$1.2 million anti-Kavanaugh crowdfunding campaign tests federal bribery laws

The Washington Times ^ | September 12, 2018 | Alex Swoyer

[jazusamo]

Liberal groups are testing a new crowdsourcing tactic in their battle against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee — and are testing the limits of campaign finance laws with their attempt to force one GOP senator to vote “No.”

The initiative has secured pledges of $1.2 million, which the groups say they’ll direct to an opponent of Sen. Susan Collins, should she vote to confirm Mr. Trump’s pick, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. If she votes for the nomination, the donors’ credit cards will be charged.

Ms. Collins and her defenders say that sounds an awful lot like bribery, threatening her political future in exchange for her shaping her vote.

Campaign legal experts, though, were less certain, saying that as long as they aren’t offering her the money, it may be perfectly legal.

“It’s a new form of strategy, that is for sure, but I do think it is covered still under legitimate campaign activity,” said Gary Rose, a political science professor at Sacred Heart University.

Ms. Collins is one of two pro-choice Republican senators liberals are hoping to sway to vote against Judge Kavanaugh. Combined with all Democrats’ opposition, it would be enough to defeat the nomination.

Ms. Collins has not yet revealed how she plans to vote, but had previously said she wouldn’t back a nominee hostile towards women’s reproductive rights.

As the vote nears later this month, pressure is mounting — and some of it is nasty.

The senator’s staff has received threatening calls and vulgar, profanity filled messages, including letter warning that “every waitress who serves you is going to spit in your food,” and a caller who told a 25-year-old staffer he hoped she would be raped and impregnated.

[jazusamo]

Liberal progressive groups are blatantly pushing the letter of the law on bribery, extortion and open threats.

Not a surprise I guess.

[BenLurkin]

The liberals, and “progressives” have apparently decided to destroy representative government.

Don’t know what they expect to replace elections with, but it will no doubt be presented as being “common sense.”

[richardtavor]

Sue their assessment off for Collins and file charges..

[Dilbert San Diego]

The peace loving radicals, the ones who lecture us that love trumps hate, are the ones making these threats.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

[lucky american]

And we sit here doing nothing. Have you called her in support?
(202)224-2523 DC
(207)780-3573 Maine
(207)990-4604
(207)622-8414
(207)784-6969
(207)2834054

[aimhigh]

With Sessions in charge, I don’t expect to see any charges filed.

[jazusamo]

Thanks for the numbers, everyone call.

[ncalburt]

Will do thanks

[faithhopecharity]

SorozNazi doesn’t give a damn about our laws...
he’s “untouchable” by our legal system anyways, imho

[Skywise]

That’s not fundraising - that’s a defacto political bribe and those funded it and the website supporting it should face criminal penalties

[Flick Lives]

With Sessions in charge, I don’t expect to see any charges filed.

—

Tell him some weed is in solved and he’ll get right on it.

[jazusamo]

MAGA!

Let's Wrap This Baby Up, Folks!

Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a monthly donor!

[jazusamo]

I agree, they should be nailed for it.

[RainMan]

You hit on the key provision … it is not bribery, it is extortion, and that is what they should be charged under. In this instance, they are attempting to obtain a vote in their favor, through force or threats.

def: the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

[VRWCarea51]

She’s got no backbone. She’ll wait until the votes to confirm are above 50 then she’ll vote against.

[jazusamo]

I’m guessing these libs have gone too far even for her and she’ll vote for judge Kavanaugh. JMO

[Garvin]

It’s not bribery, it’s extortion. Do what we want or else. Plain and simple.

[CoastWatcher]

They are Libs! It doesn’t matter how she votes the money will be given to an opponent anyway.
It’s not like they put the money into an escrow account to fund her if their conditions were met.

[CharlesWayneCT]

THey found ONE expert who was willing to say she thought it might be legal.

But it is pretty clear it is a bribe. And it doesn’t even matter whether you decide money going to an opponent is different — because a bribe is anything of value, and REMOVING $1.2 million from an opponent is clearly a thing of value.

More oddly, are there really that many people who are willing to give $1.2 million total to get her removed from the senate, but who would ONLY give that money if she didn’t vote right on this one thing? I mean, no matter how she votes, there’s still a democrat running against her, and why would these people not still give money to that democrat?

BTW, a particular democrat candidate saying “I’m only going to run for office if she votes for BK”, that wouldn’t be a bribe.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Frankly, there is going to be a lot of playing with the votes. There are democrats who might lose their elections if they vote against, so they are hoping Schumer releases them to vote yes once it is clear there are enough votes.