Below is the text of a letter I sent today to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, asking it to disqualify the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance from submitting comments or giving testimony in an upcoming regulatory hearing, based upon MassFiscal’s refusal to comply with OCPF’s directive in CPF 16-20.
November 30, 2018
Director Michael Sullivan
Office of Campaign and Political Finance
John W. McCormack Building
One Ashburton Place, Room 411
Boston, MA 02018
Dear Director Sullivan:
Although I intend to submit comments in regards to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance’s “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Defining a Political Committee” I write now on a separate but related matter: to request that any comment on the proposed rulemaking submitted by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance be disregarded and stricken from the record, and that the organization’s testimony be disallowed. OCPF should take this action because MassFiscal has defied the agency’s direction in CPF 16-20 to disclose an anonymous donor. MassFiscal should not now exercise the privilege of attempting to influence an agency whose judgments it refuses to respect.
In CPF 16-20 OCPF ruled on a complaint that argued that MassFiscal, an IRS 501(c)(4) organization, was a political committee and not in compliance with the commonwealth’s campaign finance disclosure laws and regulations. OCPF found that MassFiscal was not acting as a political committee but nonetheless had received one reportable $500 donation that funded an electioneering communication and that the donor knew that his or her donation would be used for an electioneering communication. OCPF determined:
Accordingly, OCPF concludes that, pursuant to M.G.L. c. 55, sec. 18F and the related regulations, MFA should have disclosed the identity of the donor who contributed $500 as a result of the February 23 email. OCPF maintains that MFA should therefore amend its Electioneering Communication report to disclose the identity of the donor referenced above. OCPF further notes that the parties attempted to come to an agreement to resolve this singular issue, but were unable to do so.
MassFiscal has not amended its Electioneering Report to disclose the identity of the donor.
CPF 16-20 is a Public Resolution Letter which OCPF explains thus:
A public resolution letter may be issued in instances where the office found “no reason to believe” a violation occurred; where “no further action” or investigation is warranted; or where a subject “did not comply” with the law but, in OCPF’s view, the case is able to be settled in an informal fashion with an educational letter or a requirement that some corrective action be taken. A public resolution letter does not necessarily imply wrongdoing on the part of a subject and does not require agreement by a subject.
It is apparent from CPF 16-20 that MassFiscal “did not comply” with campaign finance laws and regulations. It is also unquestionable that CPF 16-20 was not an “educational letter” (MassFiscal has published Electioneering Communications on numerous occasions) but instead contemplated “that some corrective action be taken” – that MassFiscal amend its electioneering report to disclose the identity of the $500 donor.
The public resolution letter in CPF 16-20 was signed on August 3, 2016. Since that time OCPF has reached disposition agreements with three other IRS 501(c)(4) organizations which engaged in non-disclosure of donors during the ballot campaigns in 2016: the Horse Racing Jobs and Education Committee, Families for Excellent Schools Advocacy, and Strong Economy for Growth. In each case OCPF found that the 501(c)(4)s had failed to disclose the identities of the actual donors to those committees in violation of Massachusetts law and in denial of the voters’ right to know who is attempting to influence their votes. That three out of the four ballot questions in 2016 were conducted with one side in such blatant violation of campaign finance laws is a scandal. But given that each of the violators’ preferred positions lost on Election Day, the commonwealth averted a larger scandal: the passage of a public policy by illegal means. Non-compliance with disclosure laws is no longer a “singular issue.” The urgency for 501(c)(4) organizations to comply fully with Massachusetts disclosure laws and regulations is imperative.
In a National Football League game on November 25 Jacksonville Jaguars running back Leonard Fournette was ejected from the contest for fighting. Subsequently the NFL suspended Fournette from participating in Jacksonville’s next game, to take place on December 2. If Fournette were to run out on the field on December 2 and line up for the first play of the game, the referee would have an easy decision to make. OCPF has the same easy decision with respect to MassFiscal’s participation in the rulemaking process on Defining a Political Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
Maurice T. Cunningham