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

Tue Nov 11 12:46:14 EST 2014

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