George Santos Caught Between FEC and Campaign Laws
George Santos is caught in an awkward situation as the Federal Election Commission (FEC) issues an ultimatum to declare his 2024 candidacy or “disavow” the definition of ‘candidate’ per Federal Election Campaign Laws. In a letter sent to Santos on Tuesday, the FEC notes that his campaign appears to have already met the definition of being an active campaign, and that he must either commit to the race or return donations he has already collected. This presents a difficult dilemma for Santos, who is currently weighing the possibility of running for the White House in 2024.
The FEC is an independent regulatory agency whose mission is to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971. It is responsible for overseeing campaign finance regulations, including the disclosure of campaign finance information, the regulation of contributions to political campaigns, and the regulation of political action committees. The FEC also has the authority to investigate violations of FECA and other related laws.
Existing Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) regulations and interpretations have allowed candidates to avoid formal declaration of candidacy until they have raised an amount of money that meets the definition of “active” candidacy. In the letter, the FEC asks Santos needs to ‘either disavow these funds or formally declare his candidacy.’ This means that although Santos has not formally declared his candidacy, he has already raised the funds to meet the definition of an active campaign, which would make him liable to the FEC’s regulations.
The FEC’s decision has also raised questions about the regulation of digital advertising. Digital ads were not subject to the same disclosure requirements, as the legal definition of public communication expressly exempted online platforms. This means that while traditional ads were subject to disclosure, digital ads did not have to comply with the same regulations.
In response to this loophole, the FEC voted 5-0 to expand the disclaimer requirements to “internet public communications,” which are defined to include “any public communication distributed through the internet, including emails, websites, blogs, and other digital media.” This means that digital ads must now include disclaimers that state who paid for the ad, and whether the ad was authorized by a candidate or a political committee.
The FEC’s ruling has been met with both approval and opposition. Supporters of the ruling argue that the new regulations are needed in order to ensure transparency and accountability in digital advertising. They also argue that the ruling will help to prevent foreign interference in elections. Opponents of the ruling argue that the regulations are overly burdensome and will limit free speech.
The ruling has also raised questions about how candidates should handle digital advertising. “We use the FEC's definition because it's unambiguous; it removes subjectivity,” Bawadden Sayed, national spokesperson for End Citizens United, said. “We suggest candidates err on the side of caution and include disclaimers on all digital ads.”
In the end, the FEC’s ruling on digital advertising may have made it harder for George Santos to avoid formally declaring his candidacy. The ruling has made it clear that candidates must comply with the regulations in order to avoid incurring penalties from the FEC. However, the ruling has also raised questions about the regulation of digital advertising, and how candidates should approach digital advertising in the future. It is clear that the FEC’s ruling on digital advertising has created a difficult situation for George Santos, who may now have to declare his candidacy or ‘disavow’ the definition of 'candidate' per Federal Election Campaign Laws.
