On April 6, the Federal Election Commission general counsel presented a proposed draft of an advisory opinion, denying the request of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein that her contributors be allowed to contribute again. The basis for Feinstein’s request is that the original contributions were stolen by her campaign treasurer. Of course, the Feinstein request only refers to contributors who had already contributed the maximum of $2,500.

The Feinstein campaign learned last year that Kinde Durkee apparently embezzled at least $4,545,386 from the campaign. The Feinstein campaign wishes to replace as much of this money as possible, and requested permission to let contributors who had already given the maximum to this year’s campaign to give again. But the draft opinion denies the request. It says, “The purpose of the contribution limit, and the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold its constitutionality, is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption ‘stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.’ Buckley v Valeo. The larger the contribution, the greater the danger of actual and apparent corruption. See generally Buckley at 25-28. That danger does not disappear because some of the Committee’s funds were embezzled. To the contrary, if a campaign commottee were to accept second contributions to ‘replace’ those that were made, deposited, and then misappropriated, the candidate’s indebtedness to those contributors would increase.” The FEC itself will consider whether to approve this draft opinion, or amend it, or possibly reverse it, on April 12.