He hasn’t even formed any sort of committee! He can’t reasonably argue that he is ‘testing the waters’.

What about Schweikert? I had to google him. Appears he is running for Mitchell’s seat also. Interesting. A former Maricopa treasurer. I may be missing your reference though….I need an education (smile).

What I have referred to is going to hit home with a lot of people. He is going to have to defend it. He may get a lot of press by doing so, but not necessarily good press.

Last, someone might have told him that the law is unclear. Do it anyway. It is better than waiting until January and being about $2 million in the whole to Giffords. It is also better than losing your seat. Finally, it will undoubtably be a fine which your campaign financiers will pay for you later.

The problem with all of this is that it stinks. The other problem is that it assumes that members of the GOP in Maricopa who might want the Senate presidency back will stand for it.

My understanding is that Mr. Bee does not even refer to himself as a candidate, and is truly viewing this as an exploratory commitee, just due to the fact that he is up against Giffords.

But as a side question- I would venture that Tim Bee is doing things correctly in filing his exploratory paperwork, but what about David Schweikert?

It is very hard to then say you aren’t a candidate under Arizona law….when again…your behavior is such that it violates that spirit and the language of our resign to run law. Just as raising funds and not filing would violate the spirit of FEC law.

Anyhow, cheers to you and thanks for the information.

I would assume that we would agree that despite the resign to run law being rather stupid, it is indeed the law. Rule of law wins out, I would think. Tim should do the right thing.

It says that this form is filed in lieu of FEC Form 2. It also specifically states that he has not yet determined whether to be a candidate. My guess is that this could be a common and compliant practice.

As for what you say in #10, it sounds very much like splitting hairs to me. He is not “testing the waters” and has to file like a candidate, but he is not a candidate? I am not sure I buy that, nor would any reasonable interpretation of the spirit of Arizona’s Resign to Run law.

One reason for the law that is often reported is that the law is about not serving constuents as well as you run. There is a bigger ethical issue that the law tackles though.

Someone like the Senate President holds a lot of power. Forming an exploratory committee and running for federal office gives the ability for people to “reward” Tim Bee for his performance in office, while donating to a campaign for a different office. It just looks bad for that kind of thing to happen and it is gives the appearance of impropriety. It’s just a whole lot cleaner to be a candidate and run.

I stand by my position that the law states what you report above in #12:

“An individual becomes a candidate for federal office (and thus triggers registration and reporting obligations under the Act) when his or her campaign exceeds $5,000 in either contributions or expenditures. The threshold is reached when any one of the circumstances described below occurs.”

Note the word “candidate” in the above.

Raising funds and reporting them as a “candidate” under that provision makes him, well, a candidate.

If he is a candidate by FEC law, then he should be a candidate under Arizona’s Resign to Run law as well.

Any of you aspiring Senate Republicans wanna be Senate President???

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/candregis.shtml#Testing

Basically, once you raise or spend $5,000, your ‘testing the water page’ is now considered to be over. If he didn’t file, it looks like the FEC could fine him, providing that he’s over $5k.

Individual Becomes a Candidate
An individual becomes a candidate for federal office (and thus triggers registration and reporting obligations under the Act) when his or her campaign exceeds $5,000 in either contributions or expenditures. The threshold is reached when any one of the circumstances described below occurs.

Receives Contributions or Makes Expenditures
The individual receives contributions or makes expenditures, either of which aggregate over $5,000. 11 CFR 100.3(a)(1). Funds raised and spent to test the waters apply to this $5,000 threshold once the individual decides to run for office.

JC, you are dead-on. Part of demonstrating that a Bee candidacy is worthwhile is raising a considerable amount of money to ensure they he will be able to compete on the airwaves. If Bee can be at about 70% of what Gabby has that should do it, but no sense of pulling the trigger until the year is over and Gabby’s year end report is out.

From the FEC website:
What is the difference between a campaign committee and a testing the waters fund?

An individual who merely tests the waters, but does not campaign for office, does not have to register or report as a candidate. Therefore, while a campaign committee files disclosure reports, a testing the waters fund does not have to file reports until the candidacy is established. At this point, all testing the waters activities must be disclosed on the next scheduled FEC report. A testing the waters fund abides by the same contribution limits and prohibitions as a campaign committee. There are activities that indicate that an individual is campaigning and, therefore no longer testing the waters.

He filed a letter stating as such, and he did not file a statement of candidacy, only a statement of organization to open up an exploratory commitee.

My guess, is that the Senate President will act cautiously, and not make mistakes. Actions that he takes will be thouroughly vetted.

I think that it is wise for him to strongly weigh his options. Gabby Giffords has quite the war chest, and I think that this is truly an exploring expedition to analyze viability for a serious run.

I have heard from what I consider credible sources that he has filed and it should be out today.

Now…with that said…I think we should discuss my comment #7 above.

Isn’t it Clintonian to be an candidate under federal law, but then to argue that you aren’t a candidate under Arizona’s Resign to Run law?

I guess that depends on “what the meaning of candidate is”?

If I am right about the above (and I am), then Tim Bee is indeed a candidate under federal law. If he is a candidate under federal law, then how can he NOT be a candidate under state law? Federal premption..etc etc etc.

Basic logic would tell an enterprising, ambitious, Maricopa Republican, Senate President wanna be, that Tim Bee now MUST resign to run. Why? Well…he is a candidate under federal law for a federal office. Under state law, a candidate for federal office or even state office MUST resign to run.

Cheers and have fun!

Check out page one under the definition of a candidate.

http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf

The gist of it is the at the law is clear about the fundraising and candidate part. IF you raise more than $5000 or someone else raises more than $5000 for a federal office then they are declared a candidate and must report.

It doesn’t matter what people call his campaign, if he has raised more than $5000 (and he had better if he is going to have a hope of beating Giffords) then he must report.

Again, I suspect that he will report. I would be rather shocked if he didn’t. If he doesn’t then I will change my tune dramatically about him.

BEEsides, I heard rumors that he is reporting. He seems to be a straight shooter. We can debate the resign to run sidesteps and his reasons, but if he has a website up for Congress and has people soliciting funds for him (my wife has received contacts from bundlers), then he should do the right thing and report. If he isn’t then this will indeed fuel lots of fire about his skirting the resign to run law and then other campaign laws as well. I don’t think he needs to be bringing on the lawyers to sidestep the law, do you?

As for the Lord campaign, I have heard that he has been raising funds pretty seriously…and that the state party is backing him bigtime. He filed a report…BTW.