On July 19th, 2011, Mitt Romney attended a dinner party for potential donors put on by the super Political Action Committee (PAC), Restore Our Future. Under the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) coordination guidelines, Romney’s presence at the fundraiser didn’t cross any boundaries, as long as he didn’t explicitly ask for money at the event.

But if the dinner party had been in June 2011, Romney would have been stretching the legal bounds of allowed coordination between a candidate and a super PAC. The FEC issued an advisory opinion on the question in July. The timing of Romney’s meeting highlights just how quickly the already ambiguous guidelines on coordination, which regulate the relationship between candidates and super PACs, are changing, and how they stretch the boundaries of campaign finance.

On the other side of the organization spectrum, 501(c) nonprofits are accepting unlimited, anonymous donations and funneling them into super PACs, providing complete secrecy to donors. But these nonprofits, too, are buttressed by weak regulation, say critics. Meanwhile, their funding increases as a result of the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

Candidates can only solicit money from nonprofits if the organization’s “main purpose” is not political activity, according to FEC regulations. If a 501(c) organization exceeds the minimum amount of political activity, it becomes a Qualified Nonprofit Corporation, and can then make political independent expenditures. But as reported by Roll Call last week, a more precise definition than “main purpose” has “never been clearly spelled out.”

The Internal Revenue Service says 501(c) nonprofits can only participate in “insubstantial” amounts of political activity, which Washington insiders have taken to mean social aid work must be 51 percent of the group’s purpose. But that is understood more as a rule of thumb.

This distinction has come under increased scrutiny as nonprofits both receive and give donations in the political realm — including to super PACs.

In 2010, the nonprofit advised by Karl Rove, Crossroads GPS  spent tens of millions of dollars on advertisements for Senate races around the country in 2010. The actions of the nonprofit, which is affiliated with the American Crossroads super PAC, prompted Sen. Dick Durbin and the nonprofit groups Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center to request an IRS review of Crossroads 501(c) status and a clarification of the rules governing nonprofits’ political action.

Coordination confusion

Federal laws guiding super PAC coordination are equally narrow, say critics; super PACs may be independent groups in name, but the reality tells another story, according to critics, allowing for a large amount of activity outside the legal definition of coordination.

“The critical point is that the [coordination] laws are pretty modest,” said Paul S. Ryan, FEC Program Director and Associate Legal Counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. Candidates and super PACs “can’t coordinate on a specific detail, but it’s false that they can’t interact.”

As far as the FEC is concerned, coordination is defined as: “made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.”

The rules allow “a lot of interaction that’s not independent,” said Ryan. “It’s an overstatement and misstatement to say that they [super PACs] have to be independent.”

The rules have created enough head-spinning that comedian Stephen Colbert devoted his show Monday to spoofing them.

A super PAC can support a specific candidate so long as their coordination is within the limits of the three coordination “prongs,” as the FEC calls them.

The first and most widely known is the restriction on coordinated spending. Super PACs are called independent expenditure groups because the decisions about how they spend their money can’t be made with the input of a candidate, though the money can be spent in support of a candidate or an issue that is important to the candidate.

The second is a limitations on public communications that can be made in support of candidates. If the communication is for electioneering purposes, advocates the defeat or victory of a candidate, has the input of a candidate or is disseminated 120 days or fewer before the election, it is considered coordinated.

The third coordination guideline covers solicitation. The candidate is not allowed to solicit or direct any money for super PACs, said Ryan with the Campaign Legal Center but “that restriction is quite modest.”

How does this affect the system?

All the same, several groups have submitted advisory opinion requests pertaining to “coordination” to the FEC, and some of the most significant changes in campaign finance have come from these groups.

A ruling in July 2011 allowed candidates to attend super PAC fundraisers; the idea of hybrid PACs that have a bank account both for independent and coordinated expenditures originated with an advisory opinion request to the FEC, and U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) submitted an advisory opinion request last month asking whether a leadership PAC could also open an independent expenditure bank account.

But “the cutting edge of how much interaction on the spending of money can you get away with,” said Ryan, is being pushed by the super PAC American Crossroads. Its request seeks permission for American Crossroads to run advertisements that “feature incumbent members of Congress who might face uncertain re-election prospects,” and asks whether this could hurt its status as an independent expenditure committee.

Weakness of the FEC

The Federal Election Commission, the body charged with enforcing campaign finance laws, is first and foremost hampered by an ideological divide. Five of its six commissioners are on expired terms, and three Republican commissioners “think all campaign finance laws unconstitutional.”

This leads to lax regulation of what is already an “unlimited, unregulated shadow campaign,” says Ryan. “Million-dollar contributions to the Super PACs pose just as big a threat of corruption as would million-dollar contributions directly to candidates.”

Smith labels it a “coup” for Pawlenty to land someone with Toner’s pedigree. But in perhaps a telling mistake, Smith refers to Pawlenty as the “former Minnesota Governor.” Given how often T-Paw’s been out of the state since announcing that he won’t seek a third term, it would be easy to forget that’s he still got 15 months left in his tenure. Tomorrow he’s off to Michigan to address the state Republican party.

Now, Alliance for a Better Minnesota, which in November asked for FBI and Senate ethics investigations into the allegations (and later expressed gratitude on news of an FBI inquiry), has forced the question in a complaint filed with the FEC late last month. The complaint asks for more than the advice that Coleman said he’d seek; at its Web site, the Alliance calls on Minnesotans to demand the FEC take swift action. The FEC will likely do something in response to the complaint, though exactly what or when isn’t known. It’s one of two complaints against the Coleman campaign to be lodged with the FEC in two weeks.

From the Alliance letter (pdfs of page 1 and page 2):

This letter is a complaint … that U.S. Senator Norm Coleman is violating Federal Election Commission regulations as they relate to the use of campaign accounts for non-campaign purposes. … These allegations have arisen completely outside of the campaign and electoral process … [and] do not pertain to the performance of Senator Coleman’s official duties. … [W]e urge the FEC to take swift action, and rule on this issue as soon as possible.

From the FEC response (pdf):

This letter acknowledges receipt of your complaint on, December 31, 2008 … The respondent(s) will be notified of this complaint within five business days. You will be notified as soon as the Federal Election Commission takes final action on your complaint.

Left to right: Dick Morris, Norm Coleman, Brian Melendez

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party charged former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman and a GOP lawyers’ group with violating Federal Election Campaign laws by raiseingmoney for a post-recount lawsuit challenging the results of the Senate recount.

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) is soliciting donations for a legal contest of election results certified by the state Canvassing Board. The results show Al Franken defeated Coleman by 225 votes. But the DFL Party’s complaint says the RNLA has failed to register with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and is breaking the law by taking sums in excess of legal limits and from corporations that aren’t allowed to donate.

The DFL complaint also names Coleman for having failed to report contributions to his campaign from the RNLA.

Federal law allows a new contribution limit separate from the pre-Election Day campaign in the case of a recount, the DFL complaint acknowledges, but so-called “soft money” is not allowed. The RNLA is an unregistered 527 organization under Internal Revenue Service code, Democrats contend, and cannot steer cash to Coleman’s campaign, his recount committee or the state GOP’s federal account. Yet that’s what appears to be happening at a NewsMax Media Web page, where check boxes indicate donations for as much as $5,000 are being accepted — far more than the $2,300 maximum allowed by law.

What if the RNLA isn’t really giving Coleman money?

“The Coleman campaign should publicly declare that it has received and expects to receive no contributions whatsoever from the Republican National Lawyers Association,” DFL Chair Brian Melendez said in a statement, adding that such a declaration “would then expose the RNLA as a group that is simply defrauding Republican contributors.”

Another link to the RNLA fundraising Web page is via a Newsmax article by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, or a separate appeal from the mysterious GOPUSA also signed by Morris.

In this drama, the president thrusts Senate staffer Bauerly, a Concordia College grad who’s an expert in election law and voting rights, onstage with the notorious von Spakovsky — Bauerly’s arch-rival in the sense that they battled as volunteers on opposite sides in the 2000 Florida presidential election recount.

Oddly, it’s not the first time Bauerly has figured in a drama orchestrated by someone with the power to make members of Congress walk and talk. “Cynthia Bauerly” is a character in the play “Among Friends” by Chicago playwright Kristine Thatcher, whose works also include a play about the late U.S. Rep. Barbara Jordan. Reached by phone, Thatcher said she’d made up the name. The real Bauerly, who got her law degree not far away at Indiana University, isn’t a friend or acquaintance — draining all post-Indiana primary political significance from this “Among Friends” line: “Maybe you can buy Dick Mills at the Sun Times, maybe you can buy Cindy Bauerly and the Lake County Board of Commissioners. But you can’t buy me, Dan. You can’t buy me.”