election

In an appearance on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle with Laura Ingraham, Congressman Steve Scalise alleged that lawmakers violated a federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds to hire a publicity expert to influence the opinions of American voters.  In the interview, Scalise asks, “Who paid this Hollywood producer?” He goes on to state that “it’s against the law to use taxpayer funds to produce a documentary trying to promote their political agenda, or go after their political opponents.” It appears that Scalise is referring to the 1913 Gillette Amendment, which states, “No money appropriated by an Act shall be used for the compensation of a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated by that Act.” The long-standing, century-old law has long been a flashpoint of discussion in Washington, further amplified by regulations of the Federal Election Committee, which prohibits independent expenditures that seek to defeat a political candidate or party.  2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, defines an “electioneering communication” as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary and prohibits such expenditures by corporations and unions.   While Scalise never clarified which laws or regulations he was referring to in the interview, it raises an important question.  Could the production of the public hearings by former ABC executive James Goldston violate federal laws?