« AP: REPUBLICANS PUSH FOR VOTE ON PER DIEM PAY RAISE | Home | AP: CIRESI WON’T SELF-FUND SENATE CAMPAIGN »
DEMOCRATS RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT CIRESI’S MONEY BENEFITING COLEMAN
By Michael Brodkorb | February 12, 2007
According to my sources, information is being disseminated amongst DFLers about how the FEC's Millionaires' Amendment will affect Mike Ciresi's campaign for the U.S. Senate.
I don't have specific knowledge that the individuals sending out the information are supporting other DFL candidates. All I can report is that the information is being sent out by people who are not supporting Mike Ciresi.
What's the concern? From the FEC's website:
"Under provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) known as the 'Millionaires' Amendment,'candidates running against a self-financed opponent may be eligible to receive contributions from individuals at increased limits and to have increased coordinated party expenditures made on their behalf."
Translation: If Ciresi opens his checkbook like he did in his failed 2000 U.S. Senate campaign, then Coleman's campaign will likely receive a huge financial benefit.
In 2000, Ciresi spent $4.7 million of his own money on his failed campaign.
"In Minnesota, Democratic Senate hopeful Mike Ciresi accounted for $4.7 million of his campaign's $5.9 million in total receipts." Source: Roll Call, November 20, 2000
Ciresi was able to spend almost $5 million of his own money without it affecting the other candidates' contribution limits because the laws of BCRA were not yet on books.
If Ciresi were to spend the same amount he did in 2000, Coleman's campaign would be able to accept contributions at six-times the legal limit, or $12,600 per election. Also, national and state party committees could make unlimited coordinated party expenditures on behalf of Coleman. Source: FEC website
Here's how it works:
"When a Senate candidate's opponent spends personal funds that exceed certain threshold amounts, the candidate may accept increased individual contributions and, in some cases, the candidate's state and national party committees may make unlimited coordinated party expenditures on behalf of the candidate. The threshold amount for Senate candidates is calculated using a formula that includes the voting age population (VAP) of the state that the candidate seeks to represent, specifically: (VAP x $.04) + $150,000." Source: FEC Website
Minnesota's 2006 threshold amount (this number will be adjusted for '08) was $306,400. The Millionaires' Amendment will likely be triggered once Ciresi contributes more than $612,000 to his campaign. The amendment would not take affect if the candidate (Coleman) has "considerably" outraised his millionaire opponent (Ciresi) and the candidate's contributions (Ciresi) "significantly narrow the fundraising gap." Source: FEC Website
It was not mentioned in the initial press reports about Ciresi forming an exploritory if he would be self-funding his campaign for the U.S. Senate at the levels he did in 2000. But DFLers are already concerned.
If you're interested in reading more, the FEC has posted a background document on their website about the Millionaires' Amendment.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »
7 Responses to “DEMOCRATS RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT CIRESI’S MONEY BENEFITING COLEMAN”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Ciresi bilked millions from the State of Minnesota in the last 1990′s tobacco lawsuit along with his pal Skip Humphrey in order to run for office so that if he won office, he could pass more laws benefitting and enriching further his trial lawyer buddies.
The DFL rightly rejected Ciresi once before, I hope they have the cajones to reject him again.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I am hearing that this is one of the very reasons we are now seeing so many legislators potentially throwing their names in the hat.
Coleman is a hell of a good fundraiser, but there are a limited number of names who a candidate can tap to max out. Most of those people would gladly give more (on both sides of the isle).
This could be a highly targeted race, although I think national Dems eventually see Coleman as difficult to beat. But if it is targeted, the word I hear is that people believe Coleman can be nearly matched dollar for dollar if the donor caps remain what they are.
But if Coleman can accept larger contributions, he could blow a self-financer out of the water. Unless, of course, that self-financer is truly willing to put it all on the line.
So the question really is, how much of his own money is Ciresi really willing to bet, against a mainstream, popular Norm Coleman?
February 12th, 2007 at 1:33 PM
“ten times the legal limit, or $12,600 per election”
Where’s the math on this? For candidates for federal office, the legal limit is $2100 per election. $2100 x 10 = $21,000. $2100 x 6 = $12,600.
Darren
February 12th, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Darren: Thanks for the tip, I made the correction.
February 12th, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Isn’t this a larger version of what happened when T-Paw rejected the state matching funds, freeing up that money for distribution to the other candidates, and allowing them to raise and spend as much as they want?
It didn’t seem to hurt him. Why would it hurt democrats now?
February 12th, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Fred — as usual, you’re mixing a few details up.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Yes. I realize it is federal -vs- state, but the effect seems to be about the same.
Doesn’t it?