Father, law professor, former FEC Commissioner, Chairman Institute for Free Speech @InstFreeSpeech, lover of liberty & dogs, looking for evidence, #freespeech,
This is not true. A PAC cannot contribute more than $5000 to a candidate. A joint fundraising committee (JFC) is exactly that--it raises money jointly for a number of candidates and party committees. It does not allow the candidate to receive a contribution in excess of $5000 from a PAC. So a $105,000 contribution from a PAC to a JFC is divided among the various candidates and party committees participating in the JFC, with each candidate subject to the $5000 limit. This is not hard to understand.
You may not have intended it this way, Kurt, and you do disavow such intentions, but I think to a typical reader this column still has a "we're going to get creamed on Tuesday and I intend to get out in front in the blame game" feel to it.
I am less sanguine than you. If D's take the Senate and add the WH in 2 yrs., they will absolutely end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and who knows what else, and then we may miss Senators Tillis and Cornyn tremendously. Not to mention the massive spending on Paxton's race that might have saved a Dan Sullivan or put John Husted, Mike Rogers or Michelle Tafoya over the top.
We'll see. Not much left to do now but vote and get others to do the same.
Anyone else tired of the canned phrase “working families?”—which, we note, is never applied to a functional family. Can we at least say “working class”—it’s not like the kids in a “working family” are down on a coal mine as child labor, or even helping out with the family business.
Much the same was done with the IRS and its harassment of "tea party" groups in the run-up to the 2012 election.
The Raised Eyebrow and the Closed Account https://t.co/OLr1HJGpXj
Here’s ani interesting story about why you must check AI, in which I am an offstage player. And I appreciate Prof. Altschuler’s comments on me at the end.
The Ancient and Honorable Art of AI Hallucination https://t.co/HZPgBFDWsX via @reason
IFS Chairman @CommishSmith spoke on a new episode of Let's Focus to share the importance of free political speech to our democracy and how it relates to modern campaign finance policy. Watch the episode here, via @AJEnglish: https://t.co/arkwhIUVJM
Infringing on free speech is expensive. Silencing our client Nicholas Blanchard during public comments just cost the Augusta Board of Education $50,000. Read our new press release on the fee payment in Blanchard v. Augusta Board of Education: https://t.co/N62uwjr5sk
Who should decide what political speech is acceptable? Not the government.
“I think our First Amendment was designed in part to keep the government out of making those decisions,” @InstFreeSpeech Chairman @CommishSmith tells the Harvard Law Bulletin:
https://t.co/haan8mTF3c
“The government, as a requirement of getting corporate existence, could say that you can’t speak about politics,” said IFS Sr. Atty @OwenYeates. “That’s a terrifying idea.” More on our challenge of HI's Act 11 with @grassroothawaii, via @CourthouseNews: https://t.co/gg2el9PJzn
So now fighting obesity is “fascist.” If you thought “Woke 1” was “crazy,” wait for “Woke 2.” Coming soon-as early as this November—to a community near you. https://t.co/uyQ5PkjmMD
@kittypurrzog Hold on to your hats, folks. Even AOC admits “woke 1 was crazy.” Well, wait to you see “Woke 2. Coming soon to a theatre of the absurd near you.
ICYMI, here's the excellent @FedSoc discussion "Corporate Speech in the Crosshairs," featuring @InstFreeSpeech Senior Attorney @OwenYeates. This is a timely topic in free speech law, as several states look to suppress or silence collective speech:
https://t.co/FxML3GlJsk