The Alabama Ethics Commission has determined that state campaign finance law does not prohibit state Representative Matt Simpson’s campaign committee from using campaign funds to pursue a potential defamation lawsuit over political advertisements he says falsely portrayed his legislative record.
The commission, meeting Wednesday, approved an advisory opinion Simpson requested concerning his plans to potentially sue political action committees that he alleges made false statements during the Republican primary earlier this year about his votes while serving in the Alabama House.
The opinion said the Fair Campaign Practices Act allows campaign funds to be used for legal fees and costs associated with a civil action when the action is related to conduct reasonably connected to the official’s duties.
The law does not limit that provision to defending civil lawsuits, the commission said, meaning it can also apply when a public official or campaign committee brings a civil action.
The decision, however, does not give Simpson an unrestricted path to use campaign money for a defamation case or collect any resulting damages personally.
Under the commission’s interpretation, campaign funds cannot be used to pursue a personal injury claim that would result in damages being paid directly to the public official. If Simpson’s principal campaign committee uses campaign funds to pay for the lawsuit, any damages awarded would have to be paid to the campaign committee rather than Simpson personally.
The commission also said an award of damages could be treated as a campaign contribution under the Fair Campaign Practices Act because the law broadly defines a contribution to include a transfer of anything of value to a political committee.
That creates a separate timing issue for Simpson’s potential lawsuit.
Alabama law generally limits the periods during which a candidate may accept campaign contributions. The commission said that if damages were awarded outside the period in which Simpson’s campaign committee could legally accept contributions, the committee could not necessarily receive the money.
The commission did not decide whether damages awarded for defamation could be assigned to Simpson’s campaign committee or whether such an award would qualify for an exception to the contribution rules. It said those questions could be reconsidered if more facts become available.
Simpson’s campaign finance report for September also showed no contributions or expenditures during the month. The campaign reported an ending balance of $33,927.11, unchanged from its beginning balance.
In May, Simpson’s campaign sent a cease-and-desist letter to Alabama Values PAC accusing the group of making false statements about his legislative voting record in mailers sent to voters in House District 96. The campaign alleged the PAC falsely claimed Simpson supported “free college for illegals,” legalizing bribes for elected officials, early parole for violent felons and higher taxes on firearms.
Simpson’s attorneys demanded that the PAC stop distributing the statements, retract them and notify households that had received the mailers. The campaign also issued a preservation notice seeking to ensure that records and communications related to the advertisements were retained.
At the time, Simpson warned publicly that the campaign was prepared to pursue a defamation case if the advertisements continued.
The commission’s decision now removes one potential obstacle to Simpson pursuing the lawsuit with campaign funds.
During Wednesday’s discussion, commissioners emphasized that the opinion was limited to the campaign finance question before them. Whether Simpson personally has a valid defamation claim, whether his campaign committee has standing to bring the case and how any damages would ultimately be handled are matters for a court or potentially another review by the commission.
The commission unanimously approved the advisory opinion.
Simpson had sought the opinion after initially receiving an informal response from the commission and saying he wanted clarity on whether campaign funds could be used to finance litigation against the PACs. Before the October meeting, Simpson said he intended to wait for the commission’s guidance before deciding how to proceed with the lawsuit.
The ruling could have implications beyond Simpson’s potential lawsuit because it addresses whether Alabama candidates can use campaign funds to pursue civil claims arising from attacks on their records as public officials.
