IP charges Pawlenty TV ad violates campaign practices law

Nancy Jorgenson, acting chair of the Independence Party, has filed a complaint with the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board, charging that TV ads on behalf of Tim Pawlenty that have been paid for by the Republican Party of Minnesota are unethical and questionable as independent expenditures.

The board will hear the complaint at 1 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 3. The ads, which began airing the week of Sept. 9, show Pawlenty looking directly at the camera and speaking in the first person about his candidacy. This footage was reportedly purchased from Pat McCarthy, Pawlenty’s media consultant. The IP complaint states that these ads may violate state and federal laws that prohibit most direct coordination between a candidate and organizations producing “independent” ads supporting a candidate.

If the board agrees with the IP, the cost of the ads must be counted as Pawlenty campaign expenditures. Campaign committees are subject to statutory limits on contributions from political parties. If the party’s contributions to Pawlenty’s campaign are more than $20,000, a fine four times the excess amount must be assessed against Pawlenty.

In addition, because Pawlenty’s principal campaign committee is accepting state campaign funds, it is subject to a statutory limit on total expenditures. If the ads cause his committee to exceed this limit, a fine of four times that excess expenditure must also be assessed against Pawlenty.

The IP complaint states: “In the present matter, the Republican Party and Tim Pawlenty and his principal campaign committee publicly pronounce the legality of the ads based on ‘uncertainty and confusion about the law.’ There is no uncertainty, and, for most Minnesotans, there is no confusion. The media consultants are part of the principal campaign committee and of the Republican Party. They are paid to do work for the campaign in the same fashion as any office staff member or field worker.

“The only distinction lies in the terms under which they are compensated. To determine otherwise would create a fiction in the rule, as a campaign manager or any other staff member of the campaign could conduct any activity, using unlimited funds from any source, based on the defense that it was not the principal campaign committee acting, but rather, the campaign manager acting on his or her own. The clear language of the statute and the obvious functioning of political campaigns refutes such a nonsensical prospect.”

Note to editors: Nancy Jorgenson will answer questions about this complaint. Her home phone is 763-571-1648. Her cell phone is 612-749-6058.

Released: 9/26/02