Foreign Musicians Voluteering to Raise Funds for American Candidates:

Extreme Mortman points to a fundraising concert scheduled for April 9, and suggests that — if John is performing for free — this may be an illegal foreign contribution by John to the Clinton campaign. Is that so?

I'm not an expert in this corner of federal election law, but I think that John and Clinton are just fine, even if he's performing for free or for well below market rates (a factual assumption I will make for purposes of this post). Federal law does ban contributions by foreign nationals, but "contribution" is defined to exclude volunteer activities (see FEC Adv. Op. 2007-22, FEC Adv. Op. 2004-26, and FEC Adv. Op. 1987-25; see also FEC. Adv. Op. 2007-08, which takes a similar view). Likewise, 11 C.F.R. § 100.74 expressly provides, "The value of services provided without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political committee is not a contribution."

The one possible twist is that FEC Adv. Op. 1981-51 specifically held that a foreign artist was not allowed to create a limited-edition artwork that would then be distributed for free by the campaign. FEC Adv. Op. 1987-25 expressly declined to reverse 1981-51; the FEC Foreign Nationals brochure expressly notes that there's some possible tension between the two. But in light of the more recent opinions (especially 2007-22), and of 11 C.F.R. § 100.74, it seems likely that the legal distinction is between services — which would include even valuable performances — and goods, such as tangible artworks. John's performance seems to fall on the permissible volunteer services side of the line.

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer; and thanks to Allison Hayward, Alex DeMots, and Steven Sholk for their help.

UPDATE: A Clinton campaign press release quotes an FEC spokesman as saying the same: "I did not intend to convey in my conversation with the Washington Times reporter that there is anything unlawful about Elton John performing in a concert to raise money for a US presidential candidate. The Advisory Opinion 2004-26 is clear in the circumstances of the request that foreign nationals may volunteer and may even solicit contributions from non-foreign nationals, provided they are not soliciting other foreign nationals."

Thanks to a commenter for the pointer.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More on Elton John Fundraising for Hillary Clinton:
  2. Foreign Musicians Voluteering to Raise Funds for American Candidates:
Rock On (www):

...if John is performing for free — this may be an illegal foreign contribution by John to the Clinton campaign. Is that so?



The FEC thinks not.

See here.
3.27.2008 5:54pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
I'm waiting for the day that some "in" celebrity campaigns for a Republican. *crickets chirping*
3.27.2008 6:44pm
byomtov (mail):
I'm waiting for the day that some "in" celebrity campaigns for a Republican. *crickets chirping*

Did Schwarzenegger not campaign for himself?
3.27.2008 6:47pm
Cornellian (mail):
The Advisory Opinion 2004-26 is clear in the circumstances of the request that foreign nationals may volunteer and may even solicit contributions from non-foreign nationals, provided they are not soliciting other foreign nationals."

So Elton John can solicit contributions from Americans, but not contributions from other Brits or other non-Americans? Do they have to check the citizenship of people who show up for the concert? Seems hard to make that rule work in practice.
3.27.2008 7:02pm
Just Dropping By (mail):
I'm waiting for the day that some "in" celebrity campaigns for a Republican. *crickets chirping*

Chuck Norris for Huckabee? (I would submit that Norris actually has more cultural standing these days than Elton John.)
3.27.2008 7:34pm
TomB (mail):
If Bruce Springsteen can but Elton John cannot have a concert for Hillary Clinton, then that's a stupid law.

Oh I forget: it IS a stupid law! A really, really stupid law.
3.27.2008 9:53pm
Houston Lawyer:
I'm sure the concert will be well attended by Chinese dishwashers paying $2,100 per ticket.
3.27.2008 10:19pm
M. Slonecker (mail):
Sounds almost like the Peter Paul matter back in 2000, only now we have fast forwarded to 2008.
3.28.2008 5:48pm
markm (mail):
If services worth four or five figures can be donated, but cash donations are limited to $2,300, isn't this discrimination against those that work for a living?
3.29.2008 4:22pm