In a story that could likely go under the radar, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will be in court tomorrow (Sept. 7)...well, in a manner of speaking. More precisely, a California appeals court is being asked to reinstate her as a defendant in a suit. Paul v. Clinton features Mr. Peter Paul, a Hollywood-businessman-turned-bitter-campaign-contributor (see his site here) against the Senator, Mr. Clinton and several members of the Senator's campaign. Mr. Paul is being represented in his suit by the United States Justice Foundation.
* Email
* Print
* Comment
The bare-bone facts surrounding the case have to do with Mr. Paul's agreement to help raise money for Clinton's Senate campaign in 2000 (see his amended legal complaint for all the details here). Mr. Paul was the executive producer of the "Hollywood Tribute," a star-studded farewell dinner and concert tribute for Mr. Clinton that raised funds for Senator Clinton's campaign in 2000. Paul claims to have contributed at least $1.9 million to underwrite event expenses (which is considered "soft money" and provides a way candidates can get around the $2,000 "hard money" or direct contribution limit). In exchange for his donation, Mr. Clinton was apparently going to work for Mr. Paul and his companies as a rainmaker for one year. Mr. Paul's suit claims that Mr. Clinton committed fraud by agreeing to work but never really intending to do so, and that Senator Clinton was aware of this arrangement (and thus should be liable as a "conspirator").
A California district court disagreed with Paul, and Senator Clinton was dismissed from the suit based on a law that protects individuals when they are exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech (known as anti-SLAPP provisions - California's law is here). Anti-SLAPP laws protect individuals against lawsuits that intimidate people into limiting their protected free speech. It often occurs in situations where the big guy (by threatening to sue) is trying to shut up the little guy (who then caves and limits his speech). Here, the court indicated that Senator Clinton was exercising her free speech and was entitled to protection from the anti-SLAPP statute (and, thus, she was dismissed as a defendant).
Paul is now asking the appeals court is to reverse the lower court's decision. In his appeal Mr. Paul claims that there is additional evidence to show that Senator Clinton violated federal campaign finance laws (which would disqualify her from receiving protection from the anti-SLAPP law -- the idea being that a person cannot get protection from the law if they are engaged in breaking another law). Paul claims that this video is the proverbial smoking gun because it shows that she directly solicited his contribution in violation of a federal campaign law (see 2 USC Sec. 441a(a)(7)(B)(i) here). The law states that "expenditures made...at the request or suggestion of, a candidate...shall be considered to be a contribution to such candidate." If the court first agrees to look at his evidence and then agrees with his argument, then they could determine that his contribution would qualify as a direct contribution to her campaign. It would then be subject to the $2,000 individual limit, which would violate campaign finance laws since it was greater than $2,000. Senator Clinton would be denied protection from the anti-SLAPP statute and would then be reinstated as a defendant in the suit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malcolm-friedberg/clinton-in-court_b_63308.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
