News Releases, Media Advisories

For Immediate Release:                                                                                             Contact:  Kelly Huff
January 28, 2000                                                                                                                           Ron Harris
                                                                                                                                                        Sharon Snyder
                                                                                                                                                        Ian Stirton

 

 

 

COMPLIANCE CASES MADE PUBLIC

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has recently made public its final action on three matters previously under review (MURs). This release contains only summary information. Closed files should be thoroughly read for details, including the FEC’s legal analysis of the case. (See footnote at the end of this release.) Closed MUR files are available in the Public Records Office.

1. MUR 2314

RESPONDENTS: (a) National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), James L. Hagen, treasurer (DC)

COMPLAINANT: Richard Segerblom, Esq. (NV)

SUBJECT: Excessive contributions; failure to properly report and accurately account for earmarked contributions

DISPOSITION: (a) Probable cause to believe [3/10/92], litigation initiated [1/12/93]*

[re: excessive contributions resulting from exercise of direction and control over contributions; failure to report earmarked contributions transmitted to Jim Santini for Senate through the NRSC’s 1986 Direct-To operation as contributions from the NRSC; failure to report earmarked contributions transmitted to Jim Santini for Senate by means of NRSC checks through the committee’s Majority ’86 operation as contributions from the NRSC; failure to report as contributions to Jim Santini for Senate unreimbursed costs related to solicitations for the NRSC’s 1986 Direct-To, Direct -To Auto and Majority ‘86 programs, but not including the unsuccessful costs of general party fundraising in programs where the contributors were called back for redesignations]

-Final Judgment: June 12, 1995 - The National Republican Senatorial Committee violated 2 U.S.C. § 441a(h) and 434(b) of the FECA by directing the redesignation of contributions it received and by failing to properly report this activity. The FEC was precluded from collecting civil penalties in this case because in a February 24, 1995, decision, the court ruled that the 5-year statute of limitations had expired. Furthermore, the NRSC agreed that through December 31, 1998, it would report all contributions that it asks contributors to redesignate to candidates as contributions from both itself and the contributor.

Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: failure to report as contributions to Jim Santini for Senate any unreimbursed costs related to solicitations for the trust and miscellaneous conduit operations]

No reason to believe*

[re: failure to properly report conduit contributions]

(b) No reason to believe

[re: excessive contributions resulting from exercise of direction and control over contributions; failure to properly report and accurately account for earmarked contributions]

(c) No reason to believe*

[re: excessive contributions resulting from exercise of direction and control over contributions; failure to properly report and accurately account for earmarked contributions]

(d) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: excessive contributions resulting from exercise of direction and control over contributions; failure to report NRSC as contributor of conduit contributions; failure to report all contributions received through NRSC; failure to report solicitation costs from NRSC Direct-To program as contributions from NRSC]

No reason to believe*

[re: failure to report conduit of contributions]

2. MUR 4250

RESPONDENTS: (a) Republican National Committee, Alec Pointevint, treasurer (DC)

(b) Haley R. Barbour, (former) Chairman, Republican National Committee (DC)

© National Policy Forum (NPF) and John R. Bolton, President (DC)

COMPLAINANT: Democratic National Committee, Joseph E. Sandler, General

Counsel (DC)

SUBJECT: Conducting allocable activity through NPF; failure to report activity conducted through NPF; failure to properly allocate federal and non-federal shares of activity conducted through NPF; financing federal share of activity conducted through NPF with prohibited corporate and excessive contributions; solicitation and receipt of foreign national funds

DISPOSITION: (a) Failure to find reason to believe*

[re: conducting allocable activity through NPF; failure to report activity conducted through NPF; failure to properly allocate federal and non-federal shares of activity conducted through NPF; financing federal share of activity conducted through NPF with prohibited corporate and excessive contributions]

Reason to believe, failure to find probable cause to believe*

[re: solicitation and receipt of foreign national funds]

(b) Reason to believe, failure to find probable cause to believe*

[re: solicitation and receipt of foreign national funds]

© Took no action*

3. MUR 4884/Pre-MUR 358

RESPONDENTS: (a) Future Tech International, Inc. (FL)

(b) Juan M. Ortiz, CFO, Future Tech International, Inc. (FL)

© Louis Leonardo, President, Future Tech International, Inc. (FL)

(d) Leonard Keller, Secretary and Director, Future Tech International, Inc. (FL)

(e) Gregorio P. Narvasa, Treasurer. Future Tech International, Inc. (FL)

(f) Howard Glicken (FL)

(g) Mark Vision Holdings, Inc. (Br. V.I. & FL)

(h) MarkVision Computers, Inc. (FL)

(i) Marvin Rosen (FL)

(j) Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. (FL)

(k) Charles "Bud" Stack (FL)

(l) High, Stack, Lazenby, Pallahach, Goldsmith & Del Amo (FL)

(m) Lidia Azambuja (FL)                                         (z) Manual Garcia (FL)

(n) Ernesto Bonfante (FL)                                         (aa) William Gearhart (FL)

(o) Marcelino Brotonel (FL)                                     (bb) Luz Gonzales (FL)

(p) Edgar Crespo (FL)                                                 (cc) Daria Haycox (FL)

(q) Marcel Crespo (FL)                                                 (dd) Marcia Juan (FL)

® Reynaldo Crespo (FL)                                             (ee) Michael Marchese (FL)

(s) Ricardo Crespo (FL)                                                 (ff) Robert Nowell (FL)

(t) Jacob Del Valle (FL)                                                 (gg) Maria C. Ortiz (FL)

(u) Raymund dos Remedios (FL)                                 (hh) Ruth Ramirez (FL)

(v) Rene dos Remedios (FL)                                         (ii) Juan Ruiz (FL)

(w) Richard Esparragoza (FL)                                         (jj) Rolan Sacramento (FL)

(x) Jorge O. Fenton (FL)                                                     (kk) Enrique Sanchez (FL)

(y) David Fried (FL)                                                         (ll) Jennifer C. Seijas (FL)

COMPLAINANT: Sua sponte

SUBJECT: Corporate contributions; foreign national contributions; contributions in the names of others

DISPOSITION: (a-e) Conciliation Agreement: $209,000*

[some findings knowing and willful]

(f) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: corporate contributions; contributions in the names of others]

(g-h) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: knowing and willful contributions in the names of others]

(h) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: knowing and willful corporate contributions]

(i-l) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: foreign national contributions]

(m-ll) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: contributions in the names of others]

 

*There are four administrative stages to the FEC enforcement process:

1. Receipt of proper complaint                                3. "Probable cause" stage

2. "Reason to believe" stage                                     4. Conciliation stage

It requires the votes of at least four of the six Commissioners to take any action. The FEC can close a case at any point after reviewing a complaint. If a violation is found and conciliation cannot be reached, then the FEC can institute a civil court action against a respondent.

# # #