Ohio Democrat U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown is the subject of a new complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) alleging solicitation and acceptance of contributions in excess of what campaign law allows in his re-election campaign versus GOP nominee Bernie Moreno.
The 11-page FEC complaint seeking an investigation alleges that Brown and his campaign agents — Friends of Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democratic Party, and Ohio Grassroots Victory Fund ("the Brown JFC") — have been "unlawfully soliciting excessive contributions" to Brown's 2024 re-election bid.
The complaint filed by FACT — a nonpartisan ethics watchdog — is based on public campaign finance reports and current fundraising appeals. The key issues are 1) solicitations for donations to Brown's primary election campaign, in which he ran unopposed, and 2) whether donors to the state Democrat Party knew their contributions would be used to support Brown's general election campaign.
"In this case, it may look as if Senator Brown is using a complex fundraising scheme, but the reality is it appears he is simply seeking campaign contributions above the legal limit," explained FACT's Executive Director Kendra Arnold. "Of course the law must be strictly enforced against all candidates, but it is especially egregious when a long-serving U.S. Senator seems to be violating this law — and the trust the public has placed in him," she emphasized.
Here's FACT's argument regarding the solicitation for Brown's primary campaign (emphasis added):
Based on Friends of Sherrod Brown’s public reports filed with the FEC, there is reason to believe Sherrod Brown and his campaign have violated FECA [Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971] and the FEC’s implementing regulations by knowingly and willfully soliciting contributions in excess of FECA’s contribution limits.
Friends of Sherrod Brown has reported no debts outstanding in connection with Sherrod Brown’s uncontested 2024 primary election. Yet since the March 19 primary election, Brown and his campaign, through the Brown JFC, continue to actively solicit contributions expressly designated for his primary election. As noted, the JFC’s ActBlue contribution page specifically states that “[t]he first $3,300/$5,000 from a person/multicandidate PAC will be allocated to Friends of Sherrod Brown and designated to the primary election.
There is reason to believe that Sherrod Brown and Friends of Sherrod Brown’s continued solicitations of funds for an election that has long ago occurred, when the campaign had no debts outstanding from the election, may have resulted in several violations of FECA and FEC regulations, including 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1), 30116(f), and § 30125(e), and 11 C.F.R. §§ 110.1(b) and 110.9.
The matter of contributor knowledge as to how donations to the state party will be spent is a bit wonkier (again, emphasis added):
As described above, all contributions of up to $10,000 made to the Ohio Democratic Party through the Brown JFC have been designated for spending on Sherrod Brown’s general election campaign. Specifically, the Brown JFC’s contribution page expressly states that all contributions made to the JFC “will fund” the state party’s “get-out-the-vote and voter turnout operation to get Sherrod across the finish line this November.”
As a result of this express designation language, there is reason to believe contributors to the Brown JFC have been making contributions to the Ohio Democratic Party with knowledge that their funds will be spent on the party’s “get-out-the-vote and voter turnout operation” explicitly for Sherrod Brown, meaning all amounts contributed to the state party through the Brown JFC must be deemed general-election contributions to Sherrod Brown.
Indeed, this express designation language would appear to qualify as an express “earmark” under the FEC’s broad definition at 11 C.F.R. § 110.6(b)(1). In fact, the scenario presented fits squarely within the example of prohibited earmarking described in McCutcheon, where “a donor gives money to a party committee but directs the party committee to pass the contribution along to a particular candidate.” McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 194. Accordingly, all contributions made to the state party in response to the Brown JFC’s designation language should be deemed “contributions from the person to” Sherrod Brown in order to avoid direct circumvention of the limits. 11 C.F.R. § 110.6(a).
Given the Brown JFC’s express designation language, there is no question that contributors who have donated to the Ohio Democratic Party through the Brown JFC have contributed with the “knowledge that a substantial portion” of their contribution to the Ohio Democratic Party “will be … expended on behalf of” Sherrod Brown in the 2024 general election. Those contributions, consequently, should have been aggregated with any general election contributions the same contributors made to Sherrod Brown pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(h), likely resulting in excessive contributions and various reporting deficiencies by Respondents.
Based on the allegations laid out in its complaint, FACT says the FEC "should find reason to believe" Brown and his aligned fundraising organs "have violated federal law." As a consequence, the FEC is asked to "conduct an immediate investigation," "seek appropriate sanctions against Brown and his agents for any and all violations, including civil penalties sufficient to deter violations," "issue an injunction prohibiting Respondents from committing any and all violations in the future," and "seek additional remedies as are necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with the FECA."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member