November 4, 1998
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
Robert H. Spearman
November 4, 1998
Page 1
Robert H. Spearman
121 Bybee Drive, D-13
McMinnville, TN 37110
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic
Union
7435 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48210
Tom Leedham Campaign Office
P.O. Box 15877
Washington, DC 20003
Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation
Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Arthur Z. Schwartz, Esq.
Kennedy, Schwartz & Cure
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Robert H. Spearman
November 4, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-251-TDU-EOH
Gentlemen:
Robert H. Spearman, a candidate for at-large vice-president, filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against the Tom Leedham Rank and File Power Slate and the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”). The protester alleged that TDU should not be considered an independent committee under the Rules and should not be allowed to contribute to the rerun election under the Rules. The protester also alleged that the Leedham Slate received unreported contributions from TDU through advertisements in The Convoy Dispatch.
This protest was investigated by Director of Campaign Finance Leslie Deak.
Robert H. Spearman
November 4, 1998
Page 1
The protester alleged that TDU is not an independent committee because it has candidates on its general executive board, it employs staff members, and it received money from sources other than IBT members. The protester also alleged that The Convoy Dispatch, TDU’s newspaper, printed advertisements for various members of the Leedham Slate, and those advertisements were in-kind contributions that the members of the Leedham Slate should have reported on their Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Reports (“CCERs”). The protester alleged that the failure of the Leedham Slate members to report those in-kind contributions is a violation of the Rules.
The Election Officer has previously determined that the TDU is an “independent committee” because it consists of a caucus or group of union members, not controlled by a candidate or slate, that has accepted funds or made expenditures with the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect” of influencing the International rerun election. Rules, Definitions, at
Section 22; Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosure (Revised November 1997) (“Advisory”) at 19, Hoffa, PR-072-IBT-EOH (June 8, 1998); Halberg, P-019-LU174-PNW (December 14, 1995) (decision on remand). As an ‘independent committee’, the TDU may contribute to International campaigns even if financial assistance is received from sources prohibited under the Rules. However, the Rules and the 1996 IBT International Officer Rerun Election Plan (“Rerun Plan”) require that monetary support for campaign activities consist exclusively of funds received from IBT members. Funds received from any other sources cannot be contributed to any candidate through TDU, or any other independent committee, and must be properly allocated and segregated. Hoffa, PR-072-IBT-EOH (June 8, 1998); Halberg, P-019-LU174-PNW (December 14, 1995) (decision on remand); In re Gully, 91 - Elec. App. - 158 (SA) (June 12, 1991), aff’g Sargent, P-249-LU283-MGN (May 21, 1991).
The TDU has been properly allocating costs between permitted campaign activities and other non-campaign activities and segregating IBT member funds used for campaign activities from other revenues. In order to allocate and segregate it funds, it has been using a system approved by the Election Officer known as the Huddleston system. The Election Officer recently determined that the TDU’s application of the Huddleston system insures its compliance with contribution and expenditure rules as defined by the Rerun Plan. Hoffa, PR-039-IBT-EOH (March 10, 1998), aff’d, 98 - Elec. App. - 341 (KC) (April 9, 1998).
The fact that TDU has two candidates on its governing board and employs staff does not alter TDU’s status as an independent committee. No evidence has been introduced to indicate that either of the candidates on the TDU general executive board controls TDU so that it is an arm of their campaign. Furthermore, the Rules do not prohibit an independent committee, such as TDU, that employs staff members who are not active Teamster members, to participate in the election. See Halberg, P-019-LU174-PNW (September 6, 1995).
The protester also alleged that TDU provided advertising for Leedham Slate members in The Convoy Dispatch, its publication, that the Slate members failed to report and TDU failed to offer to all other candidates. TDU responded that The Convoy Dispatch contains no advertising and TDU is responsible for the entire contents of the publication.
Robert H. Spearman
November 4, 1998
Page 1
Under the Rules, it is permissible for TDU to publish materials in The Convoy Dispatch that campaigns for one or more candidates. Hoffa, P-743-IBT-SCE (May 23, 1996). Although “[t]he Convoy Dispatch does engage in activities which, within the meaning of Article XII, Section 1(b) of the Rules, constitute contributions having the direct or indirect “purpose, object or forseeable effect” of influencing the election of a candidate, . . . [s]uch activities . . . do not violate the Rules because the campaign activities of the Convoy Dispatch are financed solely with contributions from members.” Id. Those activities are then reported on the CCER filed by TDU. Rules, Article XII, Section 2(a)(3).
The Election Officer has previously refused to interpret the term “campaign contribution” to include newspaper or magazine articles published by entities which are not owned or whose editorial policies are not controlled by candidates or committee acting on behalf of candidates. Hasegawa, P-161-LU41-MOI (October 24, 1995); Scott, P-969-IBT (October 18, 1991). Because the Convoy Dispatch is controlled by an independent committee, therefore, by definition is not owned or controlled by a candidate or committee acting on behalf of a candidate, its articles are not be campaign contributions. The candidates on the Leedham Slate are not obligated to report any activity executed by TDU on behalf of their campaigns in the Convoy Dispatch.
Accordingly, the protest is DENIED.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax: (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington DC 20001, Facsimile (202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master