Thomas Dale DeLAY, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 03-11-00087-CR
Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.
Sept. 19, 2013.
410 S.W.3d 902
Rosemary Lehmberg and Holly Taylor, for The State of Texas.
Roger B. Borgelt, Benjamin T. Barr, Stephen R. Klein, for The Center for Com-
Before Chief Justice JONES, Justices GOODWIN and GAULTNEY*.
OPINION
MELISSA GOODWIN, Justice.
Appellant Thomas Dale DeLay appeals from judgments convicting him of the offenses of money laundering of funds of $100,000 or more and conspiracy to commit money laundering of funds of $100,000 or more. See
BACKGROUND
The State‘s charges against DeLay stem from a series of political transactions during the 2002 election cycle. See generally Ex parte Ellis, 279 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008), aff‘d, 309 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. Crim.App.2010) (describing factual basis of indictments against defendants). Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC), a Texas general-purpose political committee, received donations from corporations in excess of $190,000.2 See
Based on this combination of transactions, DeLay, together with co-defendants John Colyandro and James Ellis, was initially indicted for conspiracy to violate provisions of the Election Code and for conspiracy to commit money laundering.5 The State accused the defendants of “participating in a scheme to channel unlawful
The jury trial occurred in November 2010.7 Calling over 40 witnesses, the State presented evidence concerning the political transactions that formed the basis of its charges, DeLay‘s involvement with TRMPAC, RNSEC, and the transactions, and his political motivations for obtaining a Republican majority in the Texas Legislature. As TRMPAC‘s name suggests, it was formed for the purpose of supporting Republican candidates and to gain a Republican majority in the Texas Legislature. DeLay was a board member and raised funds for TRMPAC. DeLay sought a majority in the Texas Legislature in part to accomplish redistricting to increase the Republican delegation to the United States Congress.
The State‘s theories included that the corporate donations to TRMPAC and DeLay‘s “agreement” with others to the money “swap,” as described above, were unlawful corporate political contributions in violation of the Election Code. See
DeLay did not dispute any of the transfer-of-funds transactions or that the Election Code prohibited corporations from making campaign contributions to Texas candidates. DeLay‘s defensive theory, among others, was that none of the transfers was illegal - that they were structured to comply with the campaign finance laws - and, therefore, there were no proceeds of criminal activity to support money
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts, and the trial court assessed DeLay‘s punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for three years on count one and five years on count two. The sentence for the second count was suspended and DeLay was placed on community supervision for ten years.
ANALYSIS
DeLay raises eight points of error. In his first and second points of error, he contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury‘s verdicts as to either count.8
Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence
Federal due process requires that the State prove every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 313 (1979); Byrd v. State, 336 S.W.3d 242, 246 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex.Crim. App.2010).
We measure the sufficiency of the evidence by the elements of the offense as defined in a hypothetically correct jury charge. Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766, 773 (Tex.Crim. App.2011); Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim.App.1997). Such a charge is one that “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State‘s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State‘s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried.” Byrd, 336 S.W.3d at 246 (quoting Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240).
In assessing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we have a duty “to ensure that the evidence presented actually supports a conclusion that the defendant committed the crime that was charged.” Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex.Crim.App.2007); see Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875, 882 (Tex. Crim.App.2010). “If the evidence establishes precisely what the State has alleged, but the acts that the State has alleged do not constitute a criminal offense under the totality of the circumstances, then that evidence, as a matter of law, cannot support a conviction.” Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750.
Offenses of Conspiracy and Money Laundering
(a) A person commits conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed:
(1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and
(2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.
As alleged in this case, a person commits the offense of money laundering “if the person knowingly ... conducts, supervises, or facilitates a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity.”
Allegations and Proof
Count one, the criminal conspiracy allegation, reads:
[O]n or about and between the sixth day of September, 2002, and the fourth day of October, 2002, ... the defendants ... with intent that a felony be committed, to wit, with intent that the offense of money laundering of funds of the value of $100,000 or more, a felony of the first degree, be committed, did agree with one or more persons, namely, John Dominick Colyandro, ... James Walter Ellis, ... Thomas Dale DeLay ... Texans for a Republican Majority PAC ... and the Republican National Committee ... that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the aforesaid offense, and the defendant, John Dominick Colyandro, James Walter Ellis, and the Republican National Committee, did perform an overt act in pursuance of the agreement, to wit:
The indictment listed 13 overt acts:
- On or about September 10, 2002, Colyandro signed the check for $190,000 payable to RNSEC from TRMPAC.
- On or about September 10, 2002, Colyandro delivered the check to an accountant for TRMPAC.
- On or about September 10, 2002, Colyandro instructed the accountant to send the check to Ellis.
- On or about September 11, 2002, Ellis communicated with the chief of staff of the RNC and did “request and propose that, in exchange for their receipt of a contribution of a certain sum of money” from TRMPAC, the RNC and RNSEC would “make political contributions to seven candidates for the Texas House of Representatives that were supported by” TRMPAC.
- On or about September 13, 2002, Ellis tendered and delivered the check to RNC.
- On or about September 13, 2002, Ellis provided the chief of staff of the RNC with a document that contained the names of seven Texas candidates that were supported by TRMPAC with “suggested” amounts of contributions and Ellis “requested and proposed” that the RNC and RNSEC “make political contributions in exchange for the committees’ receipt of the proceeds from the aforesaid check.”
- 7-13. On or about October 4, 2002, the RNC and RNSEC issued checks in specified amounts to the campaigns for the seven candidates.
The check from TRMPAC to RNSEC was included as an exhibit to the indictment.
Count two, the money laundering allegation, specifically alleged in relevant part:
[The defendants] did knowingly conduct, supervise, and facilitate a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity that constituted an offense classified as a felony under the laws of this state, to wit, the offense of knowingly making a
political contribution in violation of Subchapter D of Chapter 253 of the Texas Election Code, a felony violation of chapter 253.003 of the Election Code; that the aforesaid transaction consisted of the transfer of funds of the aggregate value of $190,000 from the [RNC] and the [RNSEC] ... to several candidates for the Texas House of Representatives that were supported by [TRMPAC].
The count further alleged that the defendants “conducted, supervised, and facilitated the aforesaid transaction by“:
- “negotiating with” RNC‘s chief of staff “for an agreement, arrangement, and understanding whereby [TRMPAC] would make a contribution of a certain sum of money to the [RNC] and [RNSEC] and whereby the [RNC] and [RNSEC] would make contributions to the aforesaid candidates;”
- “providing” RNC‘s chief of staff “with certain information concerning contributions to be made by the [RNC] and [RNSEC] to the said candidates, to wit, the names of said candidates and amounts that [TRMPAC] suggested be contributed to each of the said candidates;”
- “signing the check reproduced at the conclusion of this count;”
- “transferring funds of the value of $190,000 from [TRMPAC] to [RNC] and [RNSEC];....”
The count also alleged that “the value of the funds that constituted the aforesaid proceeds of criminal activity was $100,000 or more” and included a copy of the same check from TRMPAC payable to RNSEC as was included with count one.
As drafted, both counts of the indictment required the State to establish that there was a felony criminal offense which generated proceeds. See
Though not asserted at trial, the State urges on appeal that the corporate payments to TRMPAC violated the Election Code because most of the donations were given without designating a particular use for the donation or were given with the intent that they be used in connection with a Texas campaign. Although most of the corporate donations to TRMPAC did not include a specific designation or limitation on how TRMPAC used the funds, witnesses from the corporations that gave money to TRMPAC uniformly testified that they intended to comply with the law and that they made their respective donations with the intent that they be used for lawful purposes.9 See Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d 71, 90 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (noting requirement in Election Code “that a contributor have a certain intent before the contribution is deemed illegal“).10 “The State has the burden to prove the applicable culpable mental states, and if it cannot, then a defendant charged under [the Election Code provisions at issue] is entitled to an acquittal.” Id.
All corporate contributions were deposited in a separate, designated account by TRMPAC. Corporate contributions to a general purpose Texas political committee could lawfully be spent to finance the committee. The State‘s forensic analyst testified:
Q. Did you see a single check out of that account that the $190,000 went into to a single candidate in Texas?
A. No.
Q. Furthermore, there were no transfers from that account to the account from which the checks were written to the candidates in Texas, was there?
A. That‘s correct.
Q. If there‘s been testimony about a firewall, meaning that there was a strict division between that corporate account where the 190 went and the other account where the checks were written to the Texas candidates came from, that‘s a fair characterization, isn‘t it? No transfers between the two, never the money mixed, right?
A. I didn‘t see transfers between the two accounts.
As the Ethics Advisory Opinion offered into evidence by the State explains, “Contributions that support the operation of a general-purpose committee ultimately support the carrying-out of the committee‘s principal purposes, including the making of political expenditures in connection with elections and officeholder assistance.” See
The State does not dispute that the law allowed corporate contributions to general-purpose political action committees for administrative expenses. Practically speaking, lawful corporate contributions to the administration of a committee ultimately support the committee‘s principal purpose, and funds given for the administration are not transformed into “proceeds of criminal activity” merely because the funds were from corporations. Nor are funds illegal merely because the corporate contributions allowed individual contributions to be used to support candidates.
The State does not contend that the corporations were prohibited from making donations to TRMPAC or that TRMPAC was prohibited from transferring those funds for use out of state. See
To support its position that the majority of corporate contributions violated the Election Code by not expressly designating a lawful use of their donations to TRMPAC, the State focuses on the following clause from the opinion in Ex parte Ellis: “there is no such thing as a legal undesignated corporate political contribution.” Id. at 88. We believe that the State takes this clause out of context. In that case, the court was addressing constitutional challenges to the Election Code. The clause cited by the State was made
To the extent that the court of appeals may have suggested that there is no such thing as an undesignated corporate political contribution, the error it made was minor. It would be more accurate to say that there is no such thing as a legal undesignated corporate political contribution. Individuals can legally make undesignated political contributions, but corporations cannot. A corporation must designate the purpose of the political contribution by contributing to a political committee that is exclusively devoted to measures, by making expenditures for maintenance or operation of a corporate political committee, or by contributing to a political party under certain narrowly defined conditions.
Id. We also note that, although the Election Code prohibits a corporation from making contributions unless authorized by Subchapter D, it does not require a corporation to report or expressly designate the uses that it authorizes when making a donation. See generally
The State‘s primary argument at trial was that the Election Code violation that generated criminal proceeds was the “agreement” between DeLay and others to the combined transfers of funds, i.e., the money swap of soft money for hard money. The State argued in its final argument: “[T]he moment that the decision was made to send the soft dollar check up to Washington D.C. with the intent that it ultimately go to candidates for elective office is the moment that this money became proceeds of criminal activity.”13 Relying on the use of the word “indirect” in the Election and Penal Code statutes at issue, the State argues that the “agreement” to the combined transactions itself was an illegal contribution and thus the corporate funds sitting in TRMPAC‘s bank account at the moment of the agreement became the proceeds of criminal activity. See
Here, the evidence was undisputed that the RNSEC issued checks to the seven Texas candidates from a hard money account that was separate from its soft money account.14 Thus, the sources of the funds in the hard money account were not “indirectly” from corporations but from sources such as individuals who were not prohibited from making campaign contributions.15 See Emily‘s List, 581 F.3d at 12 & n. 11 (describing allowed sources of funds in soft and hard money accounts and noting that corporate donations may not be placed in hard money account). As to the funds that were transferred from TRMPAC to RNSEC, the Election Code does not prohibit corporate funds from being sent out of Texas, RNSEC placed the funds in a soft money account, and RNSEC‘s accounts were not commingled. See id.; see also
We also question the validity of the State‘s “agreement” theory. It was not a crime to conspire to violate the Election Code in 2002. See Colyandro, 233 S.W.3d at 870-71, 885. And, even if it was, the evidence does not support a finding that there was an “agreement” to illegally transfer corporate money to Texas candidates. There was no evidence that TRMPAC or RNSEC treated the corporate funds as anything but what they were, corporate funds with limited uses under campaign finance law. Rather, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed an agreement to two legal monetary transfers: that TRMPAC transfer corporate money to RNSEC for use in other states and not in Texas in exchange for RNSEC transferring funds to Texas candidates out of a hard money account. Rather than supporting an agreement to violate the Election Code, the evidence shows that the defendants were attempting to comply with the Election Code limitations on corporate contributions.
Further, the State‘s “agreement” theory depends upon the combination of the transactions, conflating the predicate criminal activity, the making of “an agreement ... to make a transfer” in violation of the Election Code, with the money laundering transaction. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 666 F.3d 905, 908-09 (5th Cir.2012) (describing money laundering convictions that failed because, among other reasons, “the unlawful act was not yet complete“); United States v. Butler, 211 F.3d 826, 829 (4th Cir.2000) (noting that federal money laundering statute “targeted only those transactions occurring after proceeds have been obtained from the underlying unlawful activity” and noting that funds are “criminally derived” if they are “derived from an already completed offense, or a completed phase of an ongoing offense” (citations omitted)); United States v. Mankarious, 151 F.3d 694, 706 (7th Cir.1998) (“[T]he predicate offenses must produce proceeds before anyone can launder those proceeds.“); United States v. Edgmon, 952 F.2d 1206, 1214 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Congress aimed the crime of money laundering at conduct that follows in time the underlying crime rather than to afford an alternative means of punishing the prior ‘specified unlawful activity.... We find that Congress intended money laundering and the ‘specified unlawful activity’ to be separate offenses separately punishable.“).17 Money laundering and Election Code violations are different offenses. The Texas money laundering statute, as applied here, is not simply an alternative means of punishing the alleged predicate offense. Money laundering is a subsequent offense separate from the alleged criminal activity that is its predicate offense. See, e.g., United States v. Christo, 129 F.3d 578, 579-81 (11th Cir.1997) (reversing federal money laundering conviction where the “withdrawal of funds charged as money laundering was one and the same as the underlying criminal activity of bank fraud and misapplication of bank funds“). Here, the funds were only “derived from” the money-swap agreement after the transactions were complete, if at all.
Finally, even if we were to conclude that the corporate donations to TRMPAC or the agreement itself to the series of money transfers violated the Election Code, the State‘s charges as stated in the indictment were tied to the transfer from RNSEC to the seven Texas candidates. As stated above, the RNSEC issued the checks to the candidates from a separate, segregated account - a hard money account - which did not include corporate money. Compare United States v. Loe, 248 F.3d 449, 466-67 (5th Cir.2001) (distinguishing “clean” and “dirty” money in same account in context of federal money laundering charges); United States v. Ward, 197 F.3d 1076, 1083 (11th Cir.1999) (“When money is commingled, ‘the illicitly-acquired funds and the legitimately-acquired funds ... cannot be distinguished from each other....‘” (citation omitted)), with Emily‘s List, 581 F.3d at 12 & n. 11 (recognizing practice of maintaining separate, segregated accounts in context of campaign finance laws). The sources of the funds in RNSEC‘s hard money account, such as contributions from individuals, were not “tainted.” RNSEC deposited the corporate funds of $190,000 in a soft money account and those funds were not commingled with the hard money account or otherwise used in Texas. Thus, the State failed in its burden to prove that the funds that were delivered to the seven candidates were ever tainted. See
The deficiency of the State‘s case is illustrated by the confusion displayed by the jury during deliberations. The money laundering statute required the State to prove that the funds involved in the transaction were the “proceeds of criminal activity.” See
During deliberations, the jury asked the trial judge that question of law in this way: “Can it constitute money laundering if the money wasn‘t procured by illegal means originally?” The request for an instruction on the law was proper. See
Later, during deliberations, the jury asked the question again: Does the money “have to be illegal at the start of the transaction.” Again, the question was a proper one, and the answer to that rephrasing of the same question is “yes.” Otherwise, the funds would not be “proceeds of criminal activity.” But the prosecutor argued to the trial judge that the money could be obtained legally and still be laundered. The trial court did not answer the jury‘s question of law, but once again simply referred the jury to the jury charge that was questioned.
While the jury was in the jury room deliberating, the prosecutor, addressing the jury‘s questions, argued to the trial judge:
Well, Your Honor, I feel a little bad for the jury because I think it is evident from their questions that they are confused about the law.
....
And they are just expected to be arbitrators of the facts, not the law. And I think we‘ve put them in an uncomfortable position of trying to decide what the law is, which is not their job.
As the prosecutor commented, the jury should not have been placed in the “uncomfortable position of trying to decide what the law is, which is not their job.” The jury‘s questions to the trial judge, along with the prosecutor‘s argument in response, point to the lack of evidence showing that the funds involved in the transaction were the proceeds of criminal activity. The State did not prove the funds were “illegal at the start of the transaction” or “procured by illegal means originally,” as phrased by the jury in the two questions about the law. The lack of legally sufficient evidence that the funds
CONCLUSION
Based on the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence presented does not support a conclusion that DeLay committed the crimes that were charged. See Williams, 235 S.W.3d at 750; see also United States v. Grossman, 117 F.3d 255, 261 (5th Cir.1997) (concluding that evidence legally insufficient to sustain conspiracy count where evidence was legally insufficient to sustain substantive counts forming basis for object of conspiracy); United States v. Mackay, 33 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir.1994) (“A conspiracy conviction requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime.“). The fundamental problem with the State‘s case was its failure to prove proceeds of criminal activity. We sustain DeLay‘s first and second points of error. Due to our resolution of these two grounds, we do not reach DeLay‘s remaining points of error.
Because we conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to support DeLay‘s convictions, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal.
Dissenting Opinion by Chief Justice JONES.
J. WOODFIN JONES, Chief Justice, dissenting.
Because I do not agree with the majority opinion‘s conclusions regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting appellant‘s convictions, I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes that there was legally insufficient evidence of any felony offense that “generated proceeds” and, therefore, that the State failed to establish an element of the crime of money laundering as alleged in the indictment, i.e., that the transaction appellant conducted, supervised, or facilitated involved the proceeds of criminal activity. See
With the exception of the specific types of contributions expressly authorized by subchapter D of Election Code chapter 253 (sections 253.091-.104), corporations are prohibited from making “political contributions.”2 See
It would be more accurate to say that there is no such thing as a legal undesignated corporate political contribution. Individuals can legally make undesignated political contributions, but corporations cannot. A corporation must designate the purpose of the political contribution by contributing to a political committee that is exclusively devoted to measures, by making expenditures for maintenance or operation of a corporate political committee, or by contributing to a political party under certain narrow conditions.
Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d at 88 (emphases added). The corporate contributions in the present case were not so limited and do not fit within any of the categories of political contributions or political expenditures authorized by subchapter D. Thus, the corporate contributions to TRMPAC were made in violation of Election Code sections 253.003 and 253.094, an offense constituting a third degree felony. See
Moreover, even if undesignated corporate contributions to TRMPAC could somehow fall into a category of political contributions or expenditures authorized by subchapter D, the evidence presented at trial would still be legally sufficient to support a jury finding that those corporate contributions were in fact made with the intent that they be used to support individual candidates for public office and were, therefore, made in violation of subchapter
A rational juror hearing the evidence presented in this trial could have found that the relevant corporate contributions to TRMPAC were made with the intent that they be used to support individual candidates or be put to other purposes not authorized by subchapter D. The brochures, forms, and letters used by TRMPAC to solicit these contributions included statements such as the following:
- “TRMPAC is focused on raising and giving funds directly to Republican candidates for state house, state senate, and potentially all statewide offices.”
- “Your support today will go directly to help Republican candidates in Texas successfully run and win their campaigns.”
- “All contributions, whether to the PAC or individuals, will be used for direct campaign expenses.”
- “Unlike other organizations, your corporate contribution to TRMPAC will be put to productive use. Rather than just paying for overhead, your support will fund a series of productive and innovative activities designed to increase our level of engagement in the political arena.”
I disagree with the majority‘s assertion that these statements are evidence only of TRMPAC‘s intentions and do not constitute evidence of the intent of the corporate contributors. As the court of criminal appeals observed, “intent can be ascertained with respect to corporations for the purpose of imposing criminal liability.” Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d at 90 (citing New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 483 (1909) (“There is no more difficulty in imputing to a corporation a specific intent in criminal proceedings than in civil.” (quoting Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Commonwealth, 172 Mass. 294, 52 N.E. 445, 446 (1899)))). A corporation‘s intent may be divined from the actions taken by its agents equipped with knowledge of certain facts. See Vaughan & Sons v. State, 737 S.W.2d 805, 806 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (observing that it is generally accepted that intent of corporation‘s employees or agents may be imputed to corporation). A rational juror could find that a corporation that makes a contribution to a political committee whose stated primary purpose is to raise and give funds directly to candidates, in response to a solicitation that essentially promises that the funds will be used for “direct campaign expenses” “rather than just paying for overhead,” is doing so with the intent that its contribution go to an individual candidate or campaign.
The majority emphasizes that representatives of several contributing corporations testified that they assumed their donations would be used for lawful purposes and that they intended to comply with the law, but that testimony does no more than create a fact issue with regard to their intent. Such a fact issue is, of course, properly resolved by the jury, whose judgment regarding a witness‘s credibility we may not supplant with our own. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 899 (in applying legal-sufficiency standard, reviewing court is required to
Finally, I disagree with the majority‘s statement that the State failed to prove the applicable culpable mental states because the corporations “could lawfully make donations to TRMPAC.” Op. at 911. It does not logically follow that merely because a corporation could make a legal contribution, it necessarily did make a legal contribution. Again, the presence or absence of the requisite intent was simply a fact issue to be resolved by the jury.
For these reasons, I disagree with the majority‘s conclusion that there was legally insufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the corporate contributions at issue here were the proceeds of criminal activity.3 I therefore do not join in its holding that the State failed to establish an element of the crime of money laundering as alleged in the indictment, specifically that appellant conducted, supervised, or facilitated a transaction involving the proceeds of criminal activity.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the Holders of Impac Secured Assets Corp., Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-4, Appellant, v. Joann EZELL and all Occupants of 2400 Saddlewood Ct., Cedar Hill, Texas 75104, Appellees.
No. 08-12-00211-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.
Sept. 25, 2013.
Notes
- TRMPAC is focused on raising and giving funds directly to Republican candidates for state house, state senate, and potentially all statewide offices.
- Your support today will go directly to help Republican candidates in Texas successfully run and win their campaigns.
- All contributions, whether to the PAC or individuals, will be used for direct campaign expenses.
- Unlike other organizations, your corporate contribution to TRMPAC will be put to productive use. Rather than just paying for overhead, your support will fund a series of productive and innovative activities designed to increase our level of engagement in the political arena.
The Election Code does not prohibit a corporation from making contributions and expenditures in connection with elections and measures in states other than Texas.
A general purpose political committee may use corporate contributions that it receives to make any contribution or expenditure that a corporation could make.