Want to see where the candidates are at? You can compare them side by side on our Voter’s Guide.

Allegations have been made against a group of volunteers who supported a group of four Democratic candidates for Lynchburg City Council.

Critics say the group, Lynchburg Better Together, violated Virginia election law by failing to register with the Department of Elections as a political action committee after campaign signs including the organization’s name began to appear in the city.

The group and the candidates it supports, however, maintain that Lynchburg Better Together is strictly a volunteer cooperative whose goal is to elect Democrats to the Lynchburg City Council.

Regardless, critics and Republican candidates in the city council race have said Lynchburg Better Together’s ties to the Virginia-based political action committee Rural GroundGame are concerning.

What is Lynchburg Better Together and how does it relate to Rural GroundGame?

The volunteer group was launched to support four Democratic candidates for city council as a bloc. As part of Lynchburg Better Together, the group contacted Rural GroundGame earlier this year to ask for help in its effort to get all four Democrats elected to the city council.

Through this partnership, Lynchburg Better Together volunteers organize meetings with candidates, coordinate canvassing efforts and manage logistics such as portraits, graphics and videography at events, among other things, while Rural GroundGame handles donations, expenses and campaign finance reporting. .

“Lynchburg Better Together has never hidden its relationship with Rural GroundGame – it was on the Lynchburg Better Together website and in our email signature lines from the beginning,” a Lynchburg Better Together spokesperson said in an email.

According to reports filed with the state election board, Rural GroundGame provided an infusion of resources not normally seen in Lynchburg city races — about $36,000 in total through in-kind contributions between the four Democratic candidates. These contributions included campaign advertisements such as walking maps, postcards, mailers, billboards, signs and digital advertisements, as well as assistance in mapping areas that volunteers can apply for. and support for some of the technical elements of telephone and SMS banking services.

Lynchburg Better Together solicited online donations for all four candidates, an action that critics called problematic because the group is not registered with the state election board as a political action committee. But members of the volunteer group say that when donors click on a link to contribute, they are directed to an ActBlue site where a disclaimer says: “Your contribution will benefit Rural GroundGame – State Account.” »

What does Virginia election law say?

A voluntary organization — like any organization in Virginia — is free to contribute financially or ask others to contribute financially to another organization, said John Martin, a research assistant professor of law at the University of Virginia.

“It does not, in and of itself, require the volunteer organization to register” with the state election board, he said.

An organization will be required to register with the state if it solicits contributions for its own purposes and if more than 50 percent of those contributions are expected to be used to influence the outcome of a non-federal election in Virginia. An organization will also be required 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.

“Making contributions to a larger organization or asking others to make contributions to said larger organization is not the same as ‘spending funds in the campaign finance world,’” Martin said.

If the voluntary organization raises its own funds and then uses them for political purposes, or spends money independently on its own political communications, this would likely require the voluntary organization to register as a committee of political action with the State, he continued.

“Lynchburg Better Together has never received a contribution or spent any funds,” said Ian McNally, executive director of Rural GroundGame. “Just as an engaged voter might host a fundraiser at home and encourage contributions to a campaign or committee, Lynchburg Better Together volunteers encouraged donations to Rural GroundGame, with the understanding that Rural GroundGame is the entity that will direct these funds to efforts based in Lynchburg.

It appears, however, that Lynchburg Better Together may have violated election rules when its name was included on campaign signs supporting Democratic candidates for city council.

The fine print at the center of the problem

Questions about Lynchburg Better Together were raised in early October, after signs and billboards began popping up around the city supporting Democratic candidates. It was the fine print that caused the commotion. On many of these signs, the permission line read: “Paid for by Lynchburg Better Together, a project of Rural GroundGame. »

If Lynchburg Better Together had actually paid for these signs, the group would have violated Virginia election law by failing to register with the state election board as a political action committee.

McNally said the signs were paid for by Rural GroundGame and were printed with the permission statement “Paid for by Lynchburg Better Together, a project of Rural GroundGame” based on instructions received from the Department of Elections.

“After receiving new written guidance from the Department of Elections, Rural GroundGame is now using only ‘Paid for by Rural GroundGame’ on all materials,” he said in an email. The political action committee worked to remedy the problem by placing a sticker with the correct text on the previous statement on existing signs.

“This was an honest mistake made by a volunteer, and one that Rural GroundGame has already taken steps to address and correct,” McNally told The (Lynchburg) News and developments.

Lynchburg Republican Party Chairwoman Veronica Bratton said she filed a complaint with the state election board about Lynchburg Better Together’s inclusion on the clearance line on campaign signs in early October. Nearly a month later, she said, some signs still exist in the community and have not yet been corrected, and others have no permission line at all.

Democratic candidates, Rural GroundGame responds

Randy Smith, a candidate for the Ward I seat on the City Council, said he thinks the criticism leveled against Lynchburg Better Together — that it’s not as transparent as the candidates claim because it’s not registered with of the state election board — is “probably right.”

“But only because we did something that had never been done before: presenting four candidates as a group, helping each other even though it was a neighborhood election,” he said. “Anytime you do something new, people have to be made aware of the details and maybe that’s where we haven’t done a good enough job.” »

He noted that Lynchburg Better Together was never intended to function as a political action committee because Rural GroundGame handled financial reporting.

“I guess we’re now playing catch-up to better inform everyone of the details,” Smith said.

Ward IV candidate April Watson called criticism of Lynchburg Better Together a “distraction from the real problems” 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.

Related Stories