Sir Elton John’s recent performance at a fund-raising event for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has drawn a formal complaint from Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group.
Mr. John, a foreign national, cannot under federal law make any contribution to a federal, state or local election campaign. The group, in a letter from its president, Tom Fitton, described Mr. John’s appearance at the fund-raiser as an “in-kind contribution from a foreign national.”
Jesus, they're right. Unless John gets paid for the performance - at market rates, the rules are clear - it's an illegal donation. Did no one think of this over there at Clinton HQ?
Update: Just so everyone is clear on why this is so bad, it's not the money raised by the concert that comprises the contribution, it's the value of Elton John's services. (The $2.5 million raised was via proper individual donations - $500 tickets sold to audience members.) At least with money illegally contributed, they can divest themselves of it (donate it to charity, say, if they can't give it back to the donor) and be back to where they started, as if the illegal contribution had never been made. But with an in-kind donation of services, there is no "giving it back." The only way to rectify the problem is to pay the going rate for the service donated out of pocket, using other people's contributions, which leaves you worse off by that amount. How much does Elton John get paid for a concert?
Update 2: I almost forgot, but this donation is illegal for another reason: The amount. An individual's in-kind donations to a candidate for the primary can't exceed $2,300 in value. The value of John's services is probably 1,000 times the legal limit.
I can't stand Hillary, but sadly, no. If the premise in update 2 was correct, then how could any U.S. citizen-rock star ever perform at a campaign fundraiser? If Sir Elton has a green card than even as a foreign national he's allowed to contribute to a campaign, and if he doesn't he can still volunteer. See here.
Posted by: Should be finishing my taxes | April 15, 2008 at 03:22 AM
No. The link specifically says this:
By contrast, the decision in AO 1981-51 prohibited a foreign national artist from donating his services in connection with fundraising for a Senate campaign.
Posted by: Nikki | April 15, 2008 at 08:15 AM
Is there even advance people in her campaign? Also, who set's the going rate for Sir Elton John's services? The last time he came to Buffalo, NY I think he made close to 50,000 beans before playing a note on stage. Also also, with regards to update 2: How does rendering services for a fee constitute an in-kind donation? If the caterer does a $5,000 lunch for a candidate have they broken the law?
Posted by: jack fate | April 15, 2008 at 08:28 AM
Also also, with regards to update 2: How does rendering services for a fee constitute an in-kind donation? If the caterer does a $5,000 lunch for a candidate have they broken the law?
I think that what the update is trying to say is that it is illegal for two reasons: 1) it's a donation by a foreign national and 2) its value exceeds $2300. If the Clinton campaign pays him, they're good on both scores.
Posted by: Scott P. | April 15, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Hillary is disgusting, but I think Judicial Watch is wrong on this one. Elton John is a volunteer donating his personal services, uncompensated, and that doesn't count as an in-kind donation. If JW were right, then all political concerts would be illegal unless the performers were being paid out of campaign funds or were relative unknowns.
Posted by: KCinDC | April 15, 2008 at 09:30 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but I think they've got this one nailed. I cannot remember EVER hearing about a big star performing at a political fundraiser before. Not for a candidate. A cause maybe, but not an actual candidate. Rallies yes, inaugural balls yes, but not fundraisers.
This is an open and shut flouting of campaign election law.
Posted by: Mark Gisleson | April 15, 2008 at 10:51 AM
If the funds raised are independent of the in-kind donation, then how is this different from will.i.am's Yes I Can video (aside from the foreign national part)? Does it matter if it's not an overt fund raising tool?
/anti-troll disclaimer: I'm gay for obama and think hillary can get bent. I'm just curious about these election laws.
Posted by: dougie | April 15, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Like many commenters I am not a lawyer for all the other non-lawyers comparing this to campaign rally performances by other rock stars, I think there is at least one significant difference: I don't believe that tickets were sold for those events, and in particular I don't think that those events were billed as concerts but rather as rallies that happened to include the performers.
Although, didn't Streisand do a concert for Clinton as well? Because the "foreign national" thing is a red herring, the real issue is whether performing at a concert whose proceeds go to the campaign is a (>$2300) in-kind donation.
Posted by: Warren Terra | April 15, 2008 at 11:21 AM
It could be that a 70 year old pop star doesn't have any value at all.
Posted by: merl | April 15, 2008 at 11:26 AM
The value of the service could probably be assessed as Union Scale which would get it under the limit. You cannot provide professional services gratis to a federal campaign - they are in kind contributions. Elton John is a professional and he brought to the campaign his profession.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | April 15, 2008 at 02:48 PM
I don't think this is right. I think Elton was actually volunteering for Hillary. I think he can do this even without a green card, since volunteer work does not count as a contribution.
Posted by: neil | April 15, 2008 at 02:49 PM
It seems the FEC has already spoken on this:
Bob Biersack, F.E.C. spokesman confirmed that there was nothing unlawful about the Elton John performance:
“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.”
NYTimes
Posted by: zuzu | April 16, 2008 at 02:37 AM
It seems the FEC has already spoken on this:
Bob Biersack, F.E.C. spokesman confirmed that there was nothing unlawful about the Elton John performance:
“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.”
NYTimes
Posted by: zuzu | April 16, 2008 at 02:38 AM