BACKER 2

8/18

see main (hard to save?

COMPLAINED TO FEC ABOUT : DATWYLER, THOMAS, Treasurer

staffergate

https://leestranahan.com/category/staffergate/

no pix docs

Conflict Of Interest? Was Tea Party Donor Money Used To Promote Case For Dan Backer, Esq.?

by Lee Stranahan | Mar 21, 2014 | Staffergate |

If Tea Party supporters follow the money they donated to TheTeaParty.net Leadership Fund, will they agree it’s being used as they expected?

It appears  to me that an attorney named Dan Backer routed tens of thousands of dollars in donor money from a group that actively solicits money from Tea Party supporters into a fund that sent nearly $15,000 each to U.S. Senators in order to get their support on a court case that Backer himself is leading and using to built his own reputation and woo clients.

Don’t take my word on any of this. Click the links, follow along and make up your own mind.

Dan Backer is treasurer of TheTeaParty.net Leadership Fund.  This controversial group has brought in $3,500,000 this election cycle.

3-five

That money came from primarily from grassroots  supporters who send money to support ‘the Tea Party movement.’

tplf

$40,000 from from The TeaParty.net Leadership Fund  goes to a group called In Defense of Free Speech Jfc.

def

Here’s the FEC filing for In Defense of Free Speech Jfc.

The In Defense of Free Speech Jfc group was set up by Dan Backer.

jfc

Remember that Dan Backer is both the Treasurer of The TeaParty.net Leadership Fund AND started the Joint Fundraising Committee that the TPLF gave the money to.

The money went to Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn.

money

So $40,000 in donor money from a group Backer is treasurer of  and was sent to another a group he started and then on to McConnell, Cornyn, Cruz and Lee.

Why did this money go to them?

2014 teaparty.net

Blum, Rod (R-IA)$0$22,081King, Steven A (R-IA)$1,000$22,081Young, David (R-IA)$0$22,081Miller-Meeks, Mariannette (R-IA)$0$44,162Winteregg, J D (R-OH)$5,000$66,964

senate bundle

Sasse, Ben (R-NE)$2,500$35Mace, Nancy (R-SC)$5,000$3,170Carr, Joe (R-TN)$0$3,691Ernst, Joni (R-IA)$1,000$22,081McDaniel, Chris (R-MS)$15,000$26,777

It’s very clear that $40,000 in Tea Party donor money went to four Senators, including Cornyn and McConnell.

Why? Dan Backer isn’t answering those questions.

The In Defense of Free Speech Jfc appears to be connected to a court case Backer is leading called McCutcheon vs. FEC.

mcC

One of the other donors to the In Defense of Free Speech Jfc is plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon.

shaun

Backer promotes the McCutcheon case as a free speech issue and has been using the case to promote himself, as this recent article from USA Today shows:

“The government shouldn’t be in the business of policing speech,” Backer said during an interview at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference — an annual gathering that is part pep rally, trade show and media madhouse that attracts some of the Republican Party’s most ardent conservative activists.

It’s a place where Backer gets a lot of business done. It was at this conference three years ago that Backer met Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy Alabama electrical engineer who is the named plaintiff in the case. A few months after their initial meeting, Backer helped McCutcheon launch a super PAC, Conservative Action Fund.

About a year after their first meeting, Backer persuaded McCutcheon to confront the aggregate limits in court.

Is this a conflict of interest?

Is this the way Tea Party supporters want their money spent?

Please help spread the word.

more stranahan

Exploiting The Tea Party: New Mailer From Dan Backer Connected Group Uses Louie Gohmert

by Lee Stranahan | Apr 15, 2014 | Staffergate, Uncategorized | 

A new mailer by a group called Patriots for economic freedom that claims to support Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert appears to be another attempt to take advantage of patriotic conservatives and the Tea Party base with a mailer that claims to support a candidate but seems to have no actual connection to that candidate.

The mailer from Patriots For Economic Freedoom was sent out under the subject line “We Can’t Lost Gohmert!” In fact,Rep. Louie Gohlnert won his March primary is a shoe-in to carry the November election.

This exploitation of the Tea Party base seems to be rampant. A few days ago,I reported on a new mailer by TheTeaParty.Net treasurer Dan Backer that was raising money to ‘Draft Sarah Palin’, who has made it clear that she is not running for Senate.

Patriots For Economic Freedom’s Tyler Whitney & Dan Backer

The group Patriots For Economic Freedom lists Tyler Whitney as their treasurer.

According to OpenSecrets, they brought in about $136,000 so far this cycle.

The OpenSecrets Expenditure reports shows at least $12,000 going to Mr. Whitney. The expenditure reportalso shows $73,000 going to a consulting company called Amagi Strategies.  That’s notable because Amagi Strategies lists Tyler Whitney as their registered agent.

Patriots For Economic Freedom also has connections to attorney Dan Backer, according to their expenditure report as posted on Open Secrets, where Backer’s DB Capitol Strategies received at least $12,000 from Patriots For Economic Freedom.

[](http://leestranahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/pat1-.jpg)

One interesting biographical side-note (worthy of mention because of the apparent cynical hypocrisy it shows on both Whitney’s part AND onthe part of the liberal gay media was savaged him): Tyler Whitney was reported in 2007 tohave come out as gay to his friends.That article lists his connection to The Leadership Institute (notable because people like Dan Backer client Rep. Steve Stockman worked there for years) and Whitney’s activities before coming out.

Whitney is also pictured in a Nov. 20 protest holding a sign which reads “Go back in the closet.” The protest was against a proposed comprehensive human rights ordinance in the city of Lansing, an ordinance that was later adopted by a unanimous vote of the City Council.

The Leadership Institute, for which Whitney works, supports conservative college and high school groups around the country and provides nonpartisan campaign training. It has provided funds to Whitney, who used them to publish a conservative newspaper at East Lansing High School in 2005, as well as to YAF chapters at MSU and CMU.

How is this happening?

For one thing, very few of the big media outlets on the right are covering it.

For another, it’s become rampant.

As Politico reported in 2012:

Political operatives can create a PAC and corresponding website on the cheap, drop some cash to rent an email list and, voilà— in come the small-dollar contributions from grass-roots Republicans eager to support any effort aiming to turn out President Barack Obama or reelect the fiery West.

Except those chunks of $25 and $50 don’t often find their way to any serious campaigns to beat Obama or boost West.

“The vast majority of the groups that we know are engaged in this have done nothing for West,” said Jill Holtzman Vogel, the congressman’s campaign attorney.

And the 2012 Politico article mentions Patriots for Economic Freeedom–the group behind the Gohmert mailer–as one you raised money on Allen West’s name in 2012, gave him nothing, and won’t respond to comments.

More egregious to West’s campaign, though, are those groups that use his name and have given nothing to the congressman.

Patriots for Economic Freedom, the Republican Majority Campaign and Conservative Strike Force have all raised money off of West’s name and haven’t supported his campaign.

None of these groups list phone numbers on their websites, and they didn’t respond to requests for comment submitted online.

Here’s the complete mailer :

Subject: We Can’t Lose Gohmert!

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert Is Standing Up Against The Left! We Cannot Afford To Lose Him!

Like few leaders in Washington, Louie Gohmert is not afraid to stand up for what he believes in – the conservative principles of less government, greater freedom and fiscal responsibility. Louie Gohmert’s courageous leadership has made him a target of the left. Liberals are doing everything in their power to remove him from Congress! We cannot let the left steal one of our greatest leaders. Your contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000 or more will go toward voter outreach and advertising efforts to support this vital Member of Congress!The left wants to see Nancy Pelosi running Congress. Congressman Gohmert is standing in her way and working to stop amnesty, curb reckless spending and repeal ObamaCare.Please support Louie Gohmert and see that he is able to stay in Washington and continue his patriotic efforts to restore liberty.

Louie Gohmert is working to hold Washington accountable. During a recent House Judiciary Hearing, Congressman Gohmert questioned Eric Holder about the Justice Department’s refusal to hand over documents related to Islamic charities. What happens when you question this Administration about anything? You are bullied in hopes that you will be silenced.

Eric Holder has made many statements since this Hearing to convince Americans that Louie Gohmert is treating him differently than past Attorney Generals. This is ridiculous. The Obama Administration believes that they are above the law and should answer to no one. We must support Louie Gohmert’s strong leadership!

Louie Gohmert isn’t afraid of the bullies on the left. He continues to speak up even when liberals attack him. Conservatives cannot allow the left’s lies and scare tactics to work this November. We must reach voters with the truth. Please support advertising and voter outreach efforts for Louie Gohmert with a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000 or more.

Louie Gohmert fights to repeal ObamaCare, end Washington’s out of control spending and hold the White House accountable for the scandals they call “phony”. Louie Gohmert is a patriot and true conservative. We need him in Washington to stop the big government agenda that is killing jobs and hindering future success.

There is very little leadership in Washington and we cannot afford to lose leaders like Congressman Louie Gohmert. He is committed to protecting our conservative principles and ending Obama’s tyrannical policies! Please support advertising and voter outreach efforts for Louie Gohmert with a contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000 or more.

Also, checks can be mailed to:

Patriots For Economic Freedom

P.O. Box 90

New York, NY 10009

note backer hired a guy in spite of ~ ali

2012

https://crooksandliars.com/matt-osborne/national-bloggers-club-and-their-supe

Ali Akbar, now President of the National Bloggers Club, is one of the conservative blogosphere's most infamous characters.He began his campaign of notoriety with a crime spree in 2006, blazing a six-year trail of fraud. That's him up there, in the mug shots. Akbar's story is as improbable as the Tea Party movement itself, and a lesson on the privileges of power in the age of Citizens United. How did a petty crook rise to these heights in such a short time? Why does he enjoy such influential connections today?

We ask these questions because we seean emerging bipartisan consensusthatAkbar's National Bloggers Club (NBC)is entirely notional. Akbar has never applied tothe IRS for 501(c)3 status -- despite having claimed as much on the NBC Facebook page. While the NBC requires an unusual amount of personal information from donors, they do not offer those donors an EIN (Employer ID Number) to make their contributions tax deductible.

An EIN is provided upon application for nonprofit status, and should be available if the National Bloggers Club has applied. It is an easy online process. Yet we have been unable to locate an EIN in any database, and inquiries by both liberal and conservative bloggers have been met with silence. When journalist Bill Schmalfeldt contacted the Internal Revenue Service, he was informed that no EIN existed in their database for a National Bloggers Club.

This would be less distressing if Akbar didn't have a long history of covering up his tracks and minimizing his criminal past. In 2006, he stole items from a woman's home; he later broke into a vehicle, stole a debit card, and withdrew money from the victim's account, earning a felony conviction. Yet this record did not keep Akbar out of Republican politics.

Barely a year later, Akbar was accused of discussing election fraud tactics. The accuser, Joey A. Dauben, was a former colleague. In coverage of the controversy, Akbar was frequently and mistakenly identified as a John McCain campaign staffer due to his involvement in Bloggers for McCain, a "cooperating" website independent from the campaign itself.Akbar also caught flak for “scrubbing the web” to cover the tracks of who was charged with posing as a woman and soliciting photos of underaged boys.

In April 2008, Akbar pleaded guilty to the debit card fraud and was sentenced to four years probation and restitution of the stolen money. His probation ended in May of this year. In the meantime, Akbar has built quite a blog empire for himself -- and runs it from his mother's house.

By 2008 Akbar had linked up with Eric Odom's Don't Go movement.They likely met up when Akbar’s firm, Republic Modern, designed the old website of Sam Adams Alliance, for which Odom was the new media director. When Odom started American Liberty Alliance (ALA), a tea party website that was mainly in the business of monetizing other Tea Party sites with ads, he brought Akbar along with him. Starting off as ALA’s Technology Consultant, Akbar would eventually became Chairman of ALA's Board, spending much of his time collecting non-deductible donations.

Yes, despite claiming to be in the application process for 501(c) 4 status in August 2009,ALA eventually was embarrassed into posting the following caveat on their website (though not their donation page):“The American Liberty Alliance is not a 501c3, 501c4 or a PAC. We are not registered as a non-profit and we do not raise funds as such.” Yet they incorporated under the name “American Liberty Alliance - A Non-Profit Corporation.”

The most excoriating examination of the ALA came from Erick Erickson, who reported that ALA had eventually been rolled up into an Eric Odom PAC:

For a number of months I have had more than my share of phone calls from conservative donors, bloggers, activists, campaigns, and others wishing someone would speak out. Several tried pushing this story into the mainstream media, but we all know what would happen there ? we’d turn people into martyrs who shouldn’t be.

At best this conduct looks like ignorance of the complex bureaucracy and regulations surrounding the FEC. At its worst, it looks like . . . well, you decide. I’m sure even more will come out now that I’m willing to speak up and it does not look like a case of simple ignorance. If it were an isolated incident it’d be one thing, but it is a pattern.

Indeed, the pattern begins with a profitable deception. Although ALA was registered as a non-profit in Nevada, as far as we can determine they never actually applied for non-profit status with the IRS, despite always claiming they were "in the process" of doing so. The pattern repeats with NBC, which incorporated in Texas as a non-profit, and has collected donations as a non-profit, without ever applying for legal non-profit designation. (The NBC has scrubbed 501(c)3 language from its donations page at Rally.org.) Our attempts to reach the law firm listed as the NBC's registered agent have been rebuffed. (Update: the address appears to be a "virtual" office.)

These dubious credentials in the new Tea Party movement propelled Akbar into the upper echelons of conservative organizing, where he has apparently met Karl Rove. Yet Akbar seems to have done remarkably little real work during his ascension. Take the NBC's website, for example, which contains no content -- just a redirect to the group's Facebook page. There, you will find grassroots conservatives wondering how to join, and why the donation practices are so intrusive:

Like many of Akbar's websites, content doesn't seem to be key. For example, despite supposedly representing a robust movement, Akbar's Tea Party Brew.com has surprisingly few posts. Bill Murphy, now the Social Media Director for the Romney campaign, wrote the final post at that site in February. By then, he had been Akbar's venture partner since 2009.

Murphy (right) was Director of Strategic Initiatives for American Liberty Alliance, though the position does not appear on his LinkedIn resume. Murphy was also Akbar's partner in an organization called Vice & Victory, which put on the BlogBash party at CPAC in February. Akbar was listed as the Host Organizer and Murphy as the Event Coordinator. BlogBash’s director is usually identified as Devon Wills, but many of NBC’s announcements and press releases offer contact information for "Bill Murphy at director@blogbash.com." Yet the BlogBash website doesn't even mention the NBC, which supposedly organized the event.

When he appeared on the radio program ofconservative Larry Sinclairin March, Murphy also identified himself as the Director of the NBC -- though that position also does not appear on his resume. Whenever he has been asked about such omissions, Murphy has respondedby further scrubbing his LinkedIn profile.Sinclair now calls foul on Akbar and Murphy's notional blogging club for using Andrew Breitbart's name to raise money for a scholarship fund -- again, while claiming 501(3)c status was "pending:"

In March 2012 we received an email which came from Bill Murphy and Ali Akbar from BlogBash.org and Vice and Victory email addresses announcing the creation of an Andrew Breitbart Scholarship Fund. After receiving the email and because of our own personal encounters with Andrew Sinclair News decided we would do a feature story on the Scholarship fund. In preparing the story we sent an email to Joel Pollak who was the primary Breitbart.com principle since the untimely death of Andrew early the morning of March 1, 2012. In the email to Mr. Pollak we asked if Pollak would be interested in going on Through the Mirror w/Larry Sinclair to talk about the recently established Breitbart Scholarship Fund. Pollak responded almost immediately by telling us he knew nothing of any such fund; that anyone using Andrews name along with any such fund was doing so without authorization and Pollak even went to the point of saying that any such organization was in his opinion a scam.(Emphasis added)

Aside from Michelle Malkin, nobody knows who is on the board of the NBC, or how they were selected. NBC won't even say whether they have any bylaws, and has never applied for non-profit status. If the NBC was an ACORN office, Malkin would denounce it as a criminal organization. Instead, she is Akbar's public ally and defender.

These inconsistencies had already drawn criticism from conservatives when we began reporting on them. First was Paul Lemmen, a convicted con artist working out his redemption in his blog, "An Ex Con's View." As the details of Akbar's criminal record appeared on the website Breitbart Unmasked in May and June, Lemmen expressed disdain for the fact that "the other side" had been the one to reveal Akbar's criminal past. Citing the NBC's disturbing lack of transparency and its behavior with donors, Lemmen called for transparency and accountability.

As a result of his outspoken blogging, Lemmen received the close attention of**NBC "enforcer"**and Andrew Breitbart protege Lee Stranahanamid a series of attack posts by other bloggers. Lemmen fell silent for a while, reemerging later to write on more general topics. Today, he is a member ofNorth American Conservative Bloggers United(NACBU), a new association of conservative indie bloggers opposed to the NBC and its opaque operations. In supporting Lemmen, David Westcalled out Akbar for elitism:

See, Ali Akbar was the ‘technical guru’ for a while behind the Don’t Go Movement which I was a part of as Northwest Regional Coordinator. I, however, was ignored back then by Mr Ackbar. When he formed the NBC, I was ignored as well.

The NBC billed itself in part as an organization that could give bloggers desperately-needed press credentials. Those who have received credentials are unable to activate them as instructed.The NBC does not explain how to receive a credential, or even describe any standards for applicants. NACBU organizer "Impolite Canadian" just wanted to webcast an event; after being rebuffed in all attempts to learn more about how to obtain the privileges of membership, the pseudonymous blogger concluded that NBCwas simply a club of Akbar's friends:

It's like they all of a sudden became part of the ''elites'', encouraging and defending the ''mastermind'', but when asked how does one join this ''elite'' club, you get the ''I dunno man, it just happened, u know?''.

There are only 340 "likes" on the NBC Facebook page at the time of this writing -- far fewer than one would expect for a popular netroots organization. Ladd Ehlinger, Jr., aka FilmLadd, questioned whether the NBC was even a real organization:

Screw Ali's political connections. You love him? Want to blacklist me? Be my guest. Won't be the first time that's happened. Been happening for two years now anyway. It's the sort of thing I think Ali likes to do to people who get crosswise with him - trash them, prevent them from getting work, and so on. I could regale you with first-hand stories I've heard, but this post is already too goddamn long.

Akbar did not prevent Ladd from getting work.In fact, Ehlinger received a plum new gig from Washington lobbyist Dan Backer of DB Capitol Strategies. He serves as Treasurer for many well-known PACs, including the Conservative Action Fund, which has already given Akbar's "Vice & Victory Fund" over $44,000 in 2012. Backer is also Treasurer for Stop This Insanity Inc PAC, which recently signed Ehlinger to a complex $10,000 contract. Ehlinger hasn't spoken out on the subject of Ali Akbar ever since. (CORRECTION: see below)

Backer (right) is the attorney who created "hybrid Super PACs" through his Carey v. FEC lawsuit in 2011. As part of his contract, Ehlinger agreed to be classified as an employee and then kick back $1,500 to Stop This Insanity Inc PAC, creating an opportunity to challenge federal limits on employee PAC contributions. Backer also wants to lift limits on contributions to federal candidates. True freedom, Backer argues, is American billionaires donating more hard political money every year than an average American family makes.

Dan Backer's other PAC products include Todd Cefaratti, who became infamous for fleecing PAC donors and using his for-profit JoinTheTeaParty.us website as a lead generator for spam. Cefaratti was found out by activists at Free Republic, who quickly discovered that his real estate sales lead business was named Glengary Inc. Despite grassroots revulsion at this character from a David Mamet play, Cefaratti. He and his Glengary LLC are also party to Dan Backer's FEC suit with Ehlinger. Stop This Insanity Inc. runs another one of Cefaratti's websites, TheTeaParty.net.

The "made men" of the Inner Party are never held accountable. Their revolution has been monetized: shirts, buttons, email addresses, and page views turn dedicated activists into revenue streams for "producers." Meanwhile, these same "producers" also get paid by billionaires and PAC lawyers who benefit from stoking the grassroots fires on behalf of their corporate agenda. It's a great job if you can get it. No wonder Akbar likes to throw big, exclusive parties at CPAC and the Republican National Convention.

In order to make the BlogBash party an instant institution this year, Akbar and Murphytook money from a host of the usual suspects in astroturf politics, includingAmericans For Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and the vote-suppressing True The Vote organization.Billionaire and megadonor Foster Friess also helped throw Akbar's party at CPAC, then cracked a terrible joke about aspirin as a form of birth control: "You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.” Friess has vowed to spend a large chunk of his fortune through Karl Rove's American Crossroads this year.

We believe the National Bloggers Club encapsulates a problem common to Tea Party organizing since February 2009. As with Mark Meckler, the multilevel marketing billionaire who organized Tea Party Patriots, we see a disturbing pattern of grift in the National Bloggers Club.Sincere Americans have been organized to prevent corporate regulation and billionaire tax hikes; the organizers fleece them while also accepting money from representatives of these same corporations and billionaires.

This charade may be close to an end, however. Larry Sinclair has presented the National Bloggers Club with a demand they publish the following:

==

USA TODAY

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/03/10/dan-backer-campaign-finance-mccutcheon-supreme-court/6259863/

Activist lawyer aims to drop campaign restrictions

Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY Published 4:10 p.m. ET March 10, 2014 | Updated 4:25 p.m. ET March 10, 2014

After a slew of attention-getting cases, lawyer Dan Backer could be on the brink of making election history – and his reputation – with a case the Supreme Court's justices are deliberating.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Dan Backer pushes unorthodox campaign-finance challenges in free speech quest

His client, Shaun McCutcheon, is lead plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that could make election law history

Case seeks to eliminate cap on what wealthy individuals can donate

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Dan Backer is on a campaign-finance crusade.

The activist lawyer wants the digital currency bitcoin accepted as campaign contributions. He wants donors to Tea Party-affiliated political action committees to remain anonymous. And he recently helped launch a non-profit group to make it easier for disenchanted donors to demand contribution refunds from politicians.

Many of his far-fetched proposals have been rejected by federal regulators. But the 36-year-old conservative Republican could be on the brink of making election history — and his reputation — with a case the Supreme Court's justices are deliberating.

The case, McCutcheon v. the Federal Election Commission, seeks to eliminate the ceiling on what wealthy individuals can donate to federal candidates, parties and political action committees in a single, two-year election cycle.

Government watchdogs view McCutcheon, argued before the justices last October, as the biggest threat to campaign-finance regulations since the high court's 2010 Citizens United ruling allowed the use of unlimited corporate and union money to influence candidate races. If Backer's side prevails — and many court watchers predict at least a partial victory — it could open the door to other legal challenges to contribution limits.

"The government shouldn't be in the business of policing speech," Backer said during an interview at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference — an annual gathering that is part pep rally, trade show and media madhouse that attracts some of the Republican Party's most ardent conservative activists.

It's a place where Backer gets a lot of business done. It was at this conference three years ago that Backer met Shaun McCutcheon, a wealthy Alabama electrical engineer who is the named plaintiff in the case. A few months after their initial meeting, Backer helped McCutcheon launch a super PAC, Conservative Action Fund.

About a year after their first meeting, Backer persuaded McCutcheon to confront the aggregate limits in court.

McCutcheon and Backer are not challenging the underlying base limits that prevent an individual from donating more than $2,600 directly to a federal candidate for a primary and general election, but they say the overall limit impinges on an individual's First Amendment rights of speech and association.

Federal law limits the aggregate amount an individual can give to political parties, candidates and political action committees to $123,200 over a two-year cycle. Under the rules, an individual cannot give $2,600 each to more than nine candidates in primary and general elections.

Backer called it "asinine" to prevent the same individual from then contributing to a 10th or 11th federal candidate. He argues that a favorable ruling could help political parties who have seen their influence wane in the face of unlimited spending by super PACs and other outside groups, and it could send more donations to upstart candidates to boost their standing in primaries.

"Competitive races are good for democracy," he said.

OUTSIDER CLIENTS

Backer's client roster is filled with outsiders.

It includes the Senate campaign of Rep. Steve Stockman, who was crushed by Texas Sen. John Cornyn in last week's Republican primary, and the Tea Party Leadership Fund, which backs another long-shot candidate — high school French teacher J.D. Winteregg, one of several Tea Party-aligned candidates seeking to oust House Speaker John Boehner in Ohio's GOP primary May 6.

Backer has grabbed his biggest headlines for his unorthodox challenges to election rules. He has pushed the Federal Election Commission to write rules allowing federal campaigns to accept bitcoin. The commission deadlocked 3-3 on his request but could revisit the issue.

He was less successful in his quest to have sitting members of Congress run their own super PACs. The often-divided commission agreed unanimously to reject Backer's request.

"He does a lot of things to get attention," said Indiana lawyer James Bopp, a leading figure among conservative election lawyers and the brainchild behind the groundbreaking Citizens United case. He declined further comment on Backer's tactics.

Fred Wertheimer, president of the campaign-finance watchdog group Democracy 21, said Backer "seems to take the most extreme positions around and hope for the best."

For his part, Backer sums up his record this way: "When you pick the hard fights, you don't win as often."

XXX Dan_Backer_05

Dan Backer hands an anti-John Boehner sticker to J.D. Winteregg, a Tea Party-aligned candidate challenging the House speaker in Ohio's GOP primary May 6. (Photo: Melissa Golden for USA TODAY)

Backer's biggest success was as the lead lawyer on a 2011 case that established so-calledhybrid PACs.Under the new rules, one organization can spend unlimited amounts to support or oppose a candidate — operating as a super PAC would — and also contribute limited sums directly to candidates. These new political entities can fulfill both roles as long as they maintain separate bank accounts for each activity.

At last year's Conservative Political Action Conference, Backer and his staff set up a booth offering hybrid PAC "kits" for $695 to activists (The pitch: Provide $200 to open the two bank accounts and $495 for legal services, and an hour later, you have your own hybrid PAC.)

He said he sold only two or three of the packages at the event and lost money. At this year's gathering, he abandoned the booth idea and devoted himself to back-to-back meetings with clients and potential clients.

"A lot of Dan's ideas aren't successful commercially, but I admire the effort," McCutcheon said Monday in a telephone interview.

Though other lawyers did much of the legal legwork to prepare and argue the case before the Supreme Court, McCutcheon credits Backer with organizing the whole effort and persuading him to bring the case in the first place.

"I was skeptical of the ability to really challenge something like this," he said of the law limiting aggregate contributions. "To Dan's credit, he believed it could happen. I listen to Dan a lot more now."

RUSSIAN BACKGROUND

Backer, who runs his own practice in Alexandria, Va., with two associates, said his family's history shapes his legal crusades.

His parents and grandparents emigrated to the USA in 1978 from Russia when he was a toddler. When he was growing up in Tenafly, N.J., his parents instilled in him a "keen sense of what life was like without your First Amendment right to speak," he said.

At his high school, only students with a free class period at the end of the day could write for the student paper, he said. He started an alternative weekly in protest.

Backer, who holds a law degree from George Mason University, acknowledges that a win in McCutcheon probably would reap him some new attention. A decision is likely before the court adjourns in June.

"I like seeing my name in print and getting quoted," Backer said, but his bigger goal is to "help move the ball and create a society that's free to speak."

==

wtf mccutcheon

https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/CRF_amicus_Knight_v_Trump.pdf

http://www.coolidgereagan.org/crf-amici-kfai-v-trump

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University,

Rebecca Buckwalter, Phillip Cohen, Holly Figueroa, Eugene Gu,Brandon Neely, Joseph Papp, and Nicholas Pappas,Plaintiffs-Appellees,  v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, and Daniel Scavino, White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President,Defendants-Appellants._On Appeal from the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of New YorkBRIEF OF AMICUS COOLIDGE-REAGAN FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS_Dan Backer POLITICAL.LAW PLLC

441 N. Lee Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 210-5431 dan@political.lawCounsel for Amicus Coolidge- Reagan Foundation*Application for admission pending

...

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Amicus Coolidge-Reagan Foundation has no parent corporation, and no

publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.

...

CRF presents this brief because it believes the district

court has misconstrued the First Amendment in this case, and its ruling could have

problematic consequences for other areas of law. CRF’s President, undersigned

counsel Dan Backer, has authorized it to file this brief.

ARGUMENT

I. THE DISTRICT COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ADJUDICATED

THE KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE’S CLAIMS

The district court erred by adjudicating the:{Institute’s claims because the

Institute lacked standing to complain of the President’s decision to block the

individual, non-institutional plaintiffs (hereafter, “Blocked Users”) from Twitter.}:

Moreover, the district court’s ruling in favor of the Blocked Users mooted the

Institute’s claims, resolving its Article III case or controversy against the

Government. Finally, given the tremendously different legal consequences between

...

===

off bs slideshow of dan beauty shots, red star on wall[saved] (and frat paddles)

https://www.political.law/

political.law is a cutting edge campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, VA, providing comprehensive legal guidance to PACs, campaigns, and political organizations on the entire range of candidate, campaign, campaign finance, and organizational regulations.Our firm provides a broad suite of personalized services, support, and strategic advice to our clients, and has not shied away from zealously advancing clients’ interests before the Federal Election Commission and in federal court, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

HOME

ABOUT

CASES

FEC PRACTICE

NEWSROOM

More

w-facebook

Twitter Clean

White LinkedIn Icon

Litigation matters

political.law is at the cutting edge of campaign finance law, advancing critical challenges to restraints on speech and assocation against the Federal Election Commission.

Carey v FEC

(Hybrid traditional/SuperPACs)

The National Defense PAC submitted an FEC Advisory Opinion Request seeking to establish a new bank account consistent with the Citizens United and SpeechNow cases to solicit unlimited “SuperPAC” contributions for Independent Expenditures without creating a new PAC, while still raising amount- and source-limited funds for candidate contributions.  When the FEC failed to issue an Advisory Opinion, the PAC and its founder, Rear Admiral (Ret.) James J. Carey, filed suit. The FEC lost a motion for preliminary injunction and settled the suit in Carey’s favor, creating the legal framework for Hybrid PACs and Carey Accounts.

Tea Party Leadership Fund v FEC

(restraints on grassroots speech)

The Tea Party Leadership Fund PAC, based on AOR 2012-32, and others sued the FEC to challenge the 6-month registration period for multicandidate PAC status. A PAC that has been registered for 6 months, received contributions from more than 50 people, and contributed to at least 5 candidates may contribute up to $5,000 per candidate; otherwise it may only contribute up to the individual limit, then $2,500. Plaintiffs argued First Amendment violation creates an unconstitutional waiting period on full speech rights and does not prevent actual, or apparent, quid pro quo corruption as required for speech restraints.  The case was ultimately withdrawn.

Combat Veterans For Congress PAC v FEC (Treasurer liability)

?

Combat Veterans for Congress PAC was fined for late-filing of 3 FEC reports in 2010, which the PAC argued was a result of the knowing, willful, and reckless conduct of its then-Treasurer.  The FEC, rather than following the statute, regulations, and every published comment on the matter that clearly intends to hold Treasurer personally liable in such circumstances.  While pending, the PAC discovered rampant irregularities with FEC voting practices that became central to the case, which was argued before the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on February 5, 2015. The court ruled in favor of the government.

Stop REID PAC v FEC

(restraints on grassroots speech)

Stop REID PAC and others sued the FEC to challenge arbitrary changes in contribution limits for PACs based on how long they have been registered with the FEC as infringing on speech and associational rights and violating the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee. Plaintiffs argue that these differing limits, both lower and higher, on a PACs' contributions to candidates and parties based on how long a PAC has registered are unconstitutional because they are overbroad, not closely tailored to furthering any important government interest, nor do they prevent actual, or apparent, quid quo pro corruption.  The court ruled in favor of the government.

Stop Hillary PAC v FEC

(FEC action on enforcement)

Stop Hillary PAC sued the FEC over its failure to act on the PACs complaint against Ready For Hillary PAC and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Based on the widely publicized use by Ready for Hillary of a Clinton-owned email file, Stop Hillary PAC filed a complaint January 2014 that Ready for Hillary acted with Clinton’s authorization to draft Clinton for President, an act that makes Ready for Hillary an campaign committee subject to different contribution limits and disclosure requirements, and Clinton to various other laws, all of which were being regularly violated and which the FEC failed to timely investigate and act upon. The case was ultimately withdrawn.

McCutcheon, et. al.  v FEC

(striking aggregate limits)

A landmark Supreme Court case, arising from AOR 2012-14, that struck down aggregate limits on the total amount an individual may contribute, within the per-recipient base limits, over a two year election cycle to all federal candidates, parties and PACs combined.  The Court largely adopted Plaintiffs arguments in ruling for McCutcheon, recognizing that aggregate limits were an unconstitutional Prophylaxis upon prophylaxis that did nothing to prevent actual, or apparent, quid pro quo corruption.

==

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2017/01/31/20642/meet-true-source-those-viral-donald-trump-tv-ads

Twitter is abuzz over that urges viewers to call a toll-free number and “pledge your support to defend Donald Trump.”

“We need every Trump supporter to pick up the phone now!” the ad’s as he also slams “liberals in the Democratic Party” and the “crooked media” for attacking the newly inaugurated president.

The narrator continues: “They think they are going to destroy Trump’s presidency, but they are wrong! … Make your voice heard and help drain the swamp!”

The ad became too much for “@Jess4_RK,” an unverified Twitter user, then with a few hundred followers.

On Saturday, she tweeted a video of herself watching the ad on CNN and included this all-caps commentary: “WHAT IN THE HELL DID I JUST WATCH???????????????????????????WHEN HAS A PRESIDENT EVER DONE THIS???! IM SCREAMING!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Legions of people — including celebrities — began retweeting @Jess4_RK and commenting on her post, which garnered more than 30,000 retweets before she blocked public access to her account.

“WTF?!?!?” tweeted actress Debra Messing.

“This is just pathetic. Sounds like a commercial for aluminum siding you see on AMC in the middle of a Gunsmoke marathon,” snarked musician Mikel Jollett.

Many outraged commenters believe that Trump himself — or those within Trump’s inner circle — were responsible for the ad.

They are mistaken. Not only is there no connection to Trump, the ad is made possible by a group that employs a one-time Trump hater who is making a pretty penny.

Who’s behind it?

As noted in the fine print displayed in the ad’s final few seconds, the ad is sponsored by the “Committee to Defend the President.”

As it described itself in its own fine print, the Committee to Defend the President is a “project of Stop Hillary PAC” and “not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” (On Saturday, Stop Hillary PAC officially changed its name to “The Committee to Defend the President,” according to federal records.)

Stop Hillary PAC, for its part, is a hybrid super PAC that formed on May 16, 2013 —more than two years before Trump announced his presidential run.

[pix]Guy Short, vice president of fundraising for political consulting firm Campaign Solutions, is a Stop Hillary PAC consultant and, according to an advertising disclosure document filed on January 16 with the Federal Communications Commission, “founder.”Campaign Solutions, it so happens, is also Stop Hillary PAC’s top vendor, according to federal records.

Short, who made headlines earlier this decade for his political work with ex-Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is never mentioned in Stop Hillary PAC’s public communications to supporters and potential donors. And he’s no unabashed supporter of Trump.

For example, Short last year served as a delegate to the Republican National Convention — and pledged to back Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican U.S. senator who ran against Trump. Short last year also called Trump a “liar,” telling Reuters in April that he “spent thousands of dollars of my own money campaigning to become a delegate because it's that important to make sure Donald Trump is NOT our nominee."

In an opinion piece published last year in the Colorado Statesman, Short further accused Trump of “spewing his usual fiction” and trafficking in “insults, lies, distortion and vulgarity.” He also lamented: “It’s very worrisome to wonder how a man like Trump would exercise the powers of the presidency.”

In an email Monday, Short noted that he and many other Republicans, including Trump’s general election campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, didn’t support Trump during the party’s primary.

“After the primary was over and my preferred candidate lost the nomination, I worked hard to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump — just like I have in the past five presidential cycles when my preferred candidate didn’t win,” Short said, adding that he contributed $5,000 to Trump’s transition committee. “The President has my full support. This is about as common in politics as its gets. I fail to see how this is newsworthy.”

Dan Backer — a Virginia-based lawyer and political consultant who serves as Stop Hillary PAC’s treasurer — confirmed Short has worked with Stop Hillary PAC since its inception in 2013.

“Guy regularly talks to media vendors on behalf of [the Committee to Defend the President] to ensure digital and non-digital communications are in sync,” Backer said. “He was tasked with point on this particular project.”

Initially, Stop Hillary PAC made its most notable mark on politics by feuding with the Federal Election Commission over whether it could even use its own name.

Federal law stipulates: “No unauthorized committee shall include the name of any candidate in its name." And while the FEC prodded Stop Hillary PAC to comply, itrefused, even after Hillary Clinton in April 2013 announced she’d seek the Democratic presidential nomination.

Then, last year, Stop Hillary PAC raised eyebrows when it emailed fundraising pleas — signed by “Donald and Ted,” sans last names — at a time when Trump and Cruz were still battling to win the Republican presidential nomination.

The PAC later explained to the Center for Public Integrity that “Donald” is Donald Ferguson, the PAC’s political director, and “Ted” is Ted Harvey, its chairman.

Indeed, when someone calls the phone number provided in the Committee to Defend the President’s TV ad, Harvey — a former Colorado state senator— delivers a message to anyone who presses “1” to that reiterates the TV ads’ themes of Democrats and journalists attacking Trump. But then, Harvey gets to the underlying point of the ad campaign: money.

“Can we count on you to make a contribution to help us support Donald Trump?” asks Harvey, who in a radio interview last year with Stephen K. Bannon — the Breitbart honcho who’s now one of Trump’s top aides — asserted that Stop Hillary PAC is “the largest right-of-center organization in the country.”

Those who press “1” are forwarded to a call center to make a donation. Those who press “2” get another message from Harvey.

“I understand a donation is a lot to ask for,” he says. “But now is our time to stand up and support President Trump. Your support is critical in this effort … If you can make even a modest donation, please say ‘yes’ or press ‘1’.”

Backer declined to discuss the Stop Hillary PAC ad campaign’s scope or cost, explaining that “my client isn’t interested in sharing the details or results of its strategy at this time.”

But the ad run appears limited. Kantar Media/CMAG, a firm that tracks TV advertising, had no record of Stop Hillary PAC’s pro-Trump ad appearing on broadcast or national cable TV. That means theads likely ran on local cable and/or satellite TV systems.

(Update, 5:52 p.m., Feb. 1, 2017: A new purchase order document filed with the FCC indicate the Committee to Defend the President purchased at least $16,830 worth of TV ads through satellite system DirecTV.

The purchase order asks that the ads run six times on DirecTV's "news cluster," which according to DirecTV's ad sales listing includes CNN, Fox News, Fox Business, Bloomberg Television, CNBC, HLNand the Weather Channel.The "news cluster" also includes MSNBC, but the purchase order specifically asks that the ads not run on MSNBC.)

Money in

When it comes to fundraising, Stop Hillary PAC is nothing if not aggressive.

Since October, a Center for Public Integrity reporter who signed up to receive updates from Stop Hillary PAC received 126 emails from the group. Almost all of them asked for money, or featured gimmicks — polls, surveys, online “focus groups” — that led supporters to a donation page.

In the weeks before Election Day, Stop Hillary PAC peddled yard signs that were nearly indistinguishable from those marketed by Trump’s own campaign committee. The difference: Stop Hillary PAC’s signs earned money for Stop Hillary PAC, not Trump.

The incessant fundraising has worked: After raising about $1.1 million during 2013 and 2014, Stop Hillary PAC’s fundraising exploded during 2015 and 2016, generating more than $6.3 million from donors, according to federal filings.

Nearly four-fifths of that amount came from people contributing $200 or less, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of FEC data indicates.

Of those who contributed more than $200, the most common occupation listed for such donors is “retired.”

Money out

Stop Hillary PAC spent more than $6 million during 2015 and 2016 combined, according to FEC records.

But federal records likewise indicate that only about one-fourth of this amount went toward advertisements or other communications, such as robocalls, that overtly supported or opposed a political candidate.

The rest of the money went toward a variety of other expenditures, most notably fees paid to political consultants in Northern Virginia and Ohio.

Among them: Infocision, an Akron, Ohio-based telemarketing companythat consumer advocates have criticized for using misleading tactics that target the elderly. (Infocision officials have defended company practices as lawful.) 

Stop Hillary PAC’s single largest vendor is Campaign Solutions, for which Stop Hillary PAC vendor Short serves as a vice president. Stop Hillary PAC paid Campaign Solutions about $1.5 million during the 2015-2016 election cycle, according to federal disclosures. That includes about $800,000 to obtain the personal information of potential donors and another $400,000 in fundraising fees.

The PAC also directly donated about $52,000 to a handful of Republican candidates, including $5,000 to Trump’s presidential campaign.

Why it matters

Stop Hillary PAC’s pro-Trump ad is a prime example of how political ads aren’t always what they seem.

What some lay viewers may interpret as a straightforward call to arms from Trump himself is really a fundraising effort for an unaffiliated political group that’s in part operated by a man who’s openly questioned Trump’s fitness for the presidency.

But Backer, who says he’s received several harassing phone calls about the ad in recent days, makes no apologies to those who feel misled or assume Trump is behind the ads.

“The ad is fully compliant with applicable law as to disclaimers, and my client can’t control the unreasonable inferences drawn by unreasonable people,” Backer said.