Loophole Needs Closing : Sources of funds for post-election battle should be revealed

The bitterly contested post-election battle between Robert K. Dornan and the woman who turned him out of his congressional seat, Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove), has exposed a glaring loophole in federal law that should be closed.

Dornan has taken in $40,000 to try to overturn last November’s election results. Sanchez has raised about $50,000 to fight Dornan’s bid before the House of Representatives. The dollar totals come from allies of both politicians.

The loophole is that the sources of the money do not have to be disclosed when the funds will be used to appeal an election.

That’s wrong.

If the battle goes on, both sides have vowed to spend more. Spokesmen for the two sides estimated Dornan will spend about $200,000 on the appeal, Sanchez about $100,000. In addition, the House Oversight Committee will spend an as yet undetermined amount to examine the Dornan-Sanchez contest.

Federal campaign financial disclosure laws require candidates to report how much they raise when running for office and who gave them the money. That’s in the public interest, letting voters see who is contributing how much to which candidate. Donations can be an indicator of how an officeholder is likely to vote; they can also point toward possible conflicts of interest.

But the Federal Election Commission says neither side is required to report money being spent to try to undo the election result, nor to provide the names of contributors. The commission also says there are no limits on how much money political action committees and individuals can give to candidates in these circumstances. PACs are limited to $5,000 in contributions, individuals to $1,000 in regularly scheduled elections.

A Federal Election Commission official said the only prohibitions on candidates embroiled in a recount or attempt for a new election is accepting money from financial institutions, corporations or labor unions.

The loophole means that someone wanting to contribute to a candidate without attracting public scrutiny can do so if a post-election fight is involved. That makes no sense; dollars given now are as likely to influence a candidate as dollars given before an election. Dornan and Sanchez should go beyond election law in this case and voluntarily disclose the amounts they receive and the names of the donors. Then Congress should close the loophole.