RNC sues to halt Super PACs: Reince Piebus laments being a mere social coordinator.

The Republican National Committee (RNC), feeling it has lost power, filed suit to halt
money flowing to Super PACs in an action called “McCutcheon, et al. v. FEC”.
They concluded in their own words:

Super PACs “have now become powerful players in American politics.”


RNC Chairman Reince Piebus
(Former power player and now social coordinator?)

The Republican Party has recognized that they are now just a social group with the
duty to organize a convention where candidates will arrive that toe the Super PAC
line. Why bother adhering to a Republican platform when far more money is available
at the Super PAC feeding trough?

Joining the suit with the RNC was a campaign contributor named Shaun McCutcheon.

Paragraph 75 Page 25 “Mr. McCutcheon desires to make a series of
contributions… that will exceed the biennial contribution limits.”
(McCutcheon wants to change laws so he can legally exceed current limit.)​

Something is odd isn’t it? If Super PACs were legal what is stopping McCutcheon?
If he wants to support Republicans why not give to a Super PAC like Young Guns
Action Fund? It is a "super PAC established to elect Republicans." Some claim giving
to Super PACs is money better spent since Super PACs can bid higher on key advertis-
ing slots.

What is motivating McCutheon to hire 6 attorneys and file a lawsuit to give more
money directly when most people believe unlimited contributions can just be directed
to Super PACs? Isn’t that kind of expensive? (Or was the real purpose just to put a
"real" situation before the Court so they could achieve a strategic end?)

Or maybe just maybe McCutheon knows something. Like somethings are illegal.
Now that is admirable. Bully on you Mr. McCutheon! A Republican that asks first!

If he has anything to worry about it is this:

It is called the reasonable person test. In a ruling January 30th, 2012 that was
appealed and held all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court detailed: That if a
contribution is made with a prior understanding it will be used to support a candidate
or party, then it is legally as if given directly and subject to regulation.
(Subject to regulation means disclosure and limit.)

To understand how the test works just examine this sentence.

”Young Guns Action Fund, is a super PAC established to elect Republicans”.

Isn’t that exactly what the RNC does? Doesn’t the RNC help elect Republicans?

The former powerful Republican Party must have been pondering this question:
How can a new group “established to elect Republicans” get unlimited funds yet, we,
the real Republican party can't?

So they launched their lawsuit. But did they seal their fate?

The question they are playing with is like asking why matter and anti-matter don't
play together well. The RNC may find a nasty explosion and the Courts concluding
that the reasonable person test applies to all contributions anywhere. Then a whole
bunch of campaign donors will find out the hard way their contributions were against
the law.

The lawsuit claims current law “substantially burdens McCutcheon’s right to free
speech and association with the national party committees of his choosing.”
(Page 35).

Three problems:

1. They made a claim with no supporting evidence.
   
2. Evidence shows unlimited funding is hurting free speech not helping it.
   
3. What is stopping his free association just because he can't give big money?

The answer here to the RNC’s problem isn’t to make contributions more and more un-
limited. The answer in my belief is to enforce existing campaign law. This means
bringing individuals to trial for making excessive and prohibited campaign contributions
That is something the FEC is failing to do. However, the FEC isn’t the only one that
can enforce the law. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), a private citi-
zen can enforce campaign finance laws. It is a right granted to citizens by Congress.

The reason the FEC has failed to enforce campaign law regarding contributions to
Super PACs may rest with the fact that 3 out of 6 commissioners are Republicans.
Unless a Republican commissioner defects and agrees to prosecute Super PACs
that largely support Republicans, the FEC’s hands are tied. The provision in FECA
to allow a citizen to step forward to enforce campaign finance law appears to be
wisely placed into the law when Congress passed it in 1972.

So I filed a suit.

The Super PAC lawsuit is a defendant class action. It charges all Super PACs
and donors that have exceeded individual campaign contributions as well as those that
benefited from them.​

Owing to the similarities between the RNC’s case and arguments in my own, I filed to
consolidate cases. See:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5KRWkGWgENNcklqZ2ZXNk0tTEE/edit?pli=1

Check to see if you are defendant in that suit by reading the Notice at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R51TaBqH94PA9rwMYApU3IG_hoM-Uk1TYRvlNC1AQL4/edit

or see Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/SuperPacFederalLawsuit

One other development is the FEC itself has announced that it is reconsidering the
rules it changed that allowed Super PACs to thrive. See:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...like-FEC-just-admitted-super-PACs-are-illegal

PHILIP B. MAISE pro se
PLAINTIFF AND CITIZEN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ACTING ON THE
BEHALF OF THE U.S. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

p.s. The above title does sound a bit over the top. However, according to Court rules,
when filing a suit to enforce an Act of Congress the citizen must do so in the name of
attorney general of the United States.