Question: What is to stop a candidate for public office from hiring family members

[closeupready]

to help GOTV with that candidate's bid (likely in concert with a PROFESSIONAL, non-nepotistic organization)? And using campaign donations to pay them?

In other words, say, for example, I want to run as a candidate for a US Senate seat. Mr. Big Bucks wants to give me $50 million as a campaign finance donation. (If I'm not mistaken, these huge sums - limitless, essentially - are basically legal in the aftermath of Citizens United.)

Meanwhile, my spouse has set up a "Citizens for Closeupready for Senator" organization, with maybe a staffer or two (or none, whatever). I direct my campaign to hire them at a cost of $2M, even though my spouse's compensation is on a flat fee basis of $1M.

I mean, given those parameters (and I'm not the smartest person, so if I can think it, you KNOW THEY have thought it, too), are there any limits?

[jeff47]

1. You've actually got the situation backwards.

The individual contribution limits to campaigns are still in force. It's the contributions to outside groups that are unlimited.

So Mr. Big Bucks can only give your campaign a small amount of money. But he can give "Citizens for Closeupready for Senator" $50M.

[former9thward]

3. No he can't.

Outside groups can't campaign specifically for a candidate. They can raise issues and votes which affect a candidate.

[jeff47]

4. They can use a slightly different name.

I used the name he chose to try and simplify the response. I probably should have been more clear about not advocating for the candidate.

Anyway, the wife could set up an "issues" group, moneybags donate giant pile of cash, and wife pay herself giant pile of cash.

[former9thward]

5. I would not advise moneybags to do it.

If he wants to pay the wife a bunch of cash there are many, many ways to do it without running the risk of violating campaign finance regulations.

[jeff47]

8. Makes the bribe a little less obvious

Most people won't know the wife's getting paid.

'Course Moneybags could use easily use a different intermediary, such as a charity to help _______ children.

[former9thward]

2. Everything you wrote is illegal under campaign finance law.

No one can contribute more than about $2500 to a candidate. Outside groups can not campaign specifically for a candidate. They can campaign on issues which might affect a candidate.

[closeupready]

6. So in theory, the candidate could coin a new phrase - solar energy fairness access,

or Build Roads to Everywhere, or whatever nonsense phrase associated with that candidate; spouse sets up "Citizens for Building Roads to Everywhere" - wink-wink, wash that money, right?

Is this the kind of thing (in rough terms) that Franken was referring to when he said that our system of campaign finance was essentially a money laundering operation?

[former9thward]

9. Franken is right.

And of course he has participated in it just like everyone else. You have to, to raise the money to get elected. I personally do not favor campaign contribution limits. I favor immediate (within reason) posting of contributions and their source online. Many people are not old enough to remember the anti-war McCarthy campaign in 1968. A campaign which ended up retiring a sitting President over the Vietnam war. That campaign could have never took place with present day campaign finance laws. It took place because McCarthy was funded by heirs to the GM fortune (Steward Mott) who did not have to worry about any limits. I would rather see that over the system we have today.

[Blue_Tires]

7. But I'm pretty sure it's NOT illegal

to donate unlimited sums to PACs

so all you do is set up a "Friends of former9thward" organization which is 'independent' (wink*wink) from your official campaign...