Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Bruno closing out campaign, legal funds, giving most to GOP, Albany Times Union, October 9, 2015, Rick Karlin.
Bruno donates $1.4 million to Senate Republican campaign panel, The Buffalo News, October 9, 2015, Tom
Precious.
3
The Committee to Re-Elect Senator Bruno (A465) has not filed a disclosure report with the BOE since July 2015.
As part of the July 2015 filing, the committee disclosed receiving a total of $1.53 million from a law firm that
represented Mr. Bruno in legal proceedings, explaining the receipt as Wire Transfer Of Reimbursement Received
From New York State For Legal Fees Paid Relating To Senator Bruno's Trial.
2
a transfer and would be subject to all candidate contribution limitations.10 Thus, in order to
properly determine whether two entities may engage in a transfer, one must understand whether
the entities at issue are committees authorized by a candidate for public office, political
committees, party committees, or constituted committees.
The current fact pattern involves the SRCC, CNYJN, and the Committee to Re-Elect
Senator Bruno. The SRCC is a party committee, provided for in the rules of the New York State
Republican Committee a constituted committee of the New York State Republican Party.
Thus, the SRCC may accept transfers from SRCC candidates or committees authorized by SRCC
candidates. CNYJN is neither a committee authorized by a candidate, nor a party or constituted
committee. As such, it is clear that the law does not allow it to engage in transfers. The third
relevant entity involved in these transactions is the Committee to Re-Elect Senator Bruno.
Although it would appear from the name of this entity, and the fact that it was initially formed as
a candidate committee, that it would be entitled to receive and make transfers of the type at issue
here, the relevant Election Law provision indicates that it cannot be treated as an entity that may
engage in transfers.
The purpose of the Election Law transfer provision is to enable candidates actively
supported by a given party to provide funds to the party to spend on the candidates election, or
to invest in that partys continued efforts for other similarly situated candidates. It would be
inappropriate, however, to let committees controlled by individuals who are not candidates, and
have not recently served as candidates, for a political office to be able to make unlimited
transfers to a party. Where the committee is controlled by an individual who can no longer be
deemed a candidate, the committee must be subject to contribution limits like any other donor.
It is inconceivable that the law contemplated allowing for this kind of political activity.
Over the years, the press has highlighted the fact that so-called ghost committees campaign
accounts of either deceased or long-retired politicians continue to make contributions to other
candidates for public office. While committees affiliated with deceased or retired politicians may
make contributions, it cannot possibly be permissible for these ghost committees to make
unlimited transfers in order to avoid any campaign contribution limits whatsoever.
In the last few months, however, two committees controlled by Mr. Bruno made
contributions to the SRCC totaling approximately $1.14 million. The funds from the Committee
to Re-Elect Senator Bruno were classified by the SRCC on its November 2015 disclosure filing
as a $1.03 million transfer. Mr. Bruno, however, has not been a candidate for office in nearly a
decade. Indeed, not only has Mr. Bruno not campaigned for any public office in almost ten
years, he also expressly indicated that he has no intention of ever again being a candidate for any
elected position.11 Thus, despite the original purpose of the Committee to Re-Elect Senator
Bruno, it cannot be viewed as a candidate[s] . . . authorized political committee as is required
by Election Law 14-100(10). In fact, the only inference that can be made from the recent
disclosure filings is that the SRCC and Mr. Bruno conspired to use an otherwise inactive
10
See Feldman v. Pataki, 616 Misc. 2d 176 (Kings County 1994) (finding that funds moved from a committee
deemed to be authorized by Candidate A to a committee explicitly authorized by Candidate B was a contribution
and not a transfer).
11
Bruno closing out campaign, legal funds, giving most to GOP, Albany Times Union, October 9, 2015, Rick Karlin.
committee to collect public funds provided to cover criminal defense costs incurred by Mr.
Bruno, and then contribute this taxpayer money to the SRCC for the benefit of Republican
candidates for the State Senate.
For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that you, in your capacity as Chief
Enforcement Counsel, investigate the campaign finance activities of the Senate Republican
Campaign Committee, the Committee to Re-Elect Senator Bruno, and Creating NY Jobs Now, to
determine whether SRCC conspired with Mr. Bruno to use his political committees to evade and
exceed contribution limits, and whether SRCC must divest itself of the contributions that grossly
exceeded all legal limits.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Gianaris