"The campaign advertisement has no other purpose than to undercut the public standing of a gubernatorial candidate, and therefore is express advocacy against a candidate," Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court wrote in a letter to the Fair Political Practices Commission. "The claims in the advertising do not relate at all to Jerry Brown's current duties in the Attorney General's office."

But whether the ad, which does not mention Brown's candidacy or explicitly direct viewers to vote for or against the Democrat, counts as "issue advocacy" or an independent expenditure depends on how you define the term "unambiguously urges."

According to the Political Reform Act, an independent expenditure is:

"Communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified
candidate or the qualification, passage or defeat of a clearly identified measure, or taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a particular result in an election but which is not made to or at the behest of the affected candidate or committee."

Court writes that the ad's "timing, wording and context can lead to no other conclusion than the advertisement is made to influence the election of a candidate for the governor's office, Jerry Brown."

A CalChamber spokesperson countered yesterday that the ad is part of a larger issue campaign and does not direct voters to support or oppose a specific candidate.

The complaint also alleges that because GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's campaign chairman Pete Wilson sits on the chamber's board of directors, any independent expenditure ad opposing Brown would constitute illegal coordination between the campaign and the chamber.

That claim is echoed in a complaint set to be filed by the California Democratic Party, which accuses Wilson of "colluding" with the chamber to produce the ad. The complaint claims the estimated $1 million ad buy would then violate in-kind contribution limits.

In an interview with The Bee this afternoon, Wilson said the chamber did not consult with him about the specific ad attacking Brown nor the idea of running a general issue advocacy campaign. Without having seen the ad, however, he said, "My guess is this is issue advocacy that is permitted."

"I was not consulted, and if there was something addressed to the board as a whole I was not aware of it, but it may have very well happened," Wilson said.

Chamber spokeswoman Denise Davis said yesterday that the board had approved funding for issues advocacy ads in general, but could not comment on whether members had Ok'ed this particular ad. She was not immediately available today for comment.

UC President Mark Yudof, a board member, said today he had not seen or approved the ad before it was released.

"As the leader of a public university, I am nonpartisan. I am looking into the circumstances surrounding the advertisement," Yudoff posted on his Facebook page.

Bee colleague Jack Chang contributed to this report.