HOME / PRESS OFFICE

FEC Home Page

For Immediate Release
December 22, 2005
Contact: Kelly Huff
Bob Biersack
Ian Stirton
George Smaragdis
COMPLIANCE CASE MADE PUBLIC
 

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

DISMISSED - LOW RATED*

1.

MUR 5590

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Heather Wilson for Congress (NM/01), David A. Archuleta, treasurer

(b)    CSI Aviation Services, Inc.

COMPLAINANT:

Aaron R. Houston, Director, Americans for Medical Marijuana

SUBJECT:

Corporate contribution

The complainant alleged that the Heather Wilson for Congress Committee used a software program registered to CSI Aviation, Inc. without reporting the disbursements associated for registering the software. The complaint stated that the use of the software constituted an in-kind contribution from Charter Services to the Committee. The committee and Charter Services submitted evidence that the software in question was properly paid for and reported to the Commission. The Commission decided to dismiss the complaint.

 

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

 

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5590 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     

2.

MUR 5617

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Rusk County Democratic Party

(b)   Kerry- Edwards 2004 Inc.

COMPLAINANT:

Rusk County Republican Party, Dan Hanson, Chairman

SUBJECT:

Disclaimer

The complaint alleged that the Rusk County Democratic Party, and possibly its members, displayed Kerry-Edwards signs without affixing the appropriate disclaimers. The respondents deny any involvement in the placement of the signs at issue. The Commission decided to dismiss the complaint.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

 

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5617 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     

3.

MUR 5618

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Friends of Scott McInnis, Inc. (CO/03) C. Dennis King,     treasurer

(b)    Scott McInnis

COMPLAINANT:

Julie DeWoody, Executive Director, Colorado Democratic Party

SUBJECT:

Personal use of campaign funds

The complaint alleged that Friends of Scott McInnis, Inc. paid the salary, telephone, utility and vehicle costs for the candidate’s wife in 2004 notwithstanding the fact that Congressman McInnis announced in 2003 he was not seeking reelection. The Committee and Lori McInnis responded that Mrs. McInnis was employed by the Committee in 2004 in order to assist Congressman McInnis with his representational responsibilities and winding down activities. The Commission decided to dismiss the complaint.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

 

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5618 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     

4.

MUR 5619

RESPONDENTS:

(a) Tenafly Democratic Campaign 2004, Dan Kornfeld,            treasurer

(b)   Kerry-Edwards 2004 Inc.

(c)   Patrick J. Rouse

(d)   Shama Haider

COMPLAINANT:

Jeffrey K. Thompson

SUBJECT:

Disclaimer

The complainant alleged that New Jersey state candidates Patrick J. Rouse and Shama Haider, operating under the name Tenafly Democratic Campaign 2004, sponsored a direct mailer to residents in their borough that identified both John Kerry for President and a Congressional candidate without using an adequate disclaimer. The complaint also stated that a Kerry-Edward sign was placed adjacent to a billboard featuring the Tenafly candidates that also carried a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker. The Tenafly candidates responded that the mailing did contain a disclaimer that stated “Your Local Candidates.” They concluded that any disclaimer violation was de minimus. The Tenafly candidates observed that the Kerry-Edwards sign that was placed next to their billboard was merely a yard sign. Kerry-Edwards 2004 denied any involvement with the billboard or mailer. The Commission decided to dismiss the complaint. A Statement of Reasons was issued by vice Chairman Toner and Commissioner Mason.

 

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

 

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5619 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     

5.

MUR 5668

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Creech for Congress (NC/02), Oliver Wall, treasurer

(b)    Capital Outdoor, Inc.

COMPLAINANT:

Gerald F. Meek, Chairman, North Carolina Democratic Party

SUBJECT:

Corporate contribution

The complaint alleged that Capital Outdoor, Inc. continued to post billboards for Creech for Congress after the candidate was defeated in the general election. The complaint specifically stated that the continued placement of the billboards, without any evidence that the committee paid for the advertising, constituted an in-kind prohibited contribution. Capital Outdoor, Inc. responded that it followed the outdoor advertising industry’s customary practices with respect to the advertising campaign for Creech for Congress. Creech for Congress did not respond to the complaint. The Commission decided to dismiss the complaint.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

 

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5668 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

* The Enforcement Priority System (EPS) rates all incoming cases against objective criteria to determine whether they warrant use of the Commission’s limited resources.

Cases dismissed under EPS fall into two categories:  low-rated cases and stale cases.  Low rated cases are those that do not warrant use of the Commission’s resources to pursue because of their lower significance relative to other pending matters. Stale cases are those that initially received a higher rating but have remained unassigned for a significant period due to a lack of staff resources for effective investigation.  Effective enforcement relies upon the timely pursuit of complaints and referrals to ensure compliance with the law.  Investigations concerning activity more remote in time usually require a greater commitment of resources. This is primarily due to the fact that the evidence of such activity becomes more difficult to develop as it ages.  The utility of commencing an investigation declines as cases age, until they reach a point when activation of a case would not be an efficient use of the Commission’s resources.  When cases reach this point, they are recommended for dismissal

# # #