Jennifer Brunner and the giggle test

Image via Wikipedia

The top campaign finance official in Ohio came up with this nifty plan:

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is asking the Federal Election Commission to determine the legality of a secret agreement designed to allow her U.S. Senate campaign to use equipment bought by her now-defunct state campaign.

[...]

At issue is about $15,000 in office equipment, supplies and cell phones bought by Brunner’s secretary of state campaign in the week before it was shut down on Feb. 17, the day she announced her Senate candidacy.

FEC regulations prohibit a candidate from directly using money or other assets from a state campaign fund to help finance a federal race.

The Feb. 18 agreement called for Brunner’s Senate campaign to donate the value of the equipment — put at $15,000 — to charity starting by Oct. 29, the campaign said in a statement yesterday. Brunner’s team says that would enable the Senate campaign to legally use the equipment purchased by the state campaign.

Yesterday, the campaign put $15,000 into escrow pending the FEC ruling.

If the agreement is approved, Brunner’s two campaigns will have spent double for the equipment — $15,000 by the state campaign to purchase it, and $15,000 donated to charities by the Senate campaign for the right to use it.

Can someone please explain to me why the Brunner campaign would want to spend twice as much for equipment?  This only makes sense if you were trying to follow the rules after the fact doesn’t it?

Catherine Turcer puts the right label on this one:

Catherine Turcer of Ohio Citizen Action, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said the arrangement between Brunner’s state and Senate campaigns may turn out to be legal but doesn’t pass what she called “the giggle test.”

In fact, Turcer laughed out loud when told of the arrangement, and she said the fact that Brunner is the state’s top elections officer makes the situation particularly troubling.

“It is so disheartening to have the chief elections official attempt to find a way to avoid election law,” she said.

Of course, if she can’t do a better job raising money then the issue might be moot (outside of a slap on the wrist for campaign violations).

But it doesn’t give you a lot of confidence in the Secretary of State.