The Federal Election Commission last week quietly issued an advisory opinion that would allow candidates to raise unlimited funds for issue advocacy groups working on ballot measures in elections in which they are on the ballot. Announced.
The opinion piece, released in response to a request from a Nevada-based abortion rights group, could significantly shape the fall landscape in terms of whether candidates aligned with these groups can help raise money. There is a possibility that it will change.
The decision applies to all federal candidates, but with the presidential election to be held in six months, most attention will be on that race. If Mr. Biden is able to raise money for abortion rights voting measures, it could further increase the fundraising advantage his team currently has over Mr. Trump.
The decision, announced last week, received little attention and could affect turnout in battleground states like Nevada, where elections are decided by close margins. In Arizona, abortion rights groups announced they had received the necessary number of signatures to put a referendum on the ballot. Florida, which has voted reliably Republican in recent presidential elections, has similar standards for ballots.
The advisory opinion means both Mr. Biden and former President Donald J. Trump can raise money for outside groups promoting voting measures. Abortion voting measures are expected to be a key focus for Democrats this fall, following the invalidation of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision.
“I think this is very important,” said Adab Noti of the nonpartisan Election Legal Center, adding that this is a prohibition introduced by the landmark 2002 McCain v. Feingold campaign finance bill. He said it was a big change from the previous year.
The opinion was released May 1 in response to questions from attorneys representing Nevada for Reproductive Freedom, a group that hopes to hold a referendum this fall. Several lawyers are representing the group, including veteran Democratic election law attorney Marc Elias.
The opinion found that federal candidates and officeholders can raise money for the group’s organizations without restrictions on amount or source.
Aware of how political parties would perceive this opinion, the National Republican Senatorial Committee objected to the draft bill the day before it was officially enacted. Among the objections was that such coordination between candidates and outside groups would hurt Democratic vote-getting efforts in Nevada.
The commission also warned of the potential for foreign funds to flow into states, as a small number of states have banned such donations for voting measures.
“The risks of corruption inherent in direct contributions to candidates by foreign nationals will simply metastasize to the context of voting activities and have similar adverse effects,” the commission’s lawyers wrote under the draft. It is written. NRSC’s concerns were ignored.
Of the six FEC members, three Republicans and one Democrat agreed with this opinion.
A spokesperson for the Biden campaign and a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee declined to comment.
Charlie Spieth, the RNC’s chief adviser, was ousted from his post after just two months amid an exodus of committee donors in Palm Beach, Florida. A Trump campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about whether Spieth’s resignation was the right move. It has nothing to do with advisory opinions.
But Chris Lacivita, a top adviser to Trump who is now helping steer the RNC as chief of staff, said the developments are the beginning.
“We will take every opportunity available, including new opportunities to break down the corruption and failures of the Democratic Party machine,” Rachivita said.
Noti said the committee recently issued other opinions with significant implications, including expanding the capacity of super PACs.
“The combined impact of these decisions has had a very significant and demonstrable impact on how campaigns are run, and it’s all for the worse,” he said.
