Halvorson and Eichelberger file FEC complaints in Pa. 13th Congressional race

The candidates in the Republican primary for Pennsylvania’s 13th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives are, clockwise from top left, Art Halvorson, Sen. John Eichelberger, state Rep. Steve Bloom, Travis Schooley, Ben Hornberger, Col. Douglas Mastriano, Bernard Washabaugh III and Dr. John Joyce. (Photo: File photos)

(Undated) — Two GOP candidates in Pennsylvania’s 13th Congressional District allege that ads attacking them were coordinated by Dr. John Joyce’s campaign committee and “dark money” groups in violation of federal election law.

Art Halvorson and state Sen. John Eichelberger say they filed separate complaints last week with the Federal Election Commission. The FEC on Friday could not confirm receipt of the complaints.

The two Republicans face an uphill battle to get a ruling from the FEC. Any FEC action on their complaints currently requires a unanimous vote.

A decision by the FEC will not change the outcome of the race that effectively decided who will replace Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Everett, in Congress. Blair County dermatologist Joyce won the GOP nomination with 22 percent of the vote. Republicans hold a solid voter majority in the district.

The FEC, however, could levy fines.

“It’s a point of order to go on record, to make a public statement about something the public needs to know about,” Harvorson said. “The system is broken and stacked, and someone needs to point it out with evidence.”

“You just hold people accountable for unlawful acts,” Eichelberger said. “You let people know they’re operating outside the law.  Maybe everything is OK. It certainly doesn’t appear that everything is in order.”

Political action committees and political non-profits independently spent nearly a million dollars in the 13th District GOP primary, more than any one candidate in the race. Most of the money was spent on attack ads mailed or aired in the final days of the campaign.

Halvorson and Eichelberger raise the question of whether the Joyce committee and Super PACs or “dark money” groups coordinated the last-minute ad blitz.

“Dark money” refers to political spending meant to influence a voter’s decision, where the donor is not disclosed and the source of the money is unknown, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. “Dark money” can be spent by a political nonprofit or a Super PAC. Political non-profits are not required to disclose their donors. Super PACs must disclose their donors, but can be funded by political non-profits and “shell” corporations who may not have disclosed their donors.

Red Maverick Media handled advertising for both the Joyce campaign and at least one super PAC.

“Given the limited size of Red Maverick Media, it is likely they do not have prior ‘firewall’ procedures to prohibit the flow of information between employees or consultants” working for the Joyce campaign and working for Defending Main Street SuperPAC, according to Halvorson’s complaint to the FEC.

Zaborney is a former campaign manager for Shuster. Adam Breneman, Joyce’s campaign manager, previously worked for Red Maverick.

Breneman termed the alleged collusion as “an absurd accusation” and “another ridiculous lie.”

“Our campaign hired Ray Zaborney as our general consultant, and there was absolutely no coordination between our campaign and any outside groups,” Breneman said. 

Unless Joyce spoke directly to the super PACs it will be difficult to prove that his campaign colluded with them, according to Alison Dagnes, Shippensburg University political scientist.

Candidates and super PACs can effectively coordinate without making direct contact, she said. A super PAC may take a hint from a news story or pickup images from a candidate’s YouTube videos.

“That’s not illegal,” Dagnes said. “That is the way this game is played.”

The punishment for super PAC violations are “tepid,” according to Halvorson, and so campaigners may find that the potential results are worth the risk.

The FEC reviews complaints case by case, according to the agency’s website. Penalties for those violating the nation’s campaign finance laws range from a cautionary letter to an agreement, which may include a fine. The average civil penalty was about $8,000 in fiscal 2017 when the FEC closed 149 enforcement cases and levied $1.2 million in fines.

The FEC can take as long as it wants, but cases that drag on more than five years do not carry fines enforceable in federal court. In 2017 the average case took 15 months to resolve.

The FEC has internal problems. Only four seats on the six-member commission are filled. Four votes are needed to initiate an investigation, to note a violation or to settle a matter. Three members have served beyond their appointed terms.

“When there’s a huge effort to drain the swamp and to destaff the federal government, this is what is going to happen,” Dagnes said. “You’re going to get a deregulated state. You may want that, until you want their help. If you want to drain the swamp, there’s not going to be that many people there to help you.”

President Trump eight months ago nominated Trey Trainor, a Texas attorney who worked on his campaign, to the commission. The Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which vets FEC nominees, has not scheduled a confirmation hearing.

Trainor has disputed the notion that the public benefits from knowing the identity of political donors. By focusing on who pays for the messages, voters could be distracted from the content in the messages, he has said.

Trump also has been the subject of several FEC complaints, the most recent involving payments facilitated by Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

There would be little to lose by uprooting the FEC and starting over, according to the