Can a congressional candidate promise to get money out of politics while maintaining a joint checking account with a super PAC that accepts unlimited corporate contributions?
Rebecca Bennett thinks she can, but now she faces a Federal Election Commission complaint alleging that her campaign violated federal election law by using a joint fundraising committee (JFC) with a Democratic super PAC to finance more than $1 million in television advertising supporting her bid to unseat Rep. Tom Kean, Jr. (R-Westfield) in New Jersey’s 7th district.
The complaint, signed by New Jersey Republican State Committee Executive Director Luke Ferrante, alleges that Bennett’s campaign and House Majority PAC exceeded federal guidelines governing joint fundraising committees by using their partnership, the Bennett House Victory Fund, to purchase campaign advertising.
The committee has received more than $1 million in contributions and, according to Republicans, spent $1,055,300 on television advertising. Bennett has claimed credit for raising approximately $250,000 for the joint committee.
Bennett is not necessarily violating federal law simply by participating in a joint fundraising arrangement with a super PAC. The dispute centers on whether the committee’s advertising expenditures exceed what federal law permits and constitute illegal campaign contributions.
“The Bennett JFC is clearly exceeding the scope of a Team Graham Advisory Opinion and the intent of the Commission by funding broadcast advertisements in support of Ms. Bennett’s candidacy,” Ferrante wrote. “Broadcast advertising extends well beyond the event-related fundraising activities the Commission blessed in the Team Graham Advisory Opinion.”
The FEC’s 2024 advisory opinion permitted candidates and super PACs to establish joint fundraising committees, including coordinating solicitations, invitations and fundraising events. Republicans contend that the authorization did not extend to television advertising that promotes a candidate.
The arrangement could also give House Majority PAC a significant financial advantage by letting it buy television airtime at the lowest rates broadcasters must offer candidates in the 60 days before an election, rather than the higher commercial rates super PACs ordinarily pay. That could substantially increase the number of ads purchased with the same money, although the committee’s eligibility for those discounted rates remains uncertain.
The complaint also questions whether Bennett’s campaign and House Majority PAC properly allocated advertising expenses, arguing that any excessive payment by the super PAC could constitute an illegal in-kind contribution.
Bennett sidestepped questions about the arrangement during a Friday appearance with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, repeatedly insisting she does not accept corporate PAC contributions without directly addressing the legality of the television advertising.
“I’ve taken $0 in corporate PAC money. I’ve been very consistent about this, and all of my fundraising has come from individual donors,” Bennett said.
Pressed on whether partnering with a super PAC that accepts corporate contributions undermined her pledge to reject corporate PAC money, Bennett replied, “I’m not taking a single dollar of corporate PAC money.”
The distinction matters: House Majority PAC can accept unlimited corporate contributions, while Bennett’s campaign cannot accept corporate treasury funds directly. The Republican complaint does not allege that Bennett personally accepted corporate PAC contributions, but instead challenges whether the joint committee’s advertising effectively circumvented federal restrictions on campaign coordination.
Democratic lawyers raised concerns two years ago that such arrangements could blur the legal separation between candidates and super PACs.
In comments to the FEC, an attorney for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warned that the proposed arrangement “would allow for a candidate to fully coordinate with a Super PAC on one paid advertisement on a Monday, and then permit the same Super PAC to claim that a different ad made on Tuesday was fully independent.”
“That is, of course, preposterous,” the DCCC lawyers said, arguing that candidates and super PACs are coordinating paid advertising while the same super PAC continues making supposedly independent expenditures supporting the candidate.
The Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog, formally opposed the FEC’s 2024 Team Graham advisory opinion, warning that allowing candidates and super PACs to participate in joint fundraising committees could undermine federal restrictions on coordinated campaign spending.
“Candidates, political parties, and super PACs creating a JFC and working together to plan public communications is the precise opposite of the independence that federal courts require as a predicate to the very existence of super PACs,” the organization told the FEC.
The Republican complaint now asks federal regulators to determine whether Bennett’s joint fundraising arrangement crossed that line.
“The FEC should therefore investigate the full extent of Rebecca Bennett’s violations of the Act,” Ferrante stated.
RELATED ARTICLES
-
-
-
October 17, 2018