I might be
missing something, but don’t
know of any reason why the “sham issue ad” language was included in
the ad. The “express advocacy” standard is no longer the
touchstone for political party advertising post-BCRA. The BCRA
definition
of “Federal election activity” at 2 U.S.C. 431(20)(A)(iii) includes
any public communication that promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes a
federal
candidate “regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates
a
vote for or against a candidate.” This ad clearly attacks and
opposes DeWine and seems to fall within the scope of the FEA definition
and,
consequently, must be paid for entirely with hard money pursuant to 2
U.S.C. 441i(b)(1).
Expenditures for this ad don’t meet the Levin fund exception, nor any
other exception to the FEA hard money requirement. The FEC’s
implementing regulations for the FEA provisions don’t contain any
exception that would cover this ad. See
11 C.F.R. 100.24.
PSR
__________________________________________
Paul
Seamus Ryan
FEC
Program Director & Associate
Legal Counsel
The Campaign Legal
Center
1640 Rhode Island Ave.,
NW, Ste. 650
Washington, DC 20036
Office Phone:
(202) 736-2200 ext. 13
Mobile Phone: (202) 262-7315
Fax: (202) 736-2222
Web site: www.campaignlegalcenter.org
CLC Blog: www.clcblog.org
__________________________________________
NOTICE: This message is intended for
the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the
employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication
in error, please notify us immediately by reply or by telephone at
(202)
736-2200 and immediately delete this message and all its attachments.
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick
Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, July
18, 2006 12:17
PM
To: election-law
Subject: "Call Mike
Dewine" ad: campaign finance question
Hotline
blog has put up
this ad from the Ohio Democratic Party:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/dem.mov
as part of this post on the DeWine-Brown U.S. Senate race:
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/07/dems_dewines_in.html
The ad ends with an on-screen exhortation to "Call Mike DeWine"
with a phone number. It never says vote for Brown or against
DeWine. What sources of money can the Ohio Democratic Party,
post-BCRA,
use to fund this ad that it could not use if it included express
advocacy
against DeWine? There must be some reason for the sham "Call Mike
DeWine" language.
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org