WEC: Ethics complaint against Community for All dismissed

The Wausonian obtained a copy of the dismissal

Nearly one year ago, in February 2024, The Wausonian broke news that a resident had filed a complaint against the Community for All organization with the state’s Wisconsin Ethics Commission.

The allegations, laid out in the complaint, were that Community for All was actively participating in local elections as a political action committee or an independent expenditure committee without registering itself and providing financial statements.

After The Wausonian wrote about the complaint, updates were hard to come by.

The complaint was filed with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission, which is one of two WECs in the state. The other is the Wisconsin Elections Commission. The elections commission makes copies of complaints filed available on its website, as well as all follow-up documents. The ethics committee not only doesn’t do that, but officials won’t answer questions about any of the complaints filed, including the outcome. This is despite the fact that the complaints are made through a public agency, and generally involve public officials.

This week, The Wausonian learned the outcome of the complaint: It has been dismissed.

The allegations

The dismissal lays out the allegations before going through the reasons for the dismissal. The following is the summary of the allegations:

The complaint alleged that Community for All - Wausau (“Respondent”) was actively participating in local elections as a political action committee (“PAC”), but failed to register and report as required by Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 11. If the Respondent is a PAC, Complainant also alleged that it violated contribution limits for local candidates. Additionally, it is alleged that Respondent accepted corporate contributions in violation of WIS. STAT. § 11.1112. Finally, Complainant alleged that Respondent failed to include required attribution statements on its solicitations.

3. Alternatively, the Complainant alleged that if Respondent does not meet the definition and registration requirements of a PAC, Complainant alleged that it meets the definition and registration requirements of an independent expenditure committee (“IEC”). If Respondent is an IEC, the Complainant alleged that it violated WIS. STAT. § 11.0601(3)(b) by coordinating with candidates.

The complaint alleged that the group had been allowing dark money to flow to local candidates. From The Wausonian’s original story last February:

The complaint says CFA, as the report refers to the organization, has “regularly endorsed candidates and political parties, organized parades for and with candidates, and distributed campaign material on behalf of candidate committees.” The includes the coordination of a parade walk and distribution of candidate T-shirts. The organization on its website also mentions specifically supporting candidates and policies.

The Wausonian broke the story about the WEC complaint against Community for All back in February of last year. You can read it here:

The response

The Wausonian was never able to obtain a copy of CFA’s response to the allegations. But a summary of that response, which the agency received in March, are included in the final decision from the WEC.

Here is a breakdown of the rebuttal from CFA:

• The group was formed after a resolution called A Community for All, created by the county’s since-disbanded Diversity Affairs Commission, was defeated at the Marathon County Board by a vote of 18-18.

• The signs they created for A Community for All were funded individually, CFA representatives said. Some people who asked for signs reimbursed the original buyer, but others who couldn’t afford it did not. And the signs weren’t political, the group argued, but were advocacy around a specific community issue.

• They do hold events but the events are paid for by individuals and the group has no shared bank account, nor do they collect funds.

• CFA says it does not coordinate candidate material distribution. The group agreed not to do this as a group, and any distributions are done by individuals.

• CFA in 2022 did circulate questionnaires for candidates and issued endorsements for those who said in their questionnaire that they aligned with CFA’s values and supported diversity and inclusion. The respondent posted the resulting graphic on its Facebook page and individuals posted that to their own pages.

• In 2024 the group didn’t offer endorsements, instead asking two questions: whether or not the candidate supported diversity and inclusion, and whether or not they supported the library. It then distributed that list.

• CFA did organize a fundraiser for Mayor Katie Rosenberg’s re-election campaign, but it claimed in the response that it did not collect donations on her behalf, that any members of CFA’s in-kind contributions toward the fundraiser were recorded on Rosenberg’s campaign finances and did not flow through CFA as it has no bank account and doesn’t collect funds. Rosenberg’s campaign collected the funds, the group says; no one from the group did so.

• Several other events were listed by CFA in the response with a similar argument - that it didn’t support specific candidates but only the ideas of diversity and inclusion.

• Any merchandise with CFA’s logo on it was in support of CFA issues, not individual candidates.

• CFA claims during the holiday parade, the items were paid for by individuals and that the float did not support any candidate.

The dismissal

The WEC in its dismissal argues that CFA doesn’t meet the definition of a political action committee or an independent expenditure committee.

In this case, there were no facts presented in the Complaint or response to show that Respondent’s governing documents, bylaws, or any resolutions of its governing body specify its major purpose as being express advocacy.

In order to qualify as a PAC it would have to spend $2,500 and as an independent expenditure committee, it would have to have individual contributions in that amount, according to the WEC’s decision:

The Respondent does not meet the spending threshold definition for a PAC or IEC. It does not have its own money. The Respondent advised that its steering committee had agreed that express advocacy activities would not be part of the organization’s work. Respondent stated that activity is engaged in by individuals under his or her own agency. The Respondent advised that it does not have a bank account, and the organization does not have any funds of its own. Rather, individuals who are associated with the organization personally pay for services and items related to the Respondent’s mission.

Since it doesn’t meet the definition of either of those designations, the WEC argues, the other allegations aren’t valid either, since they relate to either of those two designations.

The dismissal itself isn’t dated, but the written statement says the decision came out of a closed session of the WEC held on Dec. 17. The Wausonian received a copy of the dismissal this week.

The Wausonian reached out to Christine Salm, one of CFA’s organizers, for a response to the dismissal.

CFA is pleased that the WEC dismissed the complaint. We believe that the Republican Party Law firm along with local Republican Party activists filed the complaint purely to intimidate and silence CFA. We look forward to continuing to advocate for a more inclusive and welcoming community.

Christine Salm

Community For All Steering Committee Member

The Wausonian reached out to Vada Perkins, who filed the complaint against CFA last year.

Perkins’ attorney, Lana Ruhland, issued this response to the WEC decision:

True grassroots groups should be fully protected by the First Amendment but overtly partisan groups must be accountable to our campaign finance laws. There cannot be a loophole where groups can effectively operate as a PAC in supporting candidates, hosting fundraisers and engaging in express advocacy without abiding by these laws. Groups cannot skirt these requirements when they’ve so blurred the lines between advocacy and partisan politics. My client will carefully review all available avenues.

And Perkins himself said the following:

The WEC decision establishes an interesting precedent. It essentially allows organizations with a formal steering committee to operate as a political entity in supporting candidates and hosting political fundraisers. By organizationally operating via individual contributions and not maintaining official records, an organization can effectively function in a political capacity without triggering transparency and accountability standards as a PAC.

---

The Wausonian has another complaint it is diving into that was recently filed with the city (un-related to the above story) - more on that coming in the next few days. Also, a look at an unaffordable affordable housing solution.