FEC spells out new money rules for lawmakers

The Hill ^ | 4/23/03 | Alexander Bolton

[Jean S]

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) will tell members of Congress Thursday that they are free to attend soft-money fundraisers for state and local candidates, despite the new campaign finance law that bars them from accepting such funds themselves.

The FEC move, spelling out what is permissible and what is not, is aimed at clearing up what has become a source of concern and confusion for many lawmakers.

During the April recess, many local fundraising dinners, barbeques, and coffee gatherings are missing once-familiar sights: politicians back from Washington working the crowd to remind constituents about their accomplishments in the nation’s capital.

The FEC’s draft rules would allow members of Congress to attend fundraising events sponsored by state or local candidates where soft money is raised. The new campaign finance reform law bars federal lawmakers from raising soft money themselves.

The opinion also allows them to participate at such fundraisers as “featured guests” so long as invitations to the event make clear the lawmakers are soliciting only regulated hard-money donations, not soft-money donations.

In general, lawmakers will be able to solicit direct donations for state and local candidates — so long as they do not ask individual donors for donations greater than $2,000 per election or party committees for more than $5,000 per election. In the draft being considered, federal lawmakers are barred from making open-ended requests that could be construed as pleas for soft money.

In the past, the appearances of House and Senate members at these events were not only critical to funding state-level political operations, but also crucial for lawmakers seeking to bolster their political base at home.

But because of confusion over the campaign finance law passed last year, many state party officials across the nation have avoided asking federal lawmakers to raise money for them or attend this year’s traditional round of Lincoln Day and Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraising dinners.

The fresh anxiety of federal and local politicians has been heightened by the knowledge that violating the new McCain-Feingold law could result in felony convictions, punishable by a prison term of up to five years.

Election law experts say the new FEC decision — currently in draft form — would go a long way to quiet fears and dispel rumors that have frozen lawmakers from participating in political fundraising events.

The draft ruling sets several parameters for federal lawmakers involved in local political activities.

Ian Stirton, a spokesman for the commission, said the agency generally approves draft advisory opinions. But he would not predict how the commission would vote this week. Commissioners must respond to the request for guidance by April 29.

One prominent Republican lawyer at a D.C.-based firm cautioned that the ruling, if approved, could open unwitting congressmen and senators to prosecution if their names appear on mailings that solicit unregulated funds for local candidates.

“It’s very critical,” said Don McGahn, a lawyer for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It answers a lot if not all of the outstanding questions that concern [House] member involvement in state and local politics.”

“I’m paying more attention to this advisory opinion then to what is going on in the courts for no other reason than I know there’s actually going to be an advisory opinion,” he added.

The opinion was requested by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the chief deputy whip of the House, and three local Virginia politicians up for re-election this November.

Indeed, election commission regulations and interpretations of those regulations, known as advisory opinions, serve, for the most part, as the only anchor for lawyers and lawmakers as they seek to sail through rough political waters in the absence of firm guidance from the courts.

While the new campaign finance law was supposed to be sent to the U.S. Supreme Court as quickly as possible, it remains under review by a special three-judge panel, bogged down by a tsunami of legal briefs. The delay has also been attributed to reported disputes between the judges.

That court was supposed to render its decision in early February, and the delay has raised concerns that the high tribunal will not be able to rule on campaign finance reform this year.

Until now, the silence of both the FEC and the top court on the subject has had a tremendous impact on how federal lawmakers participate in state-level politics.

“To say that campaign finance reform has had a chilling effect on federal officeholders is the biggest understatement I’ve heard in six months,” said Joe Brezny, executive director of the Nevada Republican Party. “With criminal penalties for violating the law, we’ve walked away from any practices involving federal officeholders. We have not approached our officeholders to raise a penny for state [candidates].”

Brezny said the absence of federal lawmakers from the fundraising scene has cast a shadow over many local political activities.

“Having [them] gone from state party fundraising has been devastating,” he said. “It hamstrings the entire process on the state and federal level. It’s our job to make sure that we bring voter registration to as many people as possible; to the elderly; to school kids turning 18. Those things take money.”

Bradley Smith, one of the Republican-appointed members of the commission, has drafted an alternative advisory opinion that would give federal lawmakers more leeway to make general solicitations — requests that do not mention a limited amount — on behalf of local candidates. Smith also has proposed allowing a federal lawmaker’s name to appear on stationery or printed campaign material that solicits soft money as long as it does not appear the lawmaker is making the solicitation.

Smith’s alternative opinion raises the possibility the commission may deadlock on the new rules.

Glen O’Connell, the South Carolina Republican Party treasurer, said the decision by the commission is important because: “most federal candidates and officeholders have been unwilling to do anything until there is clarification [of the rules].”

“They’re being extremely cautious in terms of what they can and cannot do on this subject,” he added. “The biggest issue is the uncertainty. The clarification will allow them to be comfortable.”

Bill Janis, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, joined Cantor in asking the FEC for an opinion. So far this year he has refrained from asking Cantor, his congressman, from helping him raise money.