When “Legislative Intent” Is Tough to Discern (Campaign Finance Law Version)

A state legislative process typically involves committee members in two chambers separately discussing a bill, a conference committee, then a floor vote, then a Governor’s signature. Some of that input comes with useful comments from officials, but it’s up to the courts to decide how to weigh the a diversity of opinions and turn it into a single “legislative intent” that can be applied to citizens so they can follow the law. In this account of some Wyoming campaign finance reform legislation, we see a good example of the ambiguities of not just the law as written but the possibility of wildly different intents behind it.

An attempt to update and reform Wyoming’s campaign finance laws may have accidentally repealed all regulations covering groups that do not normally participate in political campaigns — even if they sometimes do spend large sums to support political causes.

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/did-lawmakers-accidentally-opening-the-flood-gates-for-political-dark/article_d374962a-9b91-5d05-b2f3-2925c7cf067d.html

How far into the FEC guide do you have to read to get this answer?

Here’s a question that comes up every election cycle, and you don’t even need to read all 198 pages of the FEC congressional guide to get the answer.

Jo Holt, head of the Pima County Democratic Party, has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, aruging that it is “inconceivable” that McSally has not spent more than $5,000 in seeking the Senate seat. The Democrats maintain that McSally “apparently” hired a polling firm to gauge her name recognition for a statewide race for the Senate.

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/121417_mcsally_fec/local-democrats-allege-mcsally-campaign-finance-violations/

Here’s the answer contained in the first three sentences of the FEC Candidate Guide:

Before deciding to campaign for federal office, an individual may want to “test the waters,” that is, explore the feasibility of becoming a candidate. For example, an individual may want to conduct polls or travel around the state or district to see if there is sufficient support for his or her candidacy. An individual who merely tests the waters, but does not campaign for office, does not have to register or report to the FEC.

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/candgui.pdf

So who’s really to blame?

What do you think?

Our vulnerabilities seemed obvious: The FEC’s antiquated policies refer to fax machines and teletypes, but barely mention modern technological phenomena like social media, YouTube and bots. The inadequacy of the FEC’s current regulations makes it practically impossible for both regulators and citizens to determine if the funding for a political advertisement online came from a domestic source or an enemy abroad.

full article from Politico

WSJ: Campaign Finance Deregulation Possibilities

This could get very interesting, if it happens:

Under one deregulatory measure in the spending package, churches may be able to contribute to candidates without fear of losing their tax-exempt status, furthering President Donald Trump’s promise to “get rid of and totally destroy” a law that forbids such activity.

Corporations also would be able to ask their employees to donate to unlimited numbers of trade associations’ political-action groups instead of limiting employee solicitations to one group per year.

Other measures included in the bill would continue to prevent the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission from implementing rules that would affect political activities of 501(C)(4) nonprofits and publicly traded corporations, respectively.

Full article

Good things to know

Arizona’s campaign finance laws were rewritten in 2016, what prompted the changes?

Well, when an Arizona judge rule the state’s definition of “political committee” was unconstitutionally vague, and the legislature responded: More

Candidates: Could this happen to you?

October 6, 2015 WASHINGTON – Freshman Arizona Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego’s campaign committee has agreed to pay $2,000 and his campaign staff will undergo training to settle a Federal Election Commission complaint. More