It seems the conventional "wisdom" among the South Dakota political operatives, reporters and bloggers is that political action committees can't coordinate with federal office seekers like the U.S. Senate race candidates.

The current TV spot by Mayday PAC in support of Democrat Rick Weiland certainly looks "coordinated," as it contains candid video of Weiland and his family. I doubt Mayday stalked Rick and his family to get the footage.

So I thought "hmmm."

Then I took my own recent advice and tried to read the rules on the Federal Election Commission site regarding coordination.

Then I went "huh?"

This is what the FEC's brochure on "Coordinated Campaigns and Independent Expenditures" says:
In general, a payment for a communication is "coordinated" if it is made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents. 11 CFR 109.21. To be an "agent" of a candidate, candidate’s committee or political party committee for the purposes of determining whether a communication is coordinated, a person must have actual authorization, either express or implied, from a specific principal to engage in specific activities, and then engage in those activities on behalf of that specific principal. Such activities would also result in a coordinated communication if carried out directly by the candidate, authorized committee staff or a political party official. 11 CFR 109.3(a) and (b).
OK, not real helpful.

The 198 page Federal Election Commission Campaign Guide is somewhat more helpful, at p. 153:
Coordinated Electioneering Communication
As noted above, an electioneering communication meets the content and payment tests under the Commissio's three-part test for determining whether a communication is coordinated. 109.21(a)(I) and (c)(I). If the conduct prong is met as well, then the electioneering communications would be considered an in-kind contribution subject to contribution limitations, source prohibitions and reporting by both the payor and the campaign. To avoid receiving an illegal excessive or prohibited contribution, campaigns should avoid interacting with those making electioneering communications in the manner noted above under "Conduct Prong" in Section 1 of this appendix. (Emphasis added.)
It also appears that a "coordinated" contribution is considered an in-kind contribution to the campaign, which may trigger limits, reporting, etc. 

So, we go to Section 1 of the Appendix. On second thought, let's not. It's two and a half pages long and doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Let me just sum it up this way, in my opinion. Coordination between PACs and federal candidates appears to be OK under certain circumstances and not under others. I'll let the election law lawyers parse the parameters of what is and isn't allowable. But I wouldn’t assume that just because there is some degree of coordination means it’s therefore illegal.

It’s more complicated than that. Of course.

So what happens if someone goes through the arduous process of filing a complaint? Probably alternative dispute resolution long after the infraction. Or maybe a fine, particularly if there is late filing on a disclosure form. But according to the FEC's FAQs:

What penalties can the FEC impose for violations of the law?
Most violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) result in civil penalties--fines arrived at through a conciliation process. Knowing and willful violations of certain FECA provisions can lead to imprisonment. The FEC has exclusive civil enforcement authority, and may refer criminal violations to the U.S. Department of Justice. For additional information see our brochure, "Filing a Complaint." Note that sentencing guidelines for criminal violations of the law are set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

 
Whether the Weiland campaign or others are coordinating with outside parties, I don't expect anyone to be going to Leavenworth any time soon if they are.

More From Hot 104.7 - KKLS-FM