By Antonio D. French
Filed Friday, July 20, 2007 at 12:30 AM
The State Supreme Court has restored limits on campaign contributions. But it has left up in the air, at least for now, if those large donations must be returned — something that is next to impossible to fully occur considering how much money candidates have already spent (Pssst, if you haven't already spent it, do it fast!). Labels: Courts, Fundraising
The court ruled in favor of Webster Groves Democrat James Trout, who filed his case challenging the lifting of limits after losing his campaign for state rep last year. We sat down with Trout back in January to talk about his lawsuit.
It's important to note that the court's ruling was unanimous and was written by conservative judge Stephen Limbaugh.
One additional thought: You can't give it back if it's already spent (hint-hint). Have you ever seen the movie "Brewster's Millions"?
9 Comments:
I hope any politician who takes the next three weeks to "prepay" for campaign literature in order to get around a possible court ruling that would force them to give back upwards of $50,000 to 2 contributors gets hammered in the election (cough, cough "Hubbard" cough, cough).
7/20/2007 2:23 AM
While the reference to Brewster's Millions is cute, according to the law and the interpretation of the law, the campaign would be required to pay Johnny Smith or Jane Doe "X" amount of money back that was already spent. As a result the campaign could be fundraising just to pay off contributors. Also the IRS and other entities such as that keep close tabs to make sure everyone gets paid back and taxes are paid! Nice try though.
7/20/2007 9:53 AM
Who ever said justice is dead?
7/20/2007 10:43 AM
If you think the IRS or even the Missouri Ethics Commission is paying that close attention to campaign finance reports, you are sadly mistaken.
In the past, the Ethics Commission usually only looks into reports AFTER a complaint is filed. Maybe that's changed and they've been given more staff and resources to become more proactive, but that's news to me.
7/20/2007 1:12 PM
I think Jerry is right. No longer having the money is no excuse for not paying back an excess contribution. Candidates who take Antonio's advice and spend it quick may have their campaigns crippled by the need to devote remaining (and future) funds to repayment.
One notable candidate who seems to have followed the "spend it quick" advice is Jay Nixon, whose report for the period ended June 30 indicates that he has already spent $1.3 million of the $3.5 million that he has raised. (Gov. Blunt has already spent even more - $2.3 million, but he has more left in the bank to make the refunds.)
7/20/2007 1:24 PM
I disagree, Oracle. I've not read the entire ruling yet (looking forward to either that or the new Harry Potter book this evening, still deciding), but I think some very well paid attorneys will argue that receiving large contribution were 100% legal for a short time in the State of Missouri, and therefore cannot be punished retroactively.
Not only would such retroactive punishment cripple a few campaigns, but I would argue, all of Missouri politics.
My guess: The court will find that checks dated July 18, 2007 and earlier can be as large as the signers wanted them to be.
7/20/2007 1:41 PM
Why would they return the money? The donors would simply give it back to the candidate except through some LLC. Besides, that wouldn't exactly work very well if the money is already spent.
7/20/2007 1:54 PM
I agree that the campaign's acceptance of over-the-limit checks during the period the law was in effect would not be regarded as a criminal violation of the campaign law, but that doesn't necessarily mean the campaign gets to keep the fruits of the retroactively illegal activity. Retention of the improper contributions for more than a reasonable time after they were ruled illegal could be a violation of law even if the initial receipt wasn't improper. An analogous situation under federal campaign laws is a campaign's good-faith acceptance of a contribution from an improper source (e.g., a foreign national). Upon discovery that the contribution was improper, the campaign is obligated to return it.
7/21/2007 12:37 AM
Oracle, I disagree. In the example you give, it was always illegal to accept the contribution from a foreign nation. Even if the campaign didn't know they were breaking the law by accepting the money, it was still in fact illegal.
In the case we have before us now, the campaigns were following the current law, which is all anyone can do.
Here's another example. The state recently passed a law guaranteeing Missourians the right to use lethal force on intruders of their homes or vehicles. The Governor recently signed that law (which I joked should be called the "I Wish a Motherfucker Would" law).
So tonight, if a 17-year-old kid breaks into my home, I can legally kill him, even if I don't try to flee first. And under current law, his mama can't sue me after I kill her young burglar.
What if in the year 2015 the Missouri Supreme Court strikes down that law? Can that mother come back to sue me, or am I clear because in 2007 my action was within the law?
You're the lawyer, you tell me.
7/21/2007 8:14 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home