Election changes may affect Georgia fundraising ban

A fundraising ban during the legislative session may be broadened or even lifted in the wake of Georgia’s shift to a May 20 federal primary next year, with changes also possible to required campaign disclosures.

Why? The ban exempts challengers who, starting March 3, could benefit from an earlier-than-ever qualifying period to grab cash weeks ahead of incumbents who have name recognition but want more dollars in the bank.

“The anticipation is they will change it (the rule) — after all, humans are creatures of survival,” said Steve Anthony, who teaches politics at Georgia State University after years spent as a top Democratic legislative aide.

The move would carry risk for legislators. Any changes could anger voters who helped push through this year’s historic ethics rules limiting the influence of special interests in the state Legislature.

The shift to May 20 came with the acquiescence of state officials, who had been ordered by a federal judge to give overseas voters more time to return their ballots. The regular state elections calendar for local races was left unaltered and is now about two months behind. Not for long.

House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, said he expects nearly unanimous support from lawmakers for moving the state primaries up to May 20, too. And he told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he supported “having a vigorous discussion” about the ban because, with the changes to the elections calendar, “the whole landscape changes.”

State law says no elected state official — including legislators, the governor and others who face statewide election — may raise money while the General Assembly is in session starting in January. That includes legislators running for Congress.

In normal years, that has led to a rush of fundraising by incumbents immediately before and immediately after the session, which lasts up to 40 non-consecutive days. Moving state primaries from July to May 20 would severely limit incumbents’ time to solicit contributions.

That’s because legislators sometimes finish the session in mid-to-late March, but have worked as long as late April. In 2010, Ralston’s first session as speaker, lawmakers didn’t finish work until April 29.

Ralston would not rule out also extending the ban on fundraising to challengers.

“There’s a fairness argument there,” he said. “I’m not prepared to say I support it, but it looks different under the primary calendar.”

Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, who presides over the Senate, framed the anticipated discussion as a way to improve Georgia’s ethics laws and strengthen public trust in government.

Senate President Pro Tem David Shafer, R-Duluth, called the ban “sound public policy,” and said “all candidates, whether they are incumbents or not, would benefit from a ‘cooling off period’ during which the focus is on issues, ideas and talking directly with voters, not endless fundraising.”

Georgia lawmakers are also likely to consider changing the calendar for when to report campaign spending and contributions. Ethics legislation adopted this year eliminated an end-of-December report and added one for late January as a way to capture the frenzy of fundraising just before the legislative session. However, it eliminated a report normally due in March.

With a primary on May 20, the January report will be the last one required until the end of June — something Ralston expects will be revisited.

Yet another wrinkle in the new calendar is candidate qualifying, when anyone who wants to run for state office pays a fee and submits paperwork to officially get on the ballot. In 2014, that period is set for March 3-7 assuming state primaries also move to May 20. Candidates don’t have to wait for the qualifying period to raise funds.

Special interest groups are already using the possibility of a shortened state election cycle to raise money.

Georgia’s Win List, a PAC that raises money to support female Democratic candidates, issued a fundraising plea Thursday that says if the state primary is also moved, “we have lost three critical months to prepare and fund our endorsed, progressive Democratic women candidates for the state Legislature” and that the Republican majority in the House and Senate will have a “much stronger position.”

The email included a link to contribute, as well as a warning: “Time is running out to help us elect & protect progressive women Democrats in Georgia!”

Without a change in the fundraising ban, vulnerable incumbents loath to take controversial positions for fear of generating a primary opponent could tip-toe through the first two-thirds of the session so as not to poke potential challengers. Ralston said he hopes that doesn’t happen, but acknowledged it’s a possibility.

“I suspect there will be a few members that will hear the footsteps when people walk in downstairs (at the Capitol) and that will maybe be tempted to have one eye on the voting machine and one eye on the qualifying table,” he said. “I don’t think that will be widespread and I hope it’s not.”

Kerwin Swint, a Kennesaw State University political scientist and former GOP consultant, acknowledged the change in calendar will be a “culture shock” for state politics.

But, he said, lawmakers should be careful because if they move to lift the ban, they risk angering voters.

“I’m sure most Georgia voters would rather the prohibition on fundraising during session remain in place,” said Swint, who is also on the board of the government watchdog group Common Cause Georgia.

While there is an argument that a truncated period of raising money for incumbents would be unfair, it’s not like those already in office don’t have other advantages — name recognition, easy access to contributions from corporate interests and political action committees.

“Incumbents have so many advantages — does (the shortened period for campaigning) just even the playing field?” Swint said. “I’d say leave the ban in place, and if challengers can raise money, let them.”