Amanda Forrester / news@whmi.com

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced today that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson violated the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.

In a press release Monday, Nessel said Benson’s “use of the lobby of the Richard H. Austin Building to hold a press conference announcing her gubernatorial candidacy on Jan. 22 violated the MCFA.”

The complaints were filed by Christian Charette, Tyler Henningsen and Monica Ross-Williams. In a letter from Nessel’s office, it was stated that the three complaints were being resolved together.

During the press conference held on Jan. 22, Benson made a statement and answered questions, the letter said. Someone asked why the conference wasn’t being held outside, and she told them she didn’t want people to stand outside in the cold. A reporter said it was unusual for such announcements to be made inside, adding that other candidates were not allowed to. They asked if other candidates could hold similar press conferences in the building during the election cycle, and Benson was quoted saying “of course.” She said she wasn’t made aware that others had been barred from using the lobby for similar announcements.

According to section 57(1) of the MCFA, MCL 169.257(1), “a public body or a person acting for a public body shall not use or authorize the use of funds, personnel, stationary, postage, vehicles, equipment, supplies or other public resources to make a contribution or expenditure or provide volunteer personal services that are excluded from the definition of contribution under [MCL 169.204].”

It was also determined that Benson’s campaign committee didn’t violate the MCFA, though their arguments on behalf of Benson would be considered. They reportedly made four arguments in support of her use of the building’s lobby.

The committee argued that she wasn’t a “person acting for a public body” during her press conference, stating that she was in her “personal capacity as a candidate for Governor.” They also argued that because she wasn’t acting for the public body, she was on her personal time, expressing her personal views.

To refute these arguments, the letter said “Secretary Benson invited members of the press inside the Austin Building and then conducted a press conference, professionally dressed, during the day, in the lobby of the building that houses her office. She gave no indication that would lead a reasonable person viewing the press conference to believe that she was there on her ‘personal time.’ Instead, the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that Secretary Benson was acting as Secretary of State with the authority of the Department of State, which is a ‘public body,’ to invite the press inside her office building to use the lobby for the press conference.”

In their third argument, the committee said that because Benson believed other candidates could use the building’s lobby, she wasn’t in violation. To refute this, the letter stated that “partisan political events inside a facility” operated by the Department of Technology, Management and Budget is prohibited, though events can be held outside. The Austin Building is operated by the DTMB.

As their final argument, the committee said that any violation of section 57 infringes on Benson’s First Amendment rights because “the prohibition on using the lobby for press conferences serves no legitimate purpose and such use would not actually interfere with the activities in the Austin Building.”

The letter said the section exists to “prevent those who control public resources from using those resources to influence the outcome of an election,” adding that the First Amendment argument was “unpersuasive.”

A person who violates the MCFA is subject to a civil fine not more than $1,000 per violation. Those who “knowingly violate” MCL 169.257 are guilty of a misdemeanor, according to the letter. The penalties can only be enforced by the attorney general and only after referral by the secretary of state. “Therefore, under this plain language, the MCFA itself seemingly gives no authority to the Attorney General to seek criminal penalties for a violation by the Secretary of State either.”

Due to the wording of the law, Nessel is only able to identify the violation, remind Benson of her obligations and issue a warning.

Benson has not issued a response at this time.

The full letter is linked below.