On December 8, U.S. District Court Judge William K. Sessions cleared the way for the Vermont Progressive Party and some of its candidates to proceed in a campaign finance case. Corren v Sorrell, 2:15cv-58. Dean Corren had been the party’s nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2014. After the election was over, Vermont state officials said Corren must pay $72,000, consisting of a fine and a refund of all the public funding he had received in 2014. The reason was that a Democratic Party official had sent an e-mail, inviting persons on her e-mail list to attend a rally at which Corren would be speaking. The Democratic Party did not have its own nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2014, and instead cross-nominated Corren.
The state claimed the e-mail was an illegal campaign contribution.
The recent procedural ruling says Corren can maintain his federal lawsuit on some points, even though a case is pending against him in state court. Furthermore, it says David Zuckerman may intervene in the case to raise the points that Corren can’t. Zuckerman wants to run for Lieutenant Governor as a Progressive in 2016. Zuckerman is also permitted to challenge another Vermont law which says candidates who receive public funding may not announce until February 15 of the election year.
If Corren wins the case, he will seek the Progressive Party nomination for Governor in 2016. A hearing will be held in the case on January 24 at 9:30 a.m. See this story.
This does show a problem with campaign finance regulation, a problem that occurred as early as 1976. In that year, Rep. Ed Koch, running for re-election in New York, distributed campaign badges that included a plug for the Carter-Mondale ticket as well as Koch himself – this was considered an illegal contribution to the Carter-Mondale campaign. Still it is entertaining to see these laws used against a Progressive who supports regulation of campaign finance.
Here is the actual complaint against Corren.
http://ago.vermont.gov/assets/files/Civil/State%20v%20Corren%20Complaint.pdf
The Corren campaign had sought to coordinate with the Democratic Party, and there was correspondence between the Corren campaign and the VDP. After the Corren campaign had worked up a suggested text that the VDP chair Dottie Deans could use, she was told by the Democratic lawyer that the email had monetary value and would have to be reported.
The Corren campaign then suggested that either the Corren campaign could use the pretext that the email was supporting six or more candidates, or the Corren campaign could pay for the ad, and asked for a price.
Dottie Deans then sent out the e-mail, with a subject of “How you can help me help Dean Corren”. The first three paragraphs extolled Corren.
The 3rd paragraph then suggested ways to help elect Dean Corren. One way was to attend to a GOTV rally which Corren and other Democratic candidates would attend. Or they could volunteer – by contacting the party web site, or the Corren campaign website.
Or they could vote.
The e-mail claimed it was not authorized by any campaign or any campaign committee, when the substantive text of the message had been written by the Corren campaign, and the Corren campaign had sought to have the email sent.
The e-mail went out on October 24. The AG was informed on October 27, and the Corren campaign was informed on October 30.
The public funding law permits a candidate to switch to private funding. It does require the candidate to return all unspent funds. That is the money that Vermont is attempting to recover, plus the civil fine.
You appear to be unaware of the coordination between the Corren campaign and the VDP, and what the text of the e-mail blast actually said.