Press Releases
May 22, 2008
Teahen Uses Illegal Corporate Funds to Benefit Political Campaign
The DCCC announced today that it has filed a complaint
with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Peter Teahen (IA-02), Friends
of Peter Teahen, and Teahen Funeral Home, Inc. for illegally using the company’s
corporate funds to help Teahen’s campaign.
Teahen ran television ads paid for by his corporation
that were clearly intended to help his campaign – a violation of FEC law.
Making matters worse, the ads illegally ran within 90 days of the June
3rd primary election.
“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is
filing an FEC complaint against Peter Teahen and Teahen Funeral Home, Inc. to
hold him and his company accountable for violating election law,” said Carrie
James, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Simply
put –
In the past, the FEC has reprimanded candidates who have
tried to illegally use funds from their corporation to benefit their campaign.
The FEC recently fined Republican congressional candidate Jim Oberweis of
The transcript of one of the television
advertisements that is currently airing in
My father served in the Navy
and like many veterans he didn’t
talk about his military
experience. But we all knew how much he
loved his country. Dad had a
big flag pole in our front yard and I
used to help him raise the
flag. Now when I see a flag, I think of
Dad and all the men and women
who sacrifice their lives for the
sake of freedom. I’m Peter
Teahen and I’m proud to be an
American. Teahen Funeral Home:
Life ends, but memories live
on.
The advertisement features multiple images
of Teahen and the American flag. There is not even any mention of the funeral
home until the very end. The advertisement closes with a full-screen image of
Teahen appears on the screen as he identifies himself and states that he is
“proud to be an American.”
The text of the FEC complaint
follows:
May 2,
2008
Thomasenia Duncan,
Esq.
General
Counsel
Federal Election
Commission
999 E Street,
N.W.
Re: Complaint
against Peter Teahen; Friends of Peter Teahen; and Teahen Funeral Home,
Inc.
Dear Ms.
Duncan,
I write this letter to file a
complaint pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(1) against Peter Teahen, a candidate
for 2nd Congressional District in the state of Iowa; Friends of Peter Teahen;
and Teahen Funeral Home, Inc.
The record shows that Teahen is
knowingly and willfully violating the Federal Election Campaign Act by illegally
using his company’s corporate treasury funds to influence his election. Teahen
has illegally coordinated television advertisements sponsored by Teahen Funeral
Home, Inc. that feature him and are clearly intended to influence his election.
These advertisements show Teahen speaking directly to the camera for the full
amount of the advertisement. They are directed to
THE
FACTS
On or before March 31, 2008, Teahen
Funeral Home, Inc. began to air television advertisements that were illegally
coordinated with congressional candidate Peter Teahen. Teahen is President and
Funeral Director of Teahen Funeral Home, Inc.
The transcript of one of the
television advertisements that is currently airing in
My father
served in the Navy and like many veterans he didn’t
talk about
his military experience. But we all knew how much he
loved his
country. Dad had a big flag pole in our front yard and I
used to help
him raise the flag. Now when I see a flag, I think of
Dad and all
the men and women who sacrifice their lives for the
sake of
freedom. I’m Peter Teahen and I’m proud to be an
American.
Teahen Funeral Home: Life ends, but memories live
on.
The advertisement features multiple
images of Teahen and the American flag. At the end of the advertisement, a
full-screen image of Teahen appears on the screen as he identifies himself and
states that he is “proud to be an American.”
ARGUMENT
Federal candidates are prohibited
from knowingly accepting or receiving corporate contributions. See 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(d). Any payment for
a coordinated communication is considered an in-kind contribution to the
candidate with whom it is coordinated. See
11 C.F.R. § 109.21(b)(1). A candidate is therefore prohibited from
coordinating with a corporation in the production and distribution of television
advertisements. Specifically, if a public communication refers to a clearly
identified House candidate, is distributed in the candidate’s jurisdiction
within 90 days before the candidate’s election, is paid for by a corporation,
and if the candidate or his agents have been materially involved in decisions
related to the communication’s content, then the costs of the communications are
considered illegal contributions to the candidate’s campaign. See 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(c)(4), (d).
The advertisements sponsored by
Teahen Funeral Home, Inc. are a clear case of coordination under Commission
rules. See 11 C.F.R. §
109.21(c)-(d). The advertisements are public communications that clearly refer
to Teahen, who is a candidate for federal office. See id. § 109.21(c)(4)(i). They have been
publicly distributed in Teahen’s district within 90 days of the June 3
Assuming the advertisements continue
to air within 30 days of Teahen’s June 3 election, they would be considered
electioneering communications under 11 C.F.R. § 100.29. Although corporations
are permitted to make electioneering communications in certain circumstances,
such communications are permitted only if they can be reasonably interpreted as
something other than an appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified
Federal candidate, and if they meet the requirements of 11 C.F.R. § 114.15(a).
In order to fall within the Commission’s safe harbor guidelines, the
electioneering communication must either propose a commercial transaction or
focus on a legislative, executive or judicial matter or issue. See 11 C.F.R. § 114.15(b)(3). The
advertisements paid for by Teahen Funeral Home, Inc. neither propose a
commercial transaction nor focus on a legislative, executive or judicial matter
or issue. Though they are sponsored and paid for by a commercial entity, they
do not, in fact, propose any commercial transaction; these communications are
not "advertising" anything commercial at all. Airing just weeks before an
election, the advertisements cannot reasonably be interpreted as anything other
than an appeal to vote for Peter Teahen. Accordingly, even if the
advertisements continue to run within 30 days of Teahen’s election, they would
not be considered a permissible corporate disbursement under 11 C.F.R. §
114.15. See 11 C.F.R. §
114.14(a)(1).
Though Teahen and his campaign would
be accepting an illegal corporate contribution even if the communications were
in fact legitimate advertisements for the funeral home, the facts indicate that
they are not. The corporation paying for the advertisement is not mentioned
until the last few seconds of the advertisement quoted above, when its name is
mentioned. Until then, the advertisement consists solely of Mr. Teahen, a
congressional candidate, speaking directly to camera about his patriotism. The
circumstances strongly indicate that this advertisement was crafted by Teahen to
aid his congressional campaign, and was a knowing and willful violation of
federal election law.
I request that the Commission
investigate immediately the violations presented herein, and that the
respondents be enjoined from further violations and be fined the maximum amount
permitted by law. Because the facts support a knowing and willful violation of
federal election law, the Commission should also refer this matter to the
Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §
437g(a)(5)(C).
Sincerely,
