Franken didn’t hurt own bid for new legal fund — but specter of future recounts did

As the Minnesota Independent first reported, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) didn’t tell Al Franken what he wanted to hear about setting up his own fund to cover election-contest legal costs. Franken’s own legal rhetoric about “no end in sight” didn’t hurt his case, a commissioner tells MnIndy — but the specter of future recounts did. 

The FEC did give the green light for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to set up a new post-election fund. But the commission couldn’t muster the same backing for Franken to do likewise — out of fear, one commissioner told the Star Tribune, that candidates would want new fundraising groups at every turn of the recount and election contest, making a mockery of spending limits:

“If you start parsing out every separate stage of this process with a separate fund, you could end up having 10 different funds and that would be a huge amount of money coming in,” [Commissioner Cynthia] Bauerly said. “What if a contest results in another partial recount? Do you get another recount fund?”

Where did the FEC get the idea that Minnesota’s process — which has proven lengthy to be sure, but has a structure that is not interminable — could yet go on and on?

Perhaps from Franken. In requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC, Franken attorney Marc Elias wrote (emphasis added):

But if the candidates are only able to raise [funds] under a single limit for the entire post-election process … then it will become progressively harder to defend the candidates’ and parties’ interests in that process …  The general election period spanned less than two months, from September 7 to November 4; the canvass, recount and contest have already consumed more than three months, with no end in sight.

(Republicans — who supported Franken’s request because it would also benefit them – jumped on the “no end in sight” line for Coleman’s own fundraising purposes.)

When a few days later Elias wanted to reiterate that Franken was asking for a speedy response, he called Cynthia L. Bauerly (pdf), the FEC commissioner quoted in the Strib, who is from Minnesota.

I decided to call her too, to ask whether Elias’ ominous words had scared off the commission from granting Franken’s wish.

Bauerly said no. “People tell us their circumstances all the time. We decide based on what the laws and regulations permit,” she said.

Bauerly has Minnesota roots but she asserted that her “connection to Minnesota has no bearing on my job as a commissioner.”

She added, “I suppose on a personal level, I’m interested in having two senators being seated in the Senate from my home state. Amy Klobuchar’s got a big  job to do as the only one. Minnesota should get everything it deserves, including two senators.”

What frightened Bauerly was the specter of future recounts in other places: “What if it’s in another state that has a different process of recount, election contest and so on? Would that be three funds?”

A divided commission couldn’t come to a decision supported by four of the six members (one member had recused herself):

I believe the most natural reading of the law is that there can be one fund for all of the activities that would take place after the election to determine who won. … We could not ultimately agree on where to draw a line as to how many funds under what circumstances are permitted.

At stake was $2,400 more from each willing contributor who’d already maxed out donation limits for Franken’s election and recount funds.

For those who haven’t yet maxed out, political-fundraising doyenne Esther Coopersmith held a luncheon last Wednesday for the Franken Recount Fund at her Washington, D.C., home.

Because future elections in other states might undergo even longer recount processes, Franken and Coleman will have to dig deeper into their Rolodexes to find new donors to invite to lunch.