The state Democratic Party is asking the Federal Election Commission to investigate whether congressional candidates Andrew Roraback and Steve Obsitnik violated federal campaign finance regulations when they held a joint fundraiser earlier this week.
The fundraiser in question was a cocktail reception that was held Tuesday at a home in Darien. The suggested contribution was $500.
Roraback and Obsitnik are Republicans. Roraback is running against Democrat Elizabeth Esty in the 5th Congressional District, while Obsitnik is running in the 4th Congressional District against incumbent Jim Himes, a Democrat.
In her letter to the Federal Election Commission, Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo wrote that the reception appeared to be a fundraiser for both Roraback and Obsitnik, but the inviation didn’t make it clear how contributions were to be allocated. It didn’t say that donors could earmark their contributions, or that the money would be reallocated if a donor maxed out the donation to one committee, she said.
DiNardo also said records do not indicate that either campaign committee created a joint fundraising committee for the purpose of undertaking the event.
These details are required under Federal Election Commission regulations, DiNardo said, adding that she believes each candidate committee tried to hide the joint nature of the fundraiser by sending out subsequent invitations that did not include a reference to the other candidate.
The state Democratic Party sent its letter to the Federal Election Commission Wednesday. DiNardo said that her party is seeking “any and all relief permitted by law, including but not limited to injunctive relief, financial penalties and civil penalties…”
Obsitnik’s spokeswoman, Amanda Bergen, responded Thursday to the’ complaint, saying this year’s election is “about far more important issues than party invitations,” and she called the complaint a distraction.
Roraback said the Democrats’ complaint was a political complaint that does not have merit.
“We’re very confident that we complied with the law,” he said, explaining that there was “absolute transparency” both in the invitation and in who any checks were made payable to.