More on the Illegal GOP Mailers
We have multiple violators here. There is the House Republican Campaign Committee. The Delaware House Republicans themselves. The Reform Delaware Now PAC and the Common Sense Delaware PAC. Common Sense is funded by Delaware GOP National Committeewoman Ellen Barrosse. Reform Delaware is largely funded by Dan Anderson, Delaware’s version of the Koch Brothers. If you look at the Barosse piece propping up Bryant Richardson below, and the Reform Delaware now, you’ll see that the iStock images and graphics are identical. So even though these are two separate PACs, they are clearly coordinating with messaging. That is also illegal.
Please view each of the violating and illegal mailers below. The sections of code they’re violating are also below.
Each candidate on whose behalf these mailers were sent should immediately denounce this illegal activity, lest they be complicit in it. I await their press releases and condemnations by close of business today.
Reform Delaware Now
Common Sense
Delaware House Republicans
House Republican Campaign Committee
§ 8021 Identification of purchaser.
(a) All campaign advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement: “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such advertisement.].” For purposes of this section, “campaign advertisements” shall include any communication by a candidate committee or political party that would otherwise qualify as an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication but for the fact it was made by a candidate committee or political party.
(b) All third-party advertisements having a fair market value of $500 or more, except printed items with a surface of less than 9 square inches, shall include prominently the statement: “Paid for by [name of political committee or other person paying for such third-party advertisement. Learn more about [name of person] at [Commissioner of Elections’ web address].”
§ 8031 Special reports — Third-party advertisements.
(a) Any person other than a candidate committee or political party who makes an expenditure for any third-party advertisement that causes the aggregate amount of expenditures for third-party advertisements made by such person to exceed $500 during an election period shall file a third-party advertisement report with the Commissioner.The report shall be filed under penalty of perjury and shall include the following:
(1) The information required under § 8005(1) of this title with respect to the person making such expenditure;
(2) The full name and mailing address of each person to whom any expenditure has been made by such person during the reporting period in an aggregate amount in excess of $100; the amount, date and purpose of each such expenditure; and the name of, and office sought by, each candidate on whose behalf such expenditure was made;
(3) The full name and mailing address of each person who has made contributions to such person during the election period in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $100; the total of all contributions from such person during the election period, and the amount and date of all contributions from such person during the reporting period;
….
(d) If the expenditure is made more than 30 days before a primary or special election or 60 days before a general election, the report required under this section shall be filed within 48 hours after such expenditure is made. If the expenditure is made 30 days or less before a primary or special election or 60 days or less before an election, such report shall be filed with the Commissioner within 24 hours after such expenditure is made. For purposes of this section, an expenditure shall be deemed to be made on the date it is paid or obligated, whichever is earlier.
Tags: Featured
Is there a statute that says PACs can’t coordinate with each other?
The two similar looking pieces are for different candidates. It’s likely the two pacs use the same consultant and the consultant used a template. It’s bad design practice, but doubtful that’s coordination.
I do not see anything in the law that prohibits PACs from cooperating with each other. What is prohibited is for a candidate to coordinate with a PAC. This is hard to prove except in cases such as the TV ad running out of Salisbury for Ken Simpler. It is “paid for” by a PAC and begins with an attack on what Sean Barney “intends to do to your taxes” but ends with a video of Ken Simpler in his “office” “signing something”. Now perhaps Ken didn’t see the film crew and wasn’t coordinating!
One reason for the proliferation of PAC spending in Delaware the last few cycles is that they can raise what they want without limit from individuals or other entities, but candidates are limited to antiquated caps of contributions. A statewide candidate can receive no more than $1200 from an individual and lower ballot races only $600. You cannot run competitive races very easily if you are a consumer, working person, candidate and your opponent supported by and supportive of the monied interests. We need to try to restrict independent expenditures, but we also need to raise candidate fundraising limits.
Waffling between “Matthews” and “Mathews” should be a crime. But everyone commenting here is right – unless the candidate coordinated with these PACs by providing something that isn’t publicly available (like photos), I don’t think these violate laws by collaborating with another PAC.
Will the Department of Elections or Attorney General investigate whether that Simpler ad is legal?
Let’s not get lost in technicalities about PACs coordinating with each other. The bottom line that I see is that the state put a law in place two years ago to require these PACs to register with the elections department as 3rd party advertisers and to report any expenditure almost immediately after writing a check.
That clearly hasn’t happened here. So what that means is that these Republican PACs are either repeatedly ignorant of the law, or they are willfully disobeying it.
And before everyone debates this, check out this story: http://www.wdde.org/69372-republican-pac-fined-illegal-mailers. The elections commissioner has already ruled that these types of mailers aren’t following state law and fined House Republicans a pretty hefty chunk. Why is that not being more widely reported? 25% of multiple mailers has to be a few thousand dollars. That’s not insignificant.
1. There is a difference between PACs and third-party expenditures.
2. PACs can coordinate with each other and with campaigns, but can’t expressly advocate for someone’s election. Third-party expenditures, like DSEA mailers, can not coordinate, but can say things like “vote” or “elect.”
3. There have been no disclosures by the group that is paying for Barney’s radio ad. (Same group that attacked Sean Matthews, by the way.)
4. Simpler’s TV ad clearly says “paid for by the Simpler campaign.”
The people who did the mailers with no disclaimer should be fined, though. Maybe fined double for stupidity.
While we worry about lack of disclosure by Republican-supporting entities in mailers, I am amazed that there are Republican campaign committees that seem to believe they are not subject to finance reporting at all.
Sussex County Republican County Councilman George Cole succeeded his mother in that office in 1986! She succeeded his father. He is seeking his 8th or 9th term and has serious opposition from former state representative Shirley Price. He is spending money on this 4th district race that will determine control of County Council
Yet Mr Cole’s campaign has failed to file the 8 Day Report due a few days ago. No big deal? He still hasn’t filed the 30 Day Report due a month ago.
Maybe a constitutional party can ignore any law it doesn’t agree with.
I have filed a complaint.
On a related note, I have warmed up to Mr Matthews somewhat based upon the information which El Som provided weeks ago. He addressed the issues that matter to me. Also, I didn’t pay attention to the entity etc but I did recently receive a rather nasty piece against Brenda Mayrack. My friend who lives in Pike Creek told me she got one as well. I did notice that it wasn’t from Mr Wagners campaign. I tossed it. Wish I had kept it so I could check it out against the 3rd party mailer issues raised above. Thanks Jen
Brenda Mayrack’s campaign signs lack any “paid for by” disclosure, and so they are also illegal under the logic here. So, shouldn’t the commissioner be fining her too?
Also, all of the PACs have filed 8-day reports, so all of their contributions and expenditures have been reported and are available publicly. The 3rd Party advertisement discloser was aimed at getting companies and groups which aren’t PACs (and therefore make no filings) to make disclosures, although poor drafting included all PACs, even though they do file reports already.
WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Multiple violations!!!!!
WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!
Even if the piece in question was not from the Simpler campaign, all the have to do is post footage somewhere public, say anyone is welcome to use it, and voila, a PAC has him working at a desk. This is done frequently to skirt the law from my understanding.
I received the hit piece on Brenda as well. It is very hard hitting. I fear it will have a lot of impact.
If the person reading it doesn’t know the issues it will turn them off to her.
National Republican sleezy politics has moved into Delaware.