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