Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That's because communication with a SuperPAC isn't all illegal. Coordination that meets specific criteria is illegal (unless as I mentioned that SuperPAC restricts itself to Internet communications, then coordination is fine, or that's the claim anyway).
That's why I think specifics are important. Without details, one can't properly evaluate the claim.
EDIT: For example from what I understand a campaign could provide contact information and broad guidance on a prospect, but could not give instruction on telling them how much to ask for. "Call Street Pharmacist as he's a frequent generous donator" is ok, as I think would be "Call Street Pharmacist and ask for $4000" because that's under the limit. "Call Street Pharmacist and ask for $25,000" wouldn't be legal as it's over the limit.
|
CTR's claim that it's online and thus "not real" is absurd on its face.
It's a Trump-like tactic, where they are bullying the FEC into silence or facing an overwhelming legal battle. The FEC knows that Congress wouldn't support them.
You have a more lenient understanding than I; I consider all three examples illegal, but I am also unable to claim expertise.
I certainly agree that specifics are what matters. I encourage posters to evaluate if there is co-ordination.