HOME / PRESS OFFICE

FEC Home Page

For Immediate Release
January 24, 2005
Contact: Kelly Huff
Bob Biersack
Ian Stirton
George Smaragdis
COMPLIANCE CASES MADE PUBLIC
 

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has recently made public its final action on a three matters previously under review (MURs). This release contains only disposition information.

1. MUR 5094  
     
  RESPONDENTS:

(a)   McCollum Victory Committee, D. Jan McBride, treasurer

(b)   National Republican Senatorial Committee, Stan Huckaby, treasurer

(c)   Republican Party of Florida (Nonfederal account),

       Joel Pate, treasurer

(d)  Republican Party of Florida (Federal account),

       Joel Pate, treasurer

(e)   Bill McCollum

(f)    Bill McCollum for Senate, Richard L. Pilhorn, treasurer

(g)   John Thrasher
  COMPLAINANT:

Michael J. Broder

  SUBJECT: Failure to enter into a written joint fundraising agreement identifying the fundraising representative and stating a formula for the allocation of fundraising proceeds; failure to file accurate Statement of Organization; corporate contributions
  DISPOSITION:

(a-b)  Reason to believe, but took no further action*

          [re: failure to enter into a written joint fundraising agreement identifying the fundraising representative and stating a formula for the allocation of fundraising proceeds; failure to file accurate Statement of Organization]

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

          [re: failure to enter into a written joint fundraising agreement identifying the fundraising representative and stating a formula for the allocation of fundraising proceeds]

(d-g)  No reason to believe*

          [re: any violation of the Act in this matter]

            The complaint alleged that the Republican Party of Florida raised corporate contributions to benefit the Senate campaign of former U.S. Representative Bill McCollum. Based on the complaint and responses, the Commission found indications that corporate contributions may have been raised improperly through joint fundraising among McCollum’s Senate campaign committee, the NRSC, and the Republican Party of Florida (RPOF).  The available information did not, however show that the Victory Committee or its participants raised or received corporate contributions in conjunction with the Victory Committee’s fundraiser to benefit McCollum’s 2000 Senate campaign, or that they engaged in joint fundraising activities with the RPOF. The Commission found reason to believe that the McCollum Victory Committee, the NRSC and RPOF failed to enter into a written joint fundraising agreement which identified the fundraising representative and stating a formula for the allocation of the proceeds, but decided to take no further action in light of the fact the Commission could not find any evidence that the participants raised corporate contributions at the fundraiser the complaint was based upon.
  DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from these matters are available from the Commission's web site at http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs by entering 5094 under case number. They are also available in the FECs Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     
2. MUR 5411  
     
  RESPONDENTS:

(a)   State Senator Jackie Winters

(b)   Jackie Winters for Congress 2004 Inc.(Federal), Warren J. Thompson, treasurer

(c)    Friends of Jackie Winters (Non-Federal), Warren J. Thompson, treasurer
  COMPLAINANT:

Zupancic for Congress 2004, Inc.

  SUBJECT: Use of non-federal funds in connection with a federal election; disclaimer
  DISPOSITION:

(a-c)   No reason to believe*

          [re: use of non-federal funds in connection with a federal election; disclaimer with resect to the email]

(a-b)  Reason to believe, but took no further action*

          [re: disclaimer with respect to the letter]

          Sent admonishment letter.        

The complaint alleged that a publication the State committee paid for with non-federal funds was actually Federal election activity undertaken for the benefit of the Federal committee. The complainant also alleged in a supplement to the initial complaint that the Federal committee sent out a mailing and e-mail that did not contain the required disclaimers. The Commission found no reason to believe that the Respondents violated the prohibition against the use of non-federal funds by virtue of qualifying for the state candidate exemption. Furthermore, the Commission found no reason to believe the Respondents violated the law by failing to include a disclaimer on an e-mail referred to by the complainant. The Commission did find reason to believe the Respondents violated the law by failing to include a disclaimer on a letter sent by the committee.
  DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from these matters are available from the Commission's web site at http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs by entering 5411 under case number. They are also available in the FECs Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     
3. MUR 5414  
     
  RESPONDENTS:

Commission on Presidential Debates

  COMPLAINANT:

George Farah, Executive Direction, Open Debates

  SUBJECT: Corporate contributions
  DISPOSITION:

No reason to believe*

            The complaint alleged that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) should not be allowed to stage future candidate debates that are partially financed by corporate contributions. The Commission found no reason to believe that the CPD violated or continues to violate the law with regard to using corporate contributions to stage the debates.
  DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from these matters are available from the Commission's web site at http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs by entering 5414 under case number. They are also available in the FECs Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     

*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.

# # #