Experts tell Virginia committee consolidating elections would shift campaign finance rules, add compliance costs

The Joint Subcommittee to Study the Consolidation and Scheduling of General Elections heard testimony that moving Virginia’s statewide and legislative elections to even years would not change only the calendar but would also change which laws govern campaign financing and how parties and candidates account for spending.

John Burcon, a partner at Elias Law Group and an Arlington resident who identified himself as an election lawyer, told the subcommittee that ‘‘if Virginia ends up making the move to hold their nonfederal elections in the same year as federal elections, it will mean that that financing piece does change and that federal law will end up playing a significant role in addition to state law.’’

That change matters, Burcon said, because federal law—principally rules implemented after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly called McCain-Feingold) and enforced by the Federal Election Commission—defines categories of ‘‘federal election activity’’ that trigger federal limits and accounting requirements. He summarized four categories the federal rules treat as federal election activity: voter registration (within 120 days of a federal election), get-out-the-vote and generic campaign activity (from the filing deadline through the general election), communications that promote or oppose federal candidates, and staff time when 25% or more is spent on federal election activity.

‘‘Those are the 4 categories of federal election activity,’’ Burcon said, adding that the categories force party and caucus committees to maintain different funds and to perform internal accounting to demonstrate they are using appropriately sourced money for activities that affect federal races.

Chris Morrison, volunteer general counsel for the Republican Party of Virginia and owner of a campaign-compliance firm, told the committee the allocation and reporting rules are ‘‘super confusing and complicated and it changes from year to year,’’ and that a consolidated calendar would increase the demand for compliance professionals and could complicate public disclosure comparisons across committees that report on different schedules.

Both witnesses explained practical consequences the subcommittee members asked about. Burcon said state parties and caucuses that currently use large, unlimited donations to fund coordinated field and mail programs in odd years would face new constraints in federal years: ‘‘the parties would no longer be able to finance all of the nonfederal, coordinated campaign through the unlimited donations that they are able to do today,’’ he said. He also noted that some routine activities now run through party mail permits would not fundamentally be affected by the calendar change.

Morrison emphasized specific operational differences between federal and state rules—disclosure timings, advertising disclaimer formats, and how different media (print, phone, internet, broadcast) are categorized—and urged the committee to expect unintended consequences and new compliance work as parties adapt.

Committee members pressed witnesses on several recurring concerns: whether local slate cards and jointly branded mail pieces would be allowed (witnesses said such pieces would be permitted but, if they promoted federal candidates or otherwise met the federal definitions, they would need to be paid for from federal funds or trigger federal reporting), whether caucus committees typically establish separate federal accounts (Burcon said he had not seen caucus committees do so), and how outside groups such as Super PACs would interact with state races (both witnesses said Super PACs have reduced incentives to route money through state channels and would continue to be a major outlet for large sums).

The witnesses and members also discussed disclosure timing: moving to an even-year calendar would align state activity with federal pre- and post-election reports, which would increase the number of federal-style pre-election disclosures and could improve visibility of outside spending that currently reports on schedules misaligned with Virginia’s odd-year cycle.

The subcommittee did not take formal action. Members scheduled another hearing to focus on election administration funding and registrars.

The record of the hearing shows a mix of technical concerns—allocation formulas, advertising disclaimers, and reporting deadlines—and political consequences, including higher compliance costs for parties and a likely reorganization of how coordinated campaigns are funded and staffed should the state decide to consolidate its election calendar.