Executive summary: the setup and funding of election recounts is affected, like virtually everything else in politics involving money, by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (otherwise known as the BCRA, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold*). The Federal Election Committee (FEC) has advised that aid by the national committees in the recount efforts be administered as per the following:
- Direct financial support is limited to $5,000 to a candidate’s recount efforts (the standard amount allowed to PACs), independent of whatever contributions were made to the candidate during the election. So people and PACs who gave the legal maximum to the candidate before the election may give up to the same legal maximum directly to the candidate for recount purposes only.
- A national committee may also set up a recount fund to pay expenses generated by the recount process, and the recount process only. Contributions to this fund are likewise subject to the restrictions set up by BCRA for contributions to national committees.
More details after the fold.
The two relevant Advisory Opinions (AOs) from the Federal Election Commission are 2006-24 and 2009-04; they’re AOs because the FEC takes forever to formally rule on tricky subjects. So what happens is that a group that has a question asks it, and the FEC staff gives their best take on the subject, at the time. It’s not precisely law, but it does offer protection against later lawsuits.
So. In 2006 the NRSC, DSCC, and state GOP of PA asked what the rules were for funding recounts, given that BCRA had put in serious restrictions on contributions. The FEC essentially ruled (majority opinion; skip to the end for a somewhat scathing minority opinion) that BCRA election fundraising limits applied to recount efforts, but that these contributions were independent of campaign contributions made to the candidate for the original election. That meant that people who contributed to the general election fund could also contribute again, provided that the money was used strictly for a recount. Effectively, this authorized recount funds.
Which was important in 2009, because at that time the DSCC asked if they could create a recount fund for the Coleman-Franken race. The FEC ruled that the DSCC could, with the understanding that the funds raised that way were subject to BCRA restrictions on national committees. This is important mostly because while donations to individual candidates are currently capped at $2,400 by an individual / $5,000 by a multi-candidate PAC, contributions to national committees are capped at $30,400 by an individual/$15,000 by a multi-candidate PAC. This is not particularly important for someone donating $100… but it is to wealthy organizations, or non multi-candidate PACs.
I know that this is not thrilling reading (I certainly didn’t really enjoy having to be walked through this this morning), but it’s kind of important to know: McCain-Feingold is one of those infuriating pieces of legislation that seems dedicated to causing trouble wherever it goes – and particularly in this specific election cycle.
Speaking of this election cycle: national committees may not contribute to a recount fund that does not yet exist. I note this because this elementary detail seems to have been ignored in a lot of breathless reporting on the Renee Elmers (who I like, and did my best to help out)/NRCC brouhaha. If you call up a group asking them for money when they have no legal way of giving it to you, do not be surprised it the answer is ‘no.’
I humbly suggest that any lingering ire along these lines be directed towards McCain-Feingold, where it properly belongs.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: No, I don’t know – yet – whether the NRCC is setting up a general recount fund. Given the current atmosphere, they’d probably be yelled at if they tried.
PPS: You can find direct links to GOP candidates undergoing recounts here.
*Usually with a curse word or two added.
Jeff Emanuel
Great detailed analysis Moe
fpete13527 (Diary) Thursday, November 11th at 9:35PM EDT (link)So that I dont get myself in trouble, the following is my comment.
Imagine the wildest possible legal disdain imaginable for John Sidney McCain …and consider that my comment here.
Let your imagination flow.
Also consider that about 20 in the GOP Senate are wildly in love with McCain and are completely aligned with McCain.
Enough said.
McCain lovers
bruceinva Friday, November 12th at 7:34AM EDT (link)do not include any conservatives and do include several from the donkey party
McCain and Feingold didn't pass that dog by themselves, you know
Adjoran (Diary) Friday, November 12th at 12:51AM EDT (link)It had over 60 votes in the Senate and passed the House easily, and was signed into law by President Bush. There is plenty of blame to go around there.
Thanks and kudos to Moe for not joining in the idiotic feeding frenzy against NRCC over Elmmers’ aid request. Even if they had a recount committee, they had no money left over from the campaign because people like me – and a lot of the people who were screaming the loudest against them – had cut them off long ago in favor of donating to specific candidates.
So the attacks were completely unjustified, as I suspected. My advice to the NRCC is not to hold their breath waiting for apologies, though – the smear artists on our side who piled on are not one bit more honest or decent than their counterparts on the left.
Read the Bill
atillathehun Friday, November 12th at 8:22AM EDT (link)Like a lolt od legislation that requires reading for the details I suspect that passing the bill and then finding out what’s in the bill is not the exception.
Having said that what does anyone expect from two progressives by different labels.
Contribute to individual candidates only
mdd1956 Friday, November 12th at 8:27AM EDT (link)is really the best policy for now.
Except if you want any GOTV (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Friday, November 12th at 2:08PM EDT (link)RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Repeal McCain - Feingold
moswas71331 Friday, November 12th at 10:13AM EDT (link)McCain – Feingold was a terrible piece of legislation, in direct contradiction of the first amendment. Senators and congressmen should have recognized that from the start and never passed it. President Bush should have vetoed it on the same grounds. The Supreme Court should have declared it unconstitutional, as did the two associate justices at the time I respect most, Scalia and Thomas.
The members of the next Congress should put repeal of McCain – Feingold near the top of their priority lists.
YES - repeal of McCain Feingold needs to go back to the top of list for new Congress
fpete13527 (Diary) Friday, November 12th at 11:51AM EDT (link)I wish it could include REPEAL OF MCCAIN.
Unfortunately we have to do that at the voting booth.
*Usually with a curse word or two added
methodius Friday, November 12th at 2:42PM EDT (link)In my neck of the woods Fiengold’s name is usually with a curse word or two added without being associated with the campaign finance law. We are still rejoicing at his departure from the Senate in my house. Now, if we can do away with the law named after him . . . . .