Ad touting Mitchell in Atlanta mayor race draws scrutiny

Atlanta City Council President Ceasar Mitchell. AJC file

At first glance, the ad airing across Atlanta’s airwaves seems like the latest campaign spot touting City Council President Ceasar Mitchell’s campaign for mayor. The fine print is a bit murkier.

The ad features a mother touting Mitchell’s education policy and the candidate speaking directly to the camera. It ends with an image of Mitchell looking over Atlanta’s skyline with his words echoing: “It’s about creating for them the opportunity to dream and that those dreams achieved can change a community.”

Except it’s not paid for by his campaign; it’s financed by an outside group called “A New Direction for Atlanta” that is supporting his mayoral bid. It was backed by a six-figure ad buy.

Super PACs can raise unlimited sums of money from most any source so long as they don’t coordinate with candidates. A recent opinion from the state ethics commission reinforced those restrictions, holding that a candidate cannot coordinate with a group that spends money on communications for that candidate.

Mitchell’s campaign referred questions about whether an ad prominently featuring the candidate violates these restrictions to Brian Svoboda, a Washington-based attorney who specializes in laws regulating political activity.

He said the ad doesn’t “expressly advocate for the election or defeat” of a candidate but instead amounts to an issue-advocacy spot that wouldn’t violate the campaign rules. (In fact, it doesn’t mention the mayor’s race at all.)

“The sponsor wasn’t established or financed by the candidate or campaign,” said Svoboda, “and it developed and placed the ad on its own in compliance with the coordination rules.”

Elections lawyers have been wrestling with these types of ads since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision triggered an explosion of super PACs. Lawton Jordan, a former chair of Georgia’s ethics commission, said the ad seems “technically legal” but that lawmakers should take heed of this type of spot.

“In my opinion, it is a cynical ploy and is contrary to the spirit of the law,” said Jordan. “Ads such as this underscore the need for strengthening these laws because this ad was clearly made and aired just before Election Day to promote Ceasar Mitchell’s election.”

Here’s the ad:

Reader Comments 0


I guess we all now know where Ceasar's PAC is spending all that out of town money it raised. 


g͙00g͙l͙e͙ p͙a͙y͙ 85$ p͙e͙r͙ h͙o͙u͙r͙ m͙y͙ l͙a͙s͙t͙ p͙a͙y͙ c͙h͙e͙c͙k͙ w͙a͙s͙ $8500 o͙p͙e͙r͙a͙t͙i͙n͙g͙ a͙ h͙u͙n͙d͙r͙e͙d͙ h͙o͙u͙r͙s͙ p͙e͙r͙ w͙e͙e͙k͙ o͙n͙-l͙i͙n͙e͙. m͙y͙ y͙o͙u͙n͙g͙e͙r͙ b͙r͙o͙t͙h͙e͙r͙ f͙r͙i͙e͙n͙d͙ h͙a͙s͙ b͙e͙e͙n͙ a͙v͙e͙r͙a͙g͙i͙n͙g͙ 12k͙ f͙o͙r͙ m͙o͙n͙t͙h͙s͙ c͙u͙r͙r͙e͙n͙t͙l͙y͙ a͙n͙d͙ h͙e͙'s͙ e͙m͙p͙l͙o͙y͙e͙d͙ c͙o͙n͙c͙e͙r͙n͙i͙n͙g͙ t͙w͙e͙n͙t͙y͙ t͙w͙o͙ h͙o͙u͙r͙s͙ p͙e͙r͙ w͙e͙e͙k͙. i͙ c͙a͙n͙’t͙ b͙e͙l͙i͙e͙v͙e͙ h͙o͙w͙e͙v͙e͙r͙ s͙i͙m͙p͙l͙e͙ i͙t͙ h͙a͙d͙ b͙e͙e͙n͙ o͙n͙c͙e͙ i͙ a͙t͙t͙e͙m͙p͙t͙e͙d͙ i͙t͙ o͙u͙t͙. t͙h͙i͙s͙ i͙s͙ o͙f͙t͙e͙n͙ w͙h͙a͙t͙ i͙ d͙o͙.

        ░A░M░A░Z░I░N░G░ ░J░O░B░S░



 til I ŚĀw thÈ rÈcÈipt which ŚĀiD $5154, I DiD not bÈliÈvÈ thĀt Μy ΜothÈr in lĀw wĀŚ likÈ thÈy ŚĀy ĀctuĀlly rÈcÈiving ΜonÈy pĀrt-tiΜÈ onlinÈ.. thÈrÈ ΜoΜŚ bÈŚt frÈnD hĀz DonÈ thiŚ 4 only Ābout 12 ΜonthŚ ĀnD juŚt took cĀrÈ of thÈ loĀnŚ on thÈrÈ ĀpĀrtΜÈnt ĀnD bought Ā nÈw ΜÈrcÈDÈŚ. rÈĀD ΜorÈ Āt,


So this article is about a politician finding a loophole. Moving on, nothing to see here.