Thread: Pelosi Ad May Have Violated Campaign Laws

Pelosi Ad May Have Violated Campaign Laws

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 8:33 AM

By: Fred Lucas Article Font Size

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may have inadvertently violated federal campaign finance laws by appearing with Newt Gingrich in a television commercial that ran in her district less than a month before a contested primary, according to campaign finance experts.

On April 17, the commercial began airing nationwide. It featured Pelosi sitting on a sofa with Gingrich, a former Republican House speaker, in front of an image of the U.S. capitol. They both introduced themselves and said they disagreed on many things but agreed on the need for curbing climate change. The ad was paid for by former Vice President Al Gore's non-profit group, the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 - popularly known as "McCain-Feingold" and which passed with Pelosi's support -- the degree to which a candidate's campaign can work with an independent group for a commercial is limited. The rules are set on content and conduct for any political commercial. Content rules can apply to the use of a candidate's name, for instance, while conduct is determined by what role the candidate had, if any, in planning the production of the commercial.

If a candidate is found to have helped plan an ad run by an independent group and the ad mentions the candidate's name, it could be against the law.

"She made a material contribution to the ad just by being in it herself," Steve Weismann, associate director of policy for the non-partisan Campaign Finance Institute, told Cybercast News Service . "If you mention someone 90 days before a primary, convention or caucus, it would fulfill what they call the content part of coordination."

Pelosi's spokesman denied coordinating the ad with the Alliance for Climate Protection, and said Gore's group made the decisions as to when and where to run the ad.

"We were pleased to participate in the Alliance's non-partisan effort on climate protection," Pelosi spokesman Drew Hamill said in a statement. "We didn't coordinate with the Alliance and trusted they would run the ad only where it was proper and legal."

The Alliance for Climate Protection announced the ads would start running on Apr. 18. The last ad ran on May 6, according to Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a division of the advertising-monitoring firm TNS Media Intelligence. The ad ran a total 253 times, almost entirely on the three cable news stations, Tracey said.

CNN spokeswoman Debra McBride confirmed Friday that the ad first ran April 17, and ran last on May 6 on the news channel.

The last run date of the ad came less than 30 days before the June 3 Democratic primary in California where Pelosi faces a primary challenge from San Francisco real estate agent Shirley Golub, who is demanding that Pelosi end the war and impeach President Bush. Golub declined to comment on this matter, saying she did not have a campaign attorney.

"It didn't look like it was an effort to help the candidate," Weissman said. "If Nancy Pelosi is running and someone happens to see it in her district, it's a pro-Nancy Pelosi ad. It does have a potential election reference and all of those ads have to be disclosed by the person spending the money to produce the ad. There is no exemption for this kind of public service ad."

Judicial Watch will file a complaint to the Federal Election Commission about the commercial, said Tom Fitton, president of the conservative watchdog group. He said that even if the ad was not intended to skirt campaign finance laws, it resulted in skirting those laws.

"Those who are in this business ought to know what the rules are," Fitton told Cybercast News Service . "It's a major issue to have candidates appearing in ads for any reason. You've had these issues argued before the Supreme Court. She knew or should have known the ads would raise legal questions."

A spokesman with the Alliance for Climate Protection declined to comment on this story for CNSNews.com. But a spokesman for the group told The New York Sun on May 9 that the ad was non-partisan, and said the group was confident it didn't violate any federal laws.

It is not likely that Pelosi violated the electioneering communications provision, said James Bopp, a Republican and campaign finance lawyer. But he does not doubt that the ad violated the coordinating provision of the law.

He referenced Pelosi's statement that the Alliance for Climate Protection decided when and where to run the ad.

"The Pelosi camp was equally responsible and equally liable for violations of running the ad. They can't pass the buck to the Gore camp," Bopp, who was the lead attorney in a case that weakened a provision of the 2002 law on electioneering communications, told Cybercast News Service . "She can't hide behind willful ignorance. It was extensively broadcast."

The problem, Bopp stressed, is the law itself, which he opposed in court. In arguing the case, he said that politicians would likely get ensnared in situations such as this: whether or not the intent was for campaign purposes.

"This ad campaign is a multi-million dollar illegal contribution to this woman's reelection campaign because it's what they call a coordinated expenditure," said Bopp.

Pelosi strongly supported the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that banned soft money contributions, while restricting the political advocacy of independent groups. Proponents of the bill said it would clean up politics from the influence of big money, while critics feared it violated the First Amendment.

In a Feb. 2, 2002 statement before the bill was passed, Pelosi said, "A vote for real campaign finance reform will end the corrosive influence of special interest money and level the playing field so that all Americans can participate."

It's an interesting example of politicians getting caught up in election laws, said Anthony Corrado, a political science professor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, who helped develop the plan that would later become McCain-Feingold.

"It's clearly unintentional," Corrado told Cybercast News Service . "If there was coordination, then it would have to be considered an in-kind contribution to the campaign."

Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler rejected the idea that the commercial was intended to advance Pelosi's reelection.

"The idea that Nancy Pelosi would use Newt Gingrich for her reelection campaign in San Francisco is beyond laughable," Tyler told Cybercast News Service . "I want to laugh just talking to you, it's so funny. I'm quite certain if she had thought of that, she might have reconsidered the ad. I'm not sure in her district that a joint appearance with Newt Gingrich would work to her benefit."

http://www.newsmax.com

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) may have inadvertently violated federal campaign finance laws by appearing with Newt Gingrich in a television commercial that ran in her district less than a month before a contested primary, according to campaign finance experts.

'inadvertently??? Like when Hillary 'mis-spoke' about being under fire when she and her daughter visited Bosnia? Like when Obama 'didn't know' about Rev. Wright's sermons?

Like anything will be done. No one is held accountable for anything anymore.