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):
- More on Elton John Fundraising for Hillary Clinton:
- Foreign Musicians Voluteering to Raise Funds for American Candidates:
The FEC thinks not.
See here.
Did Schwarzenegger not campaign for himself?
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.
Chuck Norris for Huckabee? (I would submit that Norris actually has more cultural standing these days than Elton John.)
Oh I forget: it IS a stupid law! A really, really stupid law.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.