Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doughboy who wrote (3931)	9/4/1998 5:27:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 13994

Whoops! FEC Recommends Clinton Repay Funds By KEVIN GALVIN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A preliminary Federal Election Commission report has recommended that President Clinton's re-election campaign be required to repay $13.4 million in federal matching funds received during the 1996 primaries for violating rules governing so-called issues advocacy ads. Information in the report by FEC auditors set in motion a 30-day review by Attorney General Janet Reno, who must decide whether to seek an independent counsel to probe the Democrat's fund-raising activities in 1996. According to Democrats and legal sources familiar with the report, it is a preliminary assessment of the campaign's spending that offers no new evidence regarding the use of issues ads, but a new interpretation of their intent. ''These ads were an entirely legal and perfectly appropriate way to communicate with the American people and there is absolutely no reason to appoint an independent counsel to review them,'' the DNC said in a statement. With midterm elections two months away, Democrats face the possibility of an independent counsel investigation into their 1996 campaign on three fronts: their television ads and allegations that Vice President Al Gore and former White House aide Harold Ickes misled authorities about fund raising. The same firm that developed the ad campaign for Clinton-Gore '96, Squier, Knapp & Ochs, also developed ads on political issues for the Democratic National Committee -- ads that Clinton had a hand in crafting. The Justice Department has tended to hold that the issues ads fall outside campaign law limits so long as they don't advocate the election or defeat of any candidate or party. But the 30-day inquiry was launched based on the FEC report's interpretation of how the ads might have crossed that line so as to constitute ''electioneering.'' To receive matching funds, presidential campaigns in 1996 had to agree to limit spending during the primary campaign to $37 million. If the ads paid for by the party were used to improperly boost the president's re-election, then the campaign could be held to have violated the spending limit. ''The FEC has long presumed that political parties' issue ads are coordinated with their federal candidates and are intended, in part, to promote those candidates' elections,'' the DNC statement said. ''A political party ad that mentions a federal candidate does not count as a contribution to that candidate unless it contains an 'electioneering' message.'' Both the Republican National Committee and Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign relied on the same company, New Century Media, to produce campaign ads. The Washington Post reported Friday that the FEC auditors had reached a ''similar'' conclusion about that effort. Dole received $13.5 million in matching funds. Additionally, FEC investigation of issues ads has looked at the Republicans and spots run by the AFL-CIO. Asked at her Thursday news conference whether an issues advocacy investigation would focus on Republicans as well as Democrats, Reno said ''We are following every lead.'' newsday.com

To: Doughboy who wrote (3931)	9/4/1998 5:45:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

Thank you for all the wonderful insight, very interesting. Dont let them get you to stoop to their level with the personal attacks however. Michelle

To: Doughboy who wrote (3931)	9/4/1998 10:45:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 13994

Who's Jeff? You talking to me? Anyway, the part of the rule your lawyer friend did not quote, FRCP 30(d)(3), provides the mechanism to avoid the dire fishing expeditions you so fear. Paraphrasing the text of the rule, the rule states that if you feel the other party is on a fishing expedition, harassing, oppressing, annoying etc., the objecting party makes a motion to the court to have the court determine if the objection has merit. The rule specifically states that "upon demand of the objecting party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order." So, if you think its a fishing expedition and the questions asked are not within the letter of the Rules, you make the appropriate motion. The sanctions contemplated by Rule 30 are basically a prevailing party type of sanction the same as the sanctions for failing to cooperate or make proper disclosures under the Rules. If you object and you lose, you pay the other side's cost. If you object and win, the other side pays. The salutary effect of the provision should be obvious, even to you. In extreme cases, I suppose someone could argue a Rule 11 type sanction but those are reserved only for the most egregious cases in my experience. In 15 years of practice I've only seen one case where a court felt Rule 11 was warranted and which involved outright fraud by the other lawyer. Practically speaking, it rarely gets to a point where the demand to terminate a deposition is made. Both sides know that the judge HATES to hear discovery disputes and will usually handle both sides very roughly in these discovery dispute type of proceedings. The judge knows that the rules contemplate that the lawyers will be adults about the proceedings and will manage their clients in that manner. BTW I don't consider this type of informational post to be legal advice since I doubt that the First Scumbag reads this thread. However, I'd appreciate you pointing out any "legal advice" I've given on the thread which is faulty. Also BTW being a partner at a big firm (if Simpson et al. is a big firm) don't mean squat as to knowledge or competency level. I've been there myself. JLA