5 Responses to “Question on State Parties Transferring to Their Federal PACs”

1. chilly Says:
   July 31st, 2006 at

   Unless I’m mistaken, this type of transfer is legal. Ronnie Earle tried to pin this same thing on Tom Delay and the count was dismissed by the trial court.

2. ArchPundit Says:
   August 1st, 2006 at

   Ronnie Earle wouldn’t have jurisdiction–it’s federal campaign law.

3. Anonymous Says:
   August 1st, 2006 at

   The FEC site provides the following information:

   Between Accounts of the Same Organization
   A transfer of funds from an organization’s federal account to its state account is permissible under the Act. However, any applicable state laws which limit or prohibit such a transfer would not be preempted or superseded by federal law. See AO 1983-42.

   Conversely, an organization may not transfer funds from its nonfederal account to the federal account except under specific circumstances described below:

   Collecting Agent Activity
   A nonfederal account may act as a collecting agent for contributions to the federal account without triggering registration requirements. 11 CFR 102.6(b)(2). See AO 1984-31.

   Allocated Expense Payments
   In the case of a committee that supports both federal and nonfederal candidates, a nonfederal account may transfer funds to the federal account to cover the nonfederal portion of shared expenses benefiting both federal and nonfederal candidates or committees. 11 CFR 102.5(a)(1)(i) and 106.6(e)(1)(i).

   http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/statefed.shtml#Nonfederal_Federal_Transfers_Funds

   My only theory at this point is that the transfer was intended to cover some of the fundraising costs associated with Bush’s recent visits as an allocated expense payment. I don’t much about these things, but $415,000 to cover a presidential visit doesn’t seem out of hand.

   This is pure speculation on my part, and I share Larry’s curiousity/beffudlement.

4. chilly Says:
   August 1st, 2006 at

   Texas has a similar state law referencing transfers to/from federal accounts. Nonetheless, lack of jurisdiction may not have been the only problem with Earle’s case against DeLay.

5. ArchPundit Says:
   August 1st, 2006 at

   ===Texas has a similar state law referencing transfers to/from federal accounts. Nonetheless, lack of jurisdiction may not have been the only problem with Earle’s case against DeLay.

   State law is irrelevant here. Illinois’ law allows for corporate donations, federal law specifically prohibits it. Earle is only dealing with state law–in Texas state law forbids direct contributions from corporations or unions and thus, the use of corporate money for state campaigns is what is illegal in DeLay’s case.

   That isn’t an issue in Illinois–the issue is how one can transfer corporate money to a federal account. The above example might give some justification–though since it occurred over several months it doesn’t quite make sense since no one knew if Bush would be coming in. It’s soft money and while state parties can do that to some point for GOTV–transfers to the federal account are really the key question there.