Watchdog Group Sues FEC Over Dismissal of Complaints Against Pro-Sheehy PAC

A nonprofit campaign finance watchdog organization has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), alleging that the commission wrongfully dismissed complaints it had filed against a political action committee (PAC) that was running attack ads against Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tim Sheehy without filing the required expenditure reports.

Exposing the Lack of Transparency in Campaign Finance

Allegations of Unlawful Dismissal

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a nonpartisan organization based in Washington, D.C., filed the complaint against the FEC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The CLC, led by a former Republican FEC commissioner, is seeking a court declaration that the FEC's 4-2 dismissal of its complaints against the Last Best Place PAC violated the law.

According to the CLC, the FEC's decision to dismiss the complaints is a failure to uphold the core transparency purposes of federal campaign finance law. The organization argues that voters have a right to know where campaign money comes from and how it is spent, and the dismissal of the complaints undermines this fundamental principle.

The Disputed Advertisements

The complaints filed by the CLC involve a series of advertisements that have been widely discussed in Montana. One of the ads, which the CLC alleges was an attack ad, coined the nickname "Shady Sheehy" that has been widely used by Sheehy's opponents throughout his campaign to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester.

The CLC filed complaints with the FEC in February, alleging that the Last Best Place PAC had been running advertisements that advocated against Sheehy's candidacy without filing the required 48-hour independent expenditure reports. These reports are mandatory when a PAC spends more than $10,000 on such ads within 20 days of an election.

The FEC's Dismissal of the Complaints

The FEC's nonpartisan Office of General Counsel had concluded that at least five of the PAC's ads advocated for Sheehy's defeat and should have led to the PAC filing independent expenditure reports. However, in a 4-2 vote, the commission dismissed the CLC's complaints on July 11.

The four commissioners who voted to dismiss the complaint argued that the phrase "Shady Sheehy" did not constitute express advocacy, as it was a character attack rather than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate. They also noted that the ads were running in September, nine months before Montana's primary election, and that the commission had not previously found express advocacy in character attack ads this far from an election.

Dissenting Commissioners' Perspective

The two commissioners who voted against dismissing the complaint, Ellen Weintraub and Shana Broussard, disagreed with the majority's decision. They argued that the use of phrases like "Shady Sheehy" and "Millionaire Politician" while identifying Sheehy as a politician could only be interpreted as express advocacy against his candidacy, as he holds no political office.

Weintraub and Broussard also criticized their colleagues' interpretation of the timeframe regulation regarding express advocacy, stating that the ads contained express advocacy and that the Last Best Place PAC should have reported them as independent expenditures.

The Lawsuit and Its Implications

The Campaign Legal Center's lawsuit accuses the four commissioners who voted to dismiss the complaint of performing a "perfunctory and one-sided" analysis that did not align with the law or regulations. The organization argues that allowing the dismissal to stand could create a loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act's transparency requirements, effectively enabling spenders to evade their disclosure obligations.

The CLC is seeking a court declaration that the FEC's dismissal of the complaint was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and is asking the court to require the FEC to conform with that declaration within 30 days. The organization is also seeking attorneys' fees should it prevail in the case.

The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for campaign finance law and the transparency of PAC spending in future elections. The CLC's challenge to the FEC's decision aims to uphold the enforcement of campaign finance laws and ensure that voters have access to information about the sources and uses of campaign funds.