Here’s Killer Coke/Ray Rogers’ filing with OCPF regarding the anti-Deval Patrick fliers he’s been distributing:
And if you’ve got an hour or so to kill, you can read the lengthy “attachment” Rogers filed at this link (HT: Political Intelligence).
As you can see, Rogers has now acknowledged (as seemed pretty obvious from the get-go) that his fliers constitute “express advocacy,” and therefore fall within OCPF’s purview. He asserts in the form that he has not acted in concert with any other campaign. He also appears to be asserting that he used his own money, not that of Corporate Campaign, Inc. (which would be illegal), although, oddly, the lengthy statement in response to Question 3 features the Corporate Campaign, Inc. logo. He further asserts that he “did not receive or solicit any contributions in contemplation” of his anti-Patrick efforts, which would seem to mean that no money raised through his Killer Coke project went to the anti-Patrick campaign. So … did the money come from his personal savings? Or from whatever salary he pays himself from Corporate Campaign, Inc.? Who knows – that’s all for OCPF to sort out now.
Hey, if Ray Rogers wants to spend his own money protesting Deval Patrick’s candidacy, God bless him – it’s a free country. I continue to think that, at the end of the day, he will do more good than harm to Patrick by attacking him from the left, thereby rebutting the notion that the “loony left” is an all-Deval affair. All part of the give and take of our great democracy.
Does that not apply here?
As long as he’s not coordinated with anyone else, he’s not contributing to a campaign – it’s an “independent expenditure.” There’s no limit on these things.
And getting advice on how to run his “shadow campaign” doesn’t count as coordination… ROFL.
<
p>
I know its hard for the OCFP to crack down on anyone for violating campaign finance laws, but if there were ever a clear cut case here (hello – Joan Vennochi emails), then I think this here is the one.
But, I’m patient. Time will tell.
<
p>
There’s no smoking gun. No gun. No smoke. Ok, maybe a little smoke.
so far there’s no evidence that any of the people on those emails actually communicated with Rogers – they just talked with each other, and about the strategy they might be setting up for him. Now, maybe it happened, and it’s OCPF’s job to determine whether it did. But so far, as gary says, no fire. A little smoke.
Seems to be evidence of a guy (RR) who has been educated on Massachusetts OCPF statutes. Notice in his Globe interview, after being informed of the law, he dropped all reference to his corporation.
<
p>
And, now he’s filing forms as required.
<
p>
The distinction between a single shareholder and his corporation can be legitimately made very ethereal: Did the corp. make the payment for the printing? Or did the corp. pay RR’s salary then RR make the payment for the printing?
<
p>
RR is a client of Labour (spelling intentional, England you know.) and Mr. Patrick is RR’s unfortunate foil: He’s Ralph Nader’s Corvair.
Keeping it on the simple side, I wonder if OCPF considers simple agency principles? Was Rogers acting within the scope of his employment with OCPF? Are his expenses deductible as business related? Did he act with apparent or implied authority? Maybe its completely legal to take your paycheck from a campaign advocacy corporation and spend it on more campaign advocacy, thus furthering the interests of your corporation, but that just ultimately seems like a way to thwart the intention of the statute.
I meant was he acting within the scope of his employment at CCI.
You’re the Director; you’re the President.
<
p>
Pretty easy for the Director to grant the Officer permission to pay salaries as necessary.
<
p>
This is the way of the world for closely held corporations.
that he’s been freely moving $$ back and forth between the corporation and his own personal bank account, doesn’t he risk someone piercing his corporate veil and being able to get at his own assets? Isn’t the whole point of setting up a corporation for a one-person business to prevent that from happening?
Depends on who’s suing you.
<
p>
But, yes, I agree that moving money arbitrarily, is one factor that would cause the court to ignore the corporation.
<
p>
But, isn’t that his risk unrelated to Campaign statutes?
<
p>
I was just sayin’. Though I suppose if OCPF got concerned about it, they could mount their own inquiry into whether he was improperly mixing corporate and personal funds, in order to figure out whether money that is properly that of the corporation was used for campaign activities.
Although Gary’s question is well taken (at leats I THINK this was his question): Does the same type of liability inure in campaign finance law with regard to corporate veil issues as it would in, say, breach of contract cases. I don’t see why it wouldn’t, but then I’m not a campaign law guy (yet);)
<
p>
At any rate those cases tend to be extremely fact specific and involve tracing money trails, so I wouldn’t venture to even guess where this one comes out. Although it seems to me RR is toeing a pretty fine line.
Isn’t that the legalise for analysis the Courts go through in piercing the veil? I forget.
<
p>
I totally agree. The cases are extremely fact specific and lead to the alternative conclusion that
<
p>
–the two (2) entities (RR and Corp.) are so intertwined that RR and the Corp. are the same and the Corp. is to be ignored. (POOF goes the argument that corporate campaign funds were used). Or,
<
p>
–The two entities are obviously separate and the Corporation’s legal existance is to be respected.
<
p>
If the latter, then the question is “whose name is on the check that paid for the printing?” If the answer is RR, then game over. No corporate involvement. If the answer is that the Corporation paid for the printing, RR still has the argument that the payment for the printing was merely a convenience and that RR owed the money back to the Corp. Bona fide argument btw.
<
p>
…and around and around.
<
p>
All this took me back to the conclusion that it was unlikely that anyone could demonstate a campaign violation absent a smoking gun (i.e. letter from Mr. Reilly saying please come to Mass; Corporate name on solicitations; etc..)
<
p>
There! Did I geek this thread up enough?