Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Illegal coordination between a candidate and a Super Pac can be prosecuted as a criminal violation--
even a felony. And Alexander Nix has been on TV boasting about it.
In the Channel 4 video, Alex Tayler, the firm’s chief data scientist, spoke about how Cambridge Analytica operated on two levels, putting positive messaging out through the Trump campaign, and negative through “affiliated groups” that were sponsored by Super PACs.
Such coordination would be illegal under US campaign law. Last year, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Mercer-family funded super PAC Make America Number 1 engaged in “unlawful coordinated spending by using the common vendor Cambridge Analytica.” (The Republican mega-donor Mercers also fund the consulting firm.)
The firm said it put up necessary firewalls to separate their activities.
Such coordination would be illegal under US campaign law. Last year, the Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Mercer-family funded super PAC Make America Number 1 engaged in “unlawful coordinated spending by using the common vendor Cambridge Analytica.” (The Republican mega-donor Mercers also fund the consulting firm.)
The firm said it put up necessary firewalls to separate their activities.
https://qz.com/1233832/cambridge-analytica-boasted-that-it-ran-the-entire-trump-campaign/
Here's a relevant case from 2015:
Republican political consultant Tyler Harber pleaded guilty in Federal District Court on February 12, 2015, to one count of illegal coordination of spending under campaign finance law and one count of false statements to the FBI. Sentencing is scheduled for June 5, 2015. . . .
Under the FEC's rules, an ad is deemed "coordinated" if it meets a "payment prong," a "content prong," and a "conduct prong." The payment prong simply asks whether someone other than a candidate or a party committee has paid for the ad. The content prong asks whether the ad contains certain content, such as, among other things, express advocacy or a reference to a federal candidate within certain time windows. Lastly, the conduct prong asks whether a candidate, a party committee, or an agent thereof has engaged in certain coordinating conduct with the person or entity sponsoring the ad, including but not limited to making a "request or suggestion," having "material involvement," or engaging in "substantial discussions" with respect to the ad.
Complaints alleging coordination have been filed with the FEC and been dismissed for insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Apparently no complaint was ever filed against Mr. Harber with the FEC. However, in our view, if a complaint had been filed with any of the evidence disclosed in the plea, the FEC most surely would have investigated and enforced its regulations. Although the DOJ plea documents use the term "politically opposed" to describe the content of the ads at issue-a term which does not appear in the FEC's coordination rules-the super PAC reported to the FEC that the ads were express advocacy independent expenditures. Thus the content prong of the FEC rules is met. With respect to the conduct prong, Mr. Harber was unquestionably an agent (indeed, a key official) of the Perkins campaign at the same time he was materially involved in making decisions on behalf of the super PAC in terms of the content, timing, and distribution of the ads opposing Mr. Perkins's opponent. These facts satisfy the conduct prong.
The DOJ's prosecution of Mr. Harber does not, in and of itself, appear to signal that the department has taken a broader approach to the substantive law of coordination. Nonetheless the case serves as a cautionary reminder that, given the right facts, campaigns, independent groups, and their individual employees may be held liable for violations, and may even be subject to criminal penalties (including up to five years of jail time for individuals). Similarly, complaints with the FEC that present substantiated allegations of coordination also are likely to trigger civil investigation. Any perceived lack of action by the FEC in this area is more a result of uncredible complaints than an unwillingness to enforce.
Under the FEC's rules, an ad is deemed "coordinated" if it meets a "payment prong," a "content prong," and a "conduct prong." The payment prong simply asks whether someone other than a candidate or a party committee has paid for the ad. The content prong asks whether the ad contains certain content, such as, among other things, express advocacy or a reference to a federal candidate within certain time windows. Lastly, the conduct prong asks whether a candidate, a party committee, or an agent thereof has engaged in certain coordinating conduct with the person or entity sponsoring the ad, including but not limited to making a "request or suggestion," having "material involvement," or engaging in "substantial discussions" with respect to the ad.
Complaints alleging coordination have been filed with the FEC and been dismissed for insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation. Apparently no complaint was ever filed against Mr. Harber with the FEC. However, in our view, if a complaint had been filed with any of the evidence disclosed in the plea, the FEC most surely would have investigated and enforced its regulations. Although the DOJ plea documents use the term "politically opposed" to describe the content of the ads at issue-a term which does not appear in the FEC's coordination rules-the super PAC reported to the FEC that the ads were express advocacy independent expenditures. Thus the content prong of the FEC rules is met. With respect to the conduct prong, Mr. Harber was unquestionably an agent (indeed, a key official) of the Perkins campaign at the same time he was materially involved in making decisions on behalf of the super PAC in terms of the content, timing, and distribution of the ads opposing Mr. Perkins's opponent. These facts satisfy the conduct prong.
The DOJ's prosecution of Mr. Harber does not, in and of itself, appear to signal that the department has taken a broader approach to the substantive law of coordination. Nonetheless the case serves as a cautionary reminder that, given the right facts, campaigns, independent groups, and their individual employees may be held liable for violations, and may even be subject to criminal penalties (including up to five years of jail time for individuals). Similarly, complaints with the FEC that present substantiated allegations of coordination also are likely to trigger civil investigation. Any perceived lack of action by the FEC in this area is more a result of uncredible complaints than an unwillingness to enforce.