Sun reporter Paul West, who claims that blogs have “a very low bar of respectability,” has updated a story we ran almost a month ago on questionable payments from Michael Steele’s state campaign account. West did not receive adequate explanation from Steele’s vendors, but at least he pursued the issue. However, our key question remains unanswered. § 1-101(y) of the Election Law Article states the following about campaign fund expenditures:
* Expenditures must be election related; that is, they must enhance the candidate’s election chances, and one must be able to conclude that they would not have been incurred if there had been no candidacy.
* Expenditures, including loans, may not be for the personal use of the candidate or any other individual.
How can Steele’s spending on Washington law firms be election related when he is not a candidate for state office?