A leading elections lawyer is calling for an immediate investigation into a $1.3 million threat now hanging over the head of Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, money a website says will be provided to her next opponent only if she votes to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
 
 A left-leaning activist organization, Mainers for Accountable Leadership (MFAL), is teaming up with an organization called the Maine People’s Alliance, to crowdsource a fundraising campaign targeting Collins in her 2020 re-election if she votes to confirm Kavanaugh. 
 
 But the fundraising has a catch. “Donors” are asked to pledge a donation against Collins, money that will only be charged to their credit card if she makes a yes vote for President Trump’s nominee. 
 
 Collins, an independent-minded Republican, has not revealed if she will vote for Kavanaugh. But Kavanaugh’s recent testimony stating that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” appears to have satisfied her major concern about potential judicial activism. 
 
 In an exclusive statement to Newsmax, Collins stated: 
 
 “I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh. 
 
 “If I vote against him, the money is refunded to the donors. If I vote for him, the money is given to my opponent for the 2020 race,” she said. 
 
 She emphasized “this effort will not influence my vote at all,” adding, “I think it demonstrates the new lows to which the judge’s opponents have stooped.” 
 
 The ActionNetwork.org states that MFAL operates a federally registered political action committee. Maine People’s Alliance is a 501(c)4 organization, that is, a tax exempt group acting to promote socially beneficial objectives. But the actual fundraising campaign is being hosted by a San Francisco-based, for-profit website Crowdpac.com. 
 
 The site’s homepage currently has a banner ad urging Collins to vote against Kavanaugh, stating: “Mainers and over 31,000 Americans across the country are sending Senator Susan Collins a message by pledging to fund her opponent IF she votes yes to confirm Kavanaugh.” 
 
 The crowdsourcing campaign states that if Collins votes against Kavanaugh donors won’t have to pony up any money, but if she does vote in the affirmative, the site promises to “fund her future opponent” in 2020. 
 
 As of Monday afternoon, the Crowdpac site declared it had raised $893,600. The campaign’s stated goal is $1,302,388. 
 
 A prominent Republican elections attorney, Cleta Mitchell of Foley & Lardner, told Newsmax this unusual fundraising effort may violate election laws. 
 
 “They’re trying to tie her official action to their threat that they’re going to give $1 million to somebody to run against her, if she doesn’t vote the way [they want her] to.” 
 
 Mitchell questioned the legality of the attempt to politically strong-arm Collins. 
 
 “It is certainly raising the specter of whether or not this violates the United States criminal code to prohibitions against attempted bribery, by linking official actions to monetary reward,” she said. 
 
 She noted that in Title 18, Section 201 of the U.S. criminal code states it is expressly a violation whenever a party “directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official… for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official….” 
 
 Mitchell on Monday called for both the Department of Justice and FEC to investigate this crowdfunding campaign. 
 
 “The federal law prohibits anyone from offering a member of Congress anything of value in exchange for a Member’s vote,” Mitchell stated. 
 
 “These people have conspired to do just that — they are dangling a fairly substantial ‘thing of value’ — namely, $1 million dollars to be given or not given to Sen Collins’ opponent, in exchange for her vote on a specific matter before the Congress.” 
 
 “Crowdpac has been thoroughly vetted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and our operations and business model have received unanimous approval from the regulator,” TJ Adams-Falconer, a spokesperson told Newsmax. “The notion that Crowdpac operates outside of established federal election law, or operates as a PAC, is simply false. When we were founded, we received a unanimous Advisory Opinion (2014-07) from the FEC that approved our business model and established the ability to raise funds through commercial services and tools on our website.” 
 
 He added that “Crowdpac does not make contributions, process contributions, deposit contributions into a merchant or bank account in its name, or forward contributions to candidate committees. As such, we are fundamentally different from a political action committee, and to register as one would be contrary to the approved operations outlined in our FEC advisory opinion. We always have been, and remain today, a for-profit corporation operating exclusively on a commercial basis.” 
 
 “Ady Barkan, the creator of this Campaign, and his Be A Hero PAC have selected a Nominee Fund for these pledges if they convert to contributions. Nominee Funds, in which a donation is earmarked for a future nominee of a designated political party in a specific election, were first authorized by the FEC in Advisory Opinion 1982-23.” 
 
 But Mitchell argues that Crowdpac is not complying with the FEC Advisory Opinion. 
 
 “Nominee Funds are collected before a primary and are disbursed based on the outcome of an election, not on how a member of Congress votes,” Mitchell said. 
 
 “What Crowdpac has done in this instance is to allow its platform to be used for a purpose quite different from the purpose approved in the FEC opinion. There is no mention in the opinion of using their proposed vehicle as a means of giving or withholding financial support for members of Congress in exchange for their votes or other official action.” 
 
 Crowdpac was co-founded in 2014 by Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator who hosts “The Next Revolution,” a weekly program. Crowdpac originally was positioned as a bipartisan fundraising website. 
 
 But according to The Hill, the company took a sharp turn to the left in May. Hilton stepped down from his position as CEO of the company, and the acting Crowdpac CEO, Jesse Thomas, announced in a post on Medium.com that the site would no longer be accepting fundraising campaigns on behalf of Republican candidates. 
 
 Crowdpac said it was “temporarily suspending” fundraising for GOP campaigns because Republicans tend to support President Trump. 
 
 “This decision has been a hard one for our company,” Thomas stated, “but as Trumpism has spread through the Republican Party we’ve started to see an increase in campaigns for Republican candidates that we cannot allow on our platform.” 
 
 “Left-wing extremists are pressuring Collins and other senators with all sorts vicious attacks and outrageous bribery games that will backfire,” Judicial Crisis Network’s Chief Counsel and Policy Director Carrie Severino said. Judicial Crisis Network is an advocacy group supporting jurists who back conservative judges. 
 
 “Judge Kavanaugh proved in the hearings that he adheres to the Constitution, and has the credentials, temperament, and independence to be another great justice,” Severino added. ||||| CLOSE When Brett Kavanaugh walked away from a Parkland shooting victim's father after he tried to shake his hand, many people were left wondering, where exactly does Supreme Court nominee stand on gun control laws? USA TODAY 
 
 In this Tuesday, Aug. 21, 2018, file photo, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, speaks with Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh at her office, before a private meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington. Collins has been targeted by Democrats hoping that the centrist Republican will vote against the judge's nomination. (Photo: AP) 
 
 WASHINGTON – A watchdog group is asking the Justice Department to investigate a number of groups they say may be illegally pressuring Sen. Susan Collins to gain her vote against Brett Kavanaugh, the president's Supreme Court pick. Collins says she sees the effort – an online crowdfunding effort by groups that threaten to use the money against Collins if she votes for Kavanaugh – as an attempt to bribe her for the vote. 
 
 Collins is one of two potential swing votes on Kavanaugh and has seemingly found herself at the center of the nation's divide over Trump's second nominee to the high court. The Maine Republican has reported receiving threatening calls and letters as well as more than 3,000 wire coat hangers in a grim reference to the unsafe, illegal abortions that abortion-rights defenders say would follow the end of Roe v. Wade. 
 
 But it's the online crowdfunding campaign by three activists groups that's raised concerns of bribery. The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) told USA TODAY it is sending a letter to the Justice Department on Thursday asking it investigate the groups, which have raised more than $1.2 million to go to Collins' opponent if she votes to appoint Kavanaugh. 
 
 "I think this is one of those things where it's very obvious that outside influence is being used in an attempt to corrupt a member of Congress," said Kendra Arnold, executive director of FACT. "We expect them to act on merit, and it's pretty clear no matter where you lean politically that this is absolutely an act of bribery and corruption." 
 
 More: 'Vulgar' calls, threats and 'bribery': Kavanaugh pressure mounts for Sen. Collins 
 
 More: Abortion-rights activists send hangers to Sen. Collins, hoping to influence her vote on court 
 
 More: GOP senator: Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh considers Roe v. Wade 'settled law' 
 
 Collins said she also considers the crowdfunding campaign to be an attempt at bribery. More than 40,000 donors have contributed to the effort, which pledges they won't be charged if Collins votes against Kavanaugh. 
 
 "I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh," she told the conservative site Newsmax. She also told the Wall Street Journal that two lawyers told her the campaign violated federal bribery law and a third said it was extortion. 
 
 The four-page letter, which was provided to USA TODAY, will be sent to Brian Benczkowski, who heads the Justice Department's criminal division. The letter asks not only for the investigation of the three groups raising money to oppose Collins, but also that the webpage where people are donating be removed. 
 
 The crowdfunding campaign is led by the groups Be A Hero Team, Maine People's Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership. They say bribery accusations are false and that the First Amendment protects them. 
 
 Jonathan Berkon, a partner in Perkins Coie’s Political Law Group, defended the crowdfunding campaign and said federal law protects the groups. 
 
 "Through this grassroots effort, Mainers are making clear to Senator Collins that they will defeat her for reelection if she defies the will of the people and votes to confirm Judge Kavanaugh," he said in a statement provided by the crowdfunding campaign. "The First Amendment guarantees their right to do so. And federal law protects their right to pool their funds together now, when enthusiasm is at its peak, so that their campaign against a well-funded, four-term incumbent is viable two years from now. It is shameful that Republicans are using bogus legal threats to stifle this grassroots enthusiasm." 
 
 Marie Follayttar, the co-director of Mainers for Accountable Leadership, dismissed the allegations as "politics at its worst." 
 
 "The idea of Susan Collins attacking an effort by 35,000 small dollar donors as bribery is politics at its worst," Follayttar said. "Thousands of Mainers are trying desperately to tell her that she needs to protect abortion access and critical healthcare coverage across the country by voting ‘no’ on Kavanaugh." 
 
 But, FACT says in the letter that any amount of money promised to a public official is illegal if "the payments are made in return for an explicit promise or undertaking by the official to perform or not to perform an official act." 
 
 Arnold said she'd never seen a campaign like this in hopes of swaying an elected official's opinion or vote. 
 
 "I think that's one reason why it's imperative that the Justice Department look into this," she said. "It would be an enormous mistake to try and ignore something like this that seems almost unprecedented." 
 
 Despite the pressure, Collins and her staff say the aggressive tactics to sway her vote are a wasted effort. 
 
 "Bribery will not work on Sen. Collins," Collins' spokeswoman Annie Clark told USA TODAY. "Sen. Collins will make up her mind based on the merits of the nomination. Threats or other attempts to bully her will not play a factor in her decision making whatsoever." 
 
 Contributing: Will Cummings 
 
 CLOSE There are five senators that could make or break Trump's Supreme Court nominee. Eliza Collins reports. USA TODAY 
 
 Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2CPZxx9 ||||| After the undignified theatrics at Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings last week, it was hard to imagine that the opposition to this competent Supreme Court nominee could get any more embarrassing. Well, how about a campaign to trade a Senator’s vote for political donations? 
 
 A crowdfunding website is trying to strong-arm Senator Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine, by giving more than $1 million to her 2020 opponent—unless she opposes Judge Kavanaugh. Donors are asked to make a financial pledge and then enter their... ||||| Helen Deranian endorsed 
 
 “Her political star has fallen down the rabbit hole of Trump's dark and hollow American abyss. Between her votes for the tax cuts, and Kavanaugh, she decided to carelessly discard the future of Maine's girls and women. Her Kavanaugh vote was delusional, and her long meandering speech was proof. She knew her vote was wrong. She put her faith in a questionable character, for the rest of our lives, instead of all the girls yet to be born. It was an awful display of irrational and dystopian reasoning. Clearly, her past support for women's rights has been an expedient sham. Oh my goodness, what a disappointment. Please use my donation to work for a true and brave advocate for women and the middle class. Thank you.” ||||| Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Al Drago—Pool/Getty Images. 
 
 On Monday, Sen. Susan Collins accused political opponents of Judge Brett Kavanaugh of attempted “bribery.” The charge itself is without any legal merit whatsoever. That complaints about the campaign finance effort came from Collins, Republican election lawyer Cleta Mitchell, and an aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell make the episode almost too rich to be believed. Their cries of bribery, illegality, and lack of principle lay bare the bankrupt campaign finance system that Mitchell and McConnell helped create and that Collins has contributed to with previous Supreme Court votes and will supersize with her likely vote to confirm Kavanaugh. 
 
 Collins labeled as a “bribe” a fundraising plan by two progressive Maine groups, aided by the company Crowdpac, to raise funds for Collins’ eventual opponent in 2020. People are pledging to give money via Crowdpac to that unknown future opponent, but donors will only be charged for the donation if Collins votes “yes” on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. As of Tuesday night, the groups reported pledged donations of more than $1 million, with a $1.3 million goal. There were more than 39,000 individual pledges ranging from $1 to the maximum allowable donation to a candidate of $2,700. 
 
 Now we can argue about whether the political threat to Collins funded by tens of thousands of small donations should be illegal. But claims by Mitchell and others that the fundraising effort is illegal are wrong, in part thanks to the deregulated campaign finance system that Mitchell and others have helped to create through litigation and a sympathetic Supreme Court. 
 
 This behavior does not come close to violating the federal bribery statute. 
 
 Mitchell pointed Newsmax to a federal bribery statute, Title 18, Section 201 of the U.S. Code, which makes it a crime when someone “directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official … for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.” Mitchell said: “These people have conspired to do just that—they are dangling a fairly substantial ‘thing of value’—namely, $1 million to be given or not given to Sen. Collins’ opponent, in exchange for her vote on a specific matter before the Congress.” 
 
 But the Maine groups did not violate section 201. The groups are not promising anything of value to Collins to vote in a particular way; nor are they promising anything to Collins’ (now unknown) opponent for the opponent to vote in a certain way. This behavior does not come close to violating the federal bribery statute. And it’s not the first time Mitchell has made wholly unsubstantiated claims of campaign finance violations against political opponents. 
 
 And what about reading this statute or other federal statutes to prevent what might look like extortion of Collins to vote in a particular way? Well, the Supreme Court has told us in cases like 2010’s Citizens United that large amounts of money sloshing around the system are just fine so long as they are not given by an individual directly to candidates. So long as there is no direct quid pro quo—dollars for political favors—all is fine. 
 
 And the behavior of the two Maine progressive groups is not unusual, except for the fact that it is funded by small donors. This is demonstrated easily by looking at the behavior of those shouting bribery the loudest. As Adam Smith noted, although Sen. John Cornyn boosted Collins’ bribery complaints, back in January he was urging the Koch brothers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to reward the Republican Party for tax cuts benefiting wealthy donors. This came after big donors threatened to withhold money until Republicans got that tax bill passed. That’s closer to Mitchell’s claims of “bribery” than what the Maine groups are doing. Indeed, a 2014 report by Ohio State University law professor Dan Tokaji and then-fellow Renata Strause found that threats by super PACs to spend against incumbents if they don’t vote the way the super PAC donors want is an everyday Washington occurrence.* 
 
 Perhaps the chutzpah award, though, should go to Sen. McConnell’s deputy chief of staff Don Stewart, who urged “every Maine Democrat … to refuse to accept this tainted funding” as the “principled” thing to do. 
 
 Not only has McConnell been one of the most ardent opponents of campaign finance regulation, arguing that people should be able to give unlimited contributions directly to candidates as a matter of the First Amendment, he’s also been the key to keeping the Supreme Court in a position to strike down these laws with his blockade two years ago of Judge Merrick Garland. Garland would have been a key vote to uphold many campaign finance limits, had he been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Thanks to McConnell’s unprecedented obstruction, the judge didn’t even get a hearing. 
 
 Now with the confirmation of Justice Gorsuch last year, and the likely confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh in the coming weeks thanks to Collins’ key vote, things are going to get much worse. As I explained recently in Slate, Judge Kavanaugh is a self-professed outlier when it comes to the First Amendment, agreeing with McConnell that there are constitutional problems with limiting the amount of money that candidates can directly accept. 
 
 If the Maine story has a silver lining, it is this: So long as the Supreme Court is going to keep the money spigot open for wealthy donors, some of the rest of us appear to be at least trying to pool together resources to attempt to fight back. An arms race between the superrich and everyone else to try to influence legislative outcomes is far from ideal, but it is better than wholly ceding the ground to the plutocrats. 
 
 Correction, Sept. 13, 2018: Due to an editing error, this piece initially misidentified Renata Strause as an Ohio State University law professor. She was a fellow.
– More than $1.2 million has been raised to help convince Sen. Susan Collins she shouldn't cast her vote for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the Maine pol isn't exactly motivated by the cash influx. Mainers for Accountable Leadership, the Maine People's Alliance, and a group led by Ady Barkan, an activist dying of ALS, started the campaign directed at Collins, seen as a possible swing vote against Kavanaugh. The groups, which fear Kavanaugh will help overturn Roe v. Wade, vow that if Collins casts a "nay" for Kavanaugh, they'll nix the fundraiser and donors will get to keep their pledges. However, if she votes yes, they say they'll donate the money to her opponent's 2020 campaign. The effort has ended up rankling Collins, who tells Newsmax, "I consider this quid pro quo fundraising to be the equivalent of an attempt to bribe me to vote against Judge Kavanaugh." Collins also tells the Wall Street Journal she's been advised by two lawyers that the fundraiser is a "clear violation of the federal law on bribery," while a third says it amounts to extortion. A conservative watchdog group agrees and is sending a letter Thursday to the Justice Department asking it to investigate the groups. "It's very obvious that outside influence is being used in an attempt to corrupt a member of Congress," Kendra Arnold, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, tells USA Today. (Slate pushes back on the illegality of the fundraiser.) Also "incredibly offensive," Collins tells the Journal: the profane voicemail messages and coat hangers—about 3,000 so far—she says her state offices are receiving. She notes her team donated a few hundred of the hangers to a local thrift shop.