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.
The issue of Kerry's access to his wife's wealth resurfaced Wednesday when The Associated Press reported that Kerry's campaign had concluded that federal election law barred him from tapping any of his wife's assets for his campaign.
Kerry aides sought to play down the story, saying it merely restated an accurate reading of federal election law.
"It is not a legal or factual revelation that John Kerry cannot use her money," said campaign manager Jim Jordan. "It is black-letter law that one cannot get around that for a candidate to spend personal funds, they have to be under his control or under his joint control with his spouse."
Yet the dissemination of the financial restrictions could have an impact on Kerry's candidacy from the perspective of piercing an aura in media and political generated by his wife's wealth.
In a May 19 article in the Los Angeles Times, Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, was described as repeatedly returning to Kerry's electability against President Bush, citing Kerry's military service in Vietnam, his campaign organization, "and his ability to tap the personal fortune of his wife, Teresa Heinz."
In a Feb. 24, article in the New York Observer, Democratic political consultant Jeff Pollock was quoted as saying, "He can also wink and remind them that he's got a billion dollars of Heinz money in his back pocket."
In numerous interviews, Kerry and his wife have said that the only circumstances they could envision for tapping her financial reserves is if either he or she is attacked on a personal basis by a presidential rival. In a March interview with the Washington Post, Kerry said "it would be a contradiction" of his fund-raising record to tap his wife's wealth. "Teresa's money is Teresa's money, and I've declaratively stated that," the senator told the newspaper.
Wednesday, a top campaign official told the Boston Globe that financing issue ads in any fashion might create more political problems for Kerry than they would solve.
In its report, the AP said a check of property records revealed that Kerry did not own any of the couple's residences alone. A Senate financial disclosure form Kerry filed last month does little to decipher the family's financial situation because of the broad ranges in which assets are disclosed.
Heinz Kerry listed investment income and assets worth at least $210 million. Kerry, meanwhile, listed investments valued from $700,000 to $2.4 million, including two held jointly with his wife: a painting worth $250,001 to $500,000, and bank accounts worth $50,001 to $100,000.
During his 1996 reelection campaign against Massachusetts governor William F. Weld, Kerry used his interest in the couple's joint assets as collateral for loans to pay for a last-minute campaigning advertising.
In a recent interview with Elle magazine, Heinz Kerry hinted that she and her husband have a pre-nuptial agreement, but the Heinz ketchup heiress refuses to divulge any further financial details, including the scope of the couple's joint holdings.
"She discloses what she's obliged to disclose and the rest is considered personal and family stuff that she's just not going to discuss," said Heinz Kerry spokeswoman Chris Black.