Is there anything in the BCRA that would prohibit Flake from engaging in
raising funds for the committee if it were set up by someone other than
himself?
Larry Levine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Still" <ed@votelaw.com>
To: "Larry Levine" <larrylevine@earthlink.net>;
<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: Federal candidates and state initiative campaigns
The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act applies only to state
candidates. See
http://www.ccec.state.az.us/ccecscr/cceca/act/16901.asp. However, that
does not make a difference. The point is that Flake has organized a group
to put an initiative on the Arizona ballot. Whatever the subject matter
of
the initiative -- and it could be to regulate Indian gaming, air
pollution,
water rights, or anything else -- it is a state campaign not a federal
one.
The BCRA does not prohibit Flake from speaking on the initiative. I think
it was the Brennan Center that made that point in its comment on the Flake
request. What it does do is prohibit Flake from raising or spending funds
directly or indirectly in excess of the federal limit. In other words,
Flake can spend his campaign's money on the initiative if he wants
to. What he can't do is set up another committee that raises
"non-federal"
money and spends it to promote a ballot initiative.
At 11:26 AM 4/26/03 -0700, Larry Levine wrote:
Does the Clean Election Fund provide funds for candidates for federal
offices or just for state offices? If it is the latter, then the use of
federal funds would probably NOT be permitted under BCRA. If it funds
both
state and federal races, can federal funds be spent to repeal the state
funding portions? On another level, can someone tell me why a person
should
be deprived of his or her first amendment rights to speak on public
issues
simply because that person holds or seeks a federal office? Let's see if
I
have this right: some people are moving with some success to restoring
the
right to vote to convicted felons while others are seeking to silence
federal office holders and candidates in debate of issues that will
appear
on the same ballot on which felons can vote. I know it's an non-sequitur,
but ironic anyway.
Larry Levine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Still" <ed@votelaw.com>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 6:49 PM
Subject: Federal candidates and state initiative campaigns
The request (of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)) to the FEC for an Advisory
Opinion has drawn several comments. Flake set up a group called Stop
Taxpayer Money for Politicians Committee which wants to circulate
petitions
for an initiative to repeal the Clean Elections fund in Arizona. The
problem is that Flake is a federal official and he is wondering if
working
on this state campaign at the same time as he is running for
re-election
(or perhaps against Sen. John McCain) will violate the BCRA.
The Brennan Center argues that because the BCRA "unambiguously
prohibits
initiative campaign committees that were established by candidates for
federal office from raising money from sources or in amounts that are
not
permitted by federal law," the Stop Committee must raise funds only in
accord with the BCRA.
The Center for Responsive Politics agrees with the general point of
the
Brennan Center letter, but goes further in arguing that the Stop
Committee
will engage in federal election activity and electioneering
communications
during a federal election, and engage in prohibited coordination with
a
federal campaign (Flake's). It concludes that the Stop Committee
"would
resolve most, if not all, its compliance issues by soliciting,
receiving
and spending only federal funds. The Center also suggests that
portions of
the request ask for advice about hypotheticals, and the FEC should
reject
those.
Common Cause and Democracy 21 urge the FEC to reject the whole request
because it asks for general advice about how to comply with the law if
the
Committee takes a variety of forms. In addition to the points made
above
by
the other commentators, these two organizations argue that Flake and
the
Committee have already violated the BCRA by soliciting non-federal
funds;
and that it makes no difference what form the Committee takes (527
group
or
501(c)(3)).
The Campaign Legal Center covers the same terrain in a longer letter
that
points out the importance of ballot initiatives and urges the FEC not
to
allow "a blurring of the line between political campaign and
initiative
processes."
The Flake request is AOR 2003-12. It and the comments are at
http://www.fec.gov/aoreq.html.
Ed Still
http://www.votelaw.com
http://votelaw.blogspot.com