webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Campaign Legal Ctr CLC

OOPS

disambig see main

see trevor potter

---

an 11 23

After the 2020 redistricting cycle, a set of local political maps stood out to voting rights advocates and the U.S. Department of Justice: Galveston County, Texas. Now, the lawsuit over those maps has taken an interesting twist, and it highlights the way long standing legal precedents are under challenge right now.

First, the backstory: Galveston County used redistricting to break up the sole majority-minority district for its commissioners court, thrusting Black and Latino voters into majority-white districts where they would have no real opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The lawsuit over Galveston County’s redistricting became the first local redistricting case this cycle to prompt the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene.

Last month, the plaintiffs won a decisive victory. A federal judge ruled the county’s redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act, and, in a 157-page ruling, made clear it wasn’t an especially close call.

“This is not a typical redistricting case. What happened here was stark and jarring,” wrote the U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Brown, a former state Supreme Court justice who was nominated to the federal bench in 2019 by former President Donald Trump. “Looking at the totality of the circumstances, it was a clear violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. And it must be overturned.”

Brown ordered new maps in Galveston. The county — predictably — appealed, arguing it hadn’t violated the Voting Rights Act. And here’s where things get a little less predictable.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, by most measures the most conservative appellate court in the country at the moment, unanimously affirmed Judge Brown’s ruling, finding it was correct under the law.

Brown also correctly abided by a precedent set by the 5th Circuit itself decades ago, in which the court decided that Black and Latino voters can be combined for the sake of the legal analysis, as long as they vote cohesively. In other words, if there aren’t enough Black voters or Latino voters, or voters of another protected class, to make up a majority of the district by themselves, they can be put together when plaintiffs can show their political interests align.

That’s what happened in Galveston. The panel of 5th Circuit judges acknowledged that plaintiffs met the tests to proceed with the lawsuit on behalf of what, in legal jargon, is referred to as a “coalition claim.”

But there’s a but.

The 5th Circuit panel, it turns out, isn’t so sure that the long-standing precedent was, in fact, decided correctly by the 5th Circuit, an issue Galveston had raised.

“[T]his panel is bound by it under the rule of orderliness,” they wrote, “But the court’s decisions in this respect are wrong as a matter of law.”

The panel affirmed the district court order, requiring new maps, but first, it wants to poll all the judges on the 5th Circuit to see if a majority want to hold what’s known as an en banc hearing, to revisit that decades-old precedent, “at the earliest possible date.”

So where does that leave the voters of Galveston County, who need new commissioner district maps pretty quickly, since the 2024 election is coming up fast?

“At the current moment, everything the district court said is stayed,” said Mark Gaber of the

Campaign Legal Center, who represents some of the plaintiffs in the case, though he said he expects the 5th Circuit to move relatively quickly. Still, he said, it’s hard to be sure what will happen.

“It’s not usual to see a six-page affirmance saying, ‘We wish we didn’t have to do this,’” he said, adding, “The facts are so clear-cut, the only way out is if the law doesn’t allow this.”

Michael Li of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, a redistricting expert, said the precedent is a straightforward one, and if the 5th Circuit decides to move forward with an en banc hearing, “it’s probably not a very good sign.”

Earlier this year, defying expectations, the Supreme Court issued a strong ruling upholding voting rights precedents in another voting rights case, this one out of Alabama. The decision was celebrated by voting rights advocates, but challenges to precedents haven’t ended. In addition to the Galveston case, for example, Louisiana last week signaled it plans to bring another challenge to the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act in connection with its redistricting.

Li acknowledged the country is in a moment where voting rights laws and precedents are “potentially changing,” and points out the current Supreme Court is upending precedents in many areas. Just because the justices didn’t do so in the Alabama case doesn’t mean changes aren’t coming, in other words.

“You could do it in a big way,” he said, “or you could do it in death by a thousand cuts.”

Back Then

Want to read more about redistricting? Check out this 2012 article from the Atlantic, “The League of Dangerous Mapmakers,” for a look at how the process has been manipulated for centuries for political advantage....

---

an 6 22

in a decision Monday that liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned will further corrupt the nation's money-dominated political system, the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority struck down a campaign finance regulation limiting federal candidates' ability to use campaign funds to repay personal loans.

Established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the rule barred candidates from using more than $250,000 in campaign funds collected after an election to recoup their loans to their own campaign.

The legal challenge to the cap was brought by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who intentionally violated the $250,000 cap during his 2018 reelection bid in order to pursue a repeal of the limit, which he characterized as a violation of free speech.

As CNNexplained:

A day before he was reelected in 2018, Cruz loaned his campaign committee $260,000, $10,000 over the limit—laying the foundation for his legal challenge to the cap... [H]e could have been repaid in full by campaign funds if the repayment occurred 20 days after the election. But Cruz let the 20-day deadline lapse so that he could establish grounds to bring the legal challenge.

The high court's 6-3 decision strikes another blow to the nation's campaign finance restrictions, which were already weak and rife with loopholes that big donors readily and frequently exploit.

"While the direct effects of this decision are limited to the narrow federal provision at issue in the case, it reveals a Supreme Court increasingly out of step with the American people—who overwhelmingly recognize that unchecked campaign giving poses profound risks to the integrity of our democracy," said Trevor Potter, the president of Campaign Legal Center. "More immediately, the ruling could imperil an array of similar restrictions on post-election loan repayments adopted at the state and local level out of legitimate concerns over corruption."

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) added on Twitter that "the right-wing Supreme Court has issued yet another preposterous decision effectively legalizing government corruption at the request of Republicans."

In her dissent, Kagan argued that the court's ruling will make even more common the kinds of "crooked exchanges" that have long sullied the U.S. political system, which is awash in money from corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals.

"Political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption," Kagan argued, pointing to the issue of recouping personal loans. "The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money (to replenish his personal finances), and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone's incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing."

Kagan went on to contend that quid pro quos—political favors carried out in exchange for money, in this case post-election donations—could become more rampant thanks to the Supreme Court's new ruling, which was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who helped orchestrate the high court's infamous Citizens United ruling and other attacks on campaign finance law.

"Post-election donors can be confident their money will enrich a candidate personally," Kagan wrote. "And those donors have of course learned which candidate won. When they give money to repay the victor's loan, they know—not merely hope—he will be in a position to perform official favors. The recipe for quid pro quo corruption is thus in place: a donation to enhance the candidate's own wealth (the quid), made when he has become able to use the power of public office to the donor's advantage (the quo)."

"The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption," she continued. "In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today's decision can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

In a statement, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) voiced agreement with Kagan's dissent, calling the high court's ruling "another victory for right-wing donors in their assault on our campaign finance system, and another step toward unlimited special-interest spending in our elections."

"Big Republican donor interests built their supermajority to deliver wins like this one," Whitehouse added, "wins that help special interests skirt our democratic process to achieve what they want."

===

:{:{

}:}:

vs Feingold?

:{:{

}:}:

:{:{

https://democracychronicles.org/lawsuit-nra/

from the Campaign Legal Center:

Today, Campaign Legal Center Action (CLC Action) filed suit on behalf of Giffords against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for failing to announce any action against the National Rifle Association (NRA) for using shell corporations to coordinate campaign spending with seven federal candidates spanning three election cycles from 2014-2018. The lawsuit was filed two days before President Trump addresses the NRA’s annual convention for the third year in a row – the only time in American history a president has done so.

The NRA’s complicated scheme had the effect of evading campaign contribution limits and shielding millions of dollars of political spending – including up to $25 million coordinated with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign – from public scrutiny. The Trace first reported on the NRA’s scheme.

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and Giffords filed four complaints with the FEC to address these violations. The FEC is the independent regulatory agency tasked with enforcing campaign finance laws in federal elections, the agency routinely deadlocks and fails to reach the required four votes necessary to open an investigation. Today, Giffords is asserting its right of action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the 120-day period expired in which the FEC was legally required to respond.

“Our elections are awash in secret cash, and the federal agency charged with enforcing our nation’s election laws is asleep on the job,” said Trevor Potter, president of CLC, and a former Republican Chairman of the FEC. “Campaign finance laws are supposed to limit the influence of money in our politics. For our system to function properly, the FEC needs to enforce the laws that preserve the independence of campaigns and limit the influence of well-funded special interests.”

“When the FEC doesn’t do its job, groups like the NRA are able to get around the rules designed to limit the influence of money on our democracy,” said Brendan Fischer, director, federal reform at CLC. “The FEC’s failure to enforce the law sends a message to wealthy special interests that they can push the legal envelope and get away with it.”

“The FEC is supposed to be the nation’s election watchdog, but in this case it didn’t bite, bark, or even whimper,” said Adam Skaggs, Chief Counsel, Giffords Law Center. “Instead, it turned a blind eye while the NRA’s leadership made clear it’s more interested in handing bags of cash to candidates who will carry its water than following American laws or looking out for the interests of gun owners. In a desperate attempt to hold onto power and influence, NRA executives have flagrantly ignored our campaign finance laws and undermined the integrity of our election system. The FEC must bring illegal campaign conduct into the light of day and we are proud to join with CLC in calling on it to uphold the laws that protect the legitimacy of our democracy.”

Watch our video, which explains the underlying story behind the NRA’s scheme.

Campaign finance law allows outside groups like the NRA to make unlimited expenditures supporting candidates only if the expenditures are completely independent of those candidates. To protect this independence, the FEC has rules prohibiting coordination between outside groups and campaigns, which include restrictions on how a vendor may work for both a candidate and an outside group supporting that candidate. Otherwise, the common vendor can act as a conduit to funnel strategic information to the outside group, and then that group’s expenditures are no longer independent.

The lawsuit implicates the NRA’s spending in support of the following seven candidates:

You can see the full video here:

}:}:

:{:{

}:}:

:{:{

}:}:

==

an 1021

The FBI has opened up a criminal campaign-finance investigation into possible "misdeeds" committed by the right wing organization headed by conservative lobbyist and Trump confidant Matt Schlapp.

The group, the American Conservative Union, is best known for its annual Conservative Political Action Conference (**CPAC**) event that attracts right wing politicians and activists from across the country.

Citing sources, The Dispatch reports "federal investigators are currently looking into possible criminal campaign-finance misdeeds at ACU during Schlapp's tenure. As part of the investigation, the FBI has interviewed former and current ACU employees about the financial dealings of the organization and its leaders—and in particular, as one source said, about their 'knowledge of the events leading up to the endorsement of Brian Kelsey.'."

Kelsey is a Tennessee state senator who in 2016 ran for the GOP nomination for a seat in Congress.

Since 2015 Schlapp has been the chairman of the ACU.

The allegations in our complaint—they're really quite bad," Adav Noti, chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center, told The Dispatch. The CLC is the organization that filed the FEC complaint. "This is not run-of-the-mill shenanigans. It's true that $100,000 isn't an overwhelmingamount of money, but it's not nothing for a congressional race in Tennessee, either. And the two-part scheme to route it back to the campaign—if that is indeed what happened, it's a very serious violation. It's not a ticky-tack or a technical issue."

Read the entire report at The Dispatch.

===

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/facebook-pro-trump-groups/

salon no twt

Reporting on Friday revealed that Facebook knowingly allowed a digital marketing firm tied to a pro-Trump group to release a series of ads purporting to be from a fake left-wing organization ahead of the 2018 midterm elections, while election officials failed to investigate the group at the time.

As The Guardian reported, a right-wing marketing firm called Rally Forge ran a $5,000 ad campaign beginning just days before the2018 election, showing ads promoting Green Party candidates in an effort to split the Democratic vote and help Republicans in several close races. The ads were purported to be placed by a group called America Progress Now and expressed support for democratic socialism.

Facebook launched an investigation into the ads just after the election and quickly determined that America Progress Now's official page on the platform was run by the same three men—Jake Hoffman, Connor Clegg, and Colton Duncan—who were administrators for Turning Point USA, the pro-Trump college organization.

To the alarm of a number of Facebook employees, The Guardian reported, the company did not find Rally Forge or Turning Point USA to be in violation of any of its policies.

One product manager at the time said a case could be made for Rally Forge and Turning Point USA having engaged in voter suppression through the ads, and asked, "Can we strengthen our ads transparency policies so that political ads are indeed transparent to the user?"

After the election, Facebook deactivated several other right-wing accounts run by the administrators, but the move did not stop Rally Forge from establishing a "troll farm" out of Phoenix, Arizona in 2020. Working for Turning Point Action, a group linked to Turning Point USA, the firm hired teenagers to post pro-Trump messages on social media, some of which cast doubt on the integrity of the election system.

Sophie Zhang, aformer Facebook employee who participated in the investigation of the fake Green Party ads, wrote on Twitter Friday, "One wonders if [Rally Forge] would have escalated to troll farms, had FB deterred them in 2018." twt]

"This is egregious," tweeted the women's rights group UltraViolet on Friday.

Beyond Facebook's decision to allow the firm to remain on Facebook after determining the ads were fraudulent, the ads "appeared to violate federal laws that require independent expenditures to be filed with the [Federal Election Commission] and include proper disclosures on advertisements," The Guardian reported.

"This is an example of why disclosure is so important in elections: swing state voters who saw 'America Progress Now' ads promoting Green party candidates would've had no idea that they were the handiwork of Republican political operatives," Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at CLC, told The Guardian.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the FEC in 2019 over America Progress Now and the administrators' failure to disclose the true source of the Facebook ads, only to have the case dismissed before the FEC could conduct an investigation.

The election commissioners declined to look further into the complaint after a man named Evan Muhlstein contacted them to take full responsibility to the ads, claiming he alone had failed to file the ad expenditures with the FEC and saying his "inexperience" was to blame.

"The FEC's job is to enforce the transparency laws and protect voters' right to know who is trying to influence them, but the agency here failed to conduct even a minimal investigation," Fischer said.

According to former FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, who served on the commission from 2013 to 2017, Muhlstein's admission to the FEC appeared to amount to "clear fraud," as he never disclosed to the officials that the ads had been the work of Rally Forge.

At the time, though, Muhlstein's claim was enough to convince at least one FEC commissioner, James "Trey" Trainor, that the CLC had engaged in "wild speculation" by filing a complaint.

"This case wasn't about a 'fake political group … exploit[ing] Facebook rules … and hid[ing] spending from the FEC,'" Trainor wrote. "In fact, APN was established by an unsophisticated individual trying to show his support for several third-party candidates, but he got tripped by the myriad regulations governing online political speech."

Zhang denounced the FEC for failing to contact Facebook regarding Muhlstein's claim to verify that he'd administered the America Progress Now page—a cursory investigation which would have immediately revealed the true owners of the page.

"It's quite possible that FB would have blown the FEC off," Zhang said. "But many employees were upset over this case, and may have come forward if asked. I would likely have if I'd known."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

https://yyy.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jun/11/facebook-ads-turning-point-usa-rally-forge

no lnx many

Revealed: rightwing firm posed as leftist group on Facebook to divide Democrats

FEC investigation failed to uncover link to Rally Forge, a firm with close ties to Turning Point USA

Julia Carrie Wong in San Francisco

@juliacarriew

Fri 11 Jun 2021 06.00 EDT

A digital marketing firm closely linked to the pro-Trump youth group Turning Point USA was responsible for a series of deceptive Facebook ads promoting Green party candidates during the 2018 US midterm elections, the Guardian can reveal.

In an apparent attempt to split the Democratic vote in a number of close races, the ads purported to come from an organization called America Progress Now (APN) and used socialist memes and rhetoric to urge leftwing voters to support Green party candidates.

Facebook was aware of the true identity of the advertiser – the conservative marketing firm Rally Forge – and the deceptive nature of the ads, documents seen by the Guardian show, but the company determined that they did not violate its policies.

Rally Forge would go on to set up a pro-Trump domestic “troll farm” for Turning Point Action, a “sister” organization of Turning Point USA, in 2020,earning a permanent ban from Facebook.

“There were no policies at Facebook against pretending to be a group that did not exist, an abuse vector that has also been used by the governments of Honduras and Azerbaijan,” said Sophie Zhang, a former Facebook employee and whistleblower who played a small role in the investigation of the Green party ads.

She added: “The fact that Rally Forge later went on to conduct coordinated inauthentic behavior with troll farms reminiscent of Russia should be taken as an indication that Facebook’s leniency led to more risk-taking behavior.”

ads show AOC and Drake meme pix]

Some of the Facebook ads from America Progress Now. Composite: Facebook]

Devon Kearns, a spokesperson for Facebook, said: “We removed Rally Forge from our platforms for violating our policy against coordinated inauthentic behavior. Since the 2018 midterms, we have strengthened our policies related to election interference and political ad transparency. We continue working to make political advertising more transparent on our platform and we welcome updated regulations and help from policymakers as we evolve our policies in this space.”

The revelation that the ads were linked to a rightwing organization raises questions about the Federal Election Commission’s enforcement of campaign finance laws.APN and its ads appeared to violate federal laws that require independent expenditures to be filed with the FEC and include proper disclosures on advertisements, as ProPublica and Vice News first reported in 2018.

The non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint against APN and subsequently sued the agency in an attempt to force it to investigate the group. But in July 2020, the FEC voted to dismiss allegations that America Progress Now had violated federal law, after an individual, Evan Muhlstein, took responsibility for the ads and attributed the lack of proper disclosures and filings to his “inexperience”.

It is illegal to knowingly make false or fraudulent statements to federal agencies, and the FEC appears to have taken Muhlstein at his word that the ads were a sincere but novice attempt to support Green party candidates.

The former FEC commissioner Ann Ravel, who reviewed the case at the request of the Guardian, said that were she still on the FEC, she would now refer this “stunning” case to the justice department for investigation.

“It seems as if it’s a clear fraud,” Ravel said, noting that the FEC general counsel’s office appeared to have been “misled” by Muhlstein. “The requirement for the justice department to take on an electoral matter is that it be serious and willful, and clearly in this case it was willful, in my opinion.”

Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at CLC, said: “This is an example of why disclosure is so important in elections: swing state voters who saw ‘America Progress Now’ ads promoting Green party candidates would’ve had no idea that they were the handiwork of Republican political operatives. The FEC’s job is to enforce the transparency laws and protect voters’ right to know who is trying to influence them, but the agency here failed to conduct even a minimal investigation.”

‘A crystal clear example of astroturfing’

On 27 October 2018 – just days before the 6 November election – America Progress Now began running a series of ads that used leftist motifs, such as the red rose emoji and images of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to rail against the “corporate, two-party oligarchy” and the “corporate, capitalist wage system”. Some of the ads urged voters to choose a third party, but others endorsed Green party candidates by name – triggering FEC rules for independent expenditures.

Following the 5 November publication of a ProPublica/Vice News report on the “mysterious” group behind the ads, Facebook launched a “hi-pri[ority]” escalation to investigate whether they constituted“coordinated inauthentic behavior” (CIB) – the name Facebook gives to the kind of deceptive tactics that a Russian influence operation used during the 2016 election.

The investigation was straightforward since Facebook has access to information that regular users do not: the names of the people who control Facebook Pages. Investigators quickly realized that America Progress Now was administered by three individuals – Jake Hoffman, Connor Clegg and Colton Duncan – who also served as Facebook Page administrators for Turning Point USA, the rightwing college group founded by Charlie Kirk in 2012. Hoffman and Clegg were also administrators for Kirk’s Facebook Page.

Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, left, with Donald Trump Jr and his girlfriend, Kimberly Guilfoyle, at a summit in 2019.]

“These admins are connected to Turning Point USA,” one staffer from the civic integrity team said, according to internal task management documents seen by the Guardian. “This is very inauthentic. I don’t know what the policy here is but this seems very sketchy.”Another staffer named Rally Forge as being responsible for the ads. APN had spent nearly $5,000 to have the ads shown to users nearly 300,000 times, a third staffer noted.

A rightwing political marketing firm that ran a $350,000 pro-Trump Super Pac in the 2016 election, Rally Forge was founded and run by Hoffman, an Arizona Republican who was at the time a member of the town council in Queen Creek, Arizona. In November 2020 Hoffman was elected to serve in the Arizona state legislature.

Clegg and Duncan were alumni of Texas State University, where they had been elected student body president and vice-president respectively in 2017. Clegg was impeached and removed from office shortly before his term would have ended in 2018. Duncan resigned from his post in 2017; he appears to have been hired directly by Turning Point USA in 2019.

Since 2017, Rally Forge has been Turning Point USA’s highest-compensated independent contractor, paid more than $1.1m over two years, according to the non-profit’s public filings. Turning Point Action, an affiliated organization also founded by Kirk, paid Rally Forge $700,000 for work supporting Trump and opposing Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign, and an additional $400,000 for work on the US Senate runoff races in Georgia.

Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for Turning Point USA, said that neither Turning Point USA nor Turning Point Action had “any involvement” with America Progress Now or its Facebook ads.

In addition to America Progress Now and Turning Point USA, Hoffman, Clegg and Duncan all also served as administrators for a number of other rightwing Facebook Pages. The trio each maintained two accounts to administer their Facebook Pages, one using their full names and one using their first and middle initials – a violation of the company’s policy that each user can only have one Facebook account. One of each of the three men’s accounts had been authorized by Facebook to run political ads, a process that required submitting a government ID to Facebook for verification.

One of Hoffman’s accounts had spent approximately $650,000 to run Facebook ads on behalf of 40 Pages, including the official Page of Donald Trump Jr.

The intention here is clearly to mislead users

Facebook civic integrity staffer]

Hoffman declined to answer detailed questions from the Guardian, including about the nature of Rally Forge’s relationship with Muhlstein. “The premise of your questions is either ill-informed or intentionally misleading,” he said in a statement. “Rally Forge is a marketing agency, not a compliance company. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the small handful of ads, totaling less than 2,500 dollars, which qualified as independent expenditures, have been fully disclosed by the responsible organization in coordination with the FEC.”

Duncan said that he had never heard of America Progress Now before the Guardian’s inquiries and had “zero knowledge or insight into the group”. When asked about the CG Duncan account, which had passed Facebook’s verification process and was an administrator of the APN page, he responded: “I urge you to reach out to JM [Hoffman]. Let me know what you find out, I’m as curious as you are.”

Clegg did not respond to multiple attempts to contact him.

Despite possessing clear evidence of inauthenticity, Facebook staffers determined the Green party ads did not violate existing company policies related to political ads or CIB. They decided to deactivate the three men’s extra accounts, but after the election and only after providing them with advance notice.

The episode inspired some disquiet among Facebook staff.

“What I find very problematic is that the intention here is clearly to mislead users,” said the civic integrity staffer. “The users in question clearly created a new FB page to hide their identity, which would be grounds for removal on most surfaces,” she added, referring to Facebook’s rules requiring people to use their real names on their accounts.

One product manager produced an internal postmortem of the incident in which she described it as “a crystal clear example of astroturfing” – deceptive campaign tactics designed to appear as grassroots actions – “… as well as playing both sides … and political ad opacity, since users cannot see who they are. Furthermore, I could see making a case for voter suppression.”

‘The users in question clearly created a new FB page to hide their identity,’ said a Facebook civic integrity staffer. Photograph: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty Images

“Unfortunately, it turned out there was nothing we could do against these ads,” she added. “We ended up only aiming to remove a few [duplicate] accounts under the fake account policy, but only after proper notice – and I believe we have not removed them yet.”

“Can we strengthen our ads transparency policies so that political ads are indeed transparent to the user?” she asked.

A Facebook spokesperson said that the company had indeed removed the duplicate accounts following the midterms, and that Rally Forge’s network of Pages and accounts had gone dormant after November 2018. The company made a number of updates to its policies on political ads before the 2020 elections, including requiring advertisers to provide more information about their organizations before being authorized to run ads. It also introduced a new policy to encourage more transparency regarding who runs networks of Facebook Pages.

Rally Forge reactivated its network of Pages and accounts in June 2020, according to Facebook. It established a domestic “troll farm” in Phoenix, Arizona, that employed teenagers to churn out pro-Trump social media posts, some of which cast doubt on the integrity of the US election system or falsely charged Democrats with attempting to steal the election, the Washington Post revealed.

Facebook said that its automated systems had detected and deleted fake accounts made by Rally Forge, which then created “thinly veiled personas” to carry out deceptive campaigning. In October 2020, the platform permanently banned Rally Forge and Hoffman for violating its policy against CIB, work that Facebook said the firm had undertaken “on behalf of Turning Point USA” and another client.

A spokesman for Turning Point USA disputed the characterization of the operation as a “troll farm” and noted that it was a project of Turning Point Action, which is a separate entity.

Facebook did not take any enforcement action against Turning Point USA, Turning Point Action or Kirk with regard to the Phoenix operation. Facebook also did not disclose Rally Forge’s connection to America Progress Now and the deceptive Green Party ads.

A forestalled investigation

In September 2019, CLC filed a complaint alleging that APN’s failure to register with the FEC violated federal law. The FEC responded by sending a letter to an inaccurate address that America Progress Now had listed on its Facebook Page, but it does not appear to have taken further action, prompting CLC to sue it in February 2020.

“If nothing is done, the FEC will instead be sending a message that anonymous or fake entities like America Progress Now can pop into existence just prior to an election, exploit lax registration and reporting requirements by digital platforms, spend unlimited sums of money, and then disappear into thin air once an election is over,” the group said at the time.

In April 2020, the FEC wrote again, this time to the address listed on an Arizona state business filing for America Progress Now.

On 15 April 2020, Evan Muhlstein responded to the FEC by email. Muhlstein described the lack of filing as an “error”,writing, “I believe that it is important for the commission to understand that any potential failure on either of those items is based entirely on my inexperience to the process.” He wrote that he had “assumed that Facebook’s ‘political disclaimer/disclosure’ was all that was necessary”, said his expenditures totaled “only $2,467.54”, and expressed surprise that “a spend as small as this would require any type of reporting”.

Donald Trump speaks at a Turning Point USA summit in 2019.]

“I again offer my sincerest apology for any potential errors in failing to disclose,” Muhlstein wrote. “Given the apparent obstacles and unknowns of participating in the election process in this manner (of which I am learning some of now), it is highly unlikely I will ever participate in it again. I feel terrible for having been so ignorant to the process.”

Muhlstein also expressed his desire to come into compliance “correctly and quickly”. At no point in the communication did Muhlstein disclose that the advertisements had been handled by a major political marketing firm.

“Muhlstein’s statement to the FEC is extremely misleading and might warrant a criminal investigation,” said Fischer, of the CLC.

Muhlstein did not respond to multiple attempts to make contact with him. His connection to Rally Forge is not known. He is a resident of Queen Creek, Arizona, the town where Hoffman also lives.

The FEC has the power to issue subpoenas and carry out serious investigations, but only after a vote of four of its five commissioners.

In a report dated 4 May, the FEC’s general counsel argued that, while it appeared that Muhlstein had violated federal law, the small amount of money involved and Muhlstein’s statement that he was unlikely to engage in further political spending led it to recommend that the FEC exercise prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the allegations with a warning.

In July, the FEC voted to follow the general counsel’s recommendation and dismiss the case, forestalling any actual investigation.

Commissioner James “Trey” Trainor went further, lambasting the CLC in a statement of reasons. “Contrary to CLC’s wild speculation, this case wasn’t about a ‘fake political group … exploit[ing] Facebook rules … and hid[ing] spending from the FEC,’” he wrote. “In fact, APN was established by an unsophisticated individual trying to show his support for several third-party candidates, but he got tripped by the myriad regulations governing online political speech.”

Trainor asserted that “there was no evidence to contradict” Muhlstein’s statement to the FEC “and no evidence to support CLC’s salacious theories about the ‘unknown person or persons’ behind APN”.

It would not be until 23 December 2020 – six months after the FEC had voted not to pursue the allegations of law violations and more than two years after the election – that Muhlstein would provide the FEC with that evidence, when he finally registered APN with the FEC and disclosed that the independent expenditure had been made through Rally Forge.

The FEC did not respond to questions from the Guardian, citing a policy not to comment on enforcement matters. Trainor did not respond to a request for comment. Fischer said: “It looks like we were right.”

Daniel Hernandez contributed reporting

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/cover-up-house-democrats-subpoena-documents-nlrb-refused-to-share-in-ethics-investigation-propublica/

Starting in early spring, as the coronavirus took hold, a conservative lawyer at the forefront of raising alarms about voting by mail held multiple private briefings exclusively for Republican state election officials, according to previously unreported public records.

The lawyer, the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, is a leading purveyor of the notion that voter fraud is rampant, claims that have been largely discredited.

Among the participants in these meetings has been an official from the office of Georgia’s secretary of state; the secretary, Brad Raffensperger,recently elevated concerns about voter fraud by contending that 1,000 Georgians had voted twice in elections this year.

gOP congressional staffers and a Trump administration appointee have also joined in these meetings, which were open to officials from states across the country, including Missouri and Nevada, the records show. No Democratic state election officials appear to have been invited.

The “goal” of the meetings, held remotely, is to “gather the chief state election officials together to strategize on advancing their shared goal of ensuring the integrity of the elections they administer in their home states,” an invitation to an early August event reads.

Most of the states declined to comment on the meetings, and it’s not clear what specifically was discussed. Von Spakovsky is highly influential in conservative circles. He has sent invitees copies of his published essays pushing for in-person voting and culling voter rolls as absentee balloting expands amid the pandemic, a situation that von Spakovsky argued will “make fraud far easier.”

The meetings come as voting access has become one of the central flashpoints of the upcoming presidential election. More Americans are expected to vote by mail this year than ever before because of the health risks posed by COVID-19. President Donald Trump has repeatedly and baselessly asserted that mail-in voting is rife with problems.Echoing von Spakovsky, he asserted on Twitter in July that the upcoming presidential vote will be the “most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history.”

Experts have said voting by mail carries little risk of fraud. Since it is widely believed that more Democractic voters will vote by mail than Republicans, von Spakovsky’s proposals, if adopted, could suppress Democratic turnout in one of the most consequential presidential elections in a generation.

Secretaries of state, who oversee statewide voting and work with county election officials, have broad leeway to act in ways that can limit or expand the franchise. While most are partisan elected officials, they are expected to carry out policies that benefit everyone.

The Heritage Foundation did not make von Spakovsky available for an interviewand didn’t address detailed questions about the meetings. In a statement, the nonprofit’s media director, Greg Scott, said election security was “crucial to our country’s future.”

“The Heritage Foundation is committed to making sure elections are free and fair,” he said. “Every eligible voter’s vote should be counted and not canceled out by fraudulent acts.”

The remote gatherings are an outgrowth of private, in-person meetings von Spakovsky has held with Republican election authorities each year since Trump took office, the records show. Participants have hailed from at least a dozen states, including battlegrounds like Ohio and Georgia. They typically dovetail with the national conference of secretaries of state in Washington, D.C., and take place at Heritage’s headquarters. Those pre-pandemic meetings did not primarily address voting by mail.

Jonathan Diaz, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan voting rights group, said it’s one thing for von Spakovsky to make dubious claims of voter fraud in public but “another thing entirely for him to be circumventing official channels and making these presentations in private, where they’re not subject to public scrutiny.”

Diaz added that election authorities need to be “transparent about the information they’re relying on to make decisions about the ballot.”

Von Spakovsky has hosted at least two of these remote meetings in recent months. In April, there was an hourlong “Election Administration Forum Conference Call” that covered, in part, the expansion of mail-in voting and “ways to message these concerns to your constituents,” according to the invitation. The event included the ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives committee that oversees elections and five staffers, one of whom went on to work for the Trump campaign two months later. An August meeting, conducted through a secure, virtual video conferencing platform, was scheduled to last for two hours, according to an invitation.

A staffer from the Georgia secretary of state’s office participated in the April call. Before that, the secretary himself, Raffensperger, met with von Spakovsky in the summer of 2019 at Raffensperger’s request. At the Georgian Club in Atlanta, the two discussed a new law that involved replacing the state’s voting machines, according to Raffensperger’s deputy, Jordan Fuchs. That statute contributed to problems during what was widely viewed as a troubled June primary.

This month, around the time Raffensperger went public about double voting concerns in his state, he also appealed a federal judge’s ruling that the state must count absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day, the kind of policy change von Spakovsky has argued Democrats are using to “game the system” ahead of November.

“Hans, to our office, is the ultimate voter integrity activist,” Fuchs told ProPublica. While von Spakovsky “hasn’t driven any policy decisions” that have taken place under the secretary, Fuchs said that she briefed von Spakovsky on her office’s actions regarding double voting and absentee ballots.

There are indications that von Spakovsky has been influential within the Trump administration as well. During the August virtual briefing, state election administrators were told that Cameron Quinn, a Department of Homeland Security official, would now be their “liaison to the election community,” according to emails that a participant from Washington state sent to his colleagues.

Quinn has worked as an elections official in Virginia with von Spakovsky and has co-taught a law school course with him. During the meeting, she provided her cellphone number to the attendees.

The announcement of her role apparently came as a surprise to Washington officials, including the state’s director of elections, the emails show. The director, a member of a five-person committee that regularly interacts with DHS over election security matters, told her colleagues that there is a point of contact within the agency — and it’s not Quinn.

It turned out Quinn participated in the meeting without notifying her new boss beforehand, according to people familiar with the matter. Her appointment to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a division within DHS that monitors election systems for foreign hacking attempts and communicates with state officials about them, had only been announced within the agency a day earlier, they said.

It’s not clear whether Quinn is still in contact with state elections officials. A division spokeswoman confirmed Quinn was not yet an employee in the division at the time she participated in the meeting but declined to answer additional questions.

Beyond Quinn, it’s not clear whether any executive branch officials have participated in von Spakovsky’s remote briefings. But in 2019, during his annual in-person gathering, the then-head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, John Gore, and its chief of staff and counsel, Omeed Assefi, attended in their official capacities, according to an attendee list.

The division is responsible for protecting the rights of voters. An agenda from the event shows that Gore and von Spakovsky led an hourlong discussion on “election reforms in the states and messaging and update on civil rights division, U.S. Department of Justice.”

“This is highly inappropriate,” Vanita Gupta, who ran the division under President Barack Obama, told ProPublica. “That kind of closed-door session, where a head of the Civil Rights Division is secretly speaking about enforcement with partisan state officials, is unprecedented. The DOJ isn’t accountable to just one party.”

Gore declined to commenton what took place at the event or if he’d attended other von Spakovsky meetings in the past as head of the Civil Rights Division. The Justice Department didn’t respond to questions about the Civil Rights Division’s involvement in the meeting or Gore’s presentation at the 2019 event.

At the Heritage Foundation, von Spakovsky maintains a database of voter fraud cases and, emails show, regularly urges secretaries of state to contribute to it. At the moment, the database encompasses some 1,300 cases, stretching over a period that begins in 1982. As Reuters recently noted, billions of ballots were cast during that time.

Von Spakovksy’s writings on voter fraud carry the veneer of academic research. But when he was questioned about his work in a trial two years ago, he testified that none of it has undergone the stringent vetting process of peer review. The judge in that case dismissed his testimony, saying it was “premised on several misleading and unsupported examples” and included “false assertions.”

Before coming to the Heritage Foundation, von Spakovsky served on both the Federal Election Commission and in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, where he drew scrutiny after approving a voter ID law in Georgia that a federal judge likened to a Jim Crow-style poll tax. In May 2017, Trump appointed von Spakovsky to a voter fraud commission that disbanded less than a year later without producing any evidence of voter fraud.

Do you have access to information about efforts by outside groups seeking to influence how election officials will administer the vote on Nov. 3 that should be public? Email Mike Spies at mike.spies@propublica.org, Jake Pearson at jake.pearson@propublica.org or Jessica Huseman at jessica.huseman@propublica.org. Here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.

==

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/

no links

Telegraph   News

Exclusive investigation: Donald Trump faces foreign donor fundraising scandal

Investigations team

24 OCTOBER 2016• 8:10PM

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is facing a fundraising scandal after a Telegraph investigation exposed how key supporters were prepared to accept illicit donations from foreign backers.

Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.

In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.

Last week Eric Beach, the PAC’s co-chairman, confirmed to the reporters at an event in Las Vegas that their client's support would be "remembered" if Mr Trump became president.

Eric Beach, co-chair of Great America PAC told undercover reporters that a fictitious Chinese donor would be "remembered" by Donald Trump CREDIT: THE TELEGRAPH

The disclosure raises questions about the origins of money being ploughed into supporting Mr Trump’s candidacy.

The PAC “consultant” who brokered the deal proposed using as a conduit a type of organisation he admitted is seen as being responsible for the “’dark money’ in politics”.

The revelations also highlight the apparent desperation of Mr Trump's supporters to finance the final weeks of his campaign amid a series of controversies and polls showing him losing in key states.

:{

}:

Mr Trump once labelled Super PACs a “disaster” that have “total control of the candidates”, and has criticised Mrs Clinton for relying on outside groups.

:{

}:

Undercover reporters posing as consultants acting for a Chinese benefactor approached specific pro-Trump and pro-Clinton fundraisers and groups after receiving information that individuals were involved in hiding foreign donations.

Sources also said PACs, “independent” organisations that can raise unlimited sums of money to lobby for or against particular candidates, were being used to circumvent rules.

The pro-Clinton organisations did not respond to initial approaches. But earlier this month an undercover reporter spoke by telephone to Eric Beach, co-chairman of the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which has the backing of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, as well as the billionaire's son Eric.

Undercover reporters were invited to a Great America PAC event at Stoney's Rockin Country bar in Las Vegas

The reporter said a Chinese client wished to donate to the PAC to support Mr Trump's campaign.

Mr Beach appeared interested despite raising concerns about his nationality and saying he would need to know the donor’s identity.

He suggested the donation could be put through a social welfare organisation called a 501(c)(4) - or C4 - , which unlike a PAC is not subject to a blanket ban on receiving foreign money, and not required to name donors. He stressed in an email that "any path we recommend is legal".

The reporter then received an email from Jesse Benton, a senior figure at the PAC until being convicted in May in connection with buying a senator’s endorsement on a prior campaign. He said he was a “consultant” and that Mr Beach had not wanted a “paper trail” of contact. He and the PAC later denied that he had worked for it at all since May.

Mr Benton proposed channelling the donation through his own company to mask its origin. It would then be passed on to two C4s before being donated by them to the PAC, or simply used to fund projects the PAC had already planned.

Jesse Benton described himself as a "consultant" for Great America PAC  CREDIT: THE TELEGRAPH

Mr Benton said the $2 million, for which he would submit an invoice for “appearances” would “definitely allow us to spend two million more dollars on digital and television advertising for Trump.” The Chinese benefactor's generosity would be “whispered into Mr Trump’s ear.” He said he had previously helped US donors conceal donations.

Mr Beach then said at the Vegas event last Wednesday: "Trump knows that you know, people have stuck with him … I’m not gonna twist your arm or anything,  I just think that there’s no way that this group, and you guys have been participating indirectly or directly, won’t be remembered."

Eric Beach with Donald Trump in December 2015 CREDIT: FACEBOOK

Mr Benton denied any “unethical” behaviour. He claimed he spoke to the reporters after a “business referral” from Mr Beach and proposed a  “public affairs contract” with his firm “having determined money could not go into a 501(c)4”.

:{

}:

Dan Backer, counsel to the PAC, denied that Mr Beach asked Mr Benton to act for him and said Mr Benton “has not had a role with the PAC since May and does not speak for it”. The "professional referral" for "Mr Benton's own benefit" was so that "Mr Benton could explore legal options for your reporters' alleged client".

He continued: “Mr Benton has not solicited any contributions to the PAC that I am aware of, nor has he been asked to do so.”

He suggested Mr Benton had simply engaged in “puffery and self-promotion”, adding that “the conduct of the PAC and Mr. Beach’s conduct was appropriate, ethical and legal at all times.”

Mr Backer added that "The PAC has never ... solicited or accepted contributions from a foreign national or entity" and said Mr Beach had been suggesting how "a US company with a foreign parent company could potentially engage in legal political activity".

Asked if Mr Trump's campaign was aware of the scheme suggested by Mr Benton, his spokeswoman said: " We publicly disavowed this group back in April.  This is public via Federal Election Commission filings.

How it unfolded: Pro-Trump fundraisers agree to accept illicit foreign donation

Taking to a podium in Colorado last week, Donald Trump resumed a line of attack he had long used against his opponent: “Her international donors control her every move”.

Yet fundraisers supporting his bid for the White House were in the process of finalising the details of a $2 million donation from a Chinese benefactor seeking unspecified future “influence” under a Trump presidency. Under US law it is illegal for a foreign national to make any contribution in connection with an election.

But when an undercover reporter telephoned Eric Beach, the co-chairman of the Great America PAC, one of the leading “independent” groups financing campaign work for Mr Trump, to convey his fictitious Chinese client’s desire to make such a donation, his approach did not appear unwelcome.

Eric Beach spoke to undercover reporters at a Great America PAC event in Las Vegas

In an initial call on October 4 the reporter explained that the benefactor wanted to donate to support Mr Trump’s campaign, “but he’s not a US national.”

Mr Beach agreed that making such a donation to the PAC could be difficult. But he did, however, have a suggestion involving a 501(c)(4) – a tax-exempt “social welfare organisation” – which he described as a “non-disclose entity” through which the client could make a contribution for a “specific purpose”.

You shouldn’t put any of this on paper

Jesse Benton

Mr Beach’s response, along with his later statements on the matter, appeared ambivalent for someone who was clearly aware of the ban on foreign nationals making donations in connection with US elections.

Despite warning about the need to know the origins of the money, he was already aware that the donor was a foreign national who would naturally be banned from donating for his stated purpose.

Political observers and campaign groups have raised concerns about 501(c)(4)s, labelling them “dark money” groups because, unlike PACs, they are not required to name donors.

A PAC with a “sister” 501(c)(4) could therefore encourage donors to give to that body. The 501(c)(4) could then contribute to the PAC, or simply spend the money on a project that the group would otherwise have funded.

That scheme was subsequently laid out to two reporters at a meeting in a New York hotel by Jesse Benton, a long-time Republican strategist, who emailed the reporter with the subject “From Eric Beach” and the opening line: “Eric Beach asked me to reach out”.

Great America PAC is a Donald Trump supporting super PAC CREDIT: REUTERS

Mr Benton was a senior figure at the PAC until he was convicted in May in connection with buying a senator’s endorsement for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in 2012.

:{

}:

At the meeting on October 13, he explained that Mr Beach, 38, needed to maintain a “deliberate disengagement”.

Mr Benton's proposal was for the Chinese client to pay his $2 million, via the reporters’ Singapore-based communications consultancy, to Mr Benton’s own public affairs firm, Titan Strategies LLC, in order to mask the fact that the money was coming from abroad.

He set out the scheme in writing in an email on October 5 in which he said he had “checked with our attorney, and there is no prohibition on what I propose”, although “he is giving one final review for full legal vetting.”

At the meeting more than a week later, he explained how he would direct the funds evenly to two 501(c)(4)s which could donate the money to the Great America PAC in their name, or spend it on activities the PAC would otherwise have funded.  One of the organisations was Vision for America, which is run by Mr Beach.

“I’ll send money from my company to both,” Mr Benton said.

:{

}:

Undercover reporters met Eric Beach at a Great America PAC event held at Stoney's Rockin' Country bar in Las Vegas

Mr Benton said: “I don’t know if you ever hear journalists wring their hands about ‘dark money’ in politics  - they’re talking about 501(c)(4)s.”

:{

}:

He told the reporters: “There’s no prohibition against what we’re doing, but you could argue that the letter of the law says that it is originating from a foreign source and even though it can legally go into a 501(c)(4) then  it shouldn’t be done”.

Discussing how the money would be spent on pro-Trump grassroots campaigning as well as television advertising, he warned: “You shouldn’t put any of this on paper.”

He suggested that the $2 million paid to his firm could be billed simply as “a large retainer” for consulting work. He then sent a $2 million invoice, for the sake of “appearances”, for his services providing “analysis of the American political and business landscape”.

In one of a series of telephone conversations over a two-week period, he explained that the work, which “doesn’t cost any money” apart from a “couple hours of my time” would be reports on the spending of the 501(c)(4)s and PAC.

“It would be one more way … for your client to have an assurance that quality work’s being done with his money. You know, it would give you a window into what the c4s and the super PAC are doing.”

Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump at the final debate in Las Vegas CREDIT: POOL

And the fictitious Chinese benefactor’s generosity would not go unrewarded should the donor a require a line of communication to Mr Trump if he became president.

“We can have that whispered into Mr Trump’s ear whenever your client feels it’s appropriate,” he said. After a telephone conversation with Mr Beach, Mr Benton said that the PAC wished to invite the reporters to a party the group was hosting in Vegas on October 19, the night of the final presidential debate.

He later passed on a briefing on the event prepared by Mr Beach. Mr Benton warned that he would have to stay away from Vegas because “everything that we’re doing is legal by the book but there’s perceptions and some grey areas.”

Jesse Benton speaking to undercover reporters in New York CREDIT: TELEGRAPH

Mr Beach also needed to be kept “deliberately ignorant” of the “exact arrangements”. But at the event the PAC's co-chairman clearly understood their client’s apparent request for an assurance that Mr Trump would remember his contribution.

“One thing he has to understand is, what you guys have to understand is: you can get credit, but don’t overdo it with the influence,” he said. The particular sticking point was the highly discreet method by which the client would be donating.

You’re going to get credit but your ‘non-disclosed’ [donation] is not disclosed.  Not just for your benefit, but for everyone’s benefit.

Eric Beach, Great America PAC co-chair

“I would just manage your expectations, say: ‘you’re going to get credit but your ‘non-disclosed’ [donation] is not disclosed.  Not just for your benefit, but for everyone’s benefit.’”

Then Mr Beach’s ambivalence, or possibly confusion, about the proposal appeared to return. “I would never let you guys give to the PAC, to give to the C4, because that’s illegal,” he added. “See the C4 is technically not illegal, but it’s not – it’s just not the best way to go.”

Lawrence Noble, who was general counsel at the US Federal Election Commission for 13 years and is now at theCampaign Legal Centre,a DC-based advocacy group, said: "If there is evidence that representatives of a super PAC were soliciting or knowingly accepting foreign national money and helping arrange for it to get into the super PAC through a 501(c)(4) organisation, then it should be investigated by the FEC and by the Department of Justice as a criminal violation."

Mr Benton denied any “unethical” behaviour and said he was not “an agent of Great America PAC”, while Dan Backer, counsel to the PAC said Mr Benton “has not had a role with the PAC since May and does not speak for it”. Mr Backer added that “the conduct of the PAC and Mr. Beach’s conduct was appropriate, ethical and legal at all times.”

==

https://www.axios.com/wilbur-ross-stock-holdings-campaign-legal-center-5be1abe8-f744-4b4b-9818-6fb54cf8d24e.html

[right next to big exxon ad]

A  campaign finance watchdog filed a complaint Monday alleging Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross could have violated the law by holding stock in companies that may have been affected by Trump administration directives.

Why it matters: Add this to the list of questions Ross has faced over his assets — a month ago the U.S. Office of Government Ethics warned him his "actions, including... continued ownership of assets required to be divested in [his] Ethics Agreement and... opening of short sale positions, could have placed [him] in a position to run afoul of the primary criminal conflict of interest law.”

The big picture: Former HHS Secretary Tom Price and former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt departed the administration after facing months of questions over similar legal and financial issues.

Details:

The Office of Government Ethics previously found they had no evidence to contradict Ross' claims about his holdings — that his failure to sell his stock holdings was "inadvertent."

2005 off bs

ederal Election Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Jerry Falwell Ministries and Liberty Alliance

Jul 18, 2005

Lynchburg, VA - The Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) unanimously dismissed a complaint filed against Jerry Falwell Ministries and Liberty Alliance related to statements Dr. Falwell made in a "Falwell Confidential" email sent during the 2004 presidential election season. Dr. Falwell was represented before the FEC by Liberty Counsel President, Mathew D. Staver, and Anita L. Staver.

On July 1, 2004, Dr. Falwell sent a "Falwell Confidential" email urging people of faith to exercise their vote during the presidential election. In the email, Dr. Falwell stated, "For conservative people of faith, voting for principle this year means voting for the re-election of George W. Bush. The alternative, in my mind, is simply unthinkable." The email also urged supporters to contribute to the Campaign for Working Families Political Action Committee.

Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that Jerry Falwell Ministries ("JFM") and Liberty Alliance ("LA"), a lobbying organization, violated election laws by circulating an email that expressly advocated the election of a federal candidate and contained a solicitation for contributions to a PAC.

Liberty Counsel’s legal response argued that LA and JFM are covered by the press exemption. Dr. Falwell is the founder of Liberty Broadcasting Network, WTLU television station, the Liberty Channel cable network, and two radio stations, WRVL FM and WWMC FM. His “Old Time Gospel Hour” has been broadcast since 1956 and is the longest running, uninterrupted religious program in the nation. His “Falwell Confidential” is carried by WorldNetDaily and NewsMax. The response also argued that LA and JFM meet the "qualified nonprofit corporation" status because they are supported by private, rather than corporate, contributions. Finally, the response argued that the cost of disseminating the email was minimal. The FEC voted 6-0 to dismiss all allegations.

Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated, "Dr. Falwell does not lose his right to personal expression each election cycle. As a member of the media, the media outlets through which he communicates enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, just as much as The Washington Times." Dr. Falwell commented: "Religious nonprofit groups are not orphans to the First Amendment. I have been expressing my views on politics for five decades and am pleased with the FEC's ruling."

==