It doesn't, but it doesn't exclude them from personal expenses either which means they are in the overlap which means nobody can convict anybody of anything without getting a change in policy from the FEC
There is no literature anywhere that supports this interpretation. Nothing about the law or FEC page says if something is not singled out to be excluded then it’s fair game.
A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.
Note how it does not say “a contribution occurs only if it’s specified below”.
“For other expenses not mentioned on this page, the Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis through the advisory opinion process, whether the expense is one that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder and would be considered a personal use expense.
Again, does not say “if it’s not listed here then the expense is whatever the candidate says”
Bla bla sophistry
It doesn’t take sophistry to recognize that the negation of “this debate will be over” is “this debate will not be over”. As in, we will continue the conversation. Not “this debate will be over and I win”.
Must have missed that, what was your error? Cause it seemed like you said "Well my interpretation is absolutely correct unless specifically contradicted by an example given by the FEC"
I already explained my error. I applied the test to items that the FEC already singled out as not being subject to it. That’s why they created a section entitled “Automatic personal use”, which, by definition, means the test the FEC stated does not apply there.
It’s not a contradiction when the FEC spells it out in plain English. Here, I’ll post it again:
“For other expenses not mentioned on this page, the Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis through the advisory opinion process, whether the expense is one that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a federal officeholder and would be considered a personal use expense.
“Will determine” =/= “automatic”
The term “contribution” includes— (i) any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office;
Apply it to a tuxedo bought for a campaign rally.
I did, that was the gotcha you laid out for me and I fell into. That’s why the FEC singled this out for exclusion, which follows from the word “automatic”.
My interpretation doesn't require the automatic personal expenses to be in contradiction with the default (irrespective test).
Your interpretation of campaign finance law is that a bunch of lawmakers sat around and wrote thousands of pages explaining what are campaign expenses vs personal expenses just so that the candidates can chuck it all in the trash and determine it for themselves. That’s absurd.
Oh, and it also plainly contradicts the FEC’s interpretation when they stated “the commission will determine…”
Because otherwise the irrespective test could be used by the candidate to abuse campaign laws, the opposite of its intention.
Only if he assumed, like you are assuming, that if the test fails then it is a legitimate campaign expense.
There is no practical way to apply the test in many circumstances, that’s the point you don’t seem to be getting.
The question isn’t whether the test fails “in spirit”, it’s whether the test fails to a degree that is actionable. That is a factor in every law; a law can be written however one wants but is ultimately meaningless if it has no practical mechanism to be enforced.
When it comes to campaign finance law, the essence of what separates the personal from the campaign comes down to intent, which is a very difficult thing to prove so it is only natural that certain expenses types would be singled out for pre-determination.
If the candidate bought a pair of shoes for the exclusive purpose of propping up his own campaign then that does meet the legal definition of a campaign contribution, but it would be absurd for the FEC or anyone else to sit around trying to figure out what the purpose was of every shoe or pair of pants every candidate purchased. Conversely, the candidate could also claim their personal expenses are really for the campaign and then use it as an excuse to live off of donor money. The practical element here has to be dealt with, which is exactly what the FEC is doing when they single out specific types.
This is also why there is an overlap, there are certain expense types that no one but the candidate/campaign is in any position to weigh in on when it comes to determining where it belongs. It’s a practical reality, not the purpose of the law.
You have asserted/implied that if someone intends to help their campaign by spending money, then whatever they are spending money on is a mandated campaign expense.
That’s literally how the law defines it
That ultra-wide definition of mandated campaign expenses leads to absurdities and the most relevant example of the absurdity is that it bulldozes right over mandated personal expenses.
That’s why we have regulatory bodies to address the specifics behind the law and the FEC did exactly that. They said ‘here are examples that are predetermined, and everything else will be determined based on this test’. There is nothing absurd or difficult to understand about that.
