Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Ad Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board of Elections finds campaign ad lacked disclosure, assesses $25 penalty
Summary
The Virginia State Board of Elections on May 1 voted to find a campaign video in violation of disclosure rules and assessed a $25 payment after staff said the version the public saw did not show the required disclosure. Counsel for the respondent said the video on file did include a disclosure and objected to evidence presented at the meeting.
The Virginia State Board of Elections voted May 1 to find that a campaign video lacked the required disclosure and to assess a $25 payment under the board's enforcement authority.
The motion, introduced by a board member and seconded, said the board would “find in violation” under the Code of Virginia provisions cited during the meeting and assess the $25 payment. Board members approved the motion by voice vote, with members answering “aye.”
Why it matters: The finding resolves one complaint in the board's ongoing "stand by your ad" docket and records the board's enforcement position about disclosure in video and digital campaign material. The item was handled during the board's public meeting after staff reviewed the complaint and evidence.
What proponents and opponents said: Tim Griffin, counsel for McCarthy, told the board he had screenshots and an invoice showing the ad had been produced and run with a disclosure and argued the packet version lacked the bottom-of-screen disclosure because the tape had been cropped. “The video that I have … has the disclosure at the bottom,” Griffin said, and he urged dismissal or a decision in his client's favor if the government could not prove the allegation with materials provided in advance.
Department staff said they received a complaint, pulled videos from the candidate's website and the vendor's site, and that the complainant's public link did not show the disclosure. Staff summarized the complaint timeline and said the department would provide metadata if needed to support the chain of custody.
The board took the motion after an exchange about evidence sources and whether board staff or the public saw a disclosure on the version circulated online. Counsel objected to receiving video evidence for the first time at the meeting; the board said it would record the finding and place supporting documents in the working papers.
Next steps: The board directed the record into its working papers. Counsel for the respondent stated an objection on evidentiary grounds during the meeting; the board's action records the enforcement determination but counsel noted arguments about fairness and notice that he said could be raised in any subsequent review.
