We haven’t talked much (well, at all, really) about the ongoing special election in the 12th Bristol state rep district. So, to bring you up to speed, the election is on September 20 between Democrat Roger Brunelle and Republican Keiko Orrall.
The Orrall campaign uses PayPal to take contributions.* That, in itself, is not necessarily a problem, as long as the campaign complies with specific rules that OCPF has set forth for PayPal. It seems, however, that the Orrall campaign does not do so. And our good friends over at Red Mass Group, by posting the Orrall campaign’s inadequate PayPal donation form on their front page, seem to be unwittingly participating in the illegality.*
Further details and screenshots on the flip.
*UPDATE (Monday morning): Both the Orrall campaign and RMG appear to have taken our humble observations to heart. The Orrall campaign’s website no longer shows a PayPal button, and RMG has taken the button off its front page (though you can still find it via the direct link above).
FURTHER UPDATE (Monday afternoon): The MA Democratic party has released the following statement in response to this post:
MA Democratic Party Calls on OCPF To Look Into Tea Party Republican Candidate’s Online Donations
Says Orrall Campaign Should Return The Money
Boston—The Massachusetts Democratic Party today called on the state’s campaign watchdog office to look into how the Republican candidate in the 12th Bristol state representative special election is accepting online donations after blog postings show that donations are being accepted without proper confirmation of compliance with campaign finance regulations. The party also called on the campaign to return all the donations it has received that were submitted improperly.
The campaign of Tea Party Republican Keiko Orrall appears to have been allowing donors to give online through the PayPal website without complying with regulations of the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). OCPF requires information on donations that PayPal does not ask of those who use its site. The additional information could be provided through a campaign’s website before entering into the PayPal transaction for those who wish to use that service. The political blog site, Blue Mass Group, has posted a detailed discussion of the issue. Link: http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/09/keiko-orrall-campaign-red-mass-group-apparently-engaged-in-illegal-fundraising/
“We have seen a growing list of Republican lawmakers or candidates for office run afoul of election laws or guidelines and we want to make sure it is not happening again,” said John Walsh, chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. “We are asking OCPF to look into the Orrall campaign’s online fundraising tactics and we are also calling on the Orrall campaign to return all of the donations it has reciieved through the questionable methods, ” Walsh added.
Last March, Republican state representative Geoff Diehl sent a fundraising letter for his political committee home to voters in his district via the backpacks of 3rd graders in his district. The move was a violation of campaign laws.
Democratic candidate Roger Brunell and Orrall meet in a special election on September 20th to fill the seat left vacant by the resignation of Stephen Canessa.
When collecting campaign contributions by credit card in Massachusetts, particularly over the internet, there’s a bunch of stuff you have to do. OCPF has published a detailed memo explaining what is required. Of particular interest here:
The campaign finance regulations at 970 CMR 1.09(2)(b) set forth the criteria for web sites that solicit political contributions by credit or debit card. Specifically, the sites must: (1) set forth appropriate questions, which require an affirmative response from a contributor, to determine that the source and amount of the contribution complies with M.G.L. c. 55 and 970 CMR 1.09; (2) clearly identify the name of the candidate or committee involved in the solicitation; (3) require a contributor to certify with an affirmative action that the contributor is responsible for making payments on the credit or debit card and that the contributor’s personal funds will be the true source of the contribution as required by M.G.L. c. 55, § 10; and (4) clearly distinguish between required and optional information collected.
Also of interest, since Orrall has decided to use PayPal, is this section:
D. SPECIAL ISSUES REGARDING PAYPAL
…
Although Paypal provides political committees that receive credit or debit card contributions with some of the information that committees must maintain, i.e., the name of the contributor, the amount of the contribution and the fee collected by Paypal, other information, which also must be maintained by a committee, is not provided…. Paypal does not screen contributions to ensure compliance with the campaign finance law, e.g., by requiring contributors to certify that the contributor is responsible for paying all charges incurred in using the credit card and that the contributor’s personal funds will be the true source of the contribution. See 970 CMR 1.09(2)(b). Therefore, political committees that use Paypal must also use their own website to screen contributions and obtain the required information before allowing a contributor to proceed to the Paypal page to actually make a contribution.
These rules remain in full force, as reflected in the Advisory Opinion recently released by OCPF regarding ActBlue.
Tragically, we must with the greatest sadness report that the Orrall campaign appears to have grossly failed to comply with this guidance from OCPF. Despite OCPF’s clear mandate, the Orrall campaign does not “use their own website to screen contributions and obtain the required information before allowing a contributor to proceed to the Paypal page.” The campaign nowhere requires a donor to make “affirmative” responses with respect to source and amount of contribution, responsibility for credit card payments, and true source of funds.
The Orrall campaign’s donation page is very simple: it requests (but does not require) that you enter your occupation and employer, and then you click “Donate” to be taken to PayPal’s donation page.
Whether or not you fill in the “occupation” and “employer” fields, clicking “Donate” takes you into PayPal, where you see something like this:
So far, there has been no point at which we need to give any sort of “affirmative response … to determine that the source and amount of the contribution complies with M.G.L. c. 55 and 970 CMR 1.09,” nor have we had “to certify with an affirmative action that the contributor is responsible for making payments on the credit or debit card and that the contributor’s personal funds will be the true source of the contribution as required by M.G.L. c. 55, § 10.” But not to worry, we still have a couple of screens to go. We fill in the donation amount and click “update total”:
And then we log in to complete the transaction:
At no point have we had to make the affirmative responses that OCPF requires, yet all we have to do is click “donate” to finish up.
In stark contrast, Orrall’s Democratic opponent, Roger Brunelle, appears to have set up his website in compliance with this OCPF guidance. Brunelle uses PayPal too, but before you can get to the PayPal system, you must fill out every field on this screen:
Note that Brunelle requires you to check boxes indicating compliance with OCPF regulations, as set forth in OCPF’s “affirmative response” memo quoted above.
The final bit of guidance from the OCPF memo on improper PayPal donations:
As with any illegal contribution, such contributions, as noted above, must immediately be refunded to the contributor in accordance with 970 CMR 1.04(8).
Oof.
Here’s RMG’s participation in this mess:
It would appear that RMG has (no doubt unwittingly) given its imprimatur to the Orrall campaign’s improper use of PayPal by posting the PayPal “Donate” button on its front page without any of the required screening as set forth in the OCPF memo.
Finally, I am constrained to point out that both the Orrall and Brunelle campaigns appear to have run afoul of another aspect of OCPF’s guidance on PayPal. Another passage of the OCPF memo quoted above reads as follows:
it would not be consistent with the Massachusetts campaign finance law or regulations to utilize Paypal: (1) to receive funds directly from Paypal.com, which does not conform to 970 CMR 1.09(2)(b), or (2) to receive funds from any source other than a credit or debit card, such as from a bank account, contrary to M.G.L. c. 55, § 9 (See Section III, above), even if the website through which the contribution is made otherwise complies with the applicable regulations. Under no circumstances should a Massachusetts candidate or political committee, even those with registered “Premier” or “Business” accounts, accept these types of contributions through Paypal.
This means, as far as I can tell, that it’s OK to use PayPal as a credit/debit card processor, but it is not OK to donate to a political campaign directly via a PayPal account. Yet both the Orrall and Brunelle campaigns appear to permit a donor to sign in to his or her PayPal account and then donate using PayPal balance, rather than via a credit card. Importantly, however, this error does not necessarily result in improper contributions. Most donors probably don’t have a PayPal account and therefore just use their credit cards; in those cases, the Brunelle campaign should be fine, as far as I can tell. In every case, however, by failing to gather the required information, it seems that the Orrall campaign is not playing by the rules.
Campaign finance rules are admittedly complicated … but rules are rules, and the guidance is readily available for all to see.
The tragedy here is that RMG is probably just trying to help out the fumbling Orrall campaign, in keeping with their world view, rather than flout the law ala Jeff “he must of heard me screaming” Perry.
And for their troubles, because of Orrall’s disdain for the law and-or rank incompetence, they have been dragged into illegal campaign contributions.
I’m going to go with incompetence, which highlights one of the fundamental problems with the Massachusetts GOP: they don’t work. From Scott Brown, who can’t get anything done and has a multi-million dollar campaign staff that spends its time working on half-cocked Internet attack projects, to a campaign crew that in this case can’t even follow a basic set of written instructions, the Republican Party offers little more than a reflexive opposition to the Democrats rather than a comptent realistic alternative.
More practically, thank heavens BMG is here to watch the backs of our bloggy interlocutors with free legal advice.
Disclaimer: this blog post is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, you should consult an attorney. 🙂
The Mass GOP suffers from a shallow gene pool.
If they represented more than 11% of the population, they’d have more capable people willing to work and run. Their species would thrive.
And as for Empower Massachusetts, what can you expect happens when a species is endangered?
This from Orrall’s first District mailer telling us what Keiko will work towards:
“Increasing transparency and accountability regarding how are tax dollars are spent”.
Apparently transparency and accountability on financial matters apply to allothers as opposed to the Orrall campaign’s financial dealings.
Should we be paying attention to this race? Is it really winnable by the GOP? Empower Massachusetts – you may remember them as the folks who were accused of voter intimidation in the 6th Worcester race. They paid for the billboard that said “SHOW ID TO VOTE”.
They were also accused of voter intimidation, specifically against Latinos and mentally challenged voters.
Now Empower Massachusetts is bringing Andrew Breitbart to town to raise money for Keiko Orrall’s candidacy and Empower Mass and Show ID to Vote will be at the polls challenging Dem-looking voters in the general election.
Last time Empower Massachusetts and Show ID To Vote were involved in an election, the Department of Justice was called in. What’s going to happen this time?
Both sides had a contested primary, and voter turnout percentage was in the single digits. Orrall is running as a thorough Tea Party water carrier, promising to lower everybody’s taxes. A small, loud group of anti-government conservatives is very enthusiastic about her, and the district in question embraces many towns that voted for McCain over Obama, to say nothing of Brown. Given the notable proportion of visible minorities in the southern end of the district, this is prime playing area for Empower’s brand of election fraud.
All that said, Brunelle is running a smart, organized campaign, and many of the conservatives in the area can do math — they might not fall for Tea Party rhetoric. Brunelle is outworking Orrall, but that doesn’t guarantee anything.
And maybe in part because they’re feeling a little irritable these days. Earlier this week, the Attorney General, whose job it is to decide whether proposed initiatives meet the requirements in the State Constitution for appearing on the ballot, decided that their initiative to require voter identification (Number 11-21, here) violated the constitutional right to vote.
Since one of the members of Empower Massachusetts is on the record that, despite what the Constitution says, voting is not a right but merely a privilege, it’s probably not surprising that things didn’t turn out better for them on the initiative front.