DPVA Files FEC Complaint Against JMDD

By: James Martin
Published On: 11/2/2007 1:59:48 PM

Democratic Party of Virginia Chairman Dicky Cranwell has sent the FEC and Virginia State Board of Elections an official complaint against Congressman Tom Davis and Senator Devil-ites Davis, specifically asking them to investigate the couple for breaking both STATE AND FEDERAL campaign finance laws regarding TV ads that wrongly stated their source. The story was first broken by Ben over at Not Larry Sabato.

YOU CAN FIND ACTUAL THE COMPLAINT HERE- but below is an excerpt:

Virginia's "stand by your ad" law requires print and television advertisements sponsored by candidate campaign committees and others to identify who paid for the ads.  See Code of Virginia, Sections 24.2-956 through 24.2-957.3.  In addition, if such advertisements are jointly sponsored, then the required disclosure statement must "name all sponsors."  Both print and television advertisements must have written disclosure legends, and television advertisements must have oral disclosure statements.

UPDATE: The Code of Virginia is VERY VERY specific:

It shall be unlawful for any candidate or candidate campaign committee to sponsor a print media advertisement that constitutes an expenditure or contribution required to be disclosed under Chapter 9.3 (-º 24.2-945 et seq.) unless all of the following conditions are met:

1. It bears the legend or includes the statement: "Paid for by  ............-Name of candidate or campaign committee]." Alternatively, if the advertisement is supporting a candidate who is the sponsor and the advertisement makes no reference to any other clearly identified candidate, then the statement "Paid for by  ............ -Name of sponsor]" may be replaced by the statement "Authorized by  ............ -Name of sponsor]."

UPDATE 2: EVEN THE REPUBLICAN TIMES-DISPATCH IS COVERING THE STORY!

Comments



Here is the ad: (James Martin - 11/2/2007 2:15:21 PM)


I hope this makes the evening news (Barbara - 11/2/2007 2:19:46 PM)
...along with the letter sent to her from Women Lawmakers.


Just When You Thought That This Couldn't Get Any Uglier (HisRoc - 11/2/2007 3:18:45 PM)


Question for you Legal Beagles (Legal Works, can you respond ?) (Tom Counts - 11/2/2007 4:21:20 PM)
Earlier today I passed this diary to my twin brother Jim and his wife Barbara (they live 5 miles from Jim's and my Va. Tech alma mater) with the comment that the investigation of the JMDD campaign is likely to result in a similar investigation of Tom D. himself, given the source of JMDDC's campaign plus-up. I also surmised to my brother that if this does spill over to Davis's obviously direct involvement the Va. Bar Association might have no alternative but to consider whether the offenses on the part of Mr. Davis would warrant disbarment, i.e. losing his license to practice law in Va. I seriously doubt that any of this would go that far for Tom D., but even the appearance of impropriety and especially the appearance of serious violation of Fed. and state law might force Davis to announce his retirement from Congress a little earlier than he'd originally intended. Or not. I'm conviced that he will announce his retirement intentions before Thanksgiving.

Having said all that, is there any lawyer among you who knows for sure if by using his campaign money to help his wife without that apparent fact having been stated in the required disclaimer violate any Fed. or Va. state statute ?
I guess the lay person term for that would be "does that constitute being a party to the crime ?".

I'd certainly love to see any public or private problem induce Tom Davis to confirm on or before 6 Nov. that he will not run for re-election for the 11th CD seat.

What do you think, RK lawyers ?

  T.C.



I can tell you as an absolute fact that DPVA had the best legal advice (Used2Bneutral - 11/2/2007 7:13:04 PM)
The best lawyers in Virginia and USA election law for the Democrats were specifically involved in the decision to move forward on this.... this was not done lightly......

does that answer your question???



Sure does answer my question, Used2Bneutral. Thanks. (Tom Counts - 11/2/2007 9:12:44 PM)
On first reading of the attachments I wasn't quite sure if a complaint filed against JMDD's campaign also puts Tom at serious legal risk as well. But your point about the "best lawyers in Va. and USA election law" removes what little uncertainty I had about how the complaint affects Tom directly.

I guess it's fair to say that Tom and Jeannemarie now have to worry tonight about a problem a bit more serious than just the prospect of losing an election.

  T.C.



JMDD Needs to Fess Up (comonsense - 11/2/2007 4:47:01 PM)
In this moment of the most heated race in VA, JMDD is falling like a cheap tent.  Misstep after misstep, the Davis organization has been crumbling.  After a poor taste of choice in lit pieces, not apologizing, and now ethics violations with advertising, there is no reason why JMDD should deserve to win over Chap Petersen. 

The Davis organization is highly corrupt.  Nothing is done in that office without Tom signing off personally.  There were only a few people that would have had there hands in on the extremely offensive lit piece that was sent out and that was Tom and Dave Thomas.  Tom approved that lit before it was ever sent out and he too should take some blame!



The nickname reference (Doug in Mount Vernon - 11/2/2007 4:54:35 PM)
that uses the word "Devil"--at least use it right!

It's Devil-itis!  Not -ites....

It is a rude reference, but I'm sorry, she sort of deserves it...



Here's the WJLA print coverage link (PM - 11/2/2007 5:53:28 PM)
http://www.wjla.com/...


There's now an AP story (PM - 11/2/2007 5:56:58 PM)
by Bob Lewis, who always seems to do good articles.

http://www.dailypres...



The Post buries the story (PM - 11/3/2007 9:30:51 AM)
on page B4:

http://www.washingto...



What else is new? (Lowell - 11/3/2007 9:31:56 AM)
They are passionately in love with the Davises!