Skip Navigation
Federal Election Commission, United States of America (logo). Link to FEC Home Page
Federal Election Commission
FEC Search is getting an update. Our new design arrives May 2017.

After that, an archive copy of this website will be available at

Preview our new design at

Show Less



FEC Record: Litigation


Sign-up to receive an e-mail notification when a new issue of the Record is posted. Sign-up to receive an email notification when a new articles are posted.

FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate

On March 28, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate, a suit that claims former Senator Larry Craig impermissibly converted campaign funds to personal use.

The Commission’s complaint alleges that the defendants, Craig for U.S. Senate, its treasurer, Kaye L. O’Riordan, and Mr. Craig, violated 2 U.S.C §439a(b) by spending more than $200,000 in campaign funds to pay legal expenses stemming from Mr. Craig’s attempt to withdraw the guilty plea he entered following his June 2007 arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. The suit claims that these expenses were not incurred in connection with Mr. Craig’s campaign for federal office or with his ordinary and necessary duties as a Senator, and that the payment of these expenses with campaign funds amounts to impermissible personal use. The FEC seeks, among other things, an order assessing civil penalties and requiring Mr. Craig to repay the campaign funds he used for his personal legal expenses to his campaign committee.

The defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing: the use of campaign funds for Mr. Craig’s legal expenses was expressly permitted under the statute and not subject to the prohibition against personal use; and the defendants should be immune from FEC enforcement in this case based on FEC advisory opinions that defendants claim approve the use of campaign funds in similar situations.

Court Opinion
The court found neither of these arguments persuasive and denied the motion to dismiss.

The court concluded that the expenditures for legal fees could not be characterized as ordinary and necessary expenses in connection with Mr. Craig’s duties as a federal officeholder and that the expenses would have existed irrespective of his duties as an officeholder.

The court also rejected the defendants’ reliance on past FEC advisory opinions because the facts in those opinions are entirely distinguishable from the facts in this case.

The court ordered the parties to file a joint report by April 19 and to attend a status and scheduling conference on April 26.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: Case 1:12-cv-00958-ABJ.

(Posted 4/4/2013; By: Isaac J. Baker)














FEC Record Home Page
Latest Articles by Category:
Archive (1978-Present):

The FEC Record is produced by the Information Division, Office of Communications. Toll free 800-424-9530; Local 202-694-1100; E-mail Greg Scott, Director; Alex Knott, Senior Writer/Editor; Dorothy Yeager, Production Manager


[an error occurred while processing this directive]