Scheller advertisement muddles issue
The race
U.S. Rep. Susan Wild, a Democrat first elected in 2018, is facing Republican Lisa Scheller, a businesswoman and former Lehigh County commissioner, in the 7th Congressional District, which includes Lehigh, Northampton and part of southern Monroe County.
The ad
Lisa Scheller, in a voiceover: “Politicians only care about one thing: keeping their paycheck. Susan Wild sponsored a bill giving millions of taxpayer dollars to her own political campaign, using your money for negative ads and personal expenses.”
Scheller, on camera: “I’m Lisa Scheller and I’m not running for Congress to make money. I’ll donate my entire salary to Lehigh Valley charities, ban politicians from becoming lobbyists, and stop congressional pay raises. I approve this message, because I’ll stand up to corrupt politicians.”
The analysis
The ad doesn’t specify which bill it is attacking, but it takes aim at Wild’s support of H.R. 1, a wide-ranging elections and ethics reform bill that passed the House of Representatives in March 2019.
Democrats, including Wild, heralded the legislation, saying it would improve access to voting and would reduce the influence of wealthy donors in political campaigns. Republicans largely opposed the measure, with Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., calling it “a massive federal government takeover” of elections.
Among the measure’s key provisions is one that would create a system for some public financing of congressional elections. Under the volun
tary system, up to $6 would be matched for every dollar raised from donations of $200 or less. To be eligible, candidates would have to raise at least $50,000 in small-dollar donations from at least 1,000 individuals, and would have to agree not to accept contributions of more than $1,000. The maximum match would be capped based on recent campaign spending figures, with the Congressional Budget Officeciting a maximum of $5 million.
An initial draft of the bill would have paid for the public financing program through general tax dollars, according to the Washington Post. But it was later amended to use
money collected from a 2.75% fee assessed on civil and criminal financial penalties paid by companies and corporate officers convicted of federal wrongdoing. The bill says no other funding sources can be used if those fees are not enough to pay for the program, and that the matching rate would be reduced instead of using other dollars.
Those matching dollars can be used like other campaign contributions, with the bill stating they “may be used only for authorized expenditures in connection with the candidate’s campaign for such office.” That appears to include ads, either positive or negative.
But it does not appear to allow Wild to use any of those dollars for “personal expenses,” as Scheller’s ad argues. Federal law already prohibits the use of campaign funds for personal use, and the bill itself says that spending must be campaign-related.
A section of the bill does allow for some expenses that are considered illegal personal uses to be counted as allowed campaign expenditures. Those include personal costs for health insurance or child care costs, with supporters arguing that allowing those expenses would encourage a more diverse group of candidates to run for office who previously have been excluded due to those costs.
That section doesn’t apply to incumbents, like Wild.
Asked which personal expenses the ad refers to, Scheller’s campaign manager, Alex Meyer, responded that it alludes to the matching dollars being used for allowable reimbursements to a candidates for things like mileage, gas, or meals. But those types of expenses are not deemed “personal” under the Federal Election Commission’s definitions, which categorizes them as campaign-related.
The verdict
Scheller’s ad is correct that Wild supports H.R. 1, a bill that would create a new federal program for matching small-dollar contributions through money coming in to the federal government, and that the program could provide up to $5 million.
But the ad muddles the sources of those matching dollars, which would come from fees on fines and penalties, not general tax dollars, and it overlooks the requirements for receiving the full match. It also misstates how those matching dollars can be used.