
> >> that sort, except that it's a rather large amount.  Yes, I understand
> >> the value of getting the money now (I'm an Austrian and all about time
> >> preference) but I also see value in being able to say "ok, this money
> >> comes in each year and can fund x."  If someone approaches us with
> >> $1,000,000, and it were legal to take it all, I'm not saying we should
> >> ask them to pay it out over 100 years, but I'm just not convinced that
> >> the value of moving from a schedule to a faster payment is worth the
> >> cost of continuing the suit.
> >>
> >> If I understand the last paragraph here correctly, it seems you're
> >> making an argument of the type I normally agree with - when the LNC
> >> enters into something, we're in it for the long haul, and we don't
> >> back out.  I don't know that I agree with this principle when a
> >> previous LNC entered into it, though, and in that case, my opinion
> >> would vary based on current factors.
> >> Joshua A. Katz
> >> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org>
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Joshua Katz
> >> > <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> The following is what strikes me:
> >> >> 1.  Annual contribution limits, while they aren't ideal, appear to be
> >> >> applied relatively uniformly, with the exception that the old
> parties,
> >> >> due to size, have more "tricks" to get around them - but if money
> were
> >> >> left to them in a will, they'd be in roughly the same boat.
> >> >
> >> > This is not a fairness suit, it's a First Amendment suit.  The
> >> > government shouldn't be able to tell someone (not even a dead someone)
> >> > how much money they can spend on politics in a year.
> >> >
> >> >> 2.  Getting annual contribution limits overturned would not be in the
> >> >> political best-interest of the LP.  It can be objected that we
> >> >> shouldn't want government intervention even when it is in our
> benefit,
> >> >> and I agree.  However, I'm not sure there is a 'principled'
> >> >> libertarian answer to contribution limits.  It's not like we're
> >> >> talking true free-market entities when we talk about the old parties.
> >> >
> >> > Why not?  Because the old parties would have a significant financial
> >> > and size advantage over us?
> >> >
> >> >> 3.  We are in a cash-crunch, and could use that money now.  However,
> >> >> we won't get it now even if we sue.  What we'll get now, or shortly,
> >> >> is a lawyer's bill.  We will get the money, in a lump-sum (probably
> >> >> subject to taxation at higher rates) in 1 or 2 years, if I read the
> >> >> original message correctly, so it won't help us out of our current
> >> >> situation, it may even exacerbate it.
> >> >
> >> > We will get the first distribution late this year or early next, at
> >> > the discretion of the executor of the estate.  Subsequent
> >> > distributions would be subject to the cap unless or until we can
> >> > strike the limits down.  We would not get the total amount for 6-8
> >> > years in absence of a suit.
> >> >
> >> > It would not exacerbate the current situation.  Look at it as a
> >> > reduction in the amount received each year by $5,000 until the suit is
> >> > resolved (likely less than 2 years) in an attempt to move the last 4-6
> >> > years' disbursements up into year 3.
> >> >
> >> > I don't believe the LNC pays any tax on political contributions
> >> > received and estate tax is paid on the size of the initial estate, not
> >> > based on when/how it is distributed, so I think your lump-sum comment
> >> > is just incorrect.
> >> >
> >> >> 4.  The amount of the bequest is greater than the cost of the
> lawsuit,
> >> >> but we will still get it if we do not sue, we'll just get it over
> >> >> time.
> >> >
> >> > Yes.
> >> >
> >> >> 5.  It's quite nice to have regular, predictable income.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's nice to get a large check in the Spring from the U.S. Treasury,
> >> > but I still conduct my affairs to try to owe taxes rather than receive
> >> > a refund.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> So from my standpoint, it's hard to see the value of filing a suit,
> >> >> other than pure principle - but I'm not convinced that there is a
> >> >> principle at stake here.  However, I could potentially be convinced
> >> >> that there is a libertarian principle at stake in contribution limits
> >> >> if someone wants to make the case.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, we already did file the suit, got all the discovery and evidence
> >> > done, and the D.C. Circuit punted.  Our suit was dismissed as moot
> >> > because we waited too long to act and ended up getting all the money
> >> > before the court could hear it.  This is our chance to finish the last
> >> > lawsuit and get an actual decision.
> >> >
> >> > See: http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/LNC.shtml and
> >> >
> >> >
> http://www.campaignfreedom.org/litigation/completed-litigation/libertarian-national-committee-v-fec/
> >> > for background.
> >> >
> >> > -Nick
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Lnc-business mailing list
> >> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Lnc-business mailing list
> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
> guess
> > it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
> compute
> > the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this
> law we
> > guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the
> > computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
> experience,
> > compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees
> > with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to
> science.
> > It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t
> > matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it
> > disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” --
> > Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Lnc-business mailing list
> > Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20141111/18da33d8/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list