THREAD on First Amendment problem in the fine print: 1/ https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1324889160289808384

Anyone notice the much higher contribution limits to the litigation or headquarters accounts? Why should you be able to donate only a little bit to general campaign purposes, or to the party generally, but a whole lot more for litigation that could decide an election? 2/

Campaigning is core political speech. So is litigation for political purposes, and the latter can more directly change the outcome of an election. Candidates and parties USUALLY appreciate the cash no matter how it’s designated, because cash is fungible... /3

If lawyers can be paid from a high limit “litigation” account, that’s more money left in the general account for other things. The scheme is a way to generate larger donations—in fact, it raises the contribution limit to party committees by a factor of 10 (!) — /4

Because the law allows triple the limit for the litigation, convention, and headquarters accounts, each. But what if you’re a small party that doesn’t have close, litigated elections, a fancy building, or big convention? Well, then for you and your donors, /5

It’s a content-based speech restriction. And it is totally irrational, never mind strict or exacting scrutiny. I litigated just this issue for @LPNational. It was certified to the en banc DC Circuit under FECA and, unfortunately, we got only one vote on that topic. /6

It should be litigated in other circuits. /7