Philadelphia partner Scott Coffina was quoted in three articles in the Washington Free Beacon.
The first article, “The Green Tape Letters,” discusses emails obtained by the Free Beacon that allegedly show an Obama administration official actively collaborated with a prominent left-wing think tank in 2011 to advance the president’s green energy agenda.
Scott, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, told the Free Beacon that executive director of the Department of Energy’s actions may have violated federal law prohibiting agency employees from the use of federal funds—including employee salaries—for lobbying efforts to promote administration policy.
“If this is a grassroots campaign this violates the law—and it really seems to be,” he said.
Violators face a civil penalty of up to $100,000 and possible termination of employment.
The second article discussed the apparent admission of a top lawyer for the Obama campaign that the campaign has “work[ed] with some” non-profit organizations, which could put the non-profit status of those groups at risk.
Section 501(c)(3) groups are banned under the Internal Revenue Code from doing any partisan “work” at all, whether directly or indirectly, on behalf of any candidate for elective public office.
Scott said “the restrictions are not terribly complicated, and pretty strict.”
“If these groups are using volunteers to promote Obama in any way, that’s violating their neutrality principle,” he said.
The third article discussed a recent report that raises questions about the Obama campaign’s potentially illegal practice of accepting and soliciting online donations from foreign nationals.
The report, authored by the Government Accountability Institute, said the Obama campaign was found to have sent solicitation emails to foreign citizens, some of whom admitted having donated money.
Scott said the Obama campaign’s solicitation and acceptance of foreign donations was “definitely investigation worthy.”
“There’s certainly a question of willful blindness [with respect to foreign campaign donations],” he said.
“Why would anybody, especially a political campaign, pay more for less adequate security measures? Clearly there is a vulnerability in the law that may be being exploited.”
To read the first article, click here.
To read the second article, click here.
To read the third article, click here.