Posted on 03/15/2015 2:16:40 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
This summer, right when the presidential primary fundraising season is in full bloom, the Securities and Exchange Commission is expected to make running for president harder for some candidates than for others. In fact, that's already the case.
Republican Govs. Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal and Scott Walker are off limits to some financial industry donors. "Pay to play" rules restrict the governors' ability to accept contributions from investment advisers who work with state and local governments on pensions and bond deals. An SEC ruling could significantly expand that pool of prohibited contributors by July.
The original SEC "pay-to-pay" rule took effect in 1994, spurred by disclosures that investment advisers had received lucrative business contracts after contributing to political campaigns. Former New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi served 20 months in prison, beginning in 2011, for steering $250 million in pension funds to an investment firm in exchange for more than $500,000 in donations and other benefits.
Thousands of prospective contributors, including many in New York banks, are essentially banned from donating to a sitting governor's presidential finance team. Since the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation overhaul, the number of financial advisers covered by the rule has expanded twice. A third expansion - including advisers who help structure municipal bond deals and invest the funds - is expected by July.
For now, the prohibition is probably less damaging to Walker than to Christie. Unlike Christie, whose donor base is on Wall Street, the Wisconsin governor built a large small-donor base during his 2012 recall election. But the inability to tap Wall Street funds could hinder Walker, too, as the campaign progresses. Former Republican Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, for example, is free from such fundraising constraints.
In addition to SEC rules, Christie confronts a local problem. New Jersey lawmakers recently passed legislation to prohibit donations to national political committees from investors who manage the state's pension funds. Legislators confirmed that crowding Christie's political space was part of their motivation for the law. The governor hasn't yet said whether he will sign it.
A prodigious fundraiser, Christie retains ties to plenty of wealthy supporters. But SEC regulations have previously shadowed his ambitions. According to "Collision 2012," by Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, during Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's vice presidential search, he asked Christie if he would consider resigning to escape pay-to-play rules. Romney's campaign went on to raise $21.5 million from the securities and investment sector, the top industry backing his campaign. (Additional funds flowed from the industry to political action committees allied with Romney.)
Later this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a lawsuit filed by two state Republican Party committees seeking to overturn pay-to-play regulations.
"Everyone running for federal office should be subject to the same set of rules," said Jason Torchinsky, a former counsel to President George W. Bush's 2004 campaign and one of the attorneys who brought the case. The plaintiffs argue that the SEC lacks jurisdiction over political donations and that the rules violate donors' First Amendment rights. Christie supporters may try to avoid the rules by creating a super-PAC that would function independently from a campaign committee. Similarly, Walker allies have created Our American Revival, another super-PAC (although Walker doesn't call it one).
It's unclear how many Wall Street executives would risk donating even to a super-PAC allied with a sitting governor. A prohibited contribution for as little as $150 could lead to a two-year ban on doing business in a state.
"There is an anti-evasion provision in the pay-to-play rules that would provide the SEC with the ability to clamp down on laundering money through super-PACs to help Chris Christie or Scott Walker," said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, which supports the SEC rules. "Given the SEC's vigilance, I can see it trying to address that."
Then Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole went “all-in” during the 1996 cycle and resigned his position to run for president, IIRC.
He needs to set up a Clinton style family Foundation and just sit back and let the money roll in like Hitlery has.
“......Official candidates can still appear at super PAC fundraisers, but they cannot ask donors to give more than $5,000. And they cannot share inside strategic information with those running the group.
“Once someone becomes a candidate, there will be some very important guardrails you have to abide by,” said Michael E. Toner, a Republican campaign finance attorney who served on the Federal Election Commission.
But for now, there are few guardrails for most of the 2016 hopefuls. That’s why former Florida governor Jeb Bush is headlining $100,000-a-head fundraisers for a super PAC already ballooning with tens of millions of dollars in donations. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s political committee is soliciting corporate money and six-figure checks. And on Monday in New York, former New York governor George Pataki was the guest of honor at a fundraiser for his super PAC at a private Manhattan club, where co-chairs were asked to contribute $250,000 each......
......“If Governor Bush engages in any testing-the-waters activities, they will be paid for appropriately under the law and reported at the required time,” she added.
One category of 2016 contenders cannot take part in the early super PAC rush: federal officeholders, who, like official candidates, can’t coordinate with the groups. That’s one reason there are no major super PACs yet for GOP Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas, all of whom are considering presidential bids......
"Hillary Clinton came of age during the Burn-the-Bra era of the Sixties, but she did not adopt its disdain for foundations. Quite the contrary. Bill and Hill have created the master scam of our generation, ripping off individuals, institutions, corporations and even entire countries… and they call it a foundation! One thing is clear: the Clintons are engirdling the globe and the fat cats have to suck it up.
Truth is I was way ahead of the Man from Hope and the Queen of de Niles on this score. Decades ago I was advising wealthy friends to stop constructing all these elaborate trusts which line the pockets of lawyers and eventually breed various headaches. It makes much more sense to throw most of your wealth into a huge pot and call it a foundation. The law requires giving five percent of its assets to charitable causes each year. Stick to that number and if the endowment earns more than five percent, it is essentially turning a profit like a business. Nor is there ever an estate, as the structure holds fast for ensuing generations to pass through.
Put another way, you can run a hedge fund and call it a foundation. The family funding the private foundation retains control over its officers and employees. In fact each family member can be listed as an officer in some capacity. You can then count all sorts of outlays, such as flying around in private planes and staying in upscale hotels, as foundation expenses. This enables you to shield a significant portion of their real income from taxes. If they are influential enough to attract outside donors, or to strong-arm them, pretty much every conversation you have with Bertie Wooster about polo in the Drones Club is foundation business.
Put another way, you can run a slush fund and call it a foundation."................
The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech means big money can donate all it wants. I’m an odd conservative on that, I guess, because I see it as crony capitalism. Most conservatives think that’s just awesome, but I’m not sure. For whatever reason big money gravitates toward the liberal/progressives more than to the conservatives. Hands in the government till explains it as much as anything else.
The best solution is that of our Founders, but it will never be implemented, in my opinion. A republican election in which regions elect electors at the local level and send them all to a conference at which time they select the best qualified person in America to be president.
The advent of parties corrupted our system.
Big government always ties business up in court - costing them money, blackmailing them, showing favoritism, raising taxes and driving jobs out of the country.
Free market capitalism must crawl hat-in-hand up Capital Hill and kiss their rings so they can be safe for just a little bit longer - get language inserted in bills and have them pass. There is TOO MUCH government bleeding us dry!
So what to do? Roll over and let it happen or take power and clean up the swamp? Is it taboo for people/business to support a candidate that supports their chance to make a living?
A quote from above article:
It's unclear how many Wall Street executives would risk donating even to a super-PAC allied with a sitting governor. A prohibited contribution for as little as $150 could lead to a two-year ban on doing business in a state.
Crony Capitalism Makes Me Cringe
It’s a spits worth of distance from national socialism.
So, in the end, I side with the Founders and a truly republican form of government and election of chief executive. Then the election of representatives and senators by the original system would go a long way toward restoring this country.
Our constitution is an awesome document. Some of the changes to it have clearly been counter-productive. Income tax gets the government into the tiniest details of our lives. Popular election of senators removes the power of states. Party based election of president invites graft and corruption and abuse of power.
The Founders were very wise Christian men.
I understand what you’re saying but LIBERAL courts and lawless government executives will demand adherence to the “rules” by us (tie our elected representatives, and honest business people, up in court) while they do not hold themselves to the same standard (and they use terms to attack us, while giving themselves passes) - we must be smarter than that.
ping for later. It’s a sad state that money dictates our politics and our candidates. Apparently, America isn’t or is no longer smarter than that...yet.
The Uniparty wants another amnesty vs amnesty election.
They do not want us to elect anyone who would secure the border, enforce the laws, and retain American sovereignty.
I’s all about the amnesty.
They are stealing our country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.