Campaign Finance Rules for Mass Communications

Summary#

Wisconsin SB 1155, titled Coordination of Mass Communications, would amend the state’s existing campaign-finance law; it would not create a separate agency or program. Its goal appears to be extending the rules for coordinated campaign spending to mass communications and broadening what counts as coordination. The bill failed, so it did not change current law.

  • It would define mass communications to include messages sent through communications media, as well as mass email or fax, distribution, and telephone campaigns; the latter three categories have a 500-item or call threshold. Bona fide polls to objectively collect voter attitudes or preferences are excluded.
  • During the 60 days before an election through election day, it would prohibit certain coordinated mass communications that appeal to vote for or against a clearly identified candidate if the coordination violates contribution limits or source restrictions.
  • It would treat an expenditure as coordinated when the candidate or specified party body exercises control or engages in substantial discussions or negotiations about the communication’s content, timing, location, form, intended audience, or frequency.
  • It would also broaden the coordination test for expenditures for express advocacy (messages that clearly urge voting for or against a candidate).
  • For coordinated mass communications that are not prohibited, the spender would have to report the expenditure, and the candidate’s committee would have to report it as a contribution.

What it means for you#

  • Political committees and other spenders: If the bill had become law, certain coordinated mass communications in the 60-day election period could have been barred when they violate contribution limits or source restrictions. Coordination could be found through substantial discussions or negotiations, even without the existing-law direct request and explicit agreement described in the bill analysis.
  • Candidates and their committees: A candidate’s committee would have to report a coordinated mass-communication expenditure as a contribution when the expenditure is not prohibited.
  • Individuals: The bill includes individuals among those barred from making a prohibited expenditure. It does not clearly say in this section what reporting duties would apply to individuals.
  • Voters and the general public: The bill would not ban mass campaign communications generally, change contribution limits or source restrictions, or create a new voter service. Its direct changes concern coordinated spending and reporting.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill provides no spending amount, staffing estimate, or estimate of reporting or enforcement costs.
  • It would add reporting duties but does not specify a fee, fine, tax, or new funding source.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “substantial discussions or negotiations” or “communications media.”
  • It does not set out how regulators would decide whether a communication was coordinated, or give timelines, review steps, or an appeal process.
  • The supplied material describes parts of current law, but does not include the full law being amended, so the bill’s interaction with all existing rules could not be verified.
  • The bill failed; the available material does not establish whether a similar proposal will be introduced again.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address coordination that happens through substantial discussions or negotiations, not only through direct requests or control.
  • Treating some coordinated spending as a contribution could make contribution limits and source restrictions apply to that spending.
  • Reporting coordinated expenditures and counting them as contributions to a candidate’s committee could make campaign spending more visible.

Case against#

  • “Substantial discussions or negotiations” is undefined, leaving uncertainty about when ordinary contact becomes coordination.
  • The bill does not explain how its broad definition of mass communication would apply to communications through undefined “communications media.”
  • Unclear boundaries and procedures could make it harder for candidates, committees, and other spenders to know in advance whether a communication is allowed or must be reported.