State Rep. Matt Simpson wants the Alabama Ethics Commission to answer a question that could shape a rare kind of lawsuit: can the Daphne Republican spend the campaign funds he raised earlier this year to bankroll a libel lawsuit against a political action committee?
Simpson, a Republican who represents the Eastern Shore in the Alabama House, said Thursday that his request is scheduled to be discussed at the commission’s next meeting on Oct. 7. Once the commission rules, he plans to move forward with the suit.
“We’re waiting to see what the report comes from the ethics commission as to how the attorney can be paid, first, before we make that decision and determination as to how we proceed,” Simpson said. “We’ve got a couple of years from the statute of limitations to run. So, there’s not an urgency from the sense of I have to file this immediately. We want to make sure we have all of the information in front of us before we make the decision as to what funding and how this stuff will go through.”
The mailers that started it
Simpson was one of several local lawmakers targeted in a surge of campaign materials and independent PAC spending during this year’s Republican primaries. Some of that spending, he claims, spread false information about his voting record. The Alabama Values PAC is the group he says he wants to sue.
According to Simpson, some of the PAC’s spending went to mailers that misrepresented how he voted on bills in the Alabama Legislature. Some of them claimed he voted to allow undocumented immigrants to receive free college education, to legalize bribes for elected officials and to give early parole to violent felons — claims Simpson says were false.
An investigation published earlier this year by a local news organization found more than $4 million in dark money with gambling ties flowing into local legislative races through groups like the American Conservative Fund, including the race Simpson was running in. The Alabama Values PAC itself was funded with roughly $190,000 in dark money from Virginia-based Freedom Forward Alliance, which did not report the source of that money to federal or state election regulators.
An ‘uncharted territory’ question
Simpson said he has contemplated filing suit since before he lost his reelection bid to political newcomer Danielle Duggar. He asked the ethics commission earlier this year for an informal opinion on using campaign funds for the endeavor, and he also issued the PAC a cease-and-desist letter in early May.
The commission’s informal response, Simpson said, was a non-answer: commissioners called the idea “uncharted territory” they had not dealt with before and told him he could request a formal opinion at the commission’s October meeting. In the past, he noted, candidates have used campaign funds to defend themselves in litigation — but paying to sue someone is a different question entirely.
According to the Alabama Secretary of State’s Office website, Simpson has about $13,978 in campaign funds on hand. His request is scheduled to be discussed when the commission meets on Oct. 7, and Simpson said he hopes the commissioners will issue a decision during the meeting rather than taking it under advisement. The commission does not have to rule during the hearing and can issue a formal opinion at a later date.
Alabama law generally allows campaign funds to be used for purposes related to holding office, including defending elections, but the statute does not squarely address whether a candidate can sue a PAC for defamation with money raised for his own campaigns. A formal advisory opinion from the commission would set the boundaries — and could become a reference point for other officeholders targeted by independent spending.
A busy day at the commission
Simpson’s request is just one item on the commission’s Oct. 7 agenda. Orange Beach Mayor Tony Kennon is also scheduled to appear before the Alabama Ethics Commission that day to respond to an ethics complaint filed against him by three city councilors in May.
The two matters illustrate the range of issues that land before the nine-member commission, which hears questions about everything from campaign finance to conflicts of interest. Its advisory opinions carry real weight: while they are not court rulings, public officials who follow them are generally protected from later ethics prosecution on the same question.
What’s at stake
For Simpson, the outcome determines whether the lawsuit he has contemplated since spring can be funded without personal expense — and whether he proceeds at all. “We want to make sure we have all of the information in front of us before we make the decision as to what funding and how this stuff will go through,” he said.
The case also lands in the middle of a larger argument about shadow spending in Alabama politics. Independent PACs can raise unlimited money and, so long as they avoid express advocacy, do not have to disclose their donors — a structure that has repeatedly put candidates on the defensive against attacks they say are false, funded by untraceable money, and impossible to answer before Election Day.
A libel suit is one of the few remedies available after the votes are counted, and Simpson’s request tests whether Alabama’s campaign finance rules even allow a candidate to use the money his supporters gave him to pursue one.