Lincoln Journal Star - March 18, 2010
By Nancy Hicks
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning is using a legal loophole that allows him to be counted as a candidate who is honoring the state campaign spending limit while spending far more than the limit.
Bruning, who is seeking re-election, agreed to live within the state's $215,000 campaign spending lid during this election cycle. Yet he's committed more than $600,000 in campaign spending that won't legally count against that limit.
It may be legal, but it is unethical, says Jack Gould, who represents Nebraska Common Cause, a watchdog group interested in government ethics.
Bruning disagrees.
"This is the way the law requires reports to be filed. It's not only legal, it's ethical," said the attorney general, who doesn't agree with all aspects of the law.
The law says tabulation for the campaign limit begins on July 1 the year before the election. But candidates can commit to spending before than date, and that spending doesn't count toward the lid.
That's what Bruning did.
He committed to spend more than $600,000, including about half a million for media advertising in the future, on June 1, 2009, a month before the lid calculations began.
The goal of the 1992 campaign finance law was to keep campaign spending from escalating by encouraging candidates to voluntarily agree to live with spending lids.
The law also helps level the financial playing field by giving candidates who agree to abide by the lid access public funds if their opponent spends more than the lid. Money for the fund comes from late filing fees and fines on candidates and campaign committees, not tax dollars.
Bruning's use of the loophole means any opponent would not get state funding. Right now, he has no opponent since an Omaha attorney pulled out of the race.
Bruning says the campaign finance law unfairly gives money to candidates who don't spend time and energy raising contributions.
"This whole idea of the state using its resources in political campaigns is problematic," he said.
Gould said few candidates have actually received public funds, and in most cases they had already raised and spent close to the limit when the public money became available.
The problem, he said, is candidates want to look like good guys while spending lots of money.
Candidates want to say they are abiding by the limit, because that does carry some credibility with the public, Gould said. But they also want to spend money to win, so they sign contracts for work beforehand, he said.
The ideal, Gould said, is for both candidates to accept and operate within the limit.
A bill (LB509) that would close this early commitment loophole appears to be going nowhere. Introduced by Omaha Sen. Pete Pirsch in 2009, it would count all spending from the end of one election to the next election as part of the lid amount.
The campaign finance law has been successful in curbing excessive spending, and most candidates live within the voluntary lid even though they know the loophole exists, said Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery, chairman of the Legislature's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.
"I'm disappointed when this happens," he said.
In Bruning's case, he said, at least the spending probably doesn't make much difference since he has no opponent.
At least two other candidates have avoided the campaign limit by early commitments.
The first was Anne Boyle, a Nebraska Public Service commissioner who incurred a $44,000 debt to a political firm on June 29, 2007. That commitment did not count toward a $70,000 spending limit in her re-election bid.
State Sen. John Nelson of Omaha reported a $39,900 debt to a campaign consultant before the counting period began for this election cycle. It will not be counted against the $92,000 limit for legislative races. But Nelson says he likely will live within the campaign limit, even with the $39,000.
