News Article
Larry Norton Talks Herman Cain Campaign Controversy with N.Y. Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune
November 1, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Presidential candidate Herman Cain’s ties to a charity run by his aides has come under scrutiny in recent days. And the nation’s leading media outlets are turning to Womble Carlyle Political Law attorney Larry Norton for insight and commentary.
A Wisconsin charity called Prosperity USA paid roughly $40,000 to cover various expenses for the Cain campaign. Prosperity USA was founded by Cain’s chief of staff. Under federal election law, non-profit charities cannot make political contributions.
“It looks like a law school exam on potential campaign finance violations,” Norton told the Washington Post. “Many of these payments would be prohibited contributions under federal election law.”
Norton also discussed the controversy with the New York Times, saying, “If they are supporting his campaign, whether directly or indirectly, they are violating the law.”
The Chicago Tribune interviewed Norton about the topic as well. He told that newspaper, “If they’re engaging in partisan political activity, that’s potentially illegal. At the very least, if the campaign received an in-kind contribution, it should have been reported.”
Larry Norton heads Womble Carlyle's Political Law Practice. He represents corporations, trade associations, non-profit organizations, and others in connection with campaign finance, lobbying, and gift laws. Before joining Womble Carlyle, Norton served as General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission from 2001-2007. He co-authors a blog on political law issues called Political GPS. Norton filed a brief in the Supreme Court in support of the winning party in the Citizens United case.
This document is intended as an informational reminder and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions or would like to discuss a particular situation, please contact Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP. The purpose of this article is to provide general information about significant legal developments and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts and circumstances.
