Draining Specter's Coffers

by: Adam Bink

Fri Aug 28, 2009 at 11:30


In an interesting twist yesterday, the FEC ruled that donors who contributed to the Specter campaign while he was a Republican can now be contacted and informed of their right to request a refund.

The FEC voted 4-2 to advise the Club for Growth -- a conservative group tied to Specter's main GOP rival -- that it was within its legal rights to contact Specter donors and remind them of his pledge to provide refunds to any contributors unhappy with his party switch. When Specter announced he was leaving the GOP earlier this year, he promised to return campaign contributions from the 2010 cycle "upon request."

[...]

The FEC, which keeps tight restrictions on the use of donor lists, ruled that the Club for Growth can send one letter or make one telephone call to each donor, but the group cannot sell their names, addresses and telephone numbers to others, or request contributions.

In one sense, I see this as a marginal violation of privacy. If you give to a candidate more than $200 in an election cycle, campaigns are required to disclose you publicly, and you show up in public records. But there are lots of donors to campaigns who never show up. Is the Club for Growth now able to access the Specter campaign's entire donor list, even those who gave him $25 and $100? To me, I don't relish the prospect that the Club is able to view the names, addresses, occupations and employers of the entire Specter donor list, even if they are unable to use that information for their own fundraising purposes. I would hope the FEC required safeguards to keep the process blind should the Club decide to call or mail a donor.

Also, does this only apply to the Club, or can a group like National Right to Life contact these donors if they wanted to? I haven't seen answers to this anywhere.

On the other hand, this is good news for the Sestak camp- last FEC filing had Specter at $7.5 million and Sestak at $4.3 million. Specter had $5.8 million in the bank four weeks before he switched parties, which he had been raising since 2004, meaning almost 3/4 of his money was from people giving to a Republican. This may have a significant effect on draining his coffers.

Update: Over e-mail, a friend and campaign finance attorney says that the Club will only get to use information of those donors who are publicly available, e.g. contributors over $200 to the campaign per cycle. The Club is not allowed to use that information for resolicitation on their  behalf.

Regarding the ability of conservative groups to "pile on" and each get one phone call and mail solicitation encouraging donors to ask for their money back, he writes:

As long as they're truly working independently, yes. The Commission seemed to place great weight on the privacy concerns of contributors and CfG's assurance that this was a one-shot letter or phone call.

To date, Specter has returned just $126,000 in individual contributions and $97,000 in PAC contributions. This could grow significantly if the Club and other groups all mobilize, although there are resource costs to them of doing that. I have doubts that a lot of people understood the vagueries of campaign finance law and knew they could get their money back.

Adam Bink :: Draining Specter's Coffers

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This is one of those double-edged sword kind of things ... (0.00 / 0)
while it ptobably only pertains to Specter(because of the party switch) .. opening up the full list(if indeed that's the case) isn't so great .. but just the fact that he now has to spend time sending back money .. that's great ... which means he'll have to find new money somewhere else and those options are dwindling

I don't think there's any disclosure (4.00 / 1)
The Club for Growth was contacting the known donors.  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Hypocrisy, IOKIYAR (0.00 / 0)
The money quote here was that Republican money should not support a Dmocratic Senator.  The problem is that since the election of Reagan in 1980, the Republicans have gotten 17 out of the 19 party switchers in the Senate or House.  Nobody was suing when Ben Nighthorse Campbell or Richard Shelby were switching parties  This is a party hack move to enforce Republican discipline.

Party switching before running for office has been an occassional but consistent thing,  Grant did it (1868), Wilkie did it (1939) and Reagan did it (1962).  Party switching while in office is rare and was virtually non-existent between 1860 and 1960.  The only sitting office holder to switch major parties in those 100 years at the Federal level was Wayne Morse and he did it in steps.

The spite work in this may be useful but it is unbelievable.

Btw, the other party switcher to the Dems, Michael Forbes out on Long Island, switched in 1999 and lost the Democratic primary in 2000. Democrats lost the seat but eventually won it back.  Republican switchers have been both more numerous and more successful.  Strom Thurmond kept his Senate seat for at least 30 more years.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox