MDE EXCLUSIVE: ARE DORAN'S U.S. SENATE BILLBOARDS ILLEGAL?
As I and others have noticed, some of the 31 billboards purchased by Kelly Doran's defunct U.S. Senate campaign are still up across Minnesota.
When Doran decided to run for governor, he was asked about his numerous billboards:
"With this new campaign, he noted that first and foremost the goal is to build name recognition. As of now, billboards still have his Senate campaign information on them. Doran said those advertisements were already scheduled to come down at the end of September." Source: Eden Prairie News, September 28, 2005
But it is almost Halloween and some of the billboards are still up.
If someone was driving on Interstate 35 today and saw one of Doran's U.S. Senate campaign billboards and then went to the website listed they would actually be forwarded to Doran's gubernatorial website.
Simply put: Doran's U.S. Senate campaign is advertising for Doran's gubernatorial campaign, a potential violation of Minnesota campaign finance laws.
According to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board:
A principal campaign committee may not accept: Any contribution from: federal candidate committees, local candidate committees, other principal campaign committees except at the time of termination, or corporations (the corporate prohibition is in Chapter 211B). Source: Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board
Doran's campaign for the U.S. Senate may have officially ended, but he still has an active campaign committee.
It clear why Doran paid for the billboards:
"It's 443 days until Minnesota picks a new U.S. senator, but real estate developer and neophyte politician Kelly Doran already has put up 31 billboards and is working full time to build name recognition in his pursuit of the DFL nomination." Source: Star Tribune, August 21, 2005
"After Doran lent his campaign $250,000 for startup costs, it rented 31 strategically placed billboards to introduce him to Minnesotans. Doran says most candidates try to raise enough money to show their campaigns are viable, but his challenge is different: to use his centrist approach to win favorable name recognition." Source: Star Tribune , August 22, 2005 Doran should have made sure his U.S. Senate billboards were taken down as he promised and his campaign should have separated the two campaign operations. More principle, less politics? I don't think so.
UPDATE: A dedicated reader of Minnesota Democrats Exposed suggested I ask this question:
Is Kelly Doran's gubernatorial campaign directly benefiting from advertisements paid for by Kelly Doran's U.S. Senate campaign?
When Doran decided to run for governor, he was asked about his numerous billboards:
"With this new campaign, he noted that first and foremost the goal is to build name recognition. As of now, billboards still have his Senate campaign information on them. Doran said those advertisements were already scheduled to come down at the end of September." Source: Eden Prairie News, September 28, 2005
But it is almost Halloween and some of the billboards are still up.
If someone was driving on Interstate 35 today and saw one of Doran's U.S. Senate campaign billboards and then went to the website listed they would actually be forwarded to Doran's gubernatorial website.
Simply put: Doran's U.S. Senate campaign is advertising for Doran's gubernatorial campaign, a potential violation of Minnesota campaign finance laws.
According to the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board:
A principal campaign committee may not accept: Any contribution from: federal candidate committees, local candidate committees, other principal campaign committees except at the time of termination, or corporations (the corporate prohibition is in Chapter 211B). Source: Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board
Doran's campaign for the U.S. Senate may have officially ended, but he still has an active campaign committee.
It clear why Doran paid for the billboards:
"It's 443 days until Minnesota picks a new U.S. senator, but real estate developer and neophyte politician Kelly Doran already has put up 31 billboards and is working full time to build name recognition in his pursuit of the DFL nomination." Source: Star Tribune, August 21, 2005
"After Doran lent his campaign $250,000 for startup costs, it rented 31 strategically placed billboards to introduce him to Minnesotans. Doran says most candidates try to raise enough money to show their campaigns are viable, but his challenge is different: to use his centrist approach to win favorable name recognition." Source: Star Tribune , August 22, 2005 Doran should have made sure his U.S. Senate billboards were taken down as he promised and his campaign should have separated the two campaign operations. More principle, less politics? I don't think so.
UPDATE: A dedicated reader of Minnesota Democrats Exposed suggested I ask this question:
Is Kelly Doran's gubernatorial campaign directly benefiting from advertisements paid for by Kelly Doran's U.S. Senate campaign?
16 Comments:
The answer to the question is yes.
I'll try to make this as simple as possible and leave out all of the big words.
Since his campaigns are self-financed, he doesn't accept public money, therefore, he has less- I repeat less, constraints on what he can do.
Did any publicity gained from Pawlenty for Senate, and Coleman for Governor campaigns help either one of them a couple months later when Cheney convinced them to switch? (Dick gets a smart point from me for that call. Good move.)
Anyone can call the MN Campaign Finance Board and have it explained. Any real reporter or journalist would have don that- a simple three minute local call. Naw, this blog (MDE) has an agenda to show Democrats in the worst light possible- even if it has to stoop below the truth.
My hats off to ya MDE- but I'll be throwing wrench in your machinery along way. Every chance I get.
St. Paul DFLer: Regardless of how much of your own money you spend, you need to follow the law.
This is a solid post and don't think for a second that I or someone else has not spoken with the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board.
Give this post sometime, I think it has legs.
If you are so confident, give them a call.
St. Paul DFLer: Pawlenty never formally announced he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Nice try.
There is a legal difference between someone thinking about running for the U.S. Senate and someone establishing a campaign committee.
and Coleman?
Anyway, don't ask me to give it time. What exactly time frame do you give for any of your posts?
Analogy:
You throw it out there and see what sticks. I come along and spray WD40, to show it doesn't stick and let it fall to the floor. You step on it and its stuck to you. Right where it belongs.
This is another non-story... your really reaching for things...
I would appreciate Reaganblows and StPaulDFLer answering this question:
Is Kelly Doran's gubernatorial campaign directly benefiting from advertisements paid for by Kelly Doran's U.S. Senate campaign?
St. Paul DFL and Mike S. should look at my correction to their previous post on Entenza and Quam.
Probably, sure.
How can you measure the benefit?
He returned all money donated to him during the Senate run. So what now?
Thank you for answering my question and then answering a question I didn't ask.
The law doesn't specify a measured benefit, just that there is a benefit.
You believe Kelly Doran's U.S. Senate billboards are currently benefiting his gubernatorial campaign. That would be a violation of Minnesota Campaign Finance Law.
The law is trying to prevent someone from establishing numerous campaign committees to circumvent (sic?) spending laws.
For example: If you decided to run for governor (God, help us) and spent $500,000 on ads and then decided to run for attorney general at the same time your governor's campaign would be helping your attorney general's race.
When you have an active U.S. Senate campaign, you are still a candidate for the U.S. Senate. That is why the law demands contributions can only be accepted from a terminating campaign.
It doesn't matter if he returned the money.
MDE
You still have to demostrate a benefit. WHen I ask how do you measure it, I don't mean quantity, but proving it exist.
The only benefit that the signs could have provided is to up his name recognition (where a commercial can be measured by the market, ratings and cost per viewer rate which is pretty standard).
His campaign can argue that it specifically said for U.S. Senate. Since he is not going to be onth ballot for U. S. Senate, it was a wash.
Running for Governor, it can be argued that he will have to double his efforts to inform people that he is NOW a gubernatorial candidate.
This law is based on one thing- a specific candidate running for a specific office. He did switch campaigns which ended all Senate advertisment. he has now begun a Gubernatorial run. WHenever it started it was slotted as day one.
The last day of the Senate billboard ended when he papered over "Senate" and had "Governor" painted over it. With money slated for his gubernatorial bid.
Did he get name recognition because of all of this? Yes. Can it be argued that its higher now than it would have been if he didn't run for senate and just now started his gubernatorial run? Yes.
But the case is, he did run for office and previous runs for office helps with name recognition. Norm Coleman was made familiar by his 1998 run for Governor.
When he ran for Senate four years later, he certainly gained from his Gubby run. You think the VP would have known who he was if he didnt't make that failed attempt?
I called the Campaign Finance Board regarding the Doran billboards. While he was relunctant to give an "official opinion" on the matter and emphasized that he would have to know which campaign paid for what, he did say that the billboards should be taken down or modified with the proper office being sought in a "reasonable time frame". When I asked if 31 days (that is how long it has been since the announcement of the switch to Govenor) was beyond a reasonable time frame, he said "it is getting very close".
I'm willing to cut Doran some slack, mostly because I can't wait for him to beat the shiite out of Hatch. But if they are still up on November 3rd, someone will probably file a complaint. That someone is most likely Mike Hatch.
k.d.
Key word is changed. Do they say Governor or do they still say Senate? Or, do the say nothing?
If they say Senate- illegal.
If they say anything else- he's in the clear.
They say "Senate"
Then, Mr MDE, you may have yourself a point.
That point will rest upon if the Billboard Company or the Senate Campaign are in possession of a contract with an end date within the CFB regulations or not.
I don't think they are benefiting Doran, because they are making him look like an opportunist, which is what he is. I don't think his billboards are gaining him any votes or raising his positives.
Post a Comment
<< Home