April 24, 2019
Tom Pettey
Treasurer for Candidate Cheryl Helmer
3109 Bolero Court
Winfield, Kansas 67156
Opinion No. 2019-02
Synopsis: Under the facts provided, the cost of damages to a personal vehicle incurred while being used for campaigning are limited to mileage reimbursement at the state rate.
Cited herein: K.S.A. 25-4157a, Opinion No. 2007-14.
Dear Mr. Pettey,
We understand that you request this opinion as the treasurer for a campaign for legislative office. Our opinion regarding application of the Kansas campaign finance act (act), K.S.A. 25-4119e, et seq., responds to your request dated March 15, 2019. Jurisdiction of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission (commission) is limited to applicability of the act. The commission’s opinion does not address whether some other statutory system, common law theory, or agency rule or regulation applies to your inquiry.
FACTUAL STATEMENT
The treasurer of a campaign for the state representative drove his personal vehicle for campaign purposes to various venues including parades. The treasurer affixed magnetic signs with a message containing express advocacy. The magnetic signs were left on the doors of the treasurer’s vehicle for approximately three months. Had it not been for the campaign the treasurer would not have placed the magnetic signs on the vehicle. After the magnetic signs were removed the vehicle’s paint behind where the signs were placed displayed fading of the paint.
QUESTION
May campaign contributions be used to pay for repairs to a personal vehicle when the damage occurred to the vehicle while being used for campaign purposes?
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
Permitted use of campaign funds are provided in K.S.A. 25-4157a(a) which provides:
No moneys received by any candidate or candidate committee of any candidate as a contribution under this act shall be used or be made available for the personal use of the candidate and no such moneys shall be used by such candidate or the candidate committee of such candidate except for legitimate campaign purposes, for expenses of holding political office or for contributions to the party committees of the political party of which such candidate is a member.
…
For the purposes of this section, expenditures for “personal use” shall include expenditures to defray normal living expenses for the candidate or the candidate’s family and expenditures for the personal benefit of the candidate having no direct connection with or effect upon the campaign of the candidate or the holding of public office.
In Opinion No. 96-16, we stated:
To be a permissible use of campaign funds, an expenditure must be for a legitimate purpose, an expense of holding political office or a contribution to a party committee. In order to be a “legitimate campaign purpose or an expense of holding political office”, the expenditure must have a “direct connection with or effect upon the campaign of the candidate or the holding of public office”. All other expenditures are for personal use, and thus are prohibited. [emphasis added]
In the same opinion we provided lengthy lists of examples of permissible and non-permissible uses of campaign funds. For uses of campaign funds not listed, we determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a use is permitted. Although not listed, we opine that magnetic signs had a direct connection or effect upon the campaign of the candidate. However, the damage to the vehicle is the consequence for using the magnetic signs. Since the vehicle wasn’t exclusively used for campaign purposes, only a portion of the repairs may be a legitimate campaign expense.
In Opinion No. 2007-14 we stated:
Candidates for political office may use campaign funds to pay for otherwise un-reimbursed vehicle expenses incurred as a result of holding political office or for legitimate campaign purposes. In the past the Commission permitted candidates to be reimbursed for either the amount of vehicle expenses incurred or for mileage. Due to the difficulty in determining the allocation of vehicle expenses between a candidate’s personal use of a vehicle and the candidate’s use of a vehicle for holding political office or for campaign purposes, the Commission now determines that beginning January 1, 2008, the use of campaign funds to pay for otherwise un-reimbursed vehicle expenses will be limited to the state mileage reimbursement rate.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we determine that the costs for repairing damage to the vehicle’s paint is not considered a legitimate campaign purpose. The treasurer is limited to the state mileage reimbursement rate for campaign use of his personal vehicle.
Sincerely,
Nicholas J. Hale, Chairman
By Direction of the Commission
NJH:BB:spf
