Reply #136: I think the FEC is saying that if those services [View All]

[spooky3]

are for the purposes of creating a *thing*, such as a piece of art, that will be sold at auction, that is different from other types of services. Notice that the phrase you bold-faced reads "for the purposes described in your request"--and it refers back to the prior paragraphs. The rationale (though I think it's a bit odd) seems to be that a *thing* that has market value is exchangeable for money, so it's treated the same as money, but helping someone organize something isn't, necessarily. For example, I could help you organize a concert but you could lose money on it, and the value of my services is zero.

If I'm not right in this: If you read the rest of the decision and the FEC's website that the article refers to, you will see an inconsistency between the exceptions permitted in the language of the law and the 1981 decision interpreting the law. So someone would still have to reconcile the inconsistency, if it can't be reconciled the way I attempted.

In any case, this work should have been done by the reporter--and questions answered-- before writing the story.

On edit, I see in post #113 where an FEC spokesman has said explicitly that organizing is ok.