Sunday, September 30, 2007

Newt: What Happened? Pt. 2   [Byron York]

Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler sends more explanation on Newt's decision:

There are two components to this issue - the rules before being candidate — when exploring the feasibility of a presidential run — and the restrictions that are imposed on a federal candidate.

Before Becoming a Candidate:

It is perfectly legal under FEC regulations for an individual or his agents to raise and spend money to explore the feasibility of being a candidate (i.e. spend money creating a website, doing polling, etc.).  The rule is that this has to be EXCLUSIVELY HARD money because if the person elects to run, those funds used and expenditures become federal contributions and expenditures by the campaign.  Thus, only individual contributions up to $2,300 can be used.

The risk during the exploratory phase would have been being accused of using American Solutions resources to travel, speak, communicate, etc. During this phase, American Solutions would have been open to the FACTUAL allegation that while Newt was actually speaking for Solutions he was instead attempting to drum up support (or pledges).  We could have managed this by limiting Solutions expenditures of money on travel or speaking during this period but would have faced the risk that if Newt elected to run that people could allege falsely that Solutions provided in-kind support of the pledge solicitation process.

After Becoming a Candidate:

If Newt had elected to be a candidate, McCain Feingold would have absolutely mandated that he disassociate with Solutions.  One of the centerpieces of this legislation is the requirement that federal candidates are restricted from "soliciting, directing, transferring, or spending funds on their behalf in excess of the FEC source and amount restrictions" — i.e., federal candidates may not engage in any activity to raise or spend corporate contributions or contributions in excess of federal limits for any purpose.  This alone would have required Newt to disassociate with Solutions.  Moreover, his title as "General Chairman" — implying leadership authority — would have put Solutions in jeopardy for engaging in these activities, as well as in "coordination" jeopardy even if Newt personally didn't do any fundraising or spending.

Under no circumstances would BCRA have permitted Newt to continue leading Solutions while a candidate for federal office.

One additional point is implicit in this but is certainly worth spelling out.  An individual who has decided that there is not a circumstance by which he would ever elect to become candidate for president (such as for the restrictions imposed during the candidacy period), would be precluded from raising funds or engaging in other activities towards an exploratory committee.  To raise money to test the waters or explore a candidacy while knowing that there are no circumstances by which the person would run would implicate any number of civil, FEC and criminal statutes.

Gingrich Decision:

American Solutions is real.  If it wasn't, it would not have been a choice.  American Solutions became real Thursday night.

Newt is focused.  Otherwise, if you believed his critics, he would have run off the latest interesting opportunity.  He did not.

The team is focused on the legal.  If you cannot convert pledges to contributions while promoting American Solutions, why go through the exercise unless you are prepared to give up on American Solutions?  We are not for tilting at windmills, we are for systematically working within the boundaries of what the law permits for real change in the direction of the country using American Solutions.

The problem is that all that can be perfectly true and one can still ask why Gingrich did not know until Saturday morning that his going forward could involve possible violations of the campaign finance laws.  Why go so far – creating a campaign website, securing pledges, taking a leave from Fox – without knowing the basic rules?  Gingrich has worked with the campaign finance laws for a long time – remember the famous college course which Democrats alleged violated the law but for which Gingrich was later vindicated? – and it seems hard to believe that he didn't know the ins and outs of such things.  On the other hand, if there were some other reason, for example, if Gingrich decided not to go forward because the response he got simply wasn't strong enough, especially in a year in which the electoral landscape is pretty tough for Republicans, why not just say so?

09/30 04:42 PMShare