I am no lawyer, but here is a pretty concise answer: -Any money spent on an ISP serving a node for the campaign is legally considered a campaign contribution. If the cost incurrs goes over $250 then there is some paperwork required. There is a $2000 cap on campaign contributions from one person.
-If PAC money is used to pay for hosting then there cannot be much interaction legally with the Dean for American headquarters. You can communicate but not plan / organize / control. -Any for profit or non profit group offering node hosting service cannot be partisan or connected in any way to a campaign. I will have access to DFA HQ lawyers at some point soon, and have been talking with Berkman center lawyers about this issues / our options. When I know more I will share all i got. Hope this helps - any questions? -Zack On 22 Jul 2003, jim sloan wrote: > I've been following this for most of today and I am concerned that this > bifurcation is taking too much energy. What I think needs to happen is > that the legal issues need to be spelled out for anyone that would want > to host a site (regardless of candidate). This information can be used > by any interested party to host whatever they want. > > I don't think that hosting is a problem for the h4d project. But if we > have the information that relates to the above then we can help the > "grass root nodes" avoid problems. It would then assist the h4d group in > answering these questions from parties interested in using the h4d > "branded" Drupal. > > Are there some legal resources out there (part of the h4d group) to run > with this issue? It is a track that can run parallel to other > sub-projects. > > regards > jim > > On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 15:26, Jon Lebkowsky wrote: > > Clarification needed: we're looking at the hosting options, and if I > > understand correctly, a4d is moving but the node concept is stalled and may > > generate a project that is not focused on one specific candidate or org. Is > > that correct? > > > > I think we need to clarify the hosting requirements for the nodeless a4d to > > determine what Polycot can do, can we revisit that? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Behalf Of Joshua Koenig > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:19 PM > > > To: zachary rosen > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting > > > > > > > > > > Yes - I am all for it. The only concern is: if there is to strong a > > > > connection / correlation between the Dean campaign and this non profit > > > > service then the campaign is liable. > > > > > > Two points: > > > > > > 1) IMHO this should not be a non-profit venture. This is different from > > > the idea of an academic project which will further the general goals of > > > nodal/online politics. It needs to be non-partisan, but it's > > > essentially a fee-for-service company, and that's all it should be. > > > It's blogspot for a modified version of drupal. There are also > > > strategic reasons for this (see my previous email). > > > > > > 2) As long as the class and quality of service offered is neutral, then > > > it doesn't matter who sets it up. The proof is in the pudding, not in > > > the pedigree. This would mean a stock turnkey install would not include > > > a partisan drupal theme, but we could offer a theme gallery which users > > > would be free to contribute to. > > > > > > cheers > > > -josh > > > > > > > > > >
