22 Comments - Proud RINO - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 8:07 am: Good to see the State GOP being proactive, maybe there’s hope after all. - Gabe - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 8:33 am: I’ll be interested to see, if his candidacy falls apart over the summer, what impact this will have on Obama given his very public role in this campaign. - Interested - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 9:27 am: Why did the complaint not include the Duckworth campaign which features Obama in its advertising or the Stroger campaign which is on the air with Senator Durbin? interesting. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 9:30 am: “Interested,” the answer is because Obama isn’t on the ballot. Jackson is. - Interested - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 9:36 am: …then why does the republican press release talk about Obama? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 9:40 am: probably as a ding. - oh please - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 9:46 am: This is a total ploy by the GOP, and shocker, it’s wrong. Explain then why it is not a violation for Mangieri to have a mailing with Lane Evans? The law clearly states that a federal endorsement is okay, as long as the State Candidate does not promote the Federal Candidate. - Give me a break - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 10:13 am: There seems to be a perpetual “grassy knoll” attitude in the Giannoulias camp. Isn’t it possible that this kid fouled up? Do you have to turn every negative news release about Alexi into a conspiracy? Alexi needs to start explaining himself instead of hiding behind “It wasn’t me.” - Bill - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 10:39 am: Alexi doesn’t explain himself because he doesn’t have a clue!This kinda stuff never came up in his “banking experience” at daddy’s bank. Roe Conn was hilarious yesterday making fun of Alexi. The voters won’t be fooled. I’m very disappointed in Barack and Junior. I expected this crap from Rahm but not them! - HeKnowsBarack - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 11:21 am: The Lane Evans portion of the mailing was probably paid for with “hard dollars” raised in accordance with FEC rules. Alexander should be told there are those little laws one needs to follow. Now lets get some comments from the Alexander’s birthday bash. How did the PunkyQB? Final Score? Opps, I mean # of $ raised, etc. CellCam pictures. Let’s get this party jumpin. - Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 11:26 am: Whereas state election laws are lax, federal laws are stringent. No offense, but those who are used to the Illinois way of doing things don’t understand. There’s no bending the rules at the federal level. The rules are enforced. Jackson and Evans are in violation of McCain-Feingold, since there is a clear collaboration between the two campaigns. This provision was adopted to make sure that soft money isn’t spent in federal campaigns. The FEC might not come knocking this weekend, but there will be a couple of congressmen sitting down for FEC depositions in the next year or two. The “Greek Guy” continues on his roll… - Anon - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 4:06 pm: So is it Alexi who is in violation or Jackson or both? I’m not sure I understand here. It seems that it’s Jackson who is the one that is at fault here for appearing in the picture, but Alexi who put him there because of the soft money. Can Alexi even be under investigation from the FEC if he is a state candidate? - Cynical - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 5:07 pm: I willing to bet that they got the info from DPI - protect the power at all costs, damn the party principles and damn the truth! If you’re the Republicans, wouldn’t you rather run against the guy that the Speaker isn’t with, rather than the one that he is? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 5:09 pm: You’d lose that bet, Cynical. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 5:26 pm: The speaker supporting a candidate has very different levels depending on the candidate and what he perceives as the risk. Someone can correct me, but I don’t see him breaking out the stops for Mangieri. He likes him, thinks we ought to have a downstater on the Dem side statewide and will add him on his troops list of candidates, and probably raised some cash for him, but it’s not his reason for living. Lisa getting reelected? I wouldn’t cross him on that. FEC hardly investigates anything. I’m betting in this case they’d make a finding on the general case and level a small fine for the Jackson commercials/billboards, but exempt Obama because he’s not on the ballot. The IRP is essentially correct with respect to Jackson, my reading of the rules would clear Obama. He’s not actually a federal candidate right now. I also doubt it was Madigan–it probably was the national GOP if anything–they have the strongest interest in attacking Obama right now. - Feingoldopoulos - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 8:33 pm: Anon 11:26 – If I’m not mistaken, the FEC has ruled on similar cases (one involving Russ Feingold himself). The standard from those cases is that unless the soft money is being used in an ad that asks for a vote for the federal candidate, there is no violation of federal law. This is a stretch by the Republican party. They realize they don’t have a single star in Illinois, and that using President Bush would be counterproductive in the general, so they are trying to give the Dem’s second thoughts about using Obama, Jackson, Durbin, Emanuel, etc. . . What is most interesting is they only decided to file against Giannoulias (when Mangieri has ads with Evans and Durbin). Republican pollsters must be telling them that Giannoulias is definitely going to be there opponent in November. - John 3:16 - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 8:36 pm: “Grassy Knoll” from the Giannoulias camp? I think not. There is no conspiracy theory — all the negative stuff clearly comes from the speaker and the DPI. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 9:32 pm: ==If I’m not mistaken, the FEC has ruled on similar cases (one involving Russ Feingold himself). McCain-Feingold changed those rules so that soft money simply can’t be used for a federal candidate’s likeness or name–but I don’t think it applies if the candidate isn’t running. The reason to target Obama instead of Durbin, is that Obama is heading the ethics effort in the Senate for Democrats. Durbin isn’t up and Evans isn’t considered a high profile target. - ArchPundit - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 9:47 pm: Actually, after looking at the regs and law again, I think the GOP is wrong–as long as the ad is not promoting Jackson, it should be in the clear. The federal law prohibits such advertising with a state official that is used to promote a federal candidate, but not if the communication is to only promote the state candidate. Giannoulis will have to probably address it, but I’d agree with his lawyers. - Feingoldopoulos - Thursday, Mar 16, 06 @ 11:11 pm: ArchPundit’s reading of federal law is correct. Another great move by the state party that brought us Alan Keyes. - Greek Chorus - Friday, Mar 17, 06 @ 12:26 am: Actually, that’s not quite right. It really doesn’t matter whom the communication is designed to promote. It only matters whether some federal candidate (Jesse Jr.) is enjoying increased name ID, exposure, etc., prior to his or her name being listed on a ballot within the media market or electoral district where the communication is being aired or published. Even if that federal candidate is simply endorsing another candidate (Alexi), it’s still a problem. The federal law in question here is called the “Forgy Kerr” rule, named after a candidate for Congress in a special election in KY in early 2004. In that campaign, Forgy Kerr used footage of Pres. Bush to tout his endorsement of her, which happened to be in close proximity to the KY primary, when Bush’s name was on the ballot for Pres. In that case, the FEC said the broadcasting of Bush’s name and likeness was in fact an in-kind contribution to Bush from Forgy Kerr, because it gave him increased exposure, for which his campaign did not pay, at a time when he, too, was a candidate on the ballot in the same election jurisdiction. Under federal law, a federal candidate (Forgy Kerr) can make an in-kind contribution to another federal candidate (Bush) as long as it’s within entablished limits. In this case, it would have exceeded those limits because of the high cost of television advertising. In Alexi’s case, the problem for Jesse Jr. is compounded, because Alexi is using “soft” or non-federal funds, which is forbidden in any federal campaign. All that matters is that Candidate A — whether federal or state — is broadcasting or disseminating the name and/or likeness of federal Candidate B during a specified period before Candidate B’s name appears on a ballot. (That’s why Obama is not a factor in this case — he’s not on the ballot again until March 2010) I guess the theory goes that the federal Candidate B is receiving the benefit of increased name ID, exposure, and general promotion as a result of the communication, even if Candidate B is ONLY endorsing Candidate A, who is the main subject of the communication ! It’s stupid and contrived, but so is most of federal election law. However, like all laws, you can’t disregard the law just because you don’t like it — even if you’re Alexi. (Although it sounds like that might be the policy at his bank ! ) If Mangieri and Lane Evans are doing the same thing, the IL GOP should look into that, as well. - ArchPundit - Friday, Mar 17, 06 @ 2:40 am: I actually thought there was a difference between the state and federal officeholders depending on who was being endorsed, but I see your point that within the blackout period, it doesn’t really matter–the case where they allowed it was outside that period and Bayh was allowed to appear–within the period, you are right. I’m not actually sure that’s what Congress meant, but it’s the regulation. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.