From the St. Louis Today

Ruling may silent fervent ads just before elections

In the final weeks before the November 2002 election, Missouri's two
major-party candidates for the U.S. Senate had lots of help.
TV and radio airwaves were packed with fiery ads lauding or lambasting
Republican Jim Talent and Democrat Jean Carnahan. And the candidates had
nothing to do with most of the spots.
Some were produced and financed by independent groups, such as the Sierra
Club, an environmental group supporting Carnahan, or the Club for Growth,
an anti-tax business group backing Talent.
But the bulk of the ads were sponsored by their own political parties. The
state Democratic and Republican parties spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars to air so-called "issue" spots that detailed the views of the
targeted candidate. Viewers were told to call the candidate to register
their support or objections.
As long as the candidates had no involvement in the ads, the spots didn't
fall under the federal campaign-finance restrictions. In fact, most of the
ads were financed with donations of unlimited size from supportive donors,
or with aid sent from the national parties.
But as a result of last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, such
ads "are toast," said Missouri Republican Party consultant John Hancock.
That's because the court's ruling, in effect, outlaws the way the state
parties collected most of the money.
Indeed, state political parties in Illinois, Missouri and elsewhere are
preparing for a lot of changes mandated by the court's decision to uphold
most of the campaign restrictions passed last year by Congress and signed
into law by President George W. Bush.
Conventional wisdom earlier held that the biggest losers were the national
political parties, because the law no longer allows them to collect the
donations of unlimited size commonly known as "soft money."
Many assumed that the big donors would simply shift their big checks to the
state parties, since most - including those in Missouri and Illinois - can
accept contributions of any size. But as state political operatives read
the federal law more closely, they say its mandates will trickle down to
local contests.
Jim Kottmeyer, executive director for the Missouri Democratic Party, says
that as the party's lawyers read the law, it appears that any state-party
ad or flier - for anyone - that specifically refers to the Aug. 3 primary
or Nov. 2 election could fall under the new federal restrictions. That also
would apply to any ad, flier or phone-bank call that tells voters where and
when to vote, he added.
Why? Because both elections are deemed "federal elections" since
congressional or presidential candidates will be on the ballot. If
Kottmeyer's interpretation holds, that means that any state-party spending
for anyone on that ballot - even dogcatcher - would have to comply with the
strict federal donation rules.
For example: The new law says state parties can use only donations of up to
$10,000 from individual donors to help a congressional candidate. If an ad
for governor or state legislator mentions "Nov. 2," Kottmeyer says that ad
then may need to have been financed with money raised within the $10,000
limit.
The same would hold for generic get-out-the-vote ads or fliers, he said.
The state party would have to avoid any reference to the election, he said,
if it wants to use its donations of unlimited size to pay for ads, and then
the spots could only deal with state or local contests.
Spokesmen for the Missouri and Illinois Republican parties aren't sure they
agree with Kottmeyer. But they also aren't sure they don't.
They said their lawyers still are trying to sort things out.
"It's too early to try and even predict all of the implications of this
thing," said Hancock, who's highly critical of the court's action. "This is
one of the greatest shams ever perpetrated on the electorate in the history
of this country."
Illinois GOP spokesman Jason Gerwig takes a more philosophical view: "We're
just going to have to adapt."
The challenge for state parties, like their national counterparts, is that
it's harder to raise a lot of smaller donations than a few big ones.
Stiff penalties await
Watchdog groups who support the law say they understand the confusion that
it's causing for state parties. "They'll be the ones with a lot of
questions to answer," said Derek Willis with the Washington-based Center
for Public Integrity. "This is a serious beefing up of campaign finance
laws in this country."
"I'm not surprised that state parties want to err on the side of caution,"
he added, because of the stiff penalties facing some violators. A donor who
tries to skirt the limits by funneling the money through someone else, for
example, could face up to a $50,000 fine or two years in jail, Willis said.One issue facing state parties may be the law's rules governing voter
registration drives. Within 120 days of an election, political parties -
national or state - can't use their over-$10,000 donations for activities
that encourage people to register.
But some of the law's backers are irked over the Federal Election
Commission's decision that, for example, exempts rallies from that rule.
Some predict that disagreements over the FEC's interpretation of the
high-court's ruling could launch another round of lawsuits.
As Willis reads it, Kottmeyer's interpretation about radio and TV ads may
be too strict.
Willis contends that state party ads will fall under federal rules only if
they mention, or use a photo, of a congressional or presidential candidate.
Other ads could likely be paid for with unregulated money, he said.
[<B>]State party rules[</B>]
State parties will have to comply, in some ways, with the law's
restrictions governing ads aired within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of
a general election. State parties and independent groups will have to use
money raised under the $10,000-a-donor limit if the ad mentions a federal
candidate or uses their photo.
Larger donations can be used only for ads that air outside those 30- and
60-day periods, he said.
The effect will be wildly different in Missouri and Illinois. In Illinois,
the limits will apply to ads that begin running in mid-February, leading up
to the state's March 16 primary. In Missouri, the 30-day restriction would
begin in early July, leading up to the Aug. 3 state primary.
Both states be covered by the same 60-day period in September and October
before the Nov. 2 presidential election.
Hancock predicts that, in Missouri, the upshot will be a frenzy of attack
ads during the August window because unregulated donations can be used.
Missouri Democratic consultant Roy Temple, among others, say that the law's
full impact won't be clear until the nation has gone through next year's
elections under the new rules. And it may take even longer.
Temple noted that it took 20 years before activists spotted the holes in
the old campaign-finance rules that spawned the explosion of "issue ads"
and independent-group spending that Missouri voters saw in 2002.
"My point is, there may be wrinkles in this statute that we won't see for
20 years," he said.
But across the river, Cynthia Canary with the Illinois Campaign for
Political Reform hopes that the federal law will prompt her state's
legislators to consider state campaign-donation limits. Illinois mandates
full disclosure of contributions, but doesn't restrict the amounts.
In the meantime, Canary predicts that the court ruling will be popular with
the public as elections draw near. On television and radio, she said, "the
ruling should really help clear up some of the pollution."