7/31/2019 Brighter Future Committee Legal Analysis

1/3

The Brighter Future Committee radio hit campaign that used illegal direct

corporate expenditures against North Dakota Public Service Commission candidate

Brad Crabtree

From September 24, 2012, to October 5, 2012, a North Dakota corporationentitled the Brighter Future Committee directly ordered and directly paid for a

statewide radio hit campaign targeting North Dakota Public Service Commission

Candidate Brad Crabtree while supporting Federal Congressional Candidate

Kevin Cramer, who currently is a sitting state Public Service Commissioner.1

The entity Brighter Future Committee -- regardless of its name is aNorth Dakota corporation -- which as such is prohibited from making direct

expenditures for political purposes by virtue of N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.3.2

1 The statewide radio hit campaign was carried out made by so-called 501(c)(4) North Dakota

corporation, Brighter Future Committee. See, the Articles of Incorporation of Brighter FutureCommittee, filed September 14, 2012, with the Office of the North Dakota Secretary of State.

2 N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.3 (1) provides that (a) corporation, cooperative association, limited liability

company, or association may not make a direct contribution: a. (t)o aid any political party, political

committee, or organization except that a direct contribution may be made to a measure committee as

provided in section 16.1-08.1-03.5 . . . . . . . (c) (t)o aid any candidate for public office . . . . (or) d.(f)or any political purpose or the reimbursement or indemnification of any person for money or property

so used. And while N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.3 (2) permits a corporation to engage in the establishment,administration, and solicitation of contributions to a separate and segregated fund to be utilized for political

political purposes by a corporation, cooperative corporation, limited liability company, or association, a

corporation is not permittedto make a direct contribution . . . to aid . . . . any political party, political

committee . . . . . . candidate for public office . . . . (or) for any political purpose . . . See, N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.3 (1) (a), (c), and (d). This is made clear by N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.5 (1) which provides,

in pertinent part, that (c)orporations . . . . may make expenditures and contributions . . . other than

(for) a political purposeas defined in [N.D.C.C. Chapter 16.1-08.1]. And the term political purpose

is defined in N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-01 (11) as follows: "Political purpose" means any activity undertakenin support of or in opposition to the election or nomination of a candidate to public officeand includes

using "vote for", "oppose", orany similar support or opposition language in any advertisement whetherthe activity is undertaken by a candidate, a political committee, a political party, or any person. In the

period thirty days before a primary election and sixty days before a special or general election, "political

purpose" also means any activity in which a candidate's name, office, district, or any term meaning the

same as "incumbent" or "challenger" is used in support of or in opposition to the election or nomination

of a candidate to public office. . . . . . The 30-second radio attack advertisement -- ordered and paid forby the North Dakota Corporation Brighter Future Committee -- spot directly uses the names of Brad

Crabtree, Pam Gulleson, and Kevin Cramer -- and clearly comes within the statutory definition of the

term political purpose.

7/31/2019 Brighter Future Committee Legal Analysis

2/3

The entity Brighter Future Committee -- despite of its name -- is not

a political committee or a political action committee as defined by North

Dakota statute.3

The North Dakota corporation Brighter Future Committee filed a fraudulent

Political Action Committee Registration form with the North Dakota Secretaryof State on October 3, 2012 -- in which it represented that the Brighter Future

Committee was a PAC, meaning a political action committee.4

North Dakota law applies exclusively to state and local elections here in NorthDakota, and neither the Federal Election Campaign Act, nor regulations of the

Federal Election Commission (FEC) adopted pursuant to that Act, have any

application to the current state Public Service Commission election in any matter

3

N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-01 (9) states that the term (p)olitical committee means any committee, club,association, or other group of persons which receives contributions or makes expenditures for political

purposes and includes the following: a. (a) political action committee, derived from a corporation,

cooperative corporation, limited liability company, or an association that is prohibited from makingdirect contributions for political purposes under section 16.1-08.1-03.3, and which solicits or receives

contributions or makes expenditures. See, also, the definition of the term political action committee

which is a sub-category of the term political committee in N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-01 (9) (a).

4 The North Dakota corporation Brighter Future Committee made direct expenditures for political

purposes in violation of N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.3, as described above. It is a Class A misdemeanor

for an officer, director, stockholder, manager, governor, member, attorney, agent, or representative of any

corporation . . . to violate this section or to counsel or consent to any violation. See, N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.3 (8).

Those specific individuals who would come into the preview of the Class A Misdemeanor statute16.1-08.1-03.3 (8) -- under the facts and circumstances associated with the Brighter Future Committeeradio hit campaign against North Dakota Public Service candidate Brad Crabtree -- are the following: (1)Dallas Attorney Chris Gober of the Dallas, Texas, law firm Gober Hilgers PLLC , who represented in

an e-mail to North Dakota radio broadcasters dated September 27, 2012, that he was the attorney who

represented Brighter Future Committee (2) Shane Goettle, of Bismarck, President and Director of theNorth Dakota corporation Brighter Future Fund; (3) James Roers, of Fargo, a Director of the North

Dakota corporation Brighter Future Committee; and (4) Richard N. Hedahl, of Bismarck, Secretary and

Director of the North Dakota corporation Brighter Future Committee.

7/31/2019 Brighter Future Committee Legal Analysis

3/3

-- with respect to campaign contributions or in any other regard.5

5 See, 2 U.S.C. 453(a). See, also, e.g.Emilys List v. Federal Election Commission, 569 F. Supp.2d 18,

44 (D.C. 2008), reversed on other grounds, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009) [the Federal Election Campaign

Act (FECA) regulates federal elections only, and does not suggest that the (Federal Election)

Commissions jurisdiction reach(es) beyond federal elections and into the realm of state elections.]

quoting from Common Cause v. Federal Election Commission, 692 F. Supp. 1391, 1395 (D.C. 1987);

Federal Election Commission v. California Democratic Party, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7269, *2 (E.D. Cal.February 13, 2004) [Different statutory and regulatory frameworks govern campaign finance infederal and state elections.].

Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing authority, it is beyond question that the statewide radio hit

campaign which was directly ordered and paid for by the North Dakota corporation Brighter FutureCommittee -- as it was targeted against state Public Service Commission candidate Brad Crabtree -- was

criminally-illegal, having been direct corporate expenditure for political purposes in violation of

N.D.C.C. 16.1-08.1-03.3, as punishable by the Class A Misdemeanor penalty contained in NDCC section

16.1-08.1-03.3 (8).Finally, it is correspondingly clear that neitherNorth Dakota corporation Brighter Future

Committee nor its directors, Shane Goettle, Richard Hedahl, and James Roers, nor this corporations

Texas-licensed attorney Chris Gober of the Dallas law firm Gober Hilgers, PLLP, may rely upon Federal

Election Commission regulations, including 11 C.F.R. 114.2 (3), 11 C.F.R. 114.10, or indeed an otherFEC regulation, or any provision Federal Election Commission Act -- because thisfederallaw applies

solely and exclusively tofederalelection campaigns -- and not to state election campaigns such as the

current campaign for the election of a North Dakota Public Service Commissioner the only office for

which Brad Crabtree is a candidate.