======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ==== ======= ======= ====== ====== ====== ===== ==== ====== ====== ===== ====
Apologies to those who read our site to get away from Trump stories, but I assure you that this story involves minimal Trump. If you’ve been following this thing closely, you know that the rhetoric between Jeb and Donald two has been heating up. Just this week, Bush even accused Trump of being a double agent-Clinton operative, a thought that makes sense but would sound better coming from a candidate that doesn’t already look desperate.
Well, now we’re getting legal involved, and shade is being tossed all over the place because that’s what lawyers do.
According to the Washington Post, Jeb’s leadership PAC filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Trump on Wednesday, accusing the Trump campaign of “illegally accepting corporate funds by using the Trump Organization’s legal counsel to fire off cease-and-desist letters to critics.” The complaint is in response to a letter Bush’s PAC received from the Trump Organization’s general counsel which threatened “immediate legal action” if the PAC produced ads attacking Trump.
Okay, this just seems like classic Trump going after critics, right? He has after all gone completely nuclear on critics in the past with personal attacks (Megyn Kelly), but the Trump Organization’s general counsel, Alan Garten, seems to have been less than tactical when choosing who to go after.
From the Washington Post:
Garten sent the letter to the Right to Rise PAC, a leadership PAC that has made contributions to Republican candidates, instead of to its sister super PAC, Right to Rise USA, which has begun running a television spot hammering Trump and other GOP candidates as unqualified to be commander in chief.
This rookie mistake drew no small amount of derision from Charlie Spies and James E. Tyrrell III, the attorneys for the PAC. In a letter to Garten Wednesday, the lawyers urged him to consult the FEC website “to familiarize yourself about the differences between Leadership PACs and Super PACs.” Or, they suggested, he could skim two key federal court decisions in 2010 that paved the way for the creation of super PACs. “They are both very helpful and might clear up some of your confusion,” they wrote.
Without diving into the nuances of campaign finance law, something none of us want right now, it’s important to know that federal candidates are not allowed to use corporate resources for campaign purposes. That’s why when the pro-Bush Leadership PAC received a cease and desist from the Trump Organization, Trump’s LLC, they were most likely chomping at the bit.
In response, Bush PAC attorneys took the gloves off and went full Bills Mafia on team Trump.
It is possible you are confusing RTR with any number of federal independent expenditure-only committees (i.e. “SuperPAC’s”) that have exercised their First Amendment rights to educate the public about your client’s public statements and stances on important public policy issues. We suggest you consult the Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) website (www.fec.gov) to familiarize yourself about the differences between Leadership PAC’s and Super PAC’s, or perhaps skim through the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC or the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC. They are both very helpful and might clear up some of your confusion.
“This is gettin’ good now.” -T. Swift
We are intrigued (but not surprised) by your continued efforts to silence critics of your client’s campaign by employing litigious threats and bullying. Should your client actually be elected Commander-in-Chief, will you be the one writing the cease and desist letters to Vladimir Putin, or will that be handled by outside counsel?…
Oh, shit. Bringing Putin into this? This has to be on the highlight reel of this dude’s career.
“If you have time between bankruptcy filings and editing reality show contracts, we urge you to flip through the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. If your client is so thin-skinned that he cannot handle his critics’ presentation of his own public statements, policies and record to the voting public, and if such communications hurts his feelings, he is welcome to purchase airtime to defend his record. After all, a wall can be built around many things, but not around the First Amendment.”
This has to be the most fun this lawyer will ever have. This is peak pissing contest stuff, guys. Shots were indeed fired.
Just as your client is attempting to quickly learn the basics of foreign policy, we wish you personally the best in your attempts to learn election law…
Savage.
I think we all learned a valuable lesson today. If you’re going to take a swing at Jeb, make sure you do your homework. Or at least make sure the guy you paid to take a swing at Jeb did his homework. .
Read both letters in full here.
[via Washington Post]
Image via Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock.com
Respond
Dave
Lawyer. Writer. Dude doing business. I'm the meatloaf guy from tv.
@dcarterruff
@dcruff
dcarterruff
david@grandex.co
I almost hate how much I enjoyed that.
First year law student (who should be studying for finals) here, and I fucking love it so damn much.
2L doing the same here.
Savage af.
It’s like voting for Coke vs. Pepsi. Same ingredients just different corporate influences and campaign colors. Both equally bad for you.
Jeb’s attorney clearly hasn’t seen this clip…
via GIPHY
Lets be honest Jeb’s attorney would love for that to happen. Can you imagine a better mark for a civil Assault, Battery, & Personal Injury case. When 70% of potential jurors absolutely hate him. It’s a case you could retire off of.
I love Trump more than any other candidate, even though I’d probably never vote for him. I love watching the SJW warriors panic that a bigot is leading, the GOP freaking out that he’s in the lead right now for their nomination, and the media not realizing that trashing him every half hour is just giving him more supporters. Watching this guy stir the pot is so damn entertaining. I can’t wait to see people freak out by what stupid thing he says next.
Exactly what I want in an election, someone stirring the pot and enraging people as opposed to giving our nation the best possible person to lead our country.
If Trump were to win, our country would go down a very, very dark road absent of any possible U-turns.
Why would you not want the pot to be stirred? The majority of Americans are uninformed and don’t vote based on policy anymore. You can’t change that. They vote on who they like as a person. That’s why Hillary is going to win easily and it sucks. So Trump at least makes the coverage of the primaries fun to watch.
I’m all for the pot to be stirred, but Trump is playing to the uninformed Americans. He’s not making any attempt to inform or educate the average American, but rather he is inciting hateful rhetoric and sentiment. Neither of which will simply disappear after the election.
^ RT
*obligatory “There’s a button for that, bro” comment*
But I agree wholeheartedly with you two.