[link removed] [[link removed]] John,
CREW just filed an amicus brief in a major Supreme Court case that could decide whether big donors can use political parties to funnel money to candidates—effectively legalizing bribery in our elections.
The federal law that limits coordinated expenditures is intended to curb bribery by preventing political parties from becoming conduits for big donors to candidates.
The Supreme Court upheld these limits 20 years ago, saying that coordinated expenditures in practice functioned as direct contributions to candidates. And they need to uphold these limits again—that’s why we filed an amicus brief.We laid out case after case proving how donors can secretly earmark funds to benefit specific candidates—and how disclosure and earmarking laws alone can’t stop it. We need to curb bribery and uphold our campaign finance laws. Please, donate today to support CREW and our work to ensure that our democracy works for the people, not just the powerful → [[link removed]]
DONATE → [[link removed]]
The NRSC claims that the coordination limit isn’t necessary because other existing rules are sufficient to prevent donors from exceeding the contribution limit—namely, federal earmarking rules. But as we explain in our brief, earmarking rules and disclosure laws cannot prevent all quid pro quo corruption that could occur through coordinated expenditures.
While earmarking rules ensure that donations to political parties directed toward a candidate are treated as contributions to that candidate, there are limitations.
Our brief describes six cases and how they demonstrate that earmarking can be done in secret, leaving the public with no way to monitor compliance. In these cases, donors secretly earmarked funds for political purposes and recipients failed to subject them to earmarking rules.
In two of those cases, the recipients disclaimed the donors’ intent, saying that the recipients retained hypothetical discretion over the funds. But the recipients then took the funds and spent them as originally directed, meaning the funds were functionally earmarked, while treated as un-earmarked funds.
John, it’s clear: Earmarking rules can be easily circumvented and are not adequate to prevent corruption.
While disclosure laws ensure the public availability of campaign contribution data and help voters detect the influence of money in politics, they are not enough to stop corruption before it happens. That’s why we need the Supreme Court to uphold the limits on coordinated party expenditure, just as it did 20 years ago.
CREW is fighting every day to hold the powerful accountable and keep our democracy in the hands of the people—not the highest bidder. If you’re with us, donate now to support our work → [[link removed]]If you've saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your tax deductible donation will go through immediately to ActBlue Charities Inc. and be disbursed to CREW within 30 days:
Donate $5 → [[link removed]]
Donate $25 → [[link removed]]
Donate $50 → [[link removed]]
Donate $100 → [[link removed]]
Donate $250 → [[link removed]]
Other → [[link removed]]
Thanks,
CREW HQ
Make sure this email goes to your inbox. Add
[email protected] to your address book.
Email is a key way for us to stay in touch and make sure you get the latest updates from our campaign. But if you would like to unsubscribe, click here [[link removed]] .
Sign up to receive our messages straight to your phone! This is the best and fastest way to support CREW's work. Text 'JOIN' to 40234 to get updates. Txt STOP 2 end, HELP 4 help.
If you'd like to donate to support our efforts, please click here → [[link removed]]
© Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington 2020–2025
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
PO Box 14596
Washington, DC 20044
United States
