Want to see where the candidates stand? You can compare them side-by-side on our Voter Guide.
Allegations have been leveled against a volunteer group that has supported a block of four Democratic candidates for city council in Lynchburg.
Critics argue that the group, Lynchburg Better Together, has run afoul of Virginia election law by failing to register with the Department of Elections as a political action committee after campaign signs that included the organization’s name began to appear around the city.
The group and the candidates it supports, however, contend that Lynchburg Better Together is strictly a volunteer cooperative with the goal of getting Democrats elected to the Lynchburg City Council.
Regardless, critics and Republican candidates in the city council race have alleged that Lynchburg Better Together’s ties to the Virginia-based political action committee, Rural GroundGame, are cause for concern.
What is Lynchburg Better Together and what is its connection to Rural GroundGame?
The volunteer group was launched to support four Democratic candidates for city council as a bloc. As Lynchburg Better Together, the group approached Rural GroundGame earlier this year to seek assistance in its efforts to get the four Democrats elected to city council.
Through that partnership, volunteers with Lynchburg Better Together set up meet and greets with candidates, coordinate canvassing efforts, and handle logistics like headshots, graphics and videography at events, among other things, while Rural GroundGame has handled donations, expenditures, and campaign finance reports.
“Lynchburg Better Together has never hidden its relationship with Rural GroundGame — it was on the Lynchburg Better Together website and our email signature lines from the very beginning,” a spokesperson for Lynchburg Better Together said in an email.
According to reports filed with the state board of elections, Rural GroundGame has provided an infusion of resources not normally seen in Lynchburg city races — roughly $36,000 total through in-kind contributions between the four Democratic candidates. Those contributions included campaign advertising such as walk cards, postcards, postage, billboards, signs and digital ads, as well as help mapping out areas for volunteers to canvass and assistance with some of the technical elements of phone banking and text banking.
Lynchburg Better Together has solicited donations for the four candidates online, an action that critics have called problematic because the group is not registered on the state board of elections as a political action committee. But members of the volunteer group contend that, when donors click a link to contribute, they’re directed to an ActBlue site where a disclaimer reads: “Your contribution will benefit Rural GroundGame – State Account.”
What does Virginia election law say?
A volunteer organization — like any organization in Virginia — is free to contribute money or ask others to contribute money to another organization, John Martin, a research assistant professor of law at the University of Virginia said.
“This does not, in and of itself, require the volunteer organization to register” with the state board of elections, he said.
An organization would need to register with the state if it is soliciting contributions for its own purposes and more than 50% of those contributions are slated to be used to influence the outcome of a non-federal Virginia election. An organization would also need to register if it intends to receive contributions or spend more than $200 to influence state or local elections in the commonwealth, according to state regulations.
“Providing contributions to a larger organization or asking others to provide contributions to said larger organization is not the same as ‘spending funds in the campaign finance world,’” Martin said.
If the volunteer organization is raising its own funds and then using those for political purposes, or independently spending money on its own political communications, that would likely require the volunteer organization to register as a political action committee with the state, he continued.
“Lynchburg Better Together has never received a contribution nor spent funds,” Ian McNally, executive director of Rural GroundGame, said. “Much like an engaged voter can host a fundraiser in their home and encourage contributions to a campaign or committee, Lynchburg Better Together volunteers have encouraged donations to Rural GroundGame with the understanding that Rural GroundGame is the entity that will direct those funds toward efforts based in Lynchburg.”
It appears Lynchburg Better Together may have run afoul of election rules when its name was included on campaign signs in support of the Democratic candidates for city council, however.
The fine print at the center of the issue
Questions about Lynchburg Better Together were raised in early October, after yard signs and billboards began to pop up around the city in support of the Democratic candidates. It was the fine print that caused commotion. On many of those signs, the authorization line read: “Paid for by Lynchburg Better Together, a project of Rural GroundGame.”
If Lynchburg Better Together did indeed pay for those signs, the group would have run afoul of Virginia election law by failing to register with the state board of elections as a political action committee.
McNally said signs were paid for by Rural GroundGame and had been printed with the authorization statement “Paid for by Lynchburg Better Together, a project of Rural GroundGame” based on guidance received by the Department of Elections.
“Upon receiving new written guidance from the Department of Elections, Rural GroundGame now solely uses ‘Paid for by Rural GroundGame’ on all materials, ” he said in an email. The political action committee has made efforts to remedy the problem by putting a sticker with the correct text over the previous statement on existing signs.
“This was a sincere mistake made by a volunteer, and one that Rural GroundGame has already taken action to address and correct,” McNally told The (Lynchburg) News & Advance.
Lynchburg Republican Party chair Veronica Bratton said she filed a complaint with the state board of elections over the inclusion of Lynchburg Better Together on the authorization line on campaign signs at the beginning of October. Nearly a month later, she said, some signs still exist in the community that have yet to be remedied and some that lack the authorization line altogether.
Democratic candidates, Rural GroundGame responds
Randy Smith, who is running for the Ward I seat on the city council, said he thinks criticism leveled against Lynchburg Better Together — that it isn’t as transparent as the candidates claim because it isn’t registered with the state board of elections — is “probably fair.”
“But only because we’ve done something that hasn’t been done previously: run four candidates as a group, helping one another despite it being a ward election,” he said. “Anytime you do something new, people need to be educated on the details and maybe that’s where we didn’t do a good enough job.”
He noted that Lynchburg Better Together was never intended to operate as a political action committee because Rural GroundGame had been handling the finance reporting.
“I guess we’re now playing catch up to better inform everyone of the specifics,” Smith said.
April Watson, candidate for Ward IV, called the criticisms leveled against Lynchburg Better Together a “distraction from the real issues” in the city.
Sterling Wilder and James Coleman, the Democratic candidates for Wards II and III, respectively, did not respond to a request for comment.
