federal lawsuit

Gabrielle Giffords-founded organization accusing NRA of illegally donating 9,259 TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT to Trump

by Aaron Camp

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The author of this blog post is not an attorney and does not claim to be an attorney.

Giffords, the pro-gun safety organization founded by former U.S. Representative Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords (D-AZ), is suing the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for failing to adequately enforce campaign finance laws in regards to an apparent scheme by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a far-right gun proliferation group with extensive ties to gun manufacturers and prominent Republican politicians, including, but not limited to, President Donald Trump, to willfully violate campaign finance laws.

While the FEC is listed as the defendant in the actual lawsuit, a full copy of which can be found here, a lot of attention is going to be paid to the NRA and campaign organizations of the Republican politicians referenced in the lawsuit, including President Donald Trump, U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Montana Auditor Matt Rosendale, who unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate in Montana as a Republican in 2018. All of the named politicians are Republicans who sought federal elected office in either 2014, 2016, or 2018, and all but Rosendale won their respective elections, with Johnson winning re-election to the U.S. Senate, Trump winning an open-seat presidential race with an Electoral College majority despite winning a minority of the national popular vote, and Gardner, Tillis, and Hawley defeating incumbent Democratic U.S. Senators.

In the case of the NRA’s support of Trump, the NRA, through two of its subsidiaries, the NRA-ILA and the NRA-PVF, both of which are NRA-controlled political organizations, donated approximately 9,259 times the maximum legally-permissible amount for coordinated, in-kind contributions from a political committee, such as the two NRA-controlled political organizations, to Trump’s presidential campaign committee:

(31) An outside group that makes coordinated expenditures must report them as a contribution to the candidate, subject to the contribution limits and source restrictions discussed above. Corporations are prohibited from making such in-kind contributions, while in-kind contributions from political committees are subject to the $2,700 contribution limit. 52 U.S.C §§ 30116(a)(1), 30118(a).

[…]

(32) Since at least the 2014 election cycle, the NRA-PFV and the NRA-ILA have coordinated with candidate campaigns to develop advertisements through a common vendor, using a shell company associated with political consulting firm OnMessage. Since at least the 2016 election cycle, the NRA-PVF and the NRA-ILA have coordinated with candidate campaigns to place advertisements in complementary fashion, including on the same stations and programs, using shell companies associated with media strategy firm National Media.

(33) By coordinating their advertising strategy in this manner, the NRA-PVF and the NRA-ILA have made up to $35 million in contributions to candidate campaigns since the 2014 election, in excess of the contribution limits, in violation of the source restrictions, and without the disclosure required under federal law. This includes up to $25 million in coordinated, illegal contributions to the Trump campaign in 2016.

Source

Dividing $25 million, the estimated value of coordinated, illegal in-kind contributions by NRA-controlled political organizations to the Trump campaign, by $2,700, the maximum permissible in-kind contribution by a non-campaign political organization to a federal campaign committee, yields slightly over 9,259. That means that the NRA, through a pair of NRA-controlled political organizations, gave over 9,259 times the maximum legal amount of permissible coordinated, in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign!

These coordinated, in-kind contributions were in the form of a complex coordinated scheme called a common vendor scheme. There is an infographic on page 6 of the lawsuit that details the common vendor scheme used by the NRA and GOP candidates; any attempt by me to explain the common vendor scheme on this blog post would be redundant and probably create a ton of confusion. Nonetheless, the Giffords lawsuit is alleging one of the most brazen and massive campaign finance violations in U.S. history, and, if those allegations are proven true, then there should be serious legal consequences for the individuals and organizations involved in the scheme.

Arrest of two Mike Madigan cronies implicated in 2016 sham candidate scheme ordered

by Aaron Camp

In case you missed it, Joseph Nasella and Michael Kuba, two political operatives for Illinois House of Representatives Speaker Michael “Mike” Madigan (D-Chicago), were ordered to be arrested for refusal to comply with subpoenas issued as part of an ongoing civil court case in regards to an 2016 sham candidate scheme ran by Nasella and Kuba in that year’s Democratic primary in the 22nd Representative District of Illinois, which Madigan represents:

A federal judge on Monday ordered the arrests of two alleged political operatives of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan for failing to appear for depositions in a lawsuit filed by Madigan’s opponent in the 2016 election.

Joseph Nasella and Michael Kuba were each found in contempt of court by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly, who authorized deputy marshals to “use necessary and reasonable force” in making the arrests, court records show.

Nasella and Kuba were subpoenaed to testify under oath in a lawsuit filed by Jason Gonzales, who ran against Madigan in 2016 and claimed the speaker’s team stacked the ballot with phony candidates with Latino-sounding last names to confuse voters.

Both Nasella and Kuba, who circulated petitions for the alleged sham candidates, were paid through campaign funds that Madigan controls, Gonzales’ lawyers have alleged in court.

Source

While Madigan won the Democratic primary in question with a majority of the vote (making any concerns about the anti-Madigan vote being split between multiple candidates in the Democratic primary moot), that doesn’t make the sham candidate scheme that Madigan’s campaign committee ran any less corrupt. Nasella and Kuba did Madigan’s dirty work by circulating petitions for the two sham candidates, Joe Barboza and Grasiela Rodriguez, in order to get them on the ballot. The 22nd Representative District of Illinois has a large Hispanic/Latin(o/a) population, and it was inherently clear that the Madigan machine made a concerted effort to get two candidates with Hispanic-sounding surnames on the Democratic primary ballot in 2016 in an effort to split the non-Madigan vote if Madigan was unable to get a majority of the primary vote himself.

Marie Newman, who is considering running in the Democratic primary against Madigan ally and anti-abortion extremist Dan Lipinski for the U.S. House seat that is currently held by Lipinski, called “for the Machine to be stopped at all levels of government”:

I look forward to supporting progressive Democratic candidates like Newman who want to make the Democratic Party of Illinois a better, less corrupt, and more progressive political party. I expect the Machine to pull out every dirty trick in the book to try to stop progressive candidates who want to make the Democratic Party here in Illinois a better political party.