By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
The Bureau of Elections can’t use an interpretive statement from 1978 to determine if a group of school board candidates violated the Campaign Finance Act when conducting a joint fundraiser, a lawsuit filed in the Court of Claims last week argues.
That statement, the lawsuit argues, is not only nonbinding but also “obsolete” considering technological advances which have been made since it was originally issued.
“The public and candidates for public office would be well served if the bureau and the department were to modernize these outdated rules to ensure their applicability in the modern era,” the suit says.
Crafton v. Department of State (CoC Docket No. 25-00072) was filed Friday on behalf of four candidates for the Walled Lake School Board who held a joint fundraiser in 2024 and used ActBlue, a fundraising platform used by Democratic candidates, to split up contributions.
A campaign finance complaint was lodged against the four candidates, claiming they violated the Michigan Campaign Finance Act with the joint fundraiser. The Bureau of Elections, in a letter without much detail of the potential violation, found there was “reason to believe” a violation may have occurred.
The Bureau of Elections noted candidate committees are barred from contributing to other candidate committees. The Bureau also cited an interpretive statement to Michael W. Huston as guidelines used by the agency to determine how joint fundraisers should be conducted.
“While interpretive statements issued by the department are not binding, they provide general guidance on campaign finance questions,” the bureau’s letter says. “The interpretive statement to Michael W. Huston (September 20, 1978) is the most relevant guidance on joint fundraisers and is what the department has consistently used for reviewing campaign finance complaints concerning joint fundraisers.”
The lawsuit says “joint fundraiser” is not defined in law and has never been defined through an administrative rule. The term is used elsewhere in the act when referencing a “secondary depository,” to allocate funds, make payments for event costs and deposit net proceeds to each candidate proportionally.
Therefore, the lawsuit argues, there is a clear inference, “if not outright assumption,” that a joint fundraiser can only exist when contributions are accepted in such a way where physical division of proceeds and expenses by candidates is necessary to proportionally share with other candidates.
“When tandem fundraising tools are utilized, as was done here, in which proceeds are divided and deposited by a third-party payment processor, what appears to be a single event actually becomes multiple separate fundraisers for purposes of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act,” the suit argues.
The lawsuit also argues an interpretive statement cannot be used to determine if candidates have violated the Campaign Finance Act. Further, it argues the candidates in this case followed the “letter” of the law.
“As of the date of this response, the department has yet to promulgate any binding rules or issued any declaratory rulings concerning joint fundraisers or tandem fundraising using the internet, third party payment processors or where comingling of funds cannot occur,” the suit argues. “Therefore, the respondents are left to abide by the clear letter of the law … which they have faithfully done.”
Gongwer News Service
The Bureau of Elections can’t use an interpretive statement from 1978 to determine if a group of school board candidates violated the Campaign Finance Act when conducting a joint fundraiser, a lawsuit filed in the Court of Claims last week argues.
That statement, the lawsuit argues, is not only nonbinding but also “obsolete” considering technological advances which have been made since it was originally issued.
“The public and candidates for public office would be well served if the bureau and the department were to modernize these outdated rules to ensure their applicability in the modern era,” the suit says.
Crafton v. Department of State (CoC Docket No. 25-00072) was filed Friday on behalf of four candidates for the Walled Lake School Board who held a joint fundraiser in 2024 and used ActBlue, a fundraising platform used by Democratic candidates, to split up contributions.
A campaign finance complaint was lodged against the four candidates, claiming they violated the Michigan Campaign Finance Act with the joint fundraiser. The Bureau of Elections, in a letter without much detail of the potential violation, found there was “reason to believe” a violation may have occurred.
The Bureau of Elections noted candidate committees are barred from contributing to other candidate committees. The Bureau also cited an interpretive statement to Michael W. Huston as guidelines used by the agency to determine how joint fundraisers should be conducted.
“While interpretive statements issued by the department are not binding, they provide general guidance on campaign finance questions,” the bureau’s letter says. “The interpretive statement to Michael W. Huston (September 20, 1978) is the most relevant guidance on joint fundraisers and is what the department has consistently used for reviewing campaign finance complaints concerning joint fundraisers.”
The lawsuit says “joint fundraiser” is not defined in law and has never been defined through an administrative rule. The term is used elsewhere in the act when referencing a “secondary depository,” to allocate funds, make payments for event costs and deposit net proceeds to each candidate proportionally.
Therefore, the lawsuit argues, there is a clear inference, “if not outright assumption,” that a joint fundraiser can only exist when contributions are accepted in such a way where physical division of proceeds and expenses by candidates is necessary to proportionally share with other candidates.
“When tandem fundraising tools are utilized, as was done here, in which proceeds are divided and deposited by a third-party payment processor, what appears to be a single event actually becomes multiple separate fundraisers for purposes of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act,” the suit argues.
The lawsuit also argues an interpretive statement cannot be used to determine if candidates have violated the Campaign Finance Act. Further, it argues the candidates in this case followed the “letter” of the law.
“As of the date of this response, the department has yet to promulgate any binding rules or issued any declaratory rulings concerning joint fundraisers or tandem fundraising using the internet, third party payment processors or where comingling of funds cannot occur,” the suit argues. “Therefore, the respondents are left to abide by the clear letter of the law … which they have faithfully done.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
