Citizens' Issues
How a Photo Dispute Highlights Weakness in Campaign Finance Rules

Even if Trump is correct in his unproven charge that a super PAC obtained a racy photo of Melania Trump from the Ted Cruz campaign, it’s doubtful the FEC would do anything about it


There's no evidence to support Donald Trump's claim that Ted Cruz played a role in a super PAC's attack on his wife.


But federal rules barring coordination between candidates and the super PACs that support them have been so rarely enforced that even if Trump were right, it's uncertain the Cruz campaign would be penalized.


The question arose last week, when a super PAC called "Make America Awesome" rolled out a digital ad targeting Utah voters that featured Trump's wife, Melania, posing nude for the British edition of GQ magazine more than 15 years ago.


"Meet Melania Trump. Your next first lady," the ad read. "Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday."


Trump accused Cruz, or his campaign, of buying the photo from the magazine and providing it to the PAC. Trump has offered nothing to back up the claim. The Cruz camp said it had no involvement in the ad. A representative for the PAC accused Trump of concocting a "weird conspiracy theory." And the original photographer denied giving approval for anyone but GQ to use the photo.


Suppose, though, that evidence does emerge to show a link. It would be up to the Federal Election Commission, which is supposed to police the conduct of campaigns and political action committees, to determine if it is illegal for a candidate to buy or produce content that a super PAC then parlays into an ad. If history is any guide, it's not a sure bet the FEC would do anything about it.


Super PACs are committees that can accept donations of any dollar amount and can promote candidates as long as they don't coordinate with their campaigns. Candidates can't solicit large donations for super PACs, and, before an election, they're not allowed to strategize with the groups on what kind of ads to craft or where to run them. If they could coordinate, dollar caps on contributions to candidates would become virtually meaningless.


But the definition of illegal coordination is narrow. A super PAC, for example, can host a fundraiser, and invite its favored candidate to headline the event and solicit money from guests. Candidates can also publicly post information about their ad buys, allowing super PACs to determine where the campaign might need reinforcements. In recent years, both parties were found to be releasing granular data about ads or polls on obscure Twitter feeds in apparent attempts to get around coordination rules.


That line gets blurrier when it comes to super PACs that repurpose content from campaigns. A number of candidates have posted hours of polished video footage of themselves online, where super PACs can grab clips to use in ads.


Daniel Weiner, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school, said candidates "laundering this stuff" by putting the content online and into the public sphere is "not a get out of jail free card." But, he said, it does help campaigns dodge liability 2014 whereas "if it's something the campaign sent directly (to the super PAC), that could be an indication they really wanted you to use it."


While advocates for stronger regulation have argued that sort of repurposing is illegal, the FEC's three Republican appointees (the commission is evenly divided by party) have typically forced an impasse on the issue, deeming relatively short snippets to be fair game.  


Paul S. Ryan, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit that advocates for stronger campaign finance regulation, could only remember one instance when the FEC did take action on this front. Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, ran an ad almost identical to one run by the Romney campaign itself. One of the sole differences was the closing credit that disclosed who paid for it.


"The penalty was $50,000 and that came about four years later," Ryan said. "The fine was ridiculously small and it came too late."


While Ryan contends that it would be a clear violation if a candidate purchased a photo and provided it to a PAC as Trump alleges, he doubts that the FEC's Republicans, who advocate against the government encroaching on political speech, would see it that way. "They seem to bend over backwards to find no violations of law," Ryan said.  


For one thing, Ryan said, the FEC could decide that even if the super PAC got the photo from the campaign, it operated within the law because it covered some portion of the original photo by adding embedded text and therefore showing less of the original content.


Weiner, a former attorney for a Democratic FEC commissioner, said he's also not confident the agency would take action.


It's been difficult for the commissioners to find common ground on many enforcement measures, Weiner said, because of partisan gridlock. While the three Republican appointees tend to want a narrow interpretation of what constitutes a violation of the rules, the three Democratic appointees have also hardened their positions. "If they make a small exception, allow a small loophole, they're worried a truck will be driven through it," Weiner said.


Eric Wang, a campaign finance attorney who formerly worked for a Republican FEC commissioner, said Congress designed the agency to be evenly split as a check on the over-regulation of political speech.


"I shy away from using the term gridlock," he said. "Gridlock suggests the agency is not functioning in a smooth manner or in the way it's supposed to function."


The FEC, Wang said, is operating just as it should.


"They're regulating core First Amendment issues. They're regulating issues that directly impact our elections," he said. "You don't want an agency that's regulating our elections that's tilted toward one party."


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.











Knowing What’s Coming
The outcome of our addiction to prediction need not be random
Making predictions is our second nature. Open any newspaper or television channel and you will find an endless stream of forecasts—whether the Reserve Bank of India will cut interest rates, whether the Sensex will scale 26,000, whether oil prices will go up, who will win the elections in Uttar Pradesh or will become the American president, the winner of the India-Pakistan match... These are forecasts that concern a lot of people. But we are all forecasters in our own lives too. We are making guesses—that is forecasting—about when we will get married, change jobs, buy a house, calculate whether the retirement corpus will last, etc. Humans are curious to know what is coming and are willing to pay to know it—either small change to roadside card-pulling parrots or big money to gurus—whether they wear robes or sharp suits. 
But how good are humans at forecasting? You can only tell conclusively if all such forecasts are actually recorded and verified. Philip Tetlock has done exactly that. His ran a project from 1984 to 2004 which analysed 82,361 predictions made by 284 experts in fields like political science, economics and journalism. He found that about 15% of events that experts claimed to know in advance that had little or no chance of happening did, in fact, happen, while about 27% of the ‘sure things’ didn’t happen. Tetlock concluded that the experts did little better than a ‘dart-throwing chimpanzee’. The details of the project are captured in Tetlock’s book Expert Political Judgment, published in 2005. Tetlock, who teaches at the Wharton School of Business, became the world’s foremost expert about the so-called experts. 
However, while the study gave an impression that the average ‘expert’ is “roughly as accurate as a dart-throwing chimp,” the metaphor was subject to misinterpretation. Tetlock’s work was far richer and his findings were subtler than that. Tetlock showed, for instance, that near-term forecasts were far more accurate than those that we supposed would happen after three years. The book Superforecasting (written with Dan Gardner, a Canadian journalist) is a sequel and designed to set the record straight. It is, again, based on studies of actual forecasting; but, this time, not of ‘experts’ that dominate the media.
The book is based on a tournament for forecasting, sponsored by America’s intelligence agencies which had a lot of egg on their face following the dreadful invasion of Iraq. The contest ran from 2011 to 2015 and posed 500 near-term geopolitical questions to five teams (“Will India or Brazil become a permanent member of the UN Security Council in the next two years?), including one called Good Judgement Project (GJP) of Tetlock. In all, the tournament gathered one million individual judgements. As the tournament progressed, a small number of forecasters of GJP began to lead the pack. Using only an Internet connection, they consistently beat the other more competent teams, led by top researchers in their fields. In year-1, GJP team beat the official control group by 60%. In year-2, it beat the control group by 78%. It also beat its university-affiliated competitors and even intelligence analysts who had access to classified data. After two years, GJP was doing so much better that the other teams were dropped. The conclusion of the two books, put together: while forecasting is tough, many ordinary people are better at it than the so-called ‘experts’; also, prophecy can be practised and improved.
Who were these people who could predict well? You would be amazed to know that the crop of ‘super-forecasters’ included housewives, social services worker, unemployed factory workers and professors of mathematics, a film-maker, a retired official from the US department of agriculture and so on. Do they have anything in common? They had a ‘growth mindset’, as Tetlock puts it. They were focused, open-minded, careful, curious—and, above all—self-critical. They had a willingness to learn from mistakes, self-reflection and humility. The best forecasters were more interested in knowing why they were right or wrong, rather than whether they were right or wrong. Tetlock found “commitment to self-improvement to be strongest predictor of performance.” Unfortunately, these people may not be telegenic, articulate or even confident. So, they are bad for TV which will continue to bombard us with untested, simplistic and wrong predictions from ‘experts’. This book is a must-read for anyone who is just curious about how we can think and guess better.  


Personal Finance Exclusive
Buying Annuity? Think Again!
Tempted by getting a fixed income guaranteed for life after you retire? Moneylife highlights...
Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access


Already A Subscriber?
Yearly Digital+Print Access


Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)