There is a letter in today's Sakonnet Times by PCC, Inc. President Larry Fitzmorris, in which he makes some statements about my recent campaign finance complaint against his group. While I'm delighted to have him spend so much time talking about me (although I do wish he had mentioned my URL), I would like to clarify some of the things in his letter which seem a bit murky. Let's take this point by point, shall we? First, the headline:

PCC's endorsements did not violate law

Now, I know that Mr. Fitzmorris didn't write the headline, so I'm going to lay this one at the feet of the editorial staff. If you read the actual letter, you'll see Mr. Fitzmorris admit the Board of Elections "found that the PCC was in technical violation of state election law." Don't know how you get a headline like "did not violate" when Fitzmorris says "PCC was in...violation." UPDATE: Sakonnet Times editor Bruce Burdett responded to my an e-mail querying about this, "On second look, the headline (by me) is a poor one. Thanks for letting me know." I know all too well the pressures of publication, and can understand completely how something like this can slip through. Thanks very much for your attention and candor, Mr. Burdett.

On Oct. 1, Portsmouth resident John G. McDaid filed a complaint against the PCC with the Rhode Island Board of Elections. The complaint alleged that Portsmouth Concerned Citizens (PCC) violated election law when it provided in kind contributions to candidates via endorsements in the PCC Newsletter of October, 2006. Mr. McDaid additionally complained that the PCC failed to release information to him that the PCC considers private and that the organization also failed to make notification to the candidates involved.

The first two sentences here are fine, but the first clause of sentence three is factually incorrect. To file an official complaint, you are required to cite the specific section of Rhode Island General Law which you are alleging has been violated. This appears at the end of the first paragraph: "Based on the facts provided below, the assertion is that the expenditures appear not to be in compliance with RIGL 17-25-10(3)(b)"

The complaint form, the first page which is attached as a PDF for your reference (click it to view), clearly states that I am making two claims: "Based on the facts provided below, I believe it is reasonable to infer that the PCC made an in-kind contribution in excess of $100 by producing and distributing beyond their association membership a newsletter containing their endorsement of a slate of candidates. If this is true, based on communication from at least two of the candidates, it also appears that they failed to meet the candidate notification requirements of the section cited above."

That's it. There is no section of RIGL cited which requires Larry to tell me squat, and he knows it. I mention my request for information in the last paragraph where I explain the steps I took, included as evidence that I made a good faith effort to resolve the question and that it is not a frivolous complaint. It is not in the paragraph where I identify the grounds for the complaint, it cites no RIGL statute. This is clearly not part of the complaint. Saying otherwise is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation.

Last Thursday, Nov. 15, 2007, the Board of Elections met in executive session to consider the complaint. After returning from the executive session, the Board of Elections found that though the PCC was in technical violation of state election law, the violation was unintentional. A warning was issued, but no fine was assessed.

Here, Mr. Fitzmorris is admitting that the PCC was in violation of state election law. Unintentionally, granted. Despite Mr. Fitzmorris's frequent assertions at Town Council meetings that he is well-versed on state and local law, this seems to have been one area of which he has remained blissfully ignorant.

During discussions with Mr. Robert Kando, executive director of the Board of Elections, and Mr. Richard Thornton, director of campaign finance, an agreement was reached with the Board of Elections that allows the PCC to continue to publish what we please and to endorse candidates as we chose without exposure to the Campaign Finance laws. Mr. McDaid's demands for privileged information were not considered by the board, nor did it consider the lack of candidate notification.

Let me take the last one first. Since putative "demands for privileged information" were not part of the complaint, it is no surprise they were not considered by the board. But nor is it relevant, other than as a rhetorical distraction. The board did not consider many, many things which were not included in the complaint.

As to the substantive question, I contacted RI Campaign Finance Director Richard Thornton today, and in the course of several e-mails to clarify the substance of this ruling, here's what he said:

"Provided the PCC publishes and distributes its newsletter at a constant rate, with increases appropriate to its rate of growth, it will not be required in the future to file reports with the Board of Elections."

"The issue boils down to the organization's "normal or regular" publication or distribution, regardless whether a newsletter is sent entirely within its membership and to its supporters, or left for the general public in the library. If there is an increase in its normal distribution of its newsletter, and that particular newsletter advocates/endorses candidates, the additional expense associated with the increased publication/distribution must be reported."

Got that? The ruling refers specifically to the PCC's newsletter, distributed to its members, and the normal extra copies that they leave at the Library, North End Pizza, etc. Either Mr. Thornton is incorrect about the substance of the ruling, or Larry is misstating the import of the agreement. It is clearly not carte blanche to "publish what we please," other than within the narrow constraint of their existing newsletter. I leave it to you to decide whether that constitutes "as we choose" and "without exposure to the Campaign Finance laws."

This ruling is fair and important for the PCC and other taxpayer groups around the state. Local taxpayer groups, in future, will not be unnecessarily burdened with the legal requirements associated with becoming a Political Action Committee under the state's Campaign Finance Laws.

I will grant you that the ruling is fair — it allows the PCC to continue publishing their newsletter and using their usual leave-behind distribution. But the implied claim that Mr. Fitzmorris seems to be making here, that this has some larger import for all taxpayer groups, is at variance with Mr. Thornton's description of the ruling. Unless all Larry is saying is that groups can send their members a newsletter without filing a CF-8. But as Thornton says, that was already implicit in the regulations.

The PCC appreciates the cooperation and consideration it received from Mr. Kando, Mr. Thornton, and the members of the Board.

I hope he's not thanking them for what he seems to think he got. Because unless I completely misread Mr. Thornton's statements, nothing has really changed.

Larry Fitzmorris
Portsmouth
Mr. Fitzmorris is President of Portsmouth Concerned Citizens.

I'll confess to some confusion about how Mr. Fitzmorris actually filed the CF-8. I mean, the language on the form talks about money expended personally from the person's own funds. Maybe I'm confused. But that's kind of interesting, no?