Norm and Laurie Coleman (Paul Demko, Minnesota Independent)

Norm Coleman may not dip into his campaign coffers to cover all his expenses stemming from lawsuits and other complaints that allege misconduct by him or his donors. That’s the upshot of draft advisory opinions issued late Thursday (pdf) by the Federal Election Commission.

The FEC drafted two opinions to guide its consideration of Coleman’s inquiry about which legal bills federal law would let him pay with campaign funds.

Related lawsuits in Texas and Delaware contend that Coleman benefactor Nasser Kazeminy steered him $75,000 through a business relationship between a Texas firm Kazeminy controls and the St. Paul insurance firm where Coleman’s wife works. The FBI is looking into whether Kazeminy improperly paid for Coleman’s suits, an allegation that also prompted Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to ask for a Senate ethics investigation.

Here is the question Coleman asked the FEC:

May the Committee use campaign funds to pay legal counsel for the services described above in connection with the Texas and Delaware lawsuits, the FBI investigation, and the Senate Ethics Committee complaints?

The FEC will base its decision on two draft advisory opinions that reach somewhat different conclusions.

Opinion A says the law won’t let Coleman tap campaign accounts to pay for legal representation in the Texas or Delaware lawsuits or the FBI investigation, but the campaign can pay half the costs of monitoring the out-of-state lawsuits.

Opinion B says the law disallows only spending campaign funds for the FBI investigation into matters unrelated to his candidacy or elective office.

At their June 25 meeting, the commissioners will try to reach a decision about which draft opinion, or some combination of the two, represents their understanding of how election law applies to Coleman’s situation.

Draft Advisory Opinion A:

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may use campaign funds to pay for the following legal services: reviewing the complaints to the Senate Ethics Committee; reviewing ABM’s letter to the FBI; representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of alleged violations of Federal law or rules governing the office of a Senator or the conduct of campaigns; and responding to media inquiries.

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may not use campaign funds to pay for the following legal services: representing Senator Coleman in the Texas or Delaware lawsuits; and representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of allegations unrelated to Senator Coleman’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may use campaign funds to pay for 50% of legal fees for monitoring the two lawsuits.

Draft Advisory Opinion B:

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission concludes that the Committee may use campaign funds to pay for the following legal services: reviewing the complaints to the Senate Ethics Committee; reviewing ABM’s letter to the FBI; representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of alleged violations of Federal law or rules governing the office of a Senator or the conduct of campaigns; monitoring and representing Senator Coleman in the Texas and Delaware lawsuits; and responding to media inquiries.

The Committee may not, however, use campaign funds to pay for legal services representing Senator Coleman in an FBI investigation of allegations unrelated to Senator Coleman’s campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder.

The FEC is taking public comment on the matter until noon on June 24.

More analysis to come.

The Senate voted 79-14 to override the veto of the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, following Monday’s override vote in the House which was passed 361-54.

The $23 billion bill provides funding for Army Corps of Engineers projects throughout the nation, including several navigation projects on the North Shore of Lake Superior, three wastewater treatment projects in northeast Minnesota, and $4 million for a dispersal barrier to protect the Upper Mississippi from non-native carp and other invasive fish.

The dispersal barrier, recommended to be built at the General Zebulon Pike Lock and Dam No. 11 north of Dubuque, Iowa, is intended to “delay, deter, impede, or restrict the dispersal of aquatic nuisance species into the northern reaches of the Upper Mississippi River system.”

The congressional delegation from Minnesota voted unanimously in favor of the override, as Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman both registered votes of “yea” late this morning. Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who was one of 14 representatives to vote against the legislation when it was initially passed, shifted positions and voted in favor of overriding the veto.The only member of the Minnesota delegation not to vote on the legislation was its primary sponsor, Rep. James Oberstar, who is recovering from neck surgery that was scheduled at a time when it was believed the congressional session would end in October.

While the bill authorizes funding, all projects will still need final approval from the Appropriations Committee.

By a vote of 361-54, the required two-thirds majority was easily achieved. The $23 billion legislation was initially passed on Aug. 1 by a vote of 381 to 40. Thes Senate passed the bill on Sept. 27 by a vote of 81 to 12.

The bill authorizes projects that impact waterborne commerce and fund habitat and environmental projects.

Among the Minnesota projects authorized by the WRDA are several navigation projects on the North Shore of Lake Superior, three waste-water treatment projects in Northeast Minnesota and funds to construct an electrical barrier to keep Asian Carp from migrating north into Minnesota.

While seven of Minnesota’s eight representatives in Congress voted in favor of the veto override, the bill’s primary sponsor and chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Democrat James Oberstar, missed the vote due to neck surgery.  Oberstar said he was disappointed that he was unable to manage the override effort.