On November 2, 2000, Greg Wersal ("Complainant") filed a complaint with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board ("Board") alleging that the Minnesota State Bar Association ("MSBA") violated certain provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 10A.

The Complainant alleges that the MSBA made expenditures in excess of $100 to influence the election of certain endorsed judicial candidates, and that the MSBA failed to register a political fund with the Board within 14 days after making such expenditures. The Complainant further alleges that the MSBA failed to disclose the source of funds used and the expenditures made to influence the election of its endorsed judicial candidates.

The evidence submitted consisted of copies of an Advisory Opinion issued by the Board on August 28, 1998, certain pages printed off the MSBA’s website, MSBA plebiscite ballots, and printouts from the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune websites.

Lloyd Grooms, attorney, responded on behalf of the MSBA, by letters dated November 27, 2000, and February 8, 2001. Mr. Grooms states that the MSBA has a membership of approximately 15,000 legal professional members and that the MSBA has traditionally polled those members through plebiscites to determine their opinions on candidates running for judicial offices. He further states that the results of those plebiscites have been published to the MSBA members and public through a general press release.

In 1998, the MSBA Executive Committee considered whether "ambiguities in the Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act" could be viewed as prohibiting its endorsement of a judicial candidate. The Committee decided against endorsing a judicial candidate at that time because an endorsement could be construed as an impermissible corporate contribution to a political campaign. According to Mr. Grooms, the Executive Committee did not consider whether such an endorsement would violate any provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 10A.

Mr. Grooms provided information about expenditures associated with preparing, printing, mailing, processing and counting the returned ballots, and preparing and distributing the press releases. Mr. Grooms informed the Board that the funds used to pay expenses related to the 2000 judicial plebiscite were part of the general operating budget of the MSBA. He also supplied copies of correspondence sent to candidates and MSBA members and an advertisement endorsing certain candidates.

According to Mr. Grooms, the MSBA did discuss using an existing political fund, LawPAC, to pay the expenses of the plebiscite and endorsement. This option was not pursued because the LawPAC constitution limits the purpose of LawPAC to supporting candidates for legislative offices in the state of Minnesota.

The Board considered the matter in executive sessions on December 12, 2000, January 9, and February 20, 2001. Mr. Grooms appeared on behalf of the MSBA and Mr. Wersal appeared on behalf of himself at the January 9, 2001 meeting. The matter was considered based on the complaint, information provided by both parties and testimony presented.

1. The MSBA is an organization consisting of legal professionals and is not registered with the Board.

2. In previous election years, the MSBA has conducted plebiscites for contested judicial races to determine its members’ opinions of the candidates and has published the results through a general press release.

3. In connection with the 1998 plebiscite, the MSBA Executive Committee considered whether its endorsement of a judicial candidate could be construed as an impermissible corporate contribution to a political campaign. Ultimately, the Executive Committee decided that due to "ambiguities in the Minnesota Fair Campaign Practices Act," the results of the 1998 plebiscite would be announced to the public but that there would be no endorsement of judicial candidates. The MSBA testified that at no time did the MSBA consider whether such endorsements could be construed as violating any provisions of Minn. Stat. Chapter 10A.

4. In advance of the 2000 plebiscite, the MSBA decided and announced that a candidate receiving at least 60% of the votes would be "endorsed" by the MSBA.

5. During September 2000, the MSBA mailed plebiscite ballots to all of its lawyer members asking them to determine their preference among the candidates in the contested Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 2000 elections. Background information supplied by the candidates was included with the plebiscites.

6. On October 10, 2000, the MSBA tabulated approximately 3,600 returned ballots and published the results through media press releases and posted them on the MSBA website.

7. To more broadly communicate the results of the ballots and endorse those candidates receiving more than 60% of the votes, an advertisement was placed in several newspapers.

8. Among other things, the advertisement prominently stated, "Here’s who we support for the jobs, " and identified five incumbent candidates for judicial office.

9. The MSBA communications indicated that they were prepared and issued by the MSBA; they do not, however, clearly state that the communications were not approved by the candidates, or that the candidates were not responsible for the communications.

10. The cost of preparing, distributing, and publishing the communications relating to judicial candidate endorsements were paid by the MSBA and exceeded $100.00. The funds used to pay these expenses were part of the general operating budget of the MSBA.

11. The MSBA discussed using its existing registered political fund, known as "LawPAC," to pay expenses related to the 2000 judicial plebiscite. This option was not pursued because the LawPAC constitution limits the purpose of LawPAC to supporting "candidates to legislative offices in the state of Minnesota."

12. The above expenditures were not made from a political committee or political fund, and MSBA did not form or register a political committee or political fund within 14 days of making expenditures in excess of $100.

 

1. MSBA’s costs of preparing, distributing and publishing a press release, statements of endorsement on the MSBA web site, and newspaper advertisements constituted independent expenditures on behalf of candidates as defined in Minn. Stat. 10A.01, subd. 18.

2. The MSBA failed to establish either a political committee as required by Minn. Stat. 10A.11, or a political fund as required by Minn. Stat. 10A.12, subd. 1, prior to taking actions related to the endorsement of judicial candidates.

3. The MSBA failed to register with the Board by filing a Statement of Organization required by Minn. Stat. 10A.14, subd. 1, no later than 14 days after making expenditures in excess of $100.

4. The MSBA failed to file with the Board the Reports of Receipts and Expenditures required by Minn. Stat. 10A.20, subds. 1 and 2, after making expenditures in excess of $100.

5. The MSBA’s printed or written advertisements and statements of endorsement failed to contain statements in conspicuous type disclosing that they were independent expenditures not approved by the candidates and that the candidates were not responsible for them, as required by Minn. Stat. 10A.17, subd. 4.

6. There is probable cause to believe that the MSBA violated the provisions of Minn. Stats. 10A.11 or 10A.12, subd. 1; 10A.14, subd. 1; 10A.17, subd. 4; and 10A.20, subds. 1 and 2.

 

 

 

 

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 10A.02, subd. 11, probable cause having been found, the MSBA shall take the following actions to remedy the violations:

1. The MSBA shall establish and register either a political committee or political fund with the Board within ten (10) days after the order is signed;

2. The political committee or political fund shall file the necessary Report of Receipts and Expenditures in connection with the 2000 judicial endorsement with the Board no later than 30 days after the order is signed. If the political committee or political fund made aggregate expenditures in excess of $100 prior to August 22, 2000, the political committee or political fund shall file the Report of Receipts and Expenditures for the period January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000. If the political committee or political fund did not make aggregate expenditures in excess of $100 prior to August 22, 2000, the political committee or political fund shall file a Report of Receipts and Expenditures for the period August 22, 2000, to December 31, 2000.

3. The report shall identify the source(s) of the funds expended for endorsement purposes by percentage and category, e.g., 30 % membership dues, 20% donations, 40% Continuing Legal Education registration fees, etc. In addition, the report must include the name, address, and employer of any individual who contributed in excess of $100 dedicated to the endorsement process together with the date and amount of the contribution.

4. If the political committee or political fund made aggregate expenditures in excess of $100 prior to August 22, 2000, the political committee or political fund shall pay a late filing fee of $1,000 for failure to timely file pre-primary election and pre-general election Reports of Receipts and Expenditures. If the political committee or political fund did not make aggregate expenditures in excess of $100 prior to August 22, 2000, the political committee or political fund shall pay a late filing fee of $500 for failure to timely file a pre-general election Report of Receipts and Expenditures.

 

As required by Minn. Stat. 10A.02, subd. 11, the Board will report its findings to the Ramsey County Attorney.

Dated: February 23, 2001

Wil Fluegel, chair

Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board