The AFJ Blog has an update on the coffee controversy percolating in the House. The post refers to the new House Ethics Manual. The coffee issue is discussed at pages 50-52 of the manual.
New PACs, Smaller Limits
CQ reports that candidate Aaron Schock (IL-18th C.D.) has formed a leadership PAC.
Along with giving his backers an additional outlet to assist Schock in his political endeavors, his leadership PAC also is allowed under federal law to accept and donate funds in greater increments than other political campaign committees. For example, Schock’s new leadership PAC can give $10,000 to a preferred candidate for Congress ($5,000 for the primary election and $5,000 for the general election). His personal House campaign committee, Schock for Congress, can give only $4,000 overall to another candidate’s campaign, $2,000 for the primary and $2,000 for the general.
For a leadership PAC (or any other PAC not already affiliated with a multicandidate PAC) to be eligible to contribute $5,000 per election to a federal candidate, the PAC must be qualified as a multicandidate PAC. This means that the PAC must have been in existence for six months, received contributions from 51 donors, and have made contributions to at least five federal candidates. Within 10 days of meeting these conditions, the PAC then files a Form 1M. Until this PAC qualifies as a multicandidate PAC, the PAC can contribute $2,300 per election to a federal candidate. Contribution limits for 2007-2008 are here (see “PAC – Not multicandidate” row).
Democratic Leadership Council Case Decided
The District Court for the District of Columbia released its opinion in DLC, Inc. v. USA. Among the issues involved was the propriety of the IRS’s retroactive revocation of the DLC’s 501(c)(4) status. The court concludes (footnote omitted):
It may be that the DLC is unworthy of 501(c)(4) status. But the Government gave it that status and cannot retroactively revoke it in these circumstances. An accompanying order will grant the DLC’s motion for summary judgment and deny the Government’s motion for summary judgment. The foregoing does not preclude the IRS from revoking prospectively the DLC’s exempt status, should it conclude again that the DLC is not entitled to that status.