Law restricts wife's aid for Kerry's campaign

WASHINGTON — While Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential candidacy has benefitted from the perception he can tap his wife's multimillion-dollar fortune to finance his campaign, in reality federal election law restricts the amount of her money that is available to him.

Under the terms of the law, Teresa Heinz Kerry, like any other donor, cannot give more than $2,000 each to her husband's primary and general election campaigns. The law also restricts Kerry from tapping any portion of his wife's fortune — estimated at $550 million, which placed her among last year's Forbes magazine list of the richest 400 Americans — that is solely in her name.

Yet the law also allows two ways for her wealth to benefit his campaign.

Depending on how the Supreme Court rules on a new campaign finance law, Heinz Kerry could spend as much of her own money as she wishes on "issue ads," advertisements that advance a cause or theme without directly naming a federal political candidate. By the same token, she could donate unlimited sums to groups running their own issue ads.

In addition, the law allows Kerry to tap up to 50 percent of any assets the couple jointly owns, including real estate. Heinz Kerry had four significant properties prior to her marriage to Kerry in 1995: an estate outside Pittsburgh, a townhouse in Washington's Georgetown section, and vacation homes on Nantucket and in Ketchum, Idaho. When they married, Heinz Kerry and her husband jointly bought a townhouse on Beacon Hill's tony Louisburg Square. That home is now thought to be worth $7 million.

The campaign has refused to divulge the value of the couple's jointly held assets, and Senate and presidential disclosure forms do not completely answer the question. Kerry also has refused to released federal income tax records that could provide clarity.

For those reasons, it is impossible to say what impact Heinz Kerry's fortune could have on her husband's candidacy, a fact that federal election law specialists acknowledge.

"These are clever people; they are not fools. They presumably have very good lawyers working for them, and you have to think that these assets are structured in a way that will allow him access to some of the money," said Paul Sanford, a former Federal Election Commission staff attorney who works for the Center for Responsive Politics, a political finance watchdog.