You are on page 1of 49

Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 1 of 49

EXHIBIT A
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 2 of 49
,,
'


'

FEDERAL ElECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2o-1b)
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
The Commissioners
Staff Director
Deputy Staff Director
General Counsel
Office of the Commission
April 17, 2002
SUBJECT: Statement Of Reasons for MUR 5141
Attached is a copy of the Statement Of Reasons for MUR 5141
signed by Chairman David M. Mason, Vice Chairman Karl J.
Sandstrom, Commissioner Danny L. McDonald, Commissioner Bradley A.
Smith, Commissioner Scott E. Thomas, and Commissioner Darryl R.
Wold.
This was received In the Commission Secretary's Office on
Tuesday. Aprli16, 2002 at 4:11 p.m.
cc: Vincent J. Convery, Jr ...
OGC Docket (5)
Information Division
Press Office
Public Disclosure
.Attachment
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 3 of 49


f\J
1\J
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the Matter of
The Honorable James P. Moran, Jr. )
Moran for Congress and H. Robert Morrison, as treasurer )
Terry L. Lierman ) MUR5141
Sebering-Piougb Corporation )
Sebering-Piougb Corporation Better Government Fund and )
E. Kevin Moore, as treasurer )
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Background
This matter was generated by a complaint filed on November 8, 2000 by Ke!Uleth Boehm,
Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, alleging that on June 25, 1999, Terry Lierman
made an excessive contribution to Moran for Congress in the form of a $25,000 loan, which the
committee allegedly failed to report. On July 17, 2001, the Commission rejected the Office of
-the General Counsel's recommendation that this matter be dismissed simply because of its lower
significance relative to other pending matters. Instead, by a vote of 6-0, the Commission
determined to find no reason to believe that the Honorable James P. Moran, Jr., Moran for
Congress and H. Robert Morrison, as treasurer (the "Committee"}, Terry L. Lierman, Schering-
Plough Corporation, and the Schering-Plough Corporation Better Government Fund and E.
Kevin Moore, as treasurer, violated any provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,
as amended ("the Act"), in this matter, and closed the file with respect to all respondents. This
Statement of Reasons explains the basis for the Commission's determination.'
Standard for Summary Dismissal
Any person who believes a violation of the Act has occurred may file a complaint with
the Commission. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1). The Act anticipates that the Commission may
.. - ~ . ~
1
This Statement docs not address allegatioas raised by the complainant to the extent that they raise issues that are
outside of the Conunission'sjurisdiction such as House ethics or financial disclosure matters. See 2 U.S.C.
437c(b); 437g(a)(l). Furthermore, is there were no indications that Mr. Uerman was reimbursed by his employer
or its PAC, Scbering-Plough Corporation and Schering-Plough Corporation Better Government Fund and E. Kevin
Moore, u treasurer, need not have been named as respondenl5. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)( I) (providing for notification of
complaints to any person alleged to have committed a violation of the Act or of Chapter 95 or Chapter 96 of Tide 26
of !be United States Code).
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 4 of 49

MUR5141
Statement of Reasons
Page 2
summarily dismiss a complaint. /d. The Commission has the power to investigate alleged
violations of the Act only where there is reason to believe that a violation has been, or is about to
be, committed. 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(2). This Commission finding requires an affirmative vote of
four of its members and is proper only if a complaint sets forth sufficient specific facts, which, if
proven true, would constitute a violation of the Act. See II C.F . .R. 111.4(d){3) (complaint
should recite "facts which describe a violation of a statute or regulation over which the
Commission has jurisdiction''). A complainant's unwarranted legal conclusions from asserted
facts, will not be accepted as true. See Commissioners Wold, McDonald, Mason; Sandstrom,
Thomas Statement of Reasons in MUR 4869 {American Postal Workers Union), Unless based
on a complainant's personal knowledge, a source of information reasonably giving rise to a belief
in the truth of the allegations must be identified. See 11 C.F.R. 111.4(d)(2); General Counsel's
Report dated April!!, 2000 at 17 in MUR 4545 (Clinton/Gore '96 Primary Committee/ Amtrak),
Commissioners Thomas, Elliott, Potter, McDonald, Aikens, and McGarry Statement of Reasons
dated Oct. 7, 1993 in MUR 3534 (Bibleway Church of Atlas Road).
Complaint and Responses
The complainant in this matter alleges that in June 1999 Terry Lierman made a "large,
unsecured personal loan" to Rep. James Moran, then a candidate for the U.S. House of
Representatives. The complainant further alleges the loan constituted an excessive contribution
to Rep. Moran's campaign under the Act. The complainant reasons that Rep. Moran was a
candidate at the time of the loan and candidates are prohibited from taking personal loans in
excess of the Act's limitations on contributions because such loans are treated as contributions
under the Act The complainant also alleges that the Committee should have reported the receipt
of this loan to the Commission.
The responses received by the Commission confirm the complainant's assertion that
"none of the essential facts supporting this complaint are in dispute," but take issue with the legal
conclusions drawn by the complainant. As to the factual background regarding the transaction,
the responses explain that Terry Lierman has known Rep. Moran for over twenty-five years. In
March 1999, Rep. "Moran filed his S t a t e m ~ n t of Candidacy as an incumbent for the U.S. House
for Virginia's Eighth Congressional District. On or about June 25, 1999, Mr. Lierman provided a
check to Rep. Moran as a loan to help pay legal expenses. The check immediately was endorsed
as payable to the order of Rep. Moran's counsel as payment for legal services in a domestic
relations matter. The loan was apparently the subject of a promissorY note carrying an 8% annual
interest rate and an option for a loan of-additional funds on the same terms. According to news
reports, in November 2000 the balance of the loan was repaid plus 12.8% interest.
2
Terry Lierman's response to the complaint argues that the loan was not a contribution
under the Act, citing section 431(8)(A)(i)'s definition of"contribution." This definition provides
'Moran's Loan Yields Filing, Richmond Times Dispatch, Nov. 2, 2000 at B4.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 5 of 49
'
'
MUR5141
Statement of Reasons
Page3
that a contribution includes loans "made for the purpose of influencing an election." Mr.
Liemian 's response asserts that this loan was made for no such purpose, as evidenced by the fact
that upon receipt, the check for the loan was endorsed to Rep. Moran's divorce counsel's law
firm as payment for legal services, the loan was made well before the election, the campaign was
not in need of funds, and the campaign was not funded by the candidate's personal funds. In
addition, citing II C.F.R. 113.1(g)(6), the response argues that payment by a third party for the
personal expenses of a candidate is not a contribution to that candidate if the payment would
have been made irrespective of the candidacy. The response asserts that the loan was made
irrespective of Rep. Moran's candidacy and there was no evidence cited by the complainant that
the loan was used to benefit the campaign. Because there was no connection between the loan
and the campaign, the response concludes that there was no violation of the Act or Commission
regulations.
Analysis
The Act and Commission regulations contain certain provisions specifying how
candidates and their authorized committees should treat loans received in connection with the
campaign. Section 432(e)(2) provides that
[a]ny candidate ... who receives a contribution, or any loan for use in
connection with the campaign of such candidate for election, or makes a
disbursement in connection with such campaign, shall be considered, for
the purposes of this Act, as having received the contribution or loan, or as
having made the disbursement, as the case may be, as an agent of the
authorized committee or committees of such candidate.
See also 11 C.F.R. 101.2 and 102.7(d). The Conunission's threshold determination under
section 432(e)(2), then, is whether this loan was for use in connection with the campaign. The
Commission finds that it was not.
The facts establish that although this loan was made directly to a candidate, it was not
made for use in connection with the candidate's campaign and is therefore not a contribution
under the Act. The basis for this determination is the context of the transaction's surrounding
factual circwnstances. Not only does the complainant fail to allege any facts that the loan was
for use in connection with th.e campaign,
3
but also the source of the personal loan, the candidate's
friend for more than 25 years, asserts. that it was made for no sucb.P.WPQ!l, Additionally, the
evidence before the Commission demonstrates that the loan was made well before the next
3
The complainant cites a newspaper article quoting Rep. Moran's response wheri by a reporter about
how the loan came about Jo Beclu::r, Moran Got Loan from Drvg Lobbyist, Wash. Post, Oct. 31,2000 at AI
("Moran aaid be couldn't recall if be bad 'directly called Terry. It may have been through ... my campaign
manager."' ). This involvement of a campaign staff member in this manner would not transform the candidate's
personal activity into campaign activity.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 6 of 49

'
'
MURS141
Statement of Reasons
Page4
election, the instrument was endorsed upon receipt directly to a law firm representing the
candidate in a personal matter, the Committee received no candidate funds in the 2000 election
cycle, and by any standards the Committee was well-funded at all times before and after the
transaction at issue. Thus, this loan was not made for use in connection with Rep. Moran's
campaign, and therefore was not in violation of the Act.
This determination is consistent with prior Commission treatment of third party payments
for a candidate's personal expenses. See Advisory Opinions 1982-64; 1978-40; 1976-70;
Response to Advisory Opinion Request 1976-84. The Commission has considered several
factors in supporting its conclusions when addressing the status of third party payments: whether
receipt of funds for living expenses would free-up other funds of the candidate for campaign
purposes; whether the candidate would have more time to spend on the campaign instead of
pursuing his or her usual employment, and whether the funds would not have been donated but
for the candidacy. There was no indication here that the loan freed-up other funds for campaign
purposes. As noted above, the Committee did not receive candidate funds in the 2000 election
cycle. In addition, the loan had no bearing on the time the candidate had available to campaign
and the analysis of whether the loan would have been made but for the candidacy parallels the
basis for the determination above that the loan was not for use in connection with the campaign.
Further, although Section 113.!(g)(6) of the Commission's regulations treats some third
party payments as contributions, it provides that payments made irrespective of the candidacy are
not to be so treated. The responses and information publicly available to the Commission
establish that Mr. Lierman would have made this loan irrespective of Rep. Moran's candidacy.
It follows that because the loan was not made for use in connection with Rep. Moran's
campaign, the Committee had no reporting obligation under the Act with respect to this loan.
While the Act requires that a candidate's authorized committee report loans governed by section
432(e)(2), 2 U.S.C. 434(b)(2) and (3)(E), these reporting requirements are triggered by a
candidate acting as an agent of his authorized committee and receiving a loan for use in
connection with his campaign. Because the Commission above concludes that this was not a
loan for use in connection with the campaign, the reporting obligations under sections 434(b)(2)
and (3)(E) do not apply and there is no reason to believe the Committee violated these sections of
the law with respect to the loan.
4
The complainant cites Advisory Opinion 1978-40 for the proposition that the Commission treats all loans to
to cover personal expenses during a campaign as contributions under the Act, but this is too broad a
reading. In that advisory opinion and in others holding that third party payments for a candidate's personal living
expenses were contributions, see Advisory Opinions 1982-64, 1976-70 and the Conunission's Response to Advisory
Opinion Request 1976-84, the loans or payments were either prompted by the candidacy or benefitted the candidacy.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 7 of 49
"'

fii
Iii


MtJR5141
Statement of Reasons
Page 5
Conclusion
Under the Act, Terry Lierman's $25,000 loan to Rep. Jim Moran does not constitute a
contribution and the Committee therefore had no reporting obligation under the relevant sections
of the Act or Commission regulations. Thus, the Commission voted to find no reason to believe
that the Honorable James P. Moran, Jr., Moran for Congress and H. Robert Monison, as
treasurer, Terry L. Lierman, Schering-Piough Corporation, and the Schering-Piough Corporation
Better Government Fund and E. Kevin Moore, as treasurer, violated any provision of the Act in
this matter, and closed the file as it pertains to all respondents.
March 11, 2002

David M. Mason
Chairman
/". ' 0
I -i l (\ ') J
. ' I
anny LcDonald
Commissioner
Scott E. Thomas
Commissioner
-'Kart J)?'andstrom
Vice Chairman

'A--S;? ; '-
Bradley A. Smith
Commissioner
Commissioner
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 8 of 49
EXHIBITB
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 9 of 49
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20463
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ADVISORY OPINION 1982-64
Ronald R. Hein
Ron Hein for Congress Committee
6031 SW 24th Terrace
Topeka, Kansas 66614
Dear Mr. Hein:
February I 0, 1983
This responds to your letter dated November 28, 1982,
1
requesting an advisory opinion for
yourself and for your principal campaign committee, Ron Hein for Congress (the "Committee"),
regarding application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the "Act"), to
the solicitation of funds to repay outstanding loans used for living expenses during your
campaign and used for consolidation of pre-campaign personal debt.
Your request sets forth the following facts:
You participated as a candidate in the 1978 Republican congressional primary election held on
August I, 1978. You lost that election. In order to pay for your living expenses during the
primary campaign period, and to consolidate pre-existing personal debts, you obtained in March
1978 a $4,607 bank loan secured by your own assets and later by a second mortgage on your
house. In May 1978, during your campaign, you obtained a $9,607 loan which incorporated the
March loan. Between May and November !978 the loan was increased to $13,220. Presently the
outstanding loan principal is $15,000. You state that all of your payments on the loan have been
for interest, and none have been applied to principal. Most of the increases in the amount of the
loan after November 1978 (from $13,220 to $15,000) have been to cover accrued interest that
you were unable to pay.
The proceeds of this loan, you state, were used for your living expenses during the campaign
except for an unspecified portion of the initial loan ($4,607) that was to consolidate personal
debts incurred before your campaign began. You explain that the loan was treated by you and the
1
Your signed letter requesting an advisory opinion was received at the Commission on
December 22, 1982.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 10 of 49
Committee as personal funds in that the loan proceeds were never commingled between your
personal account and the accounts of the Committee, and you intended to repay the loan with
personal funds. Finally, you note that your only personal contributions to the Committee were
$25 in cash and in kind contributions of office equipment.
You now propose to accept donations from family or friends for the purpose of liquidating the
loan. You ask specifically whether you need to report the loan proceeds or any expenditures
made therefrom. Assuming the debt may be treated as personal, you also ask whether
contributions to retire it may be solicited from family or friends.
Your questions raise the following two issues:
I) Would the limits and prohibitions of the Act apply to funds that you or the
Committee solicit and receive to repay a bank loan that was used for your personal
living expenses during your 1978 campaign for Federal office?
2) To what extent, if at all, would previous reports filed by the Committee have to be
amended?
The Commission concludes that to the extent the outstanding loan balance ($15,000) represents
debt incurred with respect to your candidate status, and unpaid interest on such debt, it may be
assigned to the Committee. It may then be retired with contributions that are solicited, received,
and reported in accordance with the limits, prohibitions, and disclosure requirements of the Act
and Commission regulations. The outstanding loan balance as assigned should be disclosed on
the next report required to be filed by the Committee. The name of the bank from which you
obtained the loan should be listed along with other specified information concerning the
transaction(s). II CFR 104.3(a)(4)(iv), 104.3(d).
The foregoing conclusion with respect to application of the Act's limits and prohibitions is based
upon the Commission's determination that your current proposal to raise funds from others to
retire the loan effects a change in the nature of the loan from "personal funds" to campaign
funds
2
If you were to pursue your original plan to repay the loan with "personal funds," then the
fact that you obtained the loan to defray personal expenses during your campaign would not have
any consequences under the Act. Commission regulations provide that living expenses paid by a
candidate from "personal funds" are not expenditures for purposes of the Act. II CFR
!00.8(b)(22), ~ I I CFR 100.7(b)(8). With respect to those funds which a candidate receives in
connection with candidacy, and during the course of the campaign, the term "personal funds" is
limited to salary and other earned income from bona fide employment, investment income,
certain trust income and, of particular relevance here, "gifts of a personal nature which had been
customarily received prior to candidacy ... ". II CFR IIO.IO(b)(2). You have not presented any
facts that would establish a basis for concluding that the donations you now wish to solicit from
'That portion of the $15,000 loan balance (including interest thereon) that represents your
consolidation in March 1978 of personal debts (not related to your candidacy) need not be
assigned to the Committee and may retain its character as personal funds not subject to the Act.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 11 of 49
family and friends would be gifts of a personal nature customarily received before candidacy, or
that they would otherwise be "personal funds" under the cited regulations.
There are additional reasons why the Commission is unable to agree with your contention that
the funds you propose to solicit at this time should be treated as personal funds. In several
previous opinions the Commission has considered whether funds donated or paid to a candidate
during a campaign that are designated specifically for the candidate's personal (and family)
living expenses would be subject to the limits and prohibitions of the Act and Commission
regulations. The Commission concluded that such funds would be so limited. Advisory Opinions
1978-40, 1976-70, and the Commission's response to Advisory Opinion Request 1976-84, copies
enclosed. In these opinions the Commission articulated several factors in support of its
conclusion that the funds were contributions under the Act: receipt of funds for living expenses
would free-up other funds of the candidate for campaign purposes, the candidate would have
more time to spend on the campaign instead of pursuing his or her usual employment, and the
funds would not have been donated but for the candidacy. Two of those factors appear to have
been present in your case at the time you obtained the loan. You left your employment to have
more time to campaign and you obtained the Joan(s) because of your campaign activity. Your
usual compensation was substantially reduced when you left your Jaw firm to devote more time
to your campaign; hence you took the Joan to make up for that lost income.
The fact that you obtained a loan to defray living expenses during your campaign, rather than
gifts, as was the situation in the opinions cited above, is immaterial. It is also immaterial that you
propose to solicit funds to repay the Joan long after the conclusion of your 1978 campaign. Funds
raised to retire a campaign related debt resulting from a bank loan are just as much contributions
as are funds raised to pay campaign expenses during the course of the campaign.
3
In addition,
contributions designated to retire debts from past elections are subject to the applicable limits
from that election. 11 CFR 110.1 (g).
With respect to the question of whether previous reports filed by the Committee require
amendments in view of the Committee's assumption of the outstanding Joan obligation, the
Commission concludes that amendments are only required to the extent that contributions to
retire this debt may have been received during a past reporting period. For example, if such
contributions were received in the first six months of 1982, the mid year report due on July 31,
1982, would have to be amended to reflect those contributions, as well as the inclusion of the
outstanding loan in question.
The Committee's assumption of the outstanding loan does not involve retroactively changing the
manner in which a previous transaction of a political committee was reported. Nor does it give
you status as a creditor of the Committee. In addition, the loan assumption would occur while the
Committee has continuing reporting obligations with respect to the 1978 primary election, rather
than after the termination of the 1978 campaign committee. These facts distinguish this opinion
' In this connection the Commission has repeatedly held that the Act permits campaign
contributions to be spent for the living expenses of a candidate during the course of a campaign.
See Advisory Opinion 1980-49 and opinions cited therein.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 12 of 49
from the situation presented in Advisory Opinion 1977-58. Also, see Advisory Opinion 1977-43
and compare Advisory Opinion 1979-5, copies enclosed.
Accordingly, given your statement that your original intent was to repay the subject loan with
your personal funds and that only recently have you decided to solicit funds from others, the
Commission concludes that the assignment of the loan to the Committee would not involve an
impermissible retroactive change in the characterization of a campaign related financial
transaction. However, as discussed above, the assignment of this loan results in the creation of a
new Committee obligation that must be reported and liquidated in accordance with the Act and
Commission regulations.
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning application of the Act, or regulations
prescribed by the Commission, to the specific transaction or activity set forth by your request.
See 2 U.S. C. 437f.
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Danny L. McDonald
Chairman for the Federal Election Commission
Enclosures (AOs 1980-49, 1979-5, 1978-40, 1977-43, Re: AOR 1976-84 and 1976-70)
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 13 of 49
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20463
AO 1978-40
Mr. Thomas E. Jagger, Treasurer
Ray Kogovsek for Congress
127 First National Bank Building
Pueblo, Colorado 81003
Dear Mr. Jagger:
September I, 1978
This responds to your letter of June 21, 1978, requesting an advisory opinion concerning
application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act") and
applicable regulations regarding loans received by a candidate for personal and family living
expenses during the period when he was evaluating his candidacy.
Your letter states that on June I, 1977, Ray Kogovsek's position as a paralegal was
abolished and that he needed funds for his personal and family living expenses while evaluating
his candidacy. During the month of June 1977, before his decision to seek nomination or election
to the United States House of Representatives, Mr. Kogovsek borrowed a total of$3,900 from
ten individuals. A note was executed for each loan. The proceeds were placed in a separate
checking account. All withdrawals from the account were made for personal and family living
expenses. Mr. Kogovsek announced his candidacy and filed FEC Form 2, statement of
candidacy, after he borrowed the money.
Specifically, you ask if these loans are contributions under the Act. If so, you ask how
the loans and expenditures from the loan proceeds for personal living expenses are to be
reported, and by whom? Finally you ask what "procedures" and "specific forms" the candidate
must file to be in compliance with the Act.
The Commission concludes that these loans are contributions for purposes of the Act.
Therefore the loans must be disclosed in reports filed by the Ray Kogovsek For Congress
Committee, and the amount contributed (loaned) by any individual with respect to any election
must not exceed $1,000.
1
2 U.S.C. 434(b), 44la(a)(l).
Candidate status may arise before candidacy is publicly declared or before an FEC Form
2 is filed. 2 U.S.C. 431 (b) defines "candidate", in part, as an individual who seeks nomination for
1
A loan from an individual is a contribution as long as it is outstanding and unpaid by the candidate or committee to
whom the loan was made. 11 CFR 100.4(a)(l)(i). As it is repaid, the individual lender is no longer charged with a
contribution for limit purposes under 2 U.S.C. 44la.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 14 of 49
election, or election, to Federal office ... and ... an individual shall be deemed to seek
nomination for election, or election, if he has-
(I) taken the action necessary under the law of a State to qualify himself for
nomination for election, or election to Federal office; or
(2) received contributions or made expenditures ... with a view of bringing about
his nomination for election, or election to such office.
A "contribution" is defined in part, as a "gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of
money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing the nomination, for election, or
election, of any person to Federal office." 2 U.S.C. 431(e)(l). A limited exception to that
definition is recognized in Commission regulation !00.4(b)(l) where it is stated that the term
contribution does not include payments made for the purpose of determining whether an
individual should become a candidate, if the individual does not otherwise become a candidate.
If, however, the individual subsequently becomes a candidate, the payments are contributions
and must be reported with the first appropriate report filed regardless of the date the payments
were made. II CFR 100.7(b)(2) is a similar exception for expenditures.
In this instance you state that, during June 1977, Mr. Kogovsek was evaluating his
candidacy. Reports filed by the Ray Kogovsek for Congress Committee, show contributions
received in Apri11977 and both contributions and expenditures in June 1977. Although these
may have been payments made for the purpose of determining whether he should become a
candidate; the fact that he did become a candidate has the effect of making these payments
contributions and expenditures for purposes of the Act as of the date the transactions occurred.
As already stated, a contribution in defined, in part, as a "gift ... loan ... or anything of
value made for the purpose of influencing the nomination, for election, or election, of any person
to Federal office." The Commission has previously held that funds provided to a candidate to be
used solely for personal living expenses and subsistence of the candidate and his family are
contributions for purposes of the Act if the funds are not "personal funds" under Commission
regulations, II 0.1 O(b)
2
This section states that, except for Presidential candidates receiving public financing,
candidates may make unlimited expenditures from personal funds. The following definition is
given:
(b) for purposes of this section, "personal funds" means-
(I) Any assets to which at the time he or she became a candidate the
candidate had legal and rightful title, or with respect to which the candidate had
the right of beneficial enjoyment under applicable State law, and which the
candidate had legal right of access to or control over, including funds from
immediate family members; and
2
See the Commission's response to Advisory Opinion Request 1 9 7 6 ~ 8 4 and Advisory Opinion 1976-70, copies
enclosed.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 15 of 49
(2) Salary and other earned income from bona fide employment; dividends
and proceeds from the sale of the candidate's stocks or other investments;
bequests to the candidate; income from trusts established before candidacy;
income from trusts established by bequest after candidacy of which the candidate
is the beneficiary; gifts of a personal nature which had been customarily received
prior to candidacy; proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of chance.
The thrust of II 0.10 is that a candidate is expending campaign contributions rather than
personal funds, unless the funds involved are assets to which he or she had legal and rightful title
or the right of beneficial enjoyment at the time he or she became a candidate, or unless the funds
were personal assets under 110.1 O(b)(2). The same rationale would apply to the proceeds of
loans received by a candidate, although used only for personal living expenses, since using this
test those loans are not personal funds, but are contributions under the Act. Accordingly, the
loans must be reported giving the information specified in 2 U.S.C. 434(b)(5). See also
I 04.2(b)(5) of Commission regulations and supplemental reporting instructions for loans to
candidates (copy enclosed).
Since the $3,900 in loans constitute contributions rather than personal funds, the
expenditures for personal living expenses from the $3,900 must be reported in accord with 2
U.S.C. 434(b)(9) and 104.2 of the Commission regulations.
3
Mr. Kogovsek may be identified as
the person to whom the expenditure was made and the purpose of the expenditure may be
described as personal and family living expenses during a stated time period. 1 04.2(b )(9).
Your final question concerns the procedures to be followed to comply with the Act in
connection with the described loans. Since the loans fall within I 00.4(b )(1) of the regulations,
which requires that contributions be reported with the first report filed by the candidate or
principal campaign committee, the committee should file an amendment to its first report within
the next 15 days listing both the loans, and payments made from the loan proceeds, in the
manner discussed above.
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of a general rule
of law stated in the Act, or prescribed as a Commission regulation, to the specific factual
situation set forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C. 437f.
Enclosures
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Joan D. Aikens
Chairman for the
Federal Election Commission
3
As contributions, the loan proceeds constitute campaign funds not personal funds. Therefore, the reporting
exemption in 100.7(b)(10) of Commission regulations for payments of routine living expenses from
funds" would not apply in the circumstances you have presented.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 16 of 49
AO 1976-70
Jan Baran, Esquire
Legal Counsel
National Republican
Congressional Committee
512 House Office Building Annex
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Baran:
September 2, 1976
This responds to your recent letter of August 6, 1976, requesting an advisory
opinion on two questions involving the permissibility of corporate compensation to an
employee/candidate.
First, you ask whether a professional corporation may lawfully continue to
provide its employee with personal benefits such as insurance if the individual is a
candidate under 2 U.S.C. 431 and on leave from the firm.
Secondly, you ask whether the corporation may pay its employee/candidate a
salary in the form of a paid leave of absence provided that such payments are used by the
employee for purely personal expenses and to financially support himself and his family.
Since both these questions deal with the situation of a corporation giving
something of value to a candidate, the applicable provisions of law are 2 U.S.C. 431,
441b. Under the law, a corporation is prohibited from making a contribution to a
candidate. A "contribution" means generally a "gift ... advance ... or anything of value
made for the purpose of influencing" the nomination or election of any person to Federal
office.
1
2 U.S.C. SS 431 (d). Moreover, contribution also includes "any direct or indirect
payment, distribution ... [or] advance ... of money ... to any candidate ... in
connection with ... "and election to Federal office. See 2 U.S.C. 441 b(b)(2).
The purpose of influencing, or the "connection" with, an election is apparent
where, as in this case, the payments in the form of a paid leave of absence begin after the
person has been a candidate and after he has been without a salary, except for some part-
time work. As your request states, the corporation in question "has no policy with respect
to paid leaves of absence" and now wishes to start with respect to this candidate. It
appears that the payor proposes to grant a paid leave of absence so the candidate may
1
Compare 2 U.S.C. 431 (e)(4) which deals with the payment of compensation by one person for personal
services of another that are rendered to a Federal candidate and characterizes such payments as
contributions. This situation, although analogous, is different since the firm has a prior association with the
candidate not to some third person who would campaign for the candidate.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 17 of 49
AO 1976-70
Page 2
have more time to campaign. Furthermore, the effect of receiving compensation from the
firm will likely be that other funds of the candidate become available for campaign
purposes.
If the candidate were receiving compensation in the form of earned or accrued
leave, the Commission would not regard that as a contribution since, by analogy, no
compensation is considered paid to an employee "where the time ... is bona fide,
although compensable, vacation time or other earned leave time." See I 00.4(a)(5)(iii)
of the proposed regulations.
The Commission is of the opinion that in this case, the proposed paid leave of
absence is a contribution and thus prohibited since it is from a corporation. See 2 U.S.C.
441 b. As for the other incidental benefits such as life and hospitalization insurance,
absent a bona fide policy for employees on leave without pay, the Commission is of the
opinion that the amount of the premiums paid for the insurance after the employee
becomes a candidate and after he terminates his services for the corporation, will be
considered a contribution. Compare 114.12(c) of the proposed regulations.
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of a
general rule of law stated in the Act to the specific factual situation set forth in your
request. 2 U.S.C. 437f.
Enclosures
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Vernon W. Thomson
Chairman for the
Federal Election Commission
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 18 of 49
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20463
Re: AOR I 976-84
Mr. William E. Schluter
205 South Main Street
Pennington, New Jersey 08534
Dear Mr. Schluter:
October 4, 1976
This letter is in response to yours of September 8 and September I 0, 1976, in
which you request an advisory opinion concerning payments by a family member for a
Federal candidate's living expenses. Specifically, you ask whether as a Federal candidate
you may receive funds for "subsistence" from family members to the extent that your
own income has been reduced because of time spent campaigning. You further inquire
whether such payments, if allowable, must be fully disclosed in your candidate reports.
The Commission concludes that such subsistence payments would constitute a
"contribution" for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended
("the Act"). Therefore, the payments would be disclosed in your reports and the amount
contributed by any individual with respect to any election must not exceed $1,000.
2 U.S.C. 434b, 44 Ia(a)(l}.'
A "contribution" is defined, in part, as a "gift, subscription, loan, advance, or
deposit of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing the
nomination. for election. or election. of any person to Federal office." [Emphasis added.]
2 U.S.C. 43l(e)(l). The Commission believes that such a purpose would be evident in
the situation you describe. The family member's subsistence payments would be
prompted by your candidacy. The direct result of such payments would be that you could
devote more time to work for your election. Furthermore, the receipt of the funds might
allow you to use more of your personal assets for campaign expenditures. See
' Under the Commission's proposed regulation, I 0 1.3, a candidate may be relieved of
the duty to file personal reports of receipts and expenditures related to the campaign if he
or she agrees to certain conditions and if the principal campaign committee includes all
items on its reports and does so in a timely fashion. See the Commission's response to
AOR 1976-76, copy enclosed.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 19 of 49
AO 1976-84
Page 2
AO 1976-70, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, even if the funds from the family
member would be used solely for routine Jiving expenses, the inescapable conclusion is
that the subsistence payments would be made for the purpose of influencing your election
to Federal office within the meaning of the Act.
As you point out, the Commission's proposed regulations provide that an
"expenditure" under the Act does not include "[a]ny payments by the candidate from non-
campaign funds for routine living expenses of the candidate which would have been
incurred without candidacy, including food and residence." I 00. 7(b)(J 0). However,
this regulation does not address the question of the source of the noncampaign
funds. Perhaps a more relevant section of the proposed regulations is II 0.1 0. This
section states that, except for Presidential candidates receiving public financing,
candidates may make unlimited expenditures from personal funds. The following
definition is given:
(b) For purposes of this section, "personal funds" means--
(I) Any assets to which atthe time he or she became a
candidate the candidate had legal and rightful title, or with respect
to which the candidate had the right of beneficial enjoyment, under
applicable State Jaw, and which the candidate had legal right of
access to or control over, including funds from immediate family
members; and
(2) Salary and other earned income from bona fide
employment; dividends and proceeds from the sale of the
candidate's stocks or other investments; bequests to the candidate;
income from trusts established before candidacy; income from trusts
established by bequest after candidacy of which the candidate is the
beneficiary; gifts of a personal nature which had been customarily
received prior to candidacy; proceeds from lotteries and similar legal
games of chance. [Emphasis added.]
The clear import of II 0. I 0 is that a candidate may not make unrestricted
expenditures (which, of course, would not include payments for routine living expenses)
from gifts other than those customarily received prior to his candidacy. Even though the
payments you propose would be used only for living expenses, the rationale of II 0.10
would apply. There would be no basis for allowing a candidate to receive unlimited
donations, specifically prompted by this candidacy, to pay for his living expenses when
the candidate would be precluded from using the same donated funds for his campaign
expenses.
This response relates to your opinion request but may be regarded as
informational only and not as an advisory opinion since it is based in part on proposed
regulations of the Commission which must be submitted to Congress. The proposed
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 20 of 49
AO 1976-84
Page 3
regulations mentioned above were submitted to Congress on August 3, 1976. They may
be prescribed in final form by the Commission only if not disapproved either by the
House or the Senate within 30 legislative days from the date received by them. 2 U.S.C.
438(c).
Enclosures
Sincerely yours,
(signed)
Vernon W. Thomson
Chairman for the
Federal Election Commission
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 21 of 49
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 22 of 49
Tax Report: Tax Lessons From- WSJ.com http: 'online.wsj.com/article/SB I 000 1424052702304 7935045764320 ...
l of2
Dow Jones Repnnts This copy is for your per.;onal, noncommerclal usa only To. o;der presentation-ready oop1eS for distribution to your clients or
customers. use the Order Repnnts tool altha bottom of any ar11cle or 111$ol www djrapnnts com
See a sample repnnl in PDF format Order a repnnt ot th1s an,cte now
TilE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

TAX REPORT JULY 9, 2011
Surprising Tax Lessons From John Edwards's
Indictment
By lAURA SAUNDERS
Could two obscure taxes paid by a wealthy heiress save a former politician from prison? Quite possibly, say tax-
and election-law experts. The curious tale offers a lesson for ordinary taxpayers as well.
In June, former senator and presidential candidate John Edwards was indicted by a North Carolina grand jury
on charges of violating campaign-finance laws. The six-count indictment involves more than $925,000 in secret
payments allegedly made by two donors to conceal his mistress, Rielle Hunter, during his 2007-08 presidential
campaign.
Mr. Edwards pleaded not guilty. Mr. Edwards's attorney and a Department of Justice spokesman say they aren't
permitted to comment on the case. An attorney for Ms. Hunter declined to comment.
US Marshals Service/Associated Press
A mug shot of former Sen. John Edwards taken June
15.
Although the indictment doesn't name the donors, it says
"Person C" gave about $725,000 and "Person D" gave more
than $200,000 to hide the pregnant Ms. Hunter. Lawyers
involved in the case identify Person D as Mr. Edwards's
campaign-finance chairman, Fred Baron, and Person Cas
Rachel "Bunny" Mellon. Mr. Baron died in 2008. Ms. Mellon,
100 years old, is the daughter of a founder of Warner-Lambert
pharmaceuticals, as well as the widow of philanthropist Paul
Mellon.
Through her lawyer, Alexander Forger of Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy, Ms. Mellon declined comment. Mr. Forger
said in an interview that Ms. Mellon intended her contribution
to be a personal gift, not a campaign donation: "She intended it
for his personal use and had no understanding of where the money would go."
The indictment could support this claim. It quotes Ms. Mellon saying in 2007 that she was "furious that the
press attacked Sen. Edwards on the price of a haircut."
"From now on," she added, "all haircuts, etc., that are necessary to the campaign-please send the bills to me ....
It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions."
This is where taxes come in. Mr. Forger says Ms. Mellon paid both gift and generation-skipping taxes on the
amounts she gave Mr. Edwards-underscoring that they were personal gifts and not campaign contributions. In
9\320\1 3:22PM
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 23 of 49
Tax Report: Tax Lessons From- WSJ.com http: on line. ws j .com/artie le/SB I 000 1424052702304 7935 045 764 320 ...
2 of2
1932, Congress imposed taxes on gifts to prevent end runs around the estate tax, and later it added the
generation-skipping tax to forestall end runs in the form of bequests to much-younger heirs. Ms. Mellon's
alleged gifts to Mr. Edwards triggered generation-skipping tax because he was more than 37
1
12 years younger
than she.
Mr. Forger didn't say how much Ms. Mellon paid in taxes on the gifts. The rate for gift and generation-skipping
taxes at the time was 45%-and you must pay a separate gift tax on generation-skipping tax. Thus, the effective
tax rate on such gifts can be greater than 100%.
Attorney Howard Zaritsky of Rapidan, Va., estimates the heiress paid $799,000 in tax to make her $725,000
gift. "It's pretty clear the tax exceeded the gift," he says.
If Ms. Mellon paid the gift taxes, does that mean the donations weren't campaign contributions, and Mr.
Edwards didn't violate campaign-finance laws'? The law is cloudy, and the case is unprecedented. But as written
the law takes seriously the "specific intent" of donors, says election-law expert Richard Pildes of New York
University.
Thus Mrs. Mellon's gift tax could help Mr. Edwards's case. On a blog, Mr. Pildes said: "The money spent here
was almost certainly not a 'contribution' within the meaning of the election laws" for a criminal case.
Whatever the outcome, Mr. Zaritsky sees a lesson for ordinary folks: Keep good records.
"Most people never think about the gift and generation-skipping taxes, but in this case, scrupulous attention to
the law could make a big difference," says Paul Caron of the University of Cincinnati Law School.
According to the indictment, the gifts to Mr. Edwards from Person C-Ms. Mellon-took a roundabout route to
their goal. It says she made her checks payable to a friend, who forwarded the money to Person A-a campaign
employee-whose 'Wife endorsed the checks in her own maiden name. The indictment says some of the checks
contained misleading notations such as "chairs," or "antique Charleston table," or ''book case." The reason for
this chain of untruths wasn't to deceive the government, according to Mr. Forger, but rather Mr. Edwards's wife.
All seems to have been kept strictly in order with taxes, however. The tax payments could be useful to Ms.
Mellon should the Internal Revenue Service or prosecutors inquire further. She hasn't been accused of
wrongdoing thus far. "She or her advisers kept in mind an important principle," Mr. Zaritsky says. "It's one thing
to mislead ordinary people, but never lie to the government."
Write to Laura Saunders at taxreport@wsj.com
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscnber Agreement and by
copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-643-0008 or visit
www djrepnnts com
9/13/20 II 1:22 PM
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 24 of 49
EXHIBITD
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 25 of 49
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20463
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
ADVISORY OPINION 2000-08
Philip D. Harvey
DKT International
1120 19'" Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Mr. Harvey:
June 14, 2000
This refers to your letters dated March 31, 2000 (received at the Commission on
April 25) and February 18, requesting advice on the application of the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act"), and Commission regulations to your
proposal to make monetary gifts to one or more candidates.
FACTS
You state that you are interested in making a gift to an individual who is also a
candidate for Federal office. This individual is neither a personal friend nor a relative,
and you have never before given this individual a gift. You assert that, under the tax
code, you may make a non-taxable gift of $10,000 to anyone. You further state that your
purpose for making the gift is your desire, as a citizen of the United States, to show your
gratitude that the individual, to whom you would like to make a personal gift, is seeking
Federal office, and is willing to engage in a difficult and time-consuming campaign. Y au
explain that you do not always agree with this Federal candidate's positions, and do not
wish to directly support his campaign. You further assert that you will not make the gift
to influence a Federal election.' Instead, you wish to make the gift "to express my deep
appreciation to this individual for foregoing opportunities in the private sector in order to
serve his country."
1
It also appears that your proposed gift would not be received or deposited or reported by the candidate's
campaign committee.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 26 of 49
AO 2000-08
Page 2
You state you are willing to put such restrictions on the gift as may be necessary
to preclude the donee from using any of the proceeds to defray campaign expenses. You
also state your intention that the gift be used solely for the candidate's personal expenses.
You explain that you would be willing to make the gift anonymously, so as to preclude
even the appearance that you are trying to curry favor with a candidate for Federal office.
You further indicate that you have made contact with two candidates for Federal office
who would be willing to accept your anonymous gifts, not to be used for campaign
purposes, if the Commission advises you "that the gifts will not violate the campaign
finance laws." You also state that the candidates contacted are not now officials or
employees of either State or Federal government.
You ask whether your proposed gifts would be subject to the political contribution
limits found in the Act and Commission regulations.
ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS
The Act and Commission regulations define the tern1 "contribution" to include a
gift or "deposit of money" by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for
Federal office. 2 U.S.C. 431(8)(A)(i), 11 CFR !00.7(a)(l). No person shall make
contributions to any candidate and that candidate's authorized committees with respect to
any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $1,000. 2 U.S.C.
441a(a)(l)(A), 11 CFR \IO.l(b).
With limited exceptions, candidates for Federal office may make unlimited
campaign expenditures from personal funds. II CFR IIO.IO(a)
2
For purposes of section
110.10, the definition of "personal funds" includes salary and other earned income from
bona fide employment; dividends and proceeds from the sale of the candidate's stocks or
other investments; bequests to the candidate; income from trusts established before
candidacy; income from trusts established by bequest after candidacy of which the
candidate is the beneficiary; gifts of a personal nature which had been customarily
received prior to candidacy; proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of chance.
II CFR IIO.IO(b)(2).
The Act and Commission regulations also prohibit the conversion of campaign
funds to any personal use. 2 U.S. C. 439a, II CFR 113.2(d). Notwithstanding that the
use of funds for a particular expense would be a personal use, payment of that expense by
any person other than the candidate or the campaign committee shall be a contribution to
the candidate, unless the payment would have been made irrespective of the candidacy.
11 CFR 113.1 (g)(6). Examples of payments considered to be irrespective of the
candidacy include, but are not limited to, situations where:
2
Presidential candidates who accept Federal funds for their general election campaigns or their primary
campaigns are limited in the amount of personal funds they may use for campaign expenditures. 26 U.S.C.
9004(d) and 9035(a); II CFR 9003.2(c) and 9035.2.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 27 of 49
AO 2000-0B
Page 3
(i) The payment is a donation to a legal expense trust fund established in
accordance with the rules of the United States Senate or the United States House of
Representatives;
(ii) The payment is made from funds that are the candidate's personal funds as
defined in II CFR 110.1 O(b), including an account jointly held by the candidate and a
member of the candidate's family;
(iii) Payments for that expense were made by the person making the payment
before the candidate became a candidate.
APPLICATION TO PROPOSAL
The Commission notes your statement that you do not intend that your "gift" to a
Federal candidate would influence a Federal election. However, while you assert that you
are not making the gift to support the candidacy of the recipient, you concede that it
would be donated in recognition and support of that person's desire to run for office.
Your statement makes clear that the proposed gift would not be made but for the
recipient's status as a Federal candidate; it is, therefore, linked to the Federal election.
Accordingly, this gift would be considered a contribution under the Act and Commission
regulations.
From the perspective of the recipient candidate, this gift would be treated as a
contribution even with the conditions you offer: a gift given anonymously and with the
condition that the funds be only used for "personal expenses."' As the cited Commission
regulations provide, campaign funds cannot be converted to personal use. II CPR
113.2(d). Under 11 CFR 113.l(g)(6), payment by a third person of a candidate's personal
expenses during the campaign would be considered a contribution by the third person
(you, in this case) to that candidate, unless the payment would be made irrespective of the
candidacy.' Again, your gift is tied to the individual's decision to seek Federal office.
Your motivation for making the gift, to reward the candidate for his decision to run,
would not come within any of the examples described at II CFR 113.1 (g)(6) which
allows some (non-contribution) payments to a Federal candidate.
5
In particular, these
gifts could not be viewed as constituting personal funds of a candidate under 11 CPR
l!O.lO(b), since they would not be "gifts of a personal nature which had been
3
For the reasons discussed elsewhere in this opinion, your willingness to make an anonymous gift makes
no difference on the question of whether it would be made for the purpose of influencing a Federal election
or would instead represent only an augmentation of the candidate's personal funds.
4
Even prior to the current regulations at II CFR 113.1 (g), the Commission had consistently viewed gifts or
loans made to a candidate to pay his personal expenses, where such funds were given because the candidate
was running for office, as contributions to his campaign. See Advisory Opinions 1982-64 and 1978.40, and
the Commission's response to Advisory Opinion Request 1976-84.
' For a recent application of II CFR 113.1 (g)(6), see Advisory Opinion 2000-0 I. In that opinion, the
Commission concluded that a law firm's payment of half salary to an attorney employed with the firm who
was a Federal candidate, where the attorney was not performing work for the firm, would be a contribution
to the candidate's campaign.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 28 of 49
AD 2000-08
Page 4
customarily received prior to candidacy." 11 CFR l10.10(b)(2); compare Advisory
Opinion 1988-07 [candidate allowed to accept $20,000 personal gift from parents who
had made similar annual gifts to him in three year period before his candidacy].
Therefore, since these proposed gifts would be considered campaign contributions
under the Act and Commission regulations, the contribution limits would apply to them.
2 U.S.C. 44la(a)(1 )(A), II CFR 110.1(b). As an individual, you are not permitted to
make contributions to a Federal candidate, including the candidate's authorized political
committees, with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate,
exceed $1,000 per election. ld.'
This response constitutes an advisory opinion concerning the application of the
Act, or regulations prescribed by the Commission, to the specific transaction or activity
set forth in your request. See 2 U.S.C. 437f.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Darryl R. Wold
Chairman
Enclosures (AOs 2000-01, 1988-07, 1982-64, 1978-40, andRe: AOR 1976-84)
6
The Commission notes that, as an individual, you are not pennitted to make total contributions to Federal
candidates and political committees "aggregating more than $25,000 in any calendar year." 2 U.S.C.
44ln(a)(3) and II CFR 110.5.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 29 of 49
EXHIBITE
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 30 of 49
Pre-MUR 395 (College Republican National Committee)
Statement of Reasons of
Chairman David M. Mason, Commissioner Darryl R. Wold,
and Commissioner Bradley A. Smith
Normally we would not consider it necessary to write a statement explaining our
decision to approve the recommendation of the Office of General Counsel, routinely
closing a case pursuant to the Commission's Enforcement Priority System ("EPS").
However, in light of Commissioner Thomas's Statement of Reasons of November 9 in
this matter, we believe it is worthwhile to put forth for the public record our reasons for
approving the General Counsel's recommendation in our own words, rather than through
the filter of Commissioner Thomas. Further, we note that this matter arose as an agency
referral rather than through an outside complaint, so that the designated respondent,
College Republican National Committee ("CRNC"), has had no chance to respond to the
alleged violations, and but for Commissioner Thomas's statement, there would be no
public release of this matter.
1
Thus, left unanswered we believe that Commissioner
Thomas's Statement of Reasons, with its strong language that CRNC has
violated the law, needlessly and unfairly impugns the CRNC.
In his aforementioned Statement of Reasons, Commissioner Thomas first explains
why he believes that this case should have been left on the Commission docket despite
having grown "stale" under the Enforcement Priority System. He explains his belief that
there is a "strong likelihood that the major purpose of the College Republican National
Committee is campaign activity," and suggests that despite the staleness problem this
case should be exempted from the EPS because the group has a sizeable budget and
because a similar complaint against the group (MUR 3826) was also dismissed as stale
under the EPS in 1996. He does not suggest that the case be activated, but merely that it
be allowed to languish on the docket so that it might later be activated, "should resources
1
See 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(l2); II C.F.R. II 1.9, II 1.20-2 I.
2
For example, Commissioner Thomas writes at different points: "the materials provided [in the referral} ...
demonstrate the strong likelihood that the major purpose of the group is campaign activity;" "[a) large
group that is avoiding disclosure of hundreds of thousands of dollars ... ;" "a large, well-connected group
that should be reporting declines to do so ... ;" "where a case presents a fairly significant apparent violation-
in this case the failure to disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on hard-edged partisan
communications;" and "Commissioners should be looking for opportunities to enforce the law where it
matters most." Statement of Reasons, Commissioner Scott E. Thomas, Pre-MUR 395, p. I, 3, 5, 6
(hereinafter "Thomas SOR").
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 31 of 49
permit,"
3
though there is no indication that the Office of General Counsel expects that to
happen.
The purpose of the Enforcement Priority System is to focus the Commission's
resources on those cases that are most important to effectively carrying out our duties.
As noted by Commissioner Thomas,
4
the system involves rating each case on a point
system. Most cases dismissed under the EPS without investigation are dismissed because
they are deemed "low priority," so that pursuing them would not be an effective use of
resources. However, a small number of cases which do not fall in the "low priority"
category are nonetheless dismissed as "stale," meaning that Commission resources have
not permitted the case to be activated after a number ofmonths.
5
The presumptions
behind dismissing cases for staleness include that citizens ought not have the threat of an
investigation hanging over them for a lengthy time if it is unlikely that the investigation
will actually take place, and that the Commission should focus resources on important
cases of more recent vintage, with fresher evidence and more importance to current
6
campa1gns.
Pre-MUR 395 came to the Commission not through any complaint by the public,
but as a referral by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Charitable Organizations, which was
investigating whether the CRNC had properly registered to solicit contributions in
Pennsylvania pursuant to that Commonwealth's laws on solicitation.
7
The referral was
received at the FEC on June 19, 2000, by which time it appears that all of the activity that
served as the basis for the referral was already more than two years old.
8
In fact, by the
time the Commission prepared to drop this case as "stale," all of the activity referenced in
the referral appears to have been at least three years and seven months old, and some of it
as much as four years old. Since there was no evidence that the Office of General
Counsel anticipated that it could activate the case in the ncar future (nor did
Commissioner Thomas ask it to), it is very doubtful that the case could have been
activated until all of the underlying behavior was at least four years old, and much of it
even older. Given the five year statute of limitations, the statutory requirement that a
3
/d. at 1-2.
'!d. at 2, fn. 3.
5
There were five such cases in fiscal year 200 I.
6
We note that Commissioner Thomas does not have a generic objection to dismissing cases as "stale,"
though he has sought to have specific cases held or activated beyond the stale dismissal date, see MURs
4491; 4519; 4563.
7
It appears that the Commonwealth was upset that the CRNC had not responded to its requests for
information. See Letter from Lisa San doe, Special Investigator, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to Lois
Lerner, Associate General Counsel for Enforcement, June 5, 2000 (explaining that the Commonwealth had
received no response from the CRNC, and so checked to see if the organization was registered with the
FEC; and finding it was not, referring the matter to the Office of General Counsel.) From the materials
submitted by the Commonwealth, this referral appears to have been made more than two years after the last
letter from the Commonwealth to the CRNC.
8
The CRNC material attached to the referral, which serves as the basis for the referral, is undated.
However, most or all of it presumably took place before February 13, 1998 when the Commonwealth's
Bureau of Charitable Organizations first wrote to the CRNC. (Letter from Karl Emerson to Adam
Brohimer dated Feb. 13, 1998, attached to referral). The referral itself states that the CRNC had solicited a
Pennsylvania resident '
1
during the period November 1997 through March 1998." Letter fi'om Lisa San doe
to Lois Lerner, June 5, 2000. Much of the material refers to current events of January and February, 1998.
2
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 32 of 49
respondent be given at least 15 days to respond to any "probable cause" brief by the
General Counsel, 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(3), and the statutory requirement that the Commission
engage in conciliation efforts for at least thirty days prior to filing an enforcement action,
2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(4), any investigation would have had to be conducted in a hasty and
less than thorough fashion in order to beat the statute of limitations. Even assuming that
a full and thorough investigation would support a finding that the Act had been violated,
it is doubtful that such a thorough investigation could be completed in time remaining. In
short, because of the lengthy time between the activity underlying the referral and the
date of the referral itself, this case is unusually "stale," even by EPS standards.
This is important because Commissioner Thomas ridicules us for not supporting
his motion because, to use his caricature of our position, "this might prove to be a
difficult case to resolve." Noting that "any case of significance might be difficult to
resolve," he argues that "the Commission should never simply 'cave' .... "
9
But
Commissioner Thomas does not dispute that the nature of the allegations in this Pre-
MUR would require a substantial investigation to resolve. In a recent law review article,
Commissioner Thomas himself discussed the difficulties of completing FEC
investigations within short time frames: "a fairly routine matter can easily take one year
if the matter proceeds to probable cause ... [o]f course, if a matter is factually complex
and requires an extensive investigation, the resolution of cases can take much longer ....
A factually complex case with extensive discovery and investigation may take three or
four years."
1
For these very reasons, we believe that a case which would indisputably
require extensive investigation, and where some of the activity is already four or more
years old and all or almost all of it would be at least that old before there would be any
chance of the case being activated for investigation, is a particularly poor case to
withdraw from the EPS system for dismissing stale cases.
Tied to the complexity of the case is that the legal theory on which it appears the
Commission would have to rely has already been rejected by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia in FEC v. GOPAC, 917 F. Supp. 851 (D.D.C. 1996). Again,
Commissioner Thomas does not reject our suggestion that GOPAC is an applicable
precedent, and that it suggests a lower than usual likelihood that the Commission could
win this case in court. Rather, he simply dismisses the Court's decision in GOPAC as
~ ~ g o o f y , n
11
misguided,
11
and "nonsensical."
11
We do not share Commissioner Thomas's view of GOP A C. Commissioner
Thomas argues that GOPAC, the defendant in that case, should have been considered a
political committee subject to regulation by the Commission because it's "major purpose"
was "campaign activity."
12
The idea that a group can be considered a political committee
9
Thomas SOR, p. 2-3.
10
Scott E. Thomas & Jeffrey H. Bowman, Obstacles to E;ffective Enforcement of the Federal Election
Campaign Act, 52 Admin. L. Rev. 575,589 (2000).
11
Thomas SOR at 3. We cannot help but note that in another recent MUR Commissioner Thomas urged us
to defer to non-binding decisions of Article III courts even when the decisions at issue were reversed by
higher courts, albeit on other grounds. See MUR 4994, Statement of Reasons of Commissioner Scott E.
Thomas, at 9.
"Id.
3
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 33 of 49
solely because its major purpose is campaign activity has no basis in law. The Act
defines a "political committee," in pertinent part, as "any committee ... which receives
contributions aggregating in excess of$ I 000 during a calendar year or which makes
expenditures aggregating in excess of$1000 during a calendar year .... " Thus, major
purpose alone, however defined, is not enough to subject a group to the Act. The group
must also take in contributions or make expenditures in excess of$ I 000. The Act defines
both "expenditure" and "contribution" in terms of activity made "for the purpose of
influencing any election for Federal office," 2 U.S.C. 431(8}(A) and (9)(A). In Buckley v.
Valeo, 424 U.S. I ,79 ( 1976), the Supreme Court made clear that the phrase "for the
purpose of influencing any election for Federal office" suffers from constitutional
vagueness problems, and that therefore the definition of "political committee" must be
limited only to committees that are "under the control of a candidate or the major purpose
of which is the nomination or election of a candidate." Id. A candidate, under the Act, is
an "individual who seeks ... Federal office," 2 U.S.C. 431 (2), not any candidate for any
office whatsoever. Applying Buckley, the GO PAC Court found that for the years in
question the FEC had failed to prove that GOPAC had made any expenditures to support
or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office. GO PAC had made
substantial expenditures for state and local Republican candidates, in the hope that doing
so would eventually help the Republican Party take control of the U.S. House of
Representatives, but the Court noted that these were nonetheless expenditures for state
and local candidates, not for federal candidates. 917 F. Supp at 861-62, 864-67. We do
not see much that is "nonsensical" or "goofy" here, nor do we see how GO PAC fails to
follow "the approach used by the Supreme Court," as our colleague puts it.
13
Part of Commissioner Thomas's difficulty may be that he seems to assume,
without saying so, that the CRNC's generic support for candidates of a particular party
constitutes "express advocacy" of the election of specific federal candidates, and
therefore meets the $1000 expenditure requirement.
14
This position, however, was
specifically rejected in GO PAC, 917 F. Supp. at 866-67, and we think GOPAC is correct
in holding that general expressions of support for candidates of a party do not, absent
direct contributions to federal candidates or the presence of "express advocacy" that
would qualify the communication as an "independent expenditure" as defined in 2 U.S.C.
431 (I 7}, qualify as "expenditures" under the Act.
15
The types of activities that we are
being asked to investigate in this MUR seem to be similar to the types of activities in
which GO PAC engaged. Certainly on the face of the complaint there is no sign that
13
See Thomas SOR at 3.
" !d. at 1-2, 3-4
15
Thus Commissioner Thomas is clearly wrong in suggesting that under GOPAC, "none of the national or
state political parties would have to register and report with the Federal Election Commission." /d. at 3. The
holding in GOPAC was based on the fact that "GOPAC did not make any direct contribution to any
particular federal candidate." 917 F. Supp. at 858. The national and state committees with which we are
familiar would not be in this position. What the Court specifically rejected is the argument that
Commissioner Thomas seems to make here, that "an organization need not support the 'nomination or
election of a candidate,' but only need engage in 'partisan politics' or 'electoral activity,"' to be subject to the
Act. 917 F. Supp. at 859. The Court noted that such terms as "'partisan electoral politics' and
'electioneering' raise virtually the same vagueness concerns as the language 'influencing any election for
Federal office,' the raw application of which the Buckley Court detennined would impermissibly impinge
on First Amendment values." !d. at 861.
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 34 of 49
CRNC made expenditures that would qualify it as a "committee" required to report under
the Act. Thus, on the basis of the facts and apparent legal theories of this referral, it does
not appear that there is reason to believe that the Act had been violated in any case.
16
We recognize that we are not bound in all future cases by the decision of a single
district court. However, even if we shared Commissioner Thomas's view that GO PAC
incorrectly interpreted Buckley, we would not be inclined to ignore it in carrying out our
duties. We cannot expect the courts to give proper deference to our interpretations of the
Act, as part of a co-equal branch of government, if we cavalierly dismiss judicial
decisions with which we disagree as "goofY." Moreover, we cannot help but note that the
GO PAC Court is apparently not the only "goofY" court out there. In addition to GO PAC,
since Commissioner Thomas took his seat on the FEC the Commission has lost several
other cases when it has tried to stretch the definition of express advocacy." We believe
that a minimum of proper respect for the judicial branch requires that we at least take
even non-binding court opinions seriously and consider them in our own interpretations
of the law.
Nor, as a practical matter, could we possibly subscribe to Commissioner Thomas's
apparent view that in deciding whether or not to devote resources to a case, we should
simply ignore the probability of success on the merits, as reflected by the results in prior,
similar cases. Dismissing a case as "goofy" or "nonsensical" does not make the precedent
go away. Concern for the viability of our legal theory in the courts should be especially
important where we would be launching an investigation of a case outside of the normal
guidelines of the Enforcement Priority System,
18
and on a timetable that would make a
16
lt appears that this case could only succeed if the Commission were willing to launch a legal challenge to
the limits on the definition of"political committee" laid down by the Supreme Court in Buckley and
followed in GOP A C. We are not interested in challenging the Supreme Court's t w e n t y ~ five year old
Buckley decision on this issue. The point has already been once reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in FEC
v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238 (1986), and in light of our experience on this Commission
and elsewhere, we believe Buckley was correct on this point. We also note that the Supreme Court has
twice in the last two years rejected opportunities to revisit other portions of Buckley's core holdings. See
FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 432 (200t); Nixon v. Shrink
A4issouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000). Alternatively, we could hope that an investigation, if
launched, would yield evidence which is not in the referral in support of legal theories which do not appear
in the referral, i.e. that CRNC directly supported for candidates for federal office. But we do not believe
that it is proper for this Agency to go forward based on facts and legal theories in referrals or complaints
which do not state violations of the Act, even if taken as true. For more on this point, see Statement of
Reasons of Commissioner Darryl R. Wold in MUR 4994, New York Senate 2000 et al.
"See Virginia Society for Human Life, Inc. v. FEC, 263 F.3d 379 (4'h Cir. 2001); FEC v. Christian Action
Network, I 10 F.3d 1049 (4'h Cir. 1997); FEC v. Maine Right to Life Committee, 98 F.3d I (I" Cir. 1996),
cerl. denied 522 U.S. 8 I 0 ( 1997); Faucher v. FEC, 928 F.2d 468 (I" Cir.), cerl. denied 502 U.S. 820
(1991); FEC v. Freedom's Heritage Forum, No. 3:98CV-549-S (W.D. Ky. Sept. 29, 1999); Right to Life of
Duchess County, Inc. v. FEC, 6 F.Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y. 1998); FEC v. Survival Education Fund, 1994 U.S.
Dist. Lex is 210 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1994), ajJ'd in parr and rev'd in parr on or her grounds, 65 F.3d 285 (2d
Cir. 1995); FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 839 F.Supp. 1448 (D. Colo. 1993),
rev 'don or her grounds 59 F.3d I 015 (I O'h Cir. 1995) and vacared on other grounds, 518 U.S. 604 (1996);
FEC v. National Organization for Women, 713 F. Supp. 428 (D.D.C. 1989).
18
We recognize that Commissioner Thomas's motion would merely have left the case on the docket for the
time being, without yet opening an investigation. Presumably, however, the only reason to leave it on the
docket would be in the hope of eventually opening an investigation.
5
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 35 of 49
thorough, effective investigation prior to bringing suit exceedingly difficult. We note that
Commissioner Thomas also uses his Statement of Reasons in this case to argue that the
Commission needs more resources from Congress.
19
Perhaps. But we are unpersuaded
that the resources we have are well spent pursuing cases under legal theories that run
contrary to precedent and which cannot be investigated and evaluated properly due to
statute of limitations constraints. See 28 U.S.C. 2462.
Commissioner Thomas also misunderstands our objection to using a long
dismissed complaint against the CRNC, MUR 3826, closed as stale over five years ago,
as a basis for proceeding on this matter. MUR 3826 does nothing to change the stale
nature of the evidence and events in this case, nor does it change the GO PAC precedent
20
This case is not like other MURs Commissioner Thomas mentions, wherein the
Commission has looked at evidence from other investigations.
21
In those MURs, the
other investigations pertained to the same activity under investigation by the FEC, not to
activity many years gone by and not the subject of the matter at hand. All of the events
mentioned in this referral took place after MUR 3826 was closed.
Commissioner Thomas similarly fails to differentiate between cases when he
chides us for deferring to the recommendation of the General Counsel in this case while
"vot[ing] against the General Counsel's recommendations regarding seven of the twelve
matters on the November 6 agenda," all of which pertained to case closing under the
EPS
22
Those other cases all involved matters in which a violation, or lack thereof, was
plain from the face of the complaint, so that the Commission could make substantive
determinations without the need for an investigation using up Commission resources. In
each case, the Commission rejected the General Counsel's recommendation to close the
case solely on grounds that it was "low priority" under the EPS, in order to make a
substantive determination on the merits and close the file. Thus the cases were handled
substantively without opening an investigation and draining the General Counsel's
resources. In each of the seven cases, Commissioner Thomas joined a unanimous
Commission vote.
23
Commissioner Thomas argues that the standard used to pull those
cases out ofEPS was "subject only to a standard similar to mine."
24
But there is a very
substantial difference, which Commissioner Thomas does not even note, let alone dispute
- each of those cases could be, and was, disposed of within minutes and without
19
Thomas SOR at 4, n. 12.
~
0
GOPACwas decided after MUR 3826 was dismissed.
21
Thomas SOR at 4, n. 9.
22
!d. at 4, and n. 10. He actually refers to just one (unnamed) Commissioner, presumably Commissioner
Smith, given that Commissioners Wold and Mason voted against the General Counsel's recommendation in
eight of the twelve matters.
23
Commissioner Thomas also complains that the Commission has held one case open involving a foreign
national, although the violations are over five years old. !d. at 5, n. 14. In that case the respondent has fled
the country to avoid prosecution. Because the Commission believes that the statute of limitations does not
run when the respondent purposely flees the country to avoid prosecution, and because the facts have
largely been investigated already in connection with other respondents, the Commission has voted to hold
the matter open.
"ld. at 5, n.\5.
6
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 36 of 49
investigation, whereas this case, were it activated, would require a substantial
. . . d ~
mvest1gat10n an resources.
Ultimately, even if we were not of the belief that the referral in this matter did not
include either facts or legal theories which, if true, would indicate a violation of the Act,
or that the probability of success were so low, we simply would not agree with
Commissioner Thomas that this is a case warranting "different treatment" than that
provided for by the EPS.
26
It is clear that Commissioner Thomas considers this an
extremely important case. He argues that we should ignore the EPS in such a case
because, "not a lot of subjective thought goes into OGC's EPS case closing
calculations."
27
We believe that this is as it should be. However, the process is not
totally rote. Under the System, this case scored just one point above the cut-off used to
dismiss cases as low priority. lt did so because in at least one important category, OGC
scored the maximum possible points, even though the system's scoring guide states that
"[one-half the maximum] are generally assessed here." In another category, OGC
awarded added points for criteria that did not appear and could not be determined from
the face of the referral. This was apparently done by considering the earlier closed MUR
3826 when scoring this referral. In short, this case stayed on the docket as long as it did,
and was eligible for activation in the normal course of business at all, only because in
scoring the case OGC did account for the old MUR, as Commissioner Thomas wanted,
and also rated the case more highly than usual on other criteria as well. Even so, the case
received the lowest score possible to avoid automatic dismissal as a low priority case.
The final portion of Commissioner Thomas's Statement of Reasons is devoted to
explaining that his desire to keep this case open is not motivated by partisan
considerations, accusing others of partisanship, and citing to a number of votes that he
has made in the past as evidence of his own lack ofpartisanship
28
We take
Commissioner Thomas at his word and note that whatever his motivations, they would
not alter our votes in this matter.
When we consider that this case would have to be based on a legal theory that
runs counter to the law as correctly stated in GO PAC; is low rated under the EPS; is
extremely dated and difficult to investigate within the statute of limitations; would
require the commitment of substantial resources; and appears to have a low probability of
success in court even if pursued on the legal theories advanced by Commissioner
Thomas, and with which we disagree; we consider it particularly ill-suited to be
withdrawn from normal treatment pursuant to the EPS, and believe the dismissal for
25
In light of our above discussion ofGOPAC and the referral in this matter, another alternative might have
been to move to dismiss this case with a finding of "No R TB" because the referral fails to put forward facts
or legal theories that would indicate a violation ofthe Act. We believe, however, that such a motion would
not have been successful at garnering the four votes needed to pass. If true that the Commission could not
muster four votes for a finding of either "No RTB" or "RTB," that is further reason to let this case simply
be closed on the staleness grounds recommended by the General Counsel, following the EPS.
26
/d. at 5.
27
/d. at 5, n. 13.
" !d. a! 5-6.
7
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 37 of 49
staleness, as called for by the EPS and recommended by the General Counsel, was
appropriate.
David M. Mason, Chairman Date
Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner Date
Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner Date
8
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 38 of 49
EXHIBIT F
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 39 of 49
FEC FORM2
STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY
1. (a}NamecfC.sndidatanntull)
John Edwards
{c) City. State, and ZIP Code
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
5. Otfice Sough!
Prssident
Statemant
6. State & Dlltncl of C1ndlda1!1
DESIGNATION OF PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
OR
i. Mended
,J {A)
1. ' hereby designate the folbwtng named poi;Ueal Q)IT'lmttlM a& my Prtne4>ll Campaign Committee for the 200S elec:tlon(a).
(Year or eledlon)
NOTE: thiS Daslgnetion should be nled wllh the appropr1ate oftlce li&tad In the Instructions.
{e) Name of Committee (in IIJIIt
John Edwards for President
(b) Addres3 (/\Umber and lltl'8et)
410 Market Street Suite 400
(c) City, State, and ZIP Coclc
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
DESIGNATION OF OTHER AUTHORIZED COMMITTEES
(lnel.uding Jotnt Fundralslng Reprner1lall'fea)
8. I hereby authorlle the following named committee. which Is NOT my pfindpal camps gn commlllee to reDI!IIve and expend ruoos on behalf of my
r:andldacy.
NOTE: Thla d&Signallon atlouid be filed wllh the principal campaign eomm111ee.
(a) Name ot Commltt&e (ir1 full)
None
(b) Address (number and !ilntell
{c:) C ty, State, and ZIP Co<je
DECLARATION OF INTENT TO EXPEND PERSONAL FUNDS (House or Senate Only)
9 I ntend to ell:pet\d persooa funds BXCeedlng the lhnlshold amount ise& 11 C.F.R. 400.9) brf
9A ,._,. forthll prlmarye ection, and
,...,\.::-!;l-.,..;:=-':-.. ...::.::..--.:':::- . - t
98 fortheg1118111elecb0n.
. ..
It you do not Intend to expand perBOrl&l funds xceedlflg 111e thre&hold &n'10\rt lbr elthe1 lllection, Ya.J must 11ntar "tt.OO" ror each.
Slunaturo of C.ndkl.w Dale o..J o
o"\..}0/
of false, errnnlltOUs, or lncomp1etelntormation may subject the person signing ltll.! Staterrenl to penallles of 2 U.S.C. 437g.
l"lte FOIW 2 (REV.
------- ------------- ------- ----
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 40 of 49
EXHIBITG
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 41 of 49
Imago# 27931001827 07/24/2007 00 . 15
REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1 /5604
BY AN AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT
1. NAME OF COMMITTEE (In full)
John Edwards for President
ADDRESS (number and street)
D Check if different than previously reported
41 0 Market Street
2. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
Suite 400
C00431205
CITY, STATE, and ZIP CODE
3. IS THIS REPORT FOR :
Chapel Hill NC 27516
~ P r i m a r y 0 General
4. TYPE OF REPORT
(Check here 0 if this is a Termination Report.)
[8] April 15 Quarterly Report
Monthly Report Due On:
0
February 20
0
June 20
D
October 20
0 July 15 Quarterly Report
D
March 20
0
July 20
0
November 20
0
April20
D
August 20
0
December 20
0 October 15 Quarterly Report
D
May20
0
September 20
0
January 31
D January 31 Year End Report D Twelfth day report preceding
(Type of Election)
election on 11/0612007 In the State of
---
D Thirtieth day report folklwing the General Election on
on
IS THIS REPORT AN AMENDMENT [DYES 0No
5. COVERING PERIOD
I FROM
01/01!2007
1 THROUGH
03131/2007
SUMMARY 6. CASH ON HAND AT BEGINNING OF THE
,,,,.,, ..... ..........
0.00
REPORTING PERIOD
7. TOTAL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD
(From Line 22, Column A, Page 2)
..... .................
14075424.27
8. SUBTOTAL
.......................
14075424.27
(Lines 6 and 7)
9. TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS THIS PERIOD
.......................
3203133.18
(From Line 30, Column A, Page 2)
10. CASH ON HAND AT CLOSE OF REPORTING PERIOD
...........
.
10872291.09
(Subtract Una 9 from 8)
'
11. DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWED TO THE COMMITTEE
(Itemize AI! on Schedule C-P or Schedule D-P)
..............

0.00
12. DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWED BY THE COMMITTEE
....... ...............
0.00
(Itemize All on Schedule C-P or Schedule D-Pl
13. EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO LIMITATION .......................
0.00
NET ELECTION CYCLE- 14. NET CONTRIBUTIONS (Other than Loans)
.......................
14021504.48
TO-DATE
.. (Subtract Line 28d, Column 8 from 17e, Column B, Paoe 2)
CONTRIBUTIONS AND
15. NET OPERATING EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES
_(Subtract Line 20a, Colummn 8 from 23, Column 8, Paae 21
.......................
3194983.18
I certify that I have examined this Report and to the best of my knowledge and belief It Ia true, correct, and complete.
I
Type or Print Name of Treasurer Date
I
I
Julius Chambers
0712312007
Signature of Treasurer
I
NOTE: Submission of false, erroneous, or incomplete information may sub(ectthe person signing this Report to the penalties of 2 U.S.C. 437g.
All previous versions of FEC FORM 3P are obsolete and should no longer be used.
I
For further Information contact: Federal Election Commission
FEC FORM 3P
999 E Street, N.W. Toll Free 800-424-9530
(01/2001)
Washington, DC 20463 Local 202-694--11 00
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 42 of 49
Image# 27931004903
SCHEDULE A
Use separate scheclule(s)
or each category of the
FOR LINE NUMBER: 30n 15604
ITEMIZED RECEIPTS
1 Detailed Summary Page
1 19b 20a 20c
[ Any information copied from such Reports and Statements may not be sold or used by any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions

using the name and of any political committee confdbutionstrom such committee.
-------- . - - ---
Full Name (last, First, Middle Initial)
A. Anthony Melillo Date of Receipt
Mailing Address
"
0 0
' ' ' '
341<1_A!clent Oak Cir_
03 27 2007
---
--------
City State Zip Code
Houston TX 770593774 Amount of Each Receipt this Period
FEC ID number ol contributing
250.00
federal political comminee.
Name of Employer
1
l.Occupatoon
Bay Oaks Orthopedics & Sp-
Orthopedtc Surgeon
or1:i Me:d.tcire - . -----------
Receipt For: 2008
1 Election Cyele:tO.Date
y
X Primary General
Other (specify)
250.00
Transaction 10: 34230
- -
- -----.. ---
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
B. ActBiue Date of Receipt
"""-- - -- -- - -.-- ------ -------- -- ---
Mailing Address
" "
0 0
' ' '
PO. _
03 27 2007
-
----
. ---- ------ ---------- - -. ..
City State Z1p Code
Cambridge MA 0>?38
Amount of Each Receipt this Period
FEC ID number of contributing
250.00
federal political committee.
Name of Employer
JOccupation
-- .. ----
bMEMO ITEMI
Receipt For: 2008
l Electoon Cycle-tc>"Date ...
onduit: ActB ue
X Primary General
Other (specify) '9
3042683.93
Transaction 10: E34230
- ----- - ---
Full Name (Lasl, First, Middle Initial)
Rachell Mellon Date ol Receipt
- -
-- -- ----- -- --
c.
Mailing Address M
"
c 0
'
' ' '
8554 _Oak Spring Rd 03 05 2007
----
-
City State Zip Code
Uooerville VA 20184-1813
Amount of Each Receipt this Period
FEC iD number of contributing
2300.00
federal political comminee.
Name ol Employer
I Occupation
Not employed
Retired

-- ----
Receipt For: 2008 Election Cycle-to-Date
y
Reattribution requested
X Primary General
Other (specify) '9
4600.00
Transaction ID: 19430
---
18
21
--
-
----
SUBTOTAL of Receipts This Page (optional) ............................................................... ..
2550.00
TOTAL This Period (last page this line number only) .....
"
- ----
FEC Schedule A (R8V1Sed 112001)
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 43 of 49
Image# 27931004904
SCHEDULE A
ITEMIZED RECEIPTS
Use separate schedule(s}
or each category of the
Detailed Summary Page
-:--:--- -
Any mlormation copied from such Reports and Statements may not be sold or used by any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions
or for commercial purposes, other than using the name and address of any political committee to solicit contributions from such committee.
) NAME OF COMMITIEE (In Full)
John Edwards for President
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
A. Rachel L Mellon Date of Receipt
Mailing Address
" " ' ' ' ' '
'
8554 Oak Rd
03 3 1 2007
City State Zip Code
Uooerville VA 20164-161' Amount of Each Recelpt this PeriOO
FEC ID number of contributing
2300.00
federal political committee.
Name of Employer I Occupation
Not employed
Retired
Receipt For: 2006 Election Cycle-to-Date ...
Aeattribution requested
Primary X General
Other (specify) '9
4600.00
Transaction ID: 51364
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
B. Russ Melrath Date of Receipt
Mailing Address
" "
D D
'
y
'
y
838 Glen Dr
03 3 1 2007
City State Zip Code
Bethanv Bea"]1
DE Amount of Each Receipt this Period
FEC 10 number of contributing
100.00
federal political committee.
Name of Employer I Occupation
State Farm
Insurance
Receipt For: 2008 Election Cycle-to-Date ...
X Primary General
O!her (speclfy) '9
500.00
Transaction 10: 45755
-
Full Name (Last, Rrst, Middle Initial)
c. Russ Melralh Date of Receipt
Mailing Address
" "
D D y y y y
838 Glen Dr 0 1 02 2007
City State Zip Code
Bethanv Beach DE 199309124
Amount ol Each Receipt this Period
FEC ID number of contributing
100.00
federal political committee.
Name of Employer
I Occupation
State Farm
Insurance Agent
Receipt For: 2008 Election Cycle-to-Date ...
X Primary General
Other (specify) '9
500.00
Transaction 10: 2210
SUBTOTAL of Receipts This Page (optional) ...
"
2500.00
......... .......

..... .......................
TOTAL This Period (last page this line number only) ........... ....... ................. ..... ,. .. ....
" FEC Schedule A (Revised 112001)
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 44 of 49
Image# 27931001827 07/24/2007 00 15
REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1 I 5604
BY AN AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT
i
1. NAME OF COMMITTEE (In full)
John Edwards for President
ADDRESS (number and street)
0 Check if different than previously reported
41 0 Market Street
2. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
Suite 400 C00431205
CITY, STATE, and ZIP CODE 3. IS THIS REPORT FOR :
Chapel Hill NC 27516
[8] Prlmlll)' 0 General
4. TYPE OF REPORT
(Check here 0 if this Is a Termination Report.)
0 April 15 Quarterly Report
Monthly Report Due On:
I
0
February 20
0
June 20
0
October 20
D July 15 Quarterly Report
0
March 20
0
July 20
0
November 20
0
April20
0
August 20
0
December 20
D October 15 Quarterly Report
0
May 20
0
September 20
0
January 31
D January 31 Year End Report D Twelfth day report preceding
(Type of Election)
elecllon on 11/06/2007 in the State of
---
0 Thirtieth day report following the General Election on
on
IS THIS REPORT AN AMENDMENT (BYES 0No
5. COVERING PERIOD
I FROM
01/01/2007
I THROUGH
03/3112007
SUMMARY 6. CASH ON HAND AT BEGINNING OF THE
, ................ .....
0.00
REPORTING PERIOD
7. TOTAL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD
.......................
14075424.27
(From Line 22, Column A, Page 2)
8. SUBTOTAL
.......................
14075424.27
(Lines 6 and 7)
9. TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS THIS PERIOD
........... ...........
3203133.18
(From Line 30, Column A, Page 2)
10. CASH ON HAND AT CLOSE OF REPORTING PERIOD
.......................
10872291.09
(Subtract Line 9 from 8)
11. DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWED...IO THE COMMITTEE
...... ........
0.00
I
(Itemize All on Schedule C-P or Schedule D-P)
12. DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWED BY THE COMMITTEE
.. .......... ....
0.00
(Itemize All on Schedule C-P or Schedule 0-P)
13. EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO LIMITATION ......... .............
0.00
NET ELECTION CYCLE- 14. NET CONTRIBUTIONS (Other than Loans)
.. ....................
14021504.48
TODATE
.(Subtract Line 28d, Column 8 from 17e, Column 8, Paqe 2)
CONTRIBUTIONS AND
15. NET OPERATING EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES
{Subtract Line 20a, Colummn B from 23, Column 8, Page 2)
.......................
3194983.18
I
I certify that I have examined this Report and to the best of my knowledge and belief It Is true, correct, and complete.
Type or Print Name of Treasurer Date
Julius Chambers
0712312007
Signature of Treasurer
NOTE: Submission of false, erroneous, or incomplete information may subject the person signing this Report to the penalties of 2 U.S.C. 437g.
All previous versions of FEC FOAM 3P are obsolete and should no longer be used.
I
For further Information contact: Federal Election Commission
FEC FORM 3P
i
999 E Street, N.W. Toll Free 800-424-9530
(0112001)
Washington, DC 20463 Local 202-694-11 oo
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 45 of 49
Image# 27931002037
SCHEDULE A
Use separate schedule(s)
or each category of the
Detailed Summary Page
FOR LINE NUMBER: _f'AGE_ 2t t I
ITEMIZED RECEIPTS
r Any informaiion copied from such Reports and Statements may not be sold or used by any person for the purpose of soliciting contributions
I or for commercial purposes, other than using the name and address of any political committee to so!iclt contributions from such committee.
> --- ----- --
----- --- -
--
- - ..
'
-
Full Name (last, First, Middle Initial)
A. Frederick M Baron Date of Receipt
Mailing Address M M c
,,
'
'
' '
5950
01 1 8 2007
- - ------
City State Zip Code
Dallas
TX
7"2''00S Amount of Each Rece1pt this Pericxl
FEC ID number of contributing
2100.00
federal political committee.
Name of Employer
II:::::_
Baron & Blue
---- --
Receipt For: 2008
. .. - Election Cycle-to-Date
"'
Reattributlon requested
X Primary General
Other (specify)
4600.00
Transaction ID: 3936
--
Full Name (Last, First, Middle ln1tial)
B. Frederick M Baron Date of Receipt
----
.. --- ... - - -
Mailing Address M
" ' '
'
'
'
'
Ave
03 06 2007
- ----- -- ---
City State Zip Code
Del las TX 75225-3005 Amount of Each Receipt this Period
FEC ID number of contributing
200.00
federal political committee.
Name of Employer
l
Baron & Blue
Attorney
- - -
Receipt For 2008
J ....
"'
Reattribution requested
X Primary General
Other (specify)
4600.00
Transaction ID: 22194
- - '" - .
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
FredericX M Baron

Dale of Receipt
--- -
c.
Mailing Address
" " '
D
' '
' '
5950 Deloache Ave 03 06 2007
..
-
- ..-- -
Cily State Zip Code
Dallas TX
Amount of Each Receipt this Perlcxl
FEC ID number of contributing
2300.00
federal political committee.
Name of Employer
,t"'"PIion
Baron & Blue
Attorney
-
Receipt For: 2008 E"teCt1on Cycl&io-Date
"
Reattribution requested
Primary X General
Other (speclly)
4600.00
Transaction ID: 31346
SUBTOTAL of Receipts This Page (optional)
4600.00
TOTAL This Period (last page this line number only) .......... , ........... .
FEC Schedule A (Revised i 12001)
t8
2t
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 46 of 49
Image# 10992492061 12/14/2010 21. 19
REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
1 I 758
BY AN AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT
1. NAME OF COMMITTEE (In full)
!
John Edwards for President
ADDRESS (number and street)
~ Check If different than previously reported
1705 DeSales Street
2. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
8th Floor
C00431205
CITY, STATE, and ZIP CODE
3. IS THIS REPORT FOR :
!
Washington DC 20036
[X) Primary D General
4. TYPE OF REPORT
(Check here D if this is a Termination Report.)
D April 15 Quarterly Report
Monthly Report Due On:
D
February 20
D
June 20
D
October 20
lJ July 15 Quarterly Report D
March 20
0
July 20
0
November 20
[X] April20
D
August 20
D
December 20
0 October 15 Quarterly Report
D
May20
0
September 20
0
January 31
D January 31 Year End Report
D Twelfth day report preceding
(Type of Election)
election on in the State of
---
D Thirtieth day report following the General Election on
on
IS THIS REPORT AN AMENDMENT [Rj YES 0No
5. COVERING PERIOD
1 FROM
03/0112008
I THROUGH
03131/2008
SUMMARY 6. CASH ON HAND AT BEGINNING OF THE
........ ..............
5042115.35
REPORTING PERIOD
7. TOTAL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD
......... ...........
4948189.67
(From Line 22, Column A, Page 2)
8. SUBTOTAL
.......................
9990305.02
!
(Unes 6 and 7)
i
9. TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS THIS PERIOD
..................... 8298954.81
(From Line 30, Column A, Page 2}
10.
1
?ASH ON HAND AT
8
?LOSE OF REPORTING PERIOD
......... ...........
1691350.21
Subtract Line 9 from 8
11. DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWEQIO THE COMMITTEE
.. ............
0.00
(Itemize AU on Schedule CP or Schedule 0-P)
12. DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWED BY T ~ ~ COMMITTEE
(Itemize All on Schedule C P or Schedule D-P
.... ........ .........
1702460.85
' 13. EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO LIMITATION .......................
0.00
NET ELECTION CYCLE 14. NET CONTRIBUTIONS (Other than Loans)
34036296.69
TO-DATE
--(Subtract Line 28d, Column 8 from 17e, Column 8, Pane 2\
.......................
CONTRIBUTIONS AND
15. NET OPERATING EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES
.. (Subtract Line 20a, Colummn B from 23, Column B, Paae 2)
.......................
39428762.07
I certify that I have examined this Report and to the best of my knowledge and belief It Is true, correct, and complete.
Type or Print Name of Treasurer Date
Mr. Julius Chambers
12113/2010
Signature of Treasurer
NOTE: Submission of false, erroneous, or incomplete information may subject the person signing !his Report to the penalties of 2 U.S.C. 437g.
All previous versions of FEC FORM 3P are obsolete and should no longer be used.
For further Information contact: Federal Election Commission
FEC FORM 3P
999 E Street, N.W. Toll Free 800-424-9530
W ashlngton, DC 20463 Local 20269411 00
(01/2001)
FE1AN060.PDF
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 47 of 49
Image# 10992492244
A.
B.
c.
Schedule BP
ITEMIZED DISBURSEMENTS
Use separate schedule(s)
for each category of the
Detailed Summary Page
! PAGE 184/758
27a
29
Any Information copied from such Reports and Statements may not be sold or used by any person for the purpose of soliciting contributioos
or for commercial purposes, other than using the name and address of any political committee to solicit contributions from such committee
NAME OF CQMMITIEE (In Full)
John Edwards for President
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
Stuart Talley
Mailing Address
409 36th Way
Transaction 10: SB28A-11767
Date of Disbursement
M M
03
0 0
24 ' ' ' 2008
City
Sacramento
State
CA
Zip Code
95816-3407

Amount of Each Disbursement this Period
Purpose of Disbursement
Contribullon Refund
Candidate Name Category/
Type
Office Sought: Ho_u_s_e
Senate X Primary General
President Other (spec1fy) y
State: District:
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial!
Frederick M Baron

Mailing Address 5950 Del cache Ave
City
Dallas
Purpose of Disbursement
Contribution Refund
Candidate Name
State
TX
Zip Code
75225-3005


Office Sought: House Disbursement For: 2008
Senate X Primary General
President Other (specify}
Category!
Type i
---------1
50.00
Transaction 10: SB28A-11768
Date of Disbursement
" "
c 0
' ' '
03 24 2008
Amount of Each Disbursement this Period
2300.00
State: District:
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
Donald W Buckler
---
-:--------
Mailing Address 5012 W The Riviera St

City
Tampa

Purpose of Disbursement
Contribution Refund
Candidate Name

State Zip Code
FL 33609-3613
--1
Office Sough!: Fo_r: __ -:2008 -j
Senate X Primary General
President Other (specify) y
State: District:
Transaction 10: SB28A-11769
Date of Disbursement
M M I 0 0 'f 'f y y
03 24 2008
Amount ol Each Disbursement this Period
2300.00
----- - ---
SUBTOTAL ol Disbursements This Page (optional}. ..
4650.00
TOTAL This Period (last page this line number onty}
FE1ANOSO.PDF FEC Schedule B ( Form 3P)
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 48 of 49
Image# 10992492061 12/14/2010 21 19
REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS 1/758
BY AN AUTHORIZED COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OR VICEPRESIDENT
1. NAME OF COMMITTEE (In full)
John Edwards for President
I
ADDRESS (number and street)
~ Check if different than previously reported
1705 DeSales Street
2.1DENTIFICATION NUMBER
8th Floor C00431205
CITY, STATE, and ZIP CODE 3. IS THIS REPORT FOR :
Washington DC 20036
[ZI Primary 0Generat
4. TYPE OF REPORT
(Check here 0 if this is a Termination Report.)
0 April15 Quarterly Report
Monthly Report Due On:
0
February 20
0
June 20
0
October 20
D July 15 Quarterly Report
0
March 20
0
July 20
0
November 20
~
April20
0
August20
0
December 20
0 October 15 Quarterly Report
0
May20
0
September 20
0
January 31
0 January 31 Year End Report D Twelfth day report preceding
(Type of Election)
election on in the State of
---
D Thirtieth day report following the General Election on
on
IS THIS REPORT AN AMENDMENT I]] YES D NO
5. COVERING PERIOD
I FROM
03/01/2008
I THROUGH
03/31/2008
SUMMARY 6. CASH ON HAND AT BEGINNING OF THE
.,,., ..................
5042115.35
REPORTING PERIOD
7. TOTAL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD
.......... ., ... . ., ....
4948189.67
(From Line 22, Column A, Page 2)
8. SUBTOTAL
........ ..............
9990305.02
(Lines 6 and 7)
9. TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS THIS PERIOD
.....................
8298954.81
(From Line 30, Column A, Page 2)
10.
1
fASH ON HAND AT
8
?LOSE OF REPORTING PERIOD
Subtract Line 9 from 8
..... .................
1691350.21
11. DEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWEQIO THE COMMITTEE
............. .........
0.00
(Itemize All on Schedule C-P or Schedule D-P)
1
12.
1
pEBTS AND OBLIGATIONS OWEQJ!Y T ~ ~ COMMITTEE
Itemize All on Schedule C-P or Schedule D-P
.......... ............
1702460.85
i 13. EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO LIMITATION .......................
0.00
NET ELECTION CYCLE- 14. NET CONTRIBUTIONS {Other than Loans)
.............
34036296.69
TO-DATE {Subtract line 28d, Column B from 17e, Column B, Page 2)
.........
CONTRIBUTIONS AND
15. NET OPERATING EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES
.. (Subtract line 20a, Colummn B from 23, Column B, Paae 2l
.......................
39428762.07
I certify that I have examined this Report and to the best of my knowledge and belief It Is true, correct, and complete.
Type or Print Name of Treasurer Date
I
Mr. Julius Chambers
12113/2010
Signature of Treasurer
NOTE: Submission of false, erroneous, or incomplete information may subject the person signing this Report to the penahies of 2 U.S.C. 437g.
All previous versions of FEC FORM 3P are obsolete and should no longer be used.
For further Information contact: Federal Election Commission
FEC FORM 3P
999 E Street, N.W. Toll Free 800-424-9530
(01/2001)
Washington, DC 20463 Local 202-694-11 00
FE1AN060.PDF
Case 1:11-cr-00161-UA Document 51-2 Filed 09/21/11 Page 49 of 49
Image# 10992492355
A.
B.
c.
Schedule B-P
ITEMIZED DISBURSEMENTS
:------------,
Use separate schedule(s)
for each category of the
Detailed Summary Page
27a
29
Any Information copied from such Reports and Statements may not be sold or used by any person lor the purpose of solicltlng contributions
or lor commercial purposes, other than using the_ name and address of any political committee to solicit from such ___ -i
NAME OF COMMITIEE (In Full)
John Edwards for President
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
Michael Miller
Mailing Address
140 W 58th St
City State Zip Code 1
New York NY 10019-2140 1
Purpose of Disbursement --3;----1
Contribution Refund I
----
Candidate Name Category/ '
Senate X Pnmary General
Pres;dent Other (specify) y
State: Distnct
Transaction 10: S828A-12125
Date of Disbursement
M M 0 0 y y y y
03 24 2008
Amount of Each Disbursement this Period
2300.00
Office Sought: -House--] Disbursement -Type
- - ----- -- - ---- ---M--------
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial} Transaction 10: SB28A-12126
Rachel L Mellon Date of Disbursement
;-;---::---;- ------ - --
Mailing Address 8554 Oak Spring Rd
" " 03
0 0
24
' ' '
2008
City
Upperville
State
VA
Zip Code
- --------- ;oi-:E:-a-ch:-;;D::-;,-:-b-u-rs_e_m_e-nl:-t.ch:--is--:P:-e:-r;-od-;---
!
20184-1813
:...:,---....j

Purpose of Disbursement
Contribution Refund
Candidate Name
Office Sought: House
Senate
President
-1
Disbursement For: 2008
X Primary General
Other (specify) y
State: District:
Full Name (Last, First, Middle Initial)
Michael H Kerr
Mailing Address
76 Wood Ln
City
Woodmere
-;-::.,-;--
Purpose of Disbursement
Contribution Refund
Candidate Name
State
NY
Zip Code
11598-2233
Olflce Sought: House
State:
Senate
President
District:
.. - ---1
I
sbursement For 2008
X Pnmary General
Other (specify) y
-----
SUBTOTAL of Disbursements This Page (optional)
TOTAL This Period (last page this line number only) ..... . ..
2300.00
Transaction 10: SB28A-12127
Date of Disbursement
I.IMIOOIYYYY
03 24 2008
Amount of Each Disbursement this Period
2000.00
6600.00
FE1AN060.PDF
---------
------ =--::-:-- -:--::-:---:::---:.
FEC Schedule 8 ( Form 3P)