The Los Angeles Times offers this report, with the subhead: “Schwarzenegger aides deny that he runs a committee accepting unlimited donations. If he did, state law would restrict contributions.” This is hardly surprising, given the vagueness problems with the FPPC regulation that I’ve flagged in my forthcoming Southern California Law Review paper and my recent L.A.Times oped. The article does not mention a separate FPPC provision that would potentially kick in if “Citizens to Save California” wants to run TV ads within 45 days of the special election featuring Schwarzenegger. That provision limits contributions to $25,000 to fund such ads made at the “behest” of a candidate. The FPPC has taken the position that this would not apply to officeholders like Schwarzenegger, who are not running for reelection on the same ballot (and therefore not “candidates” for purposes of that provision), but perhaps someone will challenge that interpretation. In the meantime, I’m not aware of any constitutional challenge that has been mounted to the FPPC rules. My law review article addresses the constitutional questions in some detail.