For Immediate Release
Contact:
Bob Biersack
September 12 , 2007
George Smaragdis
Michelle Ryan
FEC Resolves Seven Enforcement Cases
WASHINGTON – The Federal Election Commission (FEC/the Commission) recently resolved seven enforcement cases.
In Matter Under Review (MUR) 5568, the Commission found that the Empower Illinois Media Fund (EIMF) violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) by failing to register with the FEC as a political committee and file disclosure reports. The FEC determined that EIMF’s fundraising communications made clear to potential donors that any funds received would be used to influence the 2004 Senate race in Illinois by conducting a media campaign targeting Barack Obama. EIMF spent about $83,000 during the 2004 election cycle, with more than $75,000 devoted to production and placement of radio and television ads opposing Obama’s candidacy.
The Federal Election Campaign Act states that an organization that makes expenditures, or receives contributions, in excess of $1,000 must register with the Commission as a political committee and file regular financial disclosure reports. The Act prohibits political committees from receiving contributions from corporations or labor organizations and limits contributions from individuals to no more than $5,000 per year. EIMF accepted approximately $70,000 in contributions in amounts exceeding $5,000 per individual. EIMF signed a conciliation agreement and agreed to pay a civil penalty of $3,000.
In MURs 5422 and 5680, Texans for Henry Cuellar Congressional Campaign agreed to pay a civil penalty of $28,500 for violating the Act’s reporting provisions. Henry Cuellar was a 2004 House candidate (TX/28) when his principal campaign committee failed to include adequate information on 2004 Pre-Primary and October Quarterly reports regarding a bank loan the candidate obtained for the committee. The committee also failed to disclose disbursements totaling $100,000 on the Pre-General election report filed with the Commission in October of 2004.
In MUR 5401, the Commission initially found reason to believe Texans for Henry Cuellar Congressional Campaign violated the Act’s disclaimer requirements. This complaint stemmed from allegations that certain automated telephone calls made by the committee failed to include adequate disclaimers stating who paid for or authorized the communications. Disclaimer rules apply to telephone banks involving more than 500 phone calls of an identical or substantially similar nature made within any thirty day period. The Commission’s investigation of the matter revealed that fewer than 500 of the automated calls were made, and as a result, the FEC took no further action regarding the matter.
In MUR 5826, the Commission found no reason to believe former Representative Mark Green (WI/08) or his principal campaign committee, Mark Green for Congress, violated the Act. In 2005, Mark Green for Congress transferred funds to Green’s (non-federal) gubernatorial campaign committee and Mark Green formally announced his candidacy for Governor in the State of Wisconsin. The complaint alleged that the funds transferred from the Federal committee to the non-federal, gubernatorial committee violated Wisconsin state contribution limits. The complaint further alleged the Federal committee violated a provision of the Act allowing Federal candidates to use Federal campaign funds to make donations to non-federal campaigns, subject to state law. The FEC determined that the Act permits the transfer of Federal funds to a state campaign, subject to state law. The enforcement of state law, however, is the responsibility of the state.
MURs 5779 and 5805 arose from allegations that the City of Santa Clarita, a corporate entity in the State of California, failed to comply with the Act’s corporate prohibitions and reporting requirements applicable to political committees. In 2006, the city produced banners thanking Representative Buck McKeon (CA/25) for legislation he proposed that would help limit mining in the area. The Commission determined that the banners contained no express advocacy and found no reason to believe the City of Santa Clarita violated the Act.
By law, the FEC must attempt to resolve its enforcement cases or Matters Under Review (MURs) through a confidential investigative process that may lead to a negotiated conciliation agreement between the Commission and the individual or group the Commission determines has violated the law. Additional information regarding MURs can be found on the FEC website at
http://www.fec.gov/em/mur.shtml.This release contains only summary information. For additional details, please consult publicly available documents for each case in the Enforcement Query System (EQS) on the FEC website at
http://eqs.nictusa.com/eqs/searcheqs .
More...
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070912murs.shtml