Latest news with #FECA
Reuters
5 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Billionaire banker hit with legal fee lawsuit stemming from criminal case
July 24 (Reuters) - Venezuelan-Italian bank founder Julio Martin Herrera-Velutini is facing a lawsuit claiming he owes nearly $500,000 in legal fees to the attorneys who once represented him in a criminal case that originally included charges of bribery. U.S. law firm Kasowitz LLP sued, opens new tab Herrera, the billionaire founder of Britannia Financial Group, on Wednesday in Manhattan federal court. The firm alleged Herrera has failed to pay $493,332.31 in fees. A spokesperson for the Kasowitz firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for Herrera said, "We are confident that this matter will be quickly resolved in Mr. Herrera's favor." Herrera was indicted in August 2022 for allegedly paying $300,000 to political consultants supporting Puerto Rico Governor Wanda Vazquez during her 2020 election campaign. Prosecutors said Herrera made the payments in an attempt to end an investigation into his bank, Bancredito, by the island's regulatory authority. After Vazquez lost her primary election in 2020, Herrera attempted to bribe her successor, named in the indictment only as "Public Official A," the prosecutors said. Herrera, Vazquez and another defendant initially pleaded not guilty to charges of bribery, conspiracy and wire fraud. But in June, the government and the defendants, including Herrera, said they reached a deal, opens new tab to resolve the case — Herrera and the others will plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge for violating the Federal Electoral Campaign Act (FECA), opens new tab. Meanwhile, the 2022 indictment, which contained the bribery, conspiracy and wire fraud charges, will be dismissed, the parties said in June. Herrera is scheduled to plead guilty on August 27 to the FECA charge before U.S. District Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Kasowitz firm said in a May 2024 filing, opens new tab it was withdrawing from Herrera's legal team, but did not say why. Herrera's current legal team includes Alex Spiro, a top partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan whose clients have included billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and former Trump defense attorney Christopher Kise. Spiro filed an appearance in the FECA case earlier this month. Reuters reported in June that Kise tried to convince the Justice Department to dismiss or reduce the charges against Herrera, as the department undertakes a broader review of civil and criminal cases launched under Trump's Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US judge dismisses DNC election commission lawsuit, in a victory for Trump
A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) claiming President Donald Trump's executive orders had threatened the independence of the Federal Election Committee (FEC), a significant – albeit rare – court victory for the president. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, said the DNC failed to demonstrate "concrete and imminent injury" – or the burden needed to justify their request for a preliminary injunction. He said that the concerns raised by the party about the FEC's independence as a result of Trump's executive order were far too speculative to satisfy the court's higher bar for emergency relief. At issue in the case was the executive order Trump signed on Feb. 18, titled, "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies." Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda Democrats filed the lawsuit just 10 days after the order was signed, arguing that the order threatened to encroach on the independence of the FEC and risked subjecting it to the whims of the executive branch. The lawsuit focused largely on the claim that the FEC is an independent regulatory agency and argued that the credibility of the entire regulatory enterprise would be "fatally undermined if the party controlling the White House can unilaterally structure campaign rules and adjudicate disputes to disadvantage its electoral competitors." Read On The Fox News App Who Is Judge Amir Ali? The Biden-appointed Federal Judge At The Center Of Trump's Usaid Battle Notably, Ali said Tuesday that he had not found any evidence to date that the White House or the Trump administration had taken steps to change or undermine how the FEC interprets federal election law, or target its independent role. The "possibility that the president and attorney general would take the extraordinary step of issuing a directive to the FEC or its Commissioners purporting to bind their interpretation of FECA is not sufficiently concrete and imminent to create Article III injury," Ali said Tuesday. Should that change, however, Ali said the DNC was welcome to submit an amended filing to the court to reconsider the case. "This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence," Ali article source: US judge dismisses DNC election commission lawsuit, in a victory for Trump
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners, and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. 'Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Judge tosses Democrats' challenge to Trump order's effect on FEC
A federal judge late Tuesday threw out national Democrats' challenge to an executive order issued by President Trump they claimed stepped on the Federal Election Commission's (FEC) independence. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali said the Democratic Party's three national political committees failed to provide clear enough proof that the FEC's independence is at risk. The FEC's legal counsel represented to the court that it would not take directives from the White House interfering with its independent judgment, and the government said no such directives had been issued, prompting the judge to dismiss the lawsuit. 'On this record — lacking any specific allegations that the challenged section has been or will be applied to the FEC or its Commissioners, in accord with the representations of counsel — the Court grants the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of a concrete and imminent injury sufficient to establish standing and ripeness,' Ali wrote in a 14-page opinion. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sued the Trump administration in February, contending that the president's order aimed at expanding the White House's control over various independent regulatory agencies would preclude the agencies from taking legal positions out of line with the president's views. The suit zeroed in on the FEC, the independent agency that enforces campaign finance laws and oversees elections, raising concern that the order would eliminate the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) requirement that the executive's legal interpretations reflect the consensus of the expert and bipartisan board. The FEC is led by six commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission's official interpretation of the law must be backed by at least four commissioners and no more than three of them may be affiliated with the same political party. In their complaint, the Democrats argued that Trump's executive order threatened to undercut the consensus reached after the Watergate scandal that federal campaign finance rules must be neutrally enforced, instead leaving judgment to a 'single partisan political figure — the President of the United States.' However, Ali wrote in his decision that the Democrats needed to provide strong evidence that the FEC is specifically targeted by Trump's order, which does not single it out and applies to all executive employees. They also could have alleged 'concrete steps' the administration had taken to sway the FEC and its commissioners. 'They have not done so here,' the judge wrote. Ali dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the claims could be brought again in the future. The Hill requested comment from the three committees. 'This Court's doors are open to the parties if changed circumstances show concrete action or impact on the FEC's or its Commissioners' independence,' Ali wrote in his opinion. Absent such allegations, however, the Court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and therefore does so.'
CBS News
11-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Democrats ask judge to block Trump executive order giving him more control over FEC
National Democrats asked a judge Tuesday to issue a preliminary injunction halting an executive order signed by President Trump that gives him more control over the Federal Election Commission. The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic campaign organizations filed a federal civil lawsuit last month challenging the executive order, alleging it was a naked power grab by Mr. Trump to assume more control over U.S. elections. In February, Mr. Trump signed an executive order to curtail the authority of independent regulatory agencies. "The independent regulatory agencies officials who wield vast executive power must be supervised and controlled by the people's elected President," his order said. Under the order, the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi would "provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch." Further, any proposed and "final significant regulatory actions" from executive departments and agencies, "including so-called independent agencies," are to be submitted for review to the president before they could be published in the Federal Register. The Democratic campaign groups allege they're already suffering harm because of the executive order. They argue that their employees fear that their fundraising and communications strategies may trigger an FEC complaint against the committees, "as has occurred in previous election cycles." They say that the order violates the Federal Election Campaign Act, known as FECA, by demanding that commissioners and their employees defer to Mr. Trump and Bondi's interpretations of the law and prohibiting them from "'advanc[ing] any interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General's opinion on a matter of law.'" Democrats noted that the executive order grounds its directive in the Article II authority of the president, but they argue that under controlling precedent, "Congress may create expert commissions like the FEC that are insulated from direct Presidential control, and therefore confirms the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of FECA. Last month, Ellen Weintraub, the current Federal Election Commission Chair and one of three Democratic members on the committee, said Mr. Trump had illegally removed her as a member of the FEC.
