Meltin’ For Elton
March 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy for noticing our ruminations about the legality of foreign national Elton John helping raise money for Hillary Clinton by performing at a benefit.
Volokh does a good job of exploring the matter in-depth. The post also links to this Clinton press release:
FEC Spokesman Confirms There Was Nothing Unlawful About Elton John Performance
3/27/2008 11:43:45 AM
Recent news reports mistakenly suggest Hillary broke the law by allowing Elton John, a foreign national, to perform for her campaign.
Hillary’s campaign has complied with the law. Since 1987, the FEC has consistently held that foreign nationals may volunteer their time for campaigns on an uncompensated basis. Elton John is simply volunteering his uncompensated time to appear at the concert. This appearance is consistent with past FEC rulings.
Bob Biersack, FEC 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.”
And the response to that? We go back to Extreme Mortman senior historian Richard Andrews, who observes:
If the FEC is determined to sit on its hands about this, don’t see much that can be done.
However, note that the ‘No’ decision in Opinion 1981-51 was specifically about the highly valuable services of an artist being used for fund raising, while ALL the other ‘Yes’ Opinions noted are about the everyday acceptance of essentially de minimus value munchkin services at the very bottom of a campaign - the ones that, if you had to pay even minimum wage for them, you would just do without (the same attitude that causes campaigns to pretend their employees are ‘contractors’, to avoid paying unemployment compensation tax) - envelope licking, driving folks around, etc.
The FEC seems rather determinedly of two minds about this - it is bizarre for Opinion 1987-25 to have expressly stated that it was NOT over-ruling Opinion 1981-51, when they flatly contradict one another. Guess they just want to make it up as they go along.
To be continued, no doubt.


























