- Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission - http://ethics.ga.gov -

ADIVISORY OPINION NO 2012-05 Summary of Request From: J. Randolph Evans and Benjamin J. Vinson of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP What is the appropriate methodology for evaluating the acceptability of attorney fee expenditures by the state campaign committee of a current or past federal office holder when such costs are clearly made in connection with the candidate’s active campaign for state office, but also bear some relationship to the candidate’s current or past federal position? In other words, how should a state campaign committee assess the treatment of particular attorney fee expenditures in factual scenarios where the legal services provided fundamentally relate to the candidate’s run for•state elective office, but cannot be cast in a light that is wholly segregated from the candidate’s present or former federal office? For the purposes of the above inquiries, please assume that the candidate at issue is a present or former federal office holder currently seeking state office, but no longer seeking re-election at the federal level. Likewise, please assume that the legal fees at issue would not have accrued but for the particular candidate’s pursuit of state office. Also, to the extent possible, please provide guidance on how the analysis changes under the Act (if at all) in the following scenarios: (l) where the candidate at issue has only one active principal campaign committee operating at the state level; and (2) where the candidate at issue has separate principal campaign committees operating at both the federal and state levels. Posted: June 18, 2012

Posted By gaethics On June 18, 2012 @ 4:03 pm In Advisory Opinions | Comments Disabled

Summary of Request From: J. Randolph Evans and Benjamin J. Vinson of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP

What is the appropriate methodology for evaluating the acceptability of attorney fee expenditures by the state campaign committee of a current or past federal office holder when such costs are clearly made in connection with the candidate’s active campaign for state office, but also bear some relationship to the candidate’s current or past federal position? In other words, how should a state campaign committee assess the treatment of particular attorney fee expenditures in factual scenarios where the legal services provided fundamentally relate to the candidate’s run for•state elective office, but cannot be cast in a light that is wholly segregated from the candidate’s present or former federal office? For the purposes of the above inquiries, please assume that the candidate at issue is a present or former federal office holder currently seeking state office, but no longer seeking re-election at the federal level. Likewise, please assume that the legal fees at issue would not have accrued but for the particular candidate’s pursuit of state office. Also, to the extent possible, please provide guidance on how the analysis changes under the Act (if at all) in the following scenarios: (l) where the candidate at issue has only one active principal campaign committee operating at the state level; and (2) where the candidate at issue has separate principal campaign committees operating at both the federal and state levels.

Posted: June 18, 2012


Article printed from Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission: http://ethics.ga.gov

URL to article: http://ethics.ga.gov/2012/06/Advisory-Opinion-2012-05/

Copyright © 2011 Georgia Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission. All rights reserved.