Thread by @Headsnipe011

Trump wins again and @tedlieu /speechnow.org get dismissed

Week of July 2– July 6, 2018

@drawandstrike @ThomasWictor @TheChiIIum @HNIJohnMiller @jihadaeon1 @rising_serpent @_ImperatorRex_ @Debradelai @LarrySchweikart

fec.gov/updates/week-j…

COMPLAINANT: Keep America Great PAC

RESPONDENT: Donald J. Trump; Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Timothy Jost, in his official capacity as treasurer (the Committee); The Trump Organization; and Meredith McIver

SUBJECT: The complaint alleged that the Trump Organization made prohibited contributions to the Committee when employee McIver provided speechwriting services for Melania Trump’s July 2016 speech to the Republican National Convention.

The complaint further alleged that the Trump Organization impermissibly facilitated contributions by using corporate letterhead and that McIver’s unreimbursed travel expenses to the Republican National Convention exceeded the allowable amount for campaign volunteers.

DISPOSITION: The Commission found no reason to believe that the Trump Organization engaged in corporate facilitation of contributions because the complaint provided no facts indicating that the Trump Organization used its resources or facilities...

to engage in any fundraising activities. The Commission found no reason to believe that McIver or the Trump Organization made excessive or prohibited contributions to the Committee because there was no evidence to support the complaint’s allegation...

that McIver traveled to the Republican National Convention and the respondents denied she had traveled there. Finally, the Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the allegation that the Committee accepted corporate contributions from the...

Trump Organization in connection with the speechwriting services provided by McIver, because the candidate paid the Trump Organization for services with his personal funds, and the Committee reported the receipt of the services as an in-kind contribution from the candidate.

The Commission noted that while the in-kind contribution was not reported until after the date on which the services were rendered, the alleged amount of the violation was de minimis and did not justify the use of further Commission resources.

Lieu, et al. v. FEC (Case No. 1:16-cv-02201) On July 2, the Commission filed a Reply in support of its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

On November 4, 2016, Representative Ted Lieu, Representative Walter Jones, Senator Jeff Merkley, State Senator (Ret.) John Howe, Zephyr Teachout, and Michael Wager ("Plaintiffs") filed suit against the Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission.

Plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with the Commission on July 7, 2016, identifying ten respondents and alleging that they accepted contributions...

substantially exceeding the $5,000 per contributor per year limit. Plaintiffs ask that the Court declare that the Commission's failure to act on their administrative complaint within 120 days is contrary to law under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) and constitutes an unlawful...

withholding and/or unreasonable delay of agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). Plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the Commission to conform with this declaration within 30 days.

***What was it about originally?***

Plaintiffs’ judicial complaint presents a single legal question: whether it was contrary to law for the Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”) to dismiss plaintiffs’ administrative complaint

in light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599
F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc) and the similar decisions by six other Circuit courts. Plaintiffs admit that SpeechNow declared the statutory provisions that their administrative complaint...

relied upon unenforceable as a constitutional matter; that the Commission faithfully applied the D.C. Circuit’s holding; and that this Court is bound by that holding. Those
concessions are sufficient for the Court to grant the Commission’s motion to dismiss.