Ad watch: Did a California lawmaker’s husband pay for her campaign advertisement?

Some Northern California voters have received a message in the mail from Assemblywoman Megan Dahle that was presented as if it was paid for by her husband, a fellow lawmaker in the California Legislature.

Blending fundraising accounts between the two lawmakers could represent a campaign finance violation, and a consultant who works for both lawmakers says he is responsible for mistakenly presenting the ad with incorrect information.

A stamp on the mailer promoting Megan Dahle said it was paid for by Sen. Brian Dahle, R-Bieber.

Political consultant Jim Nygren blamed himself for the error, which he described as a “typo.”

“I worked for Brian’s campaign in 2019 and had his disclaimer on my computer,” Nygren said. “I typed the wrong Dahle disclaimer into the draft. Megan asked me to correct it. But, a computer crash caused me to use an old backed up version, and I sent that to the printer without the correction. Basically, it is a typo that came about because of some computer problem. It is my mistake and not Megan’s.”

He also noted that “100 percent of the funds that paid for the mailer came from Megan’s account” and that “it was in no way an independent expenditure.”

Megan Dahle is seeking re-election this year and is being challenged by Democrat Elizabeth Betancourt. In 2019, Megan Dahle filled a seat her husband, Brian, had vacated after winning his state Senate race.

The Fair Political Practices Commission, which regulates campaign spending in the state, has not received formal complaint about the mailer and does not have any active investigations into the issue.

Jay Wierenga, spokesman for the FPPC, said he couldn’t comment on whether the mailer violates campaign finance or disclosure laws.

Wierenga encourages campaigns to report any mistakes to the department’s enforcement division so that “it gets into the record that they did so and it shows good faith on their part.”

Megan Dahle’s campaign did not comment on the cost of the mailer, the number of people who received it, whether it reported the issue to state regulators or whether it believes it violated political disclosure requirements.

This story was originally published February 13, 2020 at 2:47 PM.