But… who really cares. I just pointed this out because if it was the 5th CD DFL, MDE would be jumping down their throats.

With that, I have exhausted my knowledge of campaign finance. My eyes have officially glazed over.

If trying to make the best of byzantine FEC regulations was a “scandal” well, most of the political establishment would be in jail! =)

In fact, I wasn’t aware of the impact McCain-Feingold has on the non-state committees.

It’s a sweet bit of irony that political committees have to create three different accounts just to avoid financial confusion.

I’ll start looking for it myself, but where do these “Levin funds” live? Are they disclosed at the FEC level as well?

All of this is pushing me quite close to joining the public financing camp once and for all.

KH: Ad hominem also covers guilt by association.

As I understand it, if any party committee within a state is raising federal dollars, it counts against a single limit. This is as a result of McCain Feingold. You can understand how confusing this would be, having city, county, and congressional districts all raising federal dollars and bumping up against the limit. To soften the blow on smaller party committees, Sen. Carl Levin created what are known as “Levin Funds.” These don’t count against statewide federal limits and can be used for party building activities (as so-called soft money was used in the past), as long as you include state and local candidates along with the federal candidates. So a congressional district could have a state account, a federal account, and a Levin account.

I may be oversimplifying campaign finance somewhat, and I was not in on all the conversations, but that is my understanding of the closing of the federal account. No scandal here.

I put out a call for more information on this issue on my blog. That’s the strength of the blogosphere – people from different walks of life with different talents coming together to solve a problem or verify a claim.

Michael answered that call with FACT, which we all could use more of.

Also, my use of the word “intrepid” was used to describe both Michael’s research and myself. I wouldn’t call that a “high horse”, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Interesting – are you saying they were told to disband by the RPM?

If so, why didn’t the 4th CD Republican Committee disband in 2005?

Not trying to shoot your theory down – just rying to get more information.

In fact I think due to our intrepid investigations, we’ve helped Fine avoid a FEC fine, since he can now file an amended report before the primary. Congrats!

Thanks for the clarity. Still not sure why that committee didn’t show up in any of my searchs in the 5th.

But this only answers part of my post. According to your link, the FEC ID number of the new 5th CD Republicans is C00426205.

That’s not on Fine’s disclosure – that FEC ID still points to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Why?