Georgia GOP Files Ethics Complaint Against Abrams
The Georgia Republican Party has filed an ethics complaint against the Stacey Abrams for Governor campaign alleging unlawful spending.
The 21-page complaint filed Wednesday, the Georgia GOP claims “the campaign broke campaign finance laws by approving a $250,000 TV advertisement for an imaginary gubernatorial run-off. Stacey Abrams’ campaign is also illegally using funds to digitally advertise the same “run-off.”
Under the law, unless an election is called for and set by the Secretary of State, television commercials cannot run. The Georgia GOP claims that Abrams decision to run the ad violates the ‘spirit and the letter of the law.’ The Party says election funds cannot be used for an election that is not occurring and that the use of funds for radio, television, and even staff is wrong.
The Party, in the complaint, asks the State Ethics Commission to take “immediate action.”
In a press release issued Wednesday, the GA GOP said, “Now is the time to bring Abrams’ political profiteering to an end. The Abrams campaign appears to be breaking the law by spending money on an election that does not exist. She is continuing to trick her supporters into thinking the 2018 race for Georgia Governor is not over, and her campaign is profiting off her fantasy.”
Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party John Watson also issued the following statement:
You can read the full complaint below.
Ethics Complaint – Abrams for Governor Campaign
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab About Author
Jessica Szilagyi
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What good will this do? Typically they don’t investigate complaints until after the election is over. Anybody know what the max fine would be if she did break a rule? Kind of a smart move in my opinion to try and get the good tv times if there was a run off.
If Abrams is breaking the law there is nothing at all wrong with calling her on it and demands for her lawbreaking to be indulged are highly improper. If you are going to take that route, then cite a law that the Kemp campaign should be allowed to break. And no, it can’t be this one. It has to be something else that you would otherwise be opposed to and not something that is “made OK” by Abrams doing it first.
What am I missing? Is “approving” a campaign expenditure breaking the law? Is reserving ad time breaking the law? OR is it only breaking the law if the ad money was actually spent and the ad run?
Well, the alleged issue is whether she is using money that is allocated to the run-off to pay for general election expenditures- which would be an issue only where the donors gave a max amount based upon the sum of general and run-off limits (Or if the donor specified the donation was for the run-off).
It would not be illegal for her campaign to promote that there should be a run-off, or to be prepared for a run-off, etc.
But the last campaign disclosure was due a week before the election, to account for spending through two weeks before the election. And the next disclosure isn’t due to the end of the year.
So we don’t actually know how Abrams is accounting for the spending, and we won’t for a while. So, in a word, the Complaint is, at best, premature.
That’s bolstered by the Complaint’s conclusion that Abrams lost the election, although there has been no certification of the results.
So, in another word, it’s an advertisement.
No. The crux of the matter is that Abrams can’t use funds to advertise for an election that doesn’t exist. (Abrams and her supporters may desire for it to exist but until the necessary votes are accounted for it does not and will not.)
It is easy to see why this statute exists because it keeps people from getting ripped off. If you believe that an exception in the statute should exist to cover contingencies such as this, fine. Go ahead and pass a law that does so.
“Can’t use funds to advertise for an election that doesn’t exist.”
Oh, is that the statute?
No.
That’s the spin. Or a loose argument at best.
Campaign finance law and compliance is a specialty of mine, so I have full confidence in that.
The Complaint argues that she’s illegally using funds for a run-off when she hasn’t even disclosed whether she’s using funds from run-off or not.
And as I mentioned, there is zero problem in saying we need to be prepared for a run-off, or expect a run-off, or even “be prepared to vote in a run-off”.
About the only thing she can’t say is “Vote in the Dec. 4th run-off” (unless there’s a run-off on Dec. 4th.)
And the ad buys that indicate she anticipates a run-off is the same thing.
It’s all meaningless until the official finance disclosures come out.
Thanks. I appreciate the donor allocation related info. Is there anything illegal about reserving future ad time, even paying a deposit for said air time if the ad time is never used? The suit seems just that simple minded.
Of course you can reserve ad time, or cancel it.
The Complaint will be administratively dismissed (i.e. there will be no hearing) not too long after the election. It may, though, prompt the Commission to produce an Advisory Opinion or equivalent.
It’s a good time to be a lawyer.
Or a fool!
Most of the lawyers working these cases are probably volunteering their work, but we can see who’s getting paid or donating when the disclosures come out.
Please take a position on whether Stacey Abrams’ ad is a violation of state law or not. If your position is that it is not, then please explain. If your position is that this is a violation of state law that the Abrams campaign should be indulged in this instance, please cite a state law relevant to this election battle that Brian Kemp should be allowed to break in exchange.
Is this like the SoS announcing an investigation of the DPG for hacking the state voter database three days before the election?
And why haven’t the feds been notified?
The only thing that makes me think Abrams might actually have a chance at a run off is the behavior of the Republican Party/Kemp Campaign.