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

[Nicholas Sarwark]

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