•r-'*";' - .-n 

OH :•; FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ,n,, u,. 

2011^/23 F.'I2:IJ7 

In the matter of: 

OFFICFo;-

The Commission on Hope, Growth / ±1 t ^ .;:.L 

and Opportunity MURNo . O'l-H 

COMPLAINT 

1. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") and Melanie 

Sloan bring this complaint before the Federal Election Commission C'FEC or "Commission") 

seeking an immediate investigation and enforcemem action against the Commission on Hope, 

Growth and Opportunity for direct and serious violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

("FECA"). 

Complainants 

2. Complainant CREW is a non-profit corporation, organized under section 

S0I(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. CREW is committed to protecting the right of citizens 

to be informed about the activities of government officials and to ensuring the integrity of 

government officials. CREW is dedicated to empowering citizens to have an influential voice in 

government decisions and in the governmental decision-making process. CREW uses a 

cctmbination of research, litigation, and advocacy to advance its rrrission. 

J 

3. In fiirtberance of its mission, CREW seeks to expose unethical and illegal conduct j 

I 

of those involved in government One way CREW does this is by educating citizens regarding 

the integrity of the electoral process and our system of government. Tov«mrd this end, CREW 

j 

monitors the campaign finance activities of those who run for federal office and participate in 

federal elections, and publicizes those who violate federal campaign finance laws. CREW also 
flies complaints with the FEC when it discovers violations of the FECA. Publicizing campaign 

finance violators and filing complaints with the FEC serves CREW's mission of keeping the 

public informed about individuals and entities that violate campaign finance laws and deterring 

future violations of campaign finance law. 

4. In order to assess whether an individual or regulated entity is complying with 

federal campaign fmance law, CREW needs the information contained in independent 

expenditure and electioneering communications disclosure reports that must be filed pursuant to 

the FECA, 2 U.S.C. § 434(c), (f); 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.20Cb), 109.10(b)-(d). CREW is hindered in 

its programmatic activity when an individual or regulated entity fails to disclose campaign 

finance information in reports required by the FECA. 

5. CREW relies on the FEC's proper administration of the FECA's reporting 

requirements because the FECA-mandated disclosure reports are the only source of information 

CREW can use to determine if an individual or regulated entity is complying with the FECA. 

The proper administration of the FECA's reporting requirements includes mandating that all 

disclosure reports required by the FECA are properly and timely filed with the FEC. CREW is 

hindered in its programmatic activity when the FEC fails to properly administer the FECA's 

reporting requirements. 

6. Complainant Melanie Sloan is the executive direotoi; of Citizens for 

Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a citizen of the United States and a registered voter and 

resident of the District of Columbia. As a registered voter, Ms. Sloan is entitled to receive 

information contained in disclosure reports required by the FECA, 2 U.S.C. § 434(c), (f); 11 

C.F.R. §§ 104.20(b), 109.10(b)-(d). Ms. Sloan is harmed when an individual or regulated entity 
fails to report campaign finance activity as required by the FECA. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 

11,19 (1998), quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1,66-67 (1976) (political committees must 

disclose contributors and disbursements to help voters understand who provides which 

candidates with financial support). Ms. Sloan is further harmed when the FEC fails to properly 

administer the FECA's reporting requirements, limiting its ability to review campaign finance 

information. 

Respondent 

7. The Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity C'CHGO") is an 

unincorporated nonprofit association organized under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue 

Code and based in Washington, D.C. CHGO's contact information is as follows: 

Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity 

1900 M Street, N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202)530-5332 

8. As of May 20,2011, CHGO was not a registered pplitical committee. 

Factual allegations 

9. Between September 25 and November 2,2010, CHGO spent more than $2.3 

million to broadcast television advertisements in 12 elections Ibr seats in the House of 

Representatives.' All of these advertisements are included en the disc attached as Exhibit A, and 

are available at www.citizensfcrethics.ore/CHGO. 

' The Campaign Media Analysis Group ("CMAG") tracks political advertisements broadcast on 

local, national, and cable television, llie data collected by CMAG include the date of the 

advertising, the market in which it was broadcast, the content of the advertising, and the 

estimated cost of the air time purchased. 
10. In 10 of the elections CHGO broadcast advertisements attacking one candidate 

and supporting the other one. 

11. CHGO spent $438,310 to broadcast two advertisements attacking Rep. John 

Spratt (D-SC) and supporting his Republican opponent, Mick Mulvaney. 

12. Specifically, CHGO spent $239,480 to broadcast one advertisement titled "Song 

and Dance" between September 25 and October 3,2010. Exhibit A, track 1. In this 

advertisement CHGO stated that even though "it's the worst economy in decades," Spratt, 

"instead of looking out for us^ approved billions in deficit spending withont missing a beat." 

CHGO then encouraged voters to "pull the plug on this song and dance once and for all," and to 

"join Mick Mulvaney's fight against the big spenders in Washington." On screen at the end of 

the advertisement appeared the words "Fight back. Join Mick Mulvaney. Stop the big spenders 

in Congress." 

13. CHGO spent $198,830 to broadcast the second advertisement, titled "Collectible 

Coin," between October 28 and November 2,2010. This advertisement ostensibly advertised a 

collectible coin commemorating President Obama "increasing our national debt to a staggering 

$ 13.4 trillion" and Spratt's votes for the agenda of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Id., 

track 2. CHGO then told voters to call Spratt "to order yours today" and said "Mick Mulvaney 

has a better idea - stop the spending and get America working again." On screen at the end of 

this advertisement appeared the words "Help Mick Mulvaney. Stop the Spending. Make 

America Work Again." 

14. CHGO spent $240,690 to broadcast the "Song and Dance" advertisement against 

Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) and in support of her opponent. Republican Mike Kelly, 
between September 29 and October 5,2010. Id., track 3. 

15. CHGO spent $238,740 to broadcast the "Song and Dance" advertisement against 

Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) and in support of Republican Andy Harris between September 29 

and October 1S, 2010. Id., track 4. 

16. CHGO spent $74,240 to broadcast the "Song and Dance" advertisement against 

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) and in support of Republican Steve Southerland between September 29 

and October S, 2010. /(i., track S. 

17. CHGO spent $ 13 U830 to broadcast the "Collectible Coin" advertisement against 

Rep. Suzatme Kosmas (D-FL) and in support of Republican Sandy Adams between October 8 

and 14,2010. /d, track 6. 

18. CHGO spent $101,070 to broadcast the "Collectible Coin" advertisement against 

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) and in support of Republican Todd Young between October 29 and 

November 1,2010. Id, track_7. 

19. CHGO spent $76,230 to broadcast the "Collectible Coin" advertisement against 

Rep. C.A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger (D-MD) and in support of Republican Marcelo Cardarelli 

between October IS and November 1,2010. Id, track 8. 

20. CHGO spent $53,580 to broadcast the "Collectible Coin" advertisement against 

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) and in support of Republican Lou Barletta between October 1 and 7, 

2010. track 9. 

21. CHGO also spent $263,650 to broadcast an advertisement titled "Make America 

Work" against Rep. John Salazar (D-CO) and in support of his Republican opponent, Scott 

Tipton, between October 1 and October 9,2010. In this advertisement, CHGO first identified 
Salazar as a candidate, then stated Salazar "squandered billions on a bogus stimulus bill as 

unemployment skyrocketed," and "led the charge with Pelosi for Obamacare, further crippling 

rural Colorado's economy." Id., track 10. CHGO then touted Tipton, saying "he believes 

Coloradans know best how to create jobs and grow our economy," and encouraging voters to 

"help Scott Tipton make America work again." 

22. CHGO spent $99,160 to broadcast a similar "Make America Work" advertisement 

against Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY) and in support of Republican Ann Marie Buerkle between 

October 25 and November 3,2010. Id., track 11. CHGO also spent $65,860 to broadcast 

the"Colleetible Coin" advertisement against Maffei and in support of Buerkle between October 

21 and 25,2010. A/., track 12. 

23. CHGO spent $74,370 to broadcast the "Collectible Coin" advertisement in 

support of Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ED) between October 13 and 19,2010 that did not mention his 

opponent. A/., track 13. 

24. CHGO broadcast two additional advertisements close to the election that attacked 

one candidate and encouraged voters to call the candidate. 

25. CHGO spent $415,270 to broadcast an advertisement against Rep. Carol SheaPorter (D-NH) between October 8 and 16,2010. In this advertisement, CHGO noted SheaPorter's votes for the stimulus package and the health care bill, and added "it gets worse" 

because Shea-Porter "voted for the Pelosi Honse agenda 93%" of the time. Id, track 14. CHGO 

then encouraged voters to call Shea-Porter and "let her know if what you believe is what she 

believes" while the words "does she believe what we believe?" appeared on the screen. 

26. CHGO also spent $41,100 to broadcast a second advertisement against Boyd 
between October 27 and November 1,2010. In this advertisement, CHGO asserted Boyd was 

one of Pelosi's most loyal followers, but after he "voted no on Obamacare, Queen Nancy shouted 

'off with his head,' and Allen quickly changed his vote to yes." CHGO then encouraged voters 

to call Boyd and urge him "to vote no again" and "repeal Obamacare." Id., track 15. 

27. On the screen at the end of each advertisement appeared a written disclaimer: 

"Paid for by the Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity, a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) 

organization and not a federal political committee. This message is not coordinated vsdth any 

candidate or eononittee." CHGO's website, www.hoDegrowthopportunitv.org. appeased at the 

bottom of the screen. 

28. On October 4,2010, after some of these advertisements had aired, the Democratic 

Congressional Campaign Committee ("DCCC") filed a complaint with the FEC alleging CHGO 

ftuled to file any independent expenditure or electioneering communications reports for 

advertisements it broadcast as of October 1,2010. Exhibit B. 

Legal background 

29. An "independent expenditure" is an expenditure by a person for a communication 

"expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate" that is not 

coordinated with a candidate or a political party. 2 U.S.C. § 431(17); 11 C.F.R. § 100.16(a). 

30. The Commission's regulations define "expressly advocating" as any 

communication that either use phrases such as "Smith for Congress" or "Bill McKay in '94," 11 

C.F.R. § 100.22(a), or "[w]hen taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, 

such as the proximity to the election, could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as 

containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) 
because - (I) The electoral portion of the communication is unmistakable, unambiguous, and 

suggestive of only one mejming; and (2) Reasonable minds could not differ as to whether it 

encourages actions to elect or defeat one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or encourages 

some other kind of action," 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(b). 

31. A public communication is "a communication by means of any broadcast, cable or 

satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or 

telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general public political advertising." 

11 C.F.R.§ 100.26. 

32. A "clearly identified candidate" is one whose name, nickname, photograph or 

dramng appears, or whose identity is apparent through unambiguous reference. 11 C.F.R. § 

100.17. 

33. The FECA requires a person (including a political conamittee) who makes 

independent expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more on a given election in a calendar year up 

to the 20th day before the date of an election to file a report describing the expenditure with the 

Commission within 48 hours. 2 U.S.C. § 434(g)(2)(A). Commission regulations specify that the 

report must be filed not later than "11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard/Daylight Time on the second day 

following the date on which a communication that constitutes an independent expenditure is 

publicly distributed or otherwise publicly disseminated." 11 C.F.R. § 109.1Q(c). 

34. The FECA further requires a person (ineluding a political committee) who makes 

independent expenditures aggregating $1,0.00 or more on a given election after the 20th day 

before the date of an election but more than 24 hours before the day of the election to file a report 

describing the expenditure with the Commission unthin 24 hours. 2 U.S.C. § 434(g)(1)(A). 

8 
Commission regulations specify that the report must be filed not later than "11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Standard/Daylight Time on the day following the date on which a communication is publicly 

distributed or otherwise publicly disseminated." 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(d). 

35. The FECA and the Commission's regulations define an "electioneering 

communication" as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that: (1) refers to a clearly 

identified candidate for Federal office; (2) is publicly distributed within 60 days before a general 

election for the office sought by the candidate; and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate, in the 

case of a candidate for the House of Representatives. 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(3)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 

100.29(a). 

36. The FECA requires a person who makes electioneering conununications 

aggregating $10,000 or more during a calendar year to file a statement describing the 

disbursement within 48 hours. 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(1). Commission regulations specify that the 

report must be filed not later than "11 :S9 p.m. Eastern Standard/Daylight Time on the day 

following the disclosure date." 11 C.F.R. § 104.20(b) 

Count I 

37. The television advertisements CHGO broadcast were either independent 

expenditures or electioneering communications, but none of them have been reported to the 

Commission. 

38. Nearly all of CHGO's advertisements are independent expenditures because they 

expressly advocated for the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate. All of 

the advertisements clearly identified by name and by photograph and/or video either both the 

Republican and Democratic candidates or one of them. By telling voters to "fight back" and 
"join" a candidate's fight, "help" a candidate, or "pull the plug" on a candidate's "song and 

dance," the advertisements could only be reasonably interpreted as containing advocacy of the 

election or defeat of the candidates. 

39. CHGO spent more than $10,000 in each of the 11 House races in which it 

broadcast advertisements expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates. 

40. For each of the advertisements broadcast up to 20 days before the date of the 

election, CHGO should have filed an independent expenditure report with the Commission 

within 48 hours. For each of the advertisements broadcast within 20 days of the date of the 

election, CHGO should have filed an independent expenditure report whh the Commission 

within 24 hours. 

41. As of May 20,2011, CHGO had not filed any independent expenditure reports 

regarding the advertisements. 

42. Even if some of these advertisements were not independent expenditures, all of 

them were electioneering communications because they (1) referred to clearly identified 

candidate or candidates, (2) were publicly distributed within 60 days of the election, and (3) were 

targeted to the relevant electorates. For the same reason, the two advertisements in which CHGO 

clearly identified one candidate and encouraged voters to call the candidate were electioneering 

communications. 

43. CHGO should have filed electioneering communications reports with the 

Commission for each of the advertisements within 48 hours. 

44. As of May 20,2011, CHGO had not filed any electioneering communications 

reports regarding the advertisements. 

10 
45. By broadcasting advertisements that were either independent expenditures or 

electioneering communications and failing to report those expenditures to the FEC, CHGO 

violated 2 U.S.C. § 434(g) and 11 C.F.R. § 109.10(c)-(d), and/or 2 U.S.C. § 434(f)(1) and 11 

C.F.R. § 104.20(b). 

46. The filing of the DCCC complaint put CHGO on notice that its failure to report its 

independent expenditures or electioneering communications violated the FECA and relevant 

regulations. By failing to report its independent expenditures or electioneering communications 

arising from broadcasting advertisements after the DCCC filed its complaint, CHGO's violations 

were knowing and vdllflil and thus subject to criminal penalties and referral to the Department of 

Justice. 2 U.S.C. §§ 437g(a)(5)(C), 437g(d)(l). 

CountJI 

47. An independent expenditure or electioneering communication in the form of a 

communication transmitted through television must include a disclaimer. 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2); 

11 C F.R. § 110.11(c)(4). The communication must include the audio statement that "[the person 

paying for the communication] is responsible for the content of this advertising," conveyed by a 

representative of the person paying for the communication either in an unobscured, full-screen 

view of the representative or in a voiceover. 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.1 l(c)(4)(i)-

(ii). The communication must also include this statement in a "clearly readable manner." 2 

U.SiC. §441d(d)(2); 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(c)(4)(iu). 

48. All of the television advertisements paid for by CHGO were independent 

expenditures or electioneering communications, but none of them included either the audio or 

written disclaimer stating CHGO is responsible for the content of the advertising. By foiling to 

11 
include the disclaimer. CHGO violated 2 U.S.C. § 441d(d)(2) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(c)(4). 

Conclusion 

WHEREFORE, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Melanie Sloan 

request that the FEC conduct an investigation into these allegations, declare the respondent to 

have violated the FECA and applicable FEC regulations, impose sanctions appropriate to these 

violations and take such further action as may be appropriate, including referring this case to the 

Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. 

ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS 

Melanie Sloan 

Executive Director 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in 

Washington 

1400EyeSt.,N.W., Suite 450 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 408-5565 (phone) 

(202) 588-5020 (fax) 

12 
Verification 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Melanie Sloan hereby verify 

that the statements made in the attached Complaint are, upon information and belief, true. Sworn 

pursuant to 18 U.S.Cy£ If^-

Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of May, 2011. 

J«"y31.20]4 • 

13 
EXHIBIT A 
See enclosed disc 
EXHIBIT B 
DCCC 

Oeinaentfc 

CunpavoQ 

HONORABLE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN 

CHAIRMAN BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Jon Vogel, 

Executive Director 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 

430 South Capitol St., SB 

Washington, DC 20003, 

Complainant, 

V. 

Commission on Hope, Growth & Opportunity 

1900 M Street, NW Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 200036 

(202) 530-3332 

Respondent. 

COMPLAINT 

Complainant files this complaint under 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(l) against the Commission on 

Hope, Growth & Opportunity ("Respondent") for violations of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act ("Act"), as described below. 

A. FACTS 

Respondent is an organization that claims to be "registered under section 501 (c)(4) of the 

IRS."' As of October 1, 2010, it was not a registered political committee. 

Based on information and belief, from September 24, 2010 through September 30, 2010, 

Respondent disseminated broadcast television advertisements attacking Congressman John 

' See httD://www.hoDegrowthopDortunitv.com/ (last visited on October 1, 2010). 

PAID FOR BY THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMIHEE • 430 SOUTH CAPITOL ST. SE • WASHINGTON, DC 20003 

(202) 863-1500 • WWW.OCCC.ORG • NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE 

CONTRIBUTIONS OR GIFTS TO THE DEMOCRATIC CX3NGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE ARE NOT TAX DEDUaiBLE 
DCCC 

OemoeiBifc CnvBsftma/ 

CammiUeB 

Spratt (totaling in excess of $200,000) and Congressman Dan Maffei (totaling in excess of 

$100,000).^ On September 30,2010, Respondent disseminated broadcast television 

advertisements attacking Congressman Frank Kratovil,^ Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, 

and Congressman Allan Boyd. Based on information and belief, these ads are expected to run 

through October S, 2010, and will in excess of $300,000, $200,000, and $100,000 respectively. 

As Exhibits A and C demonstrate, the ads attacking Congressmen Spratt and Kratovil 

refer to both candidates by name and show their images. After attacking the candidates, the ad 

fades to pictorial images of the candidates' Republican opponents. The narrator then closes the 

ads by saying, "Join [name of Republican candidate] to fight against the big spenders in 

Congress," with an on-screen chryon that says, "Fight back. Join [name of Republican 

candidate]. Stop the big spenders in Congress." Neither ad states that the Respondent "is 

responsible for the content of this advertising" - either aurally or in writing. 

As Exhibit B demonstrates, the ad attacking Congressman Maffei also refers to the 

candidate by name and shows his image. After attacking Congressman Maffei, the ad shows 

several images of his RepufaKean opponent, Ann Marie Buerkle, tonts her proposals, and then 

closes with the narrator saying, "Help Ann Marie Buerkle make America work again," with an 

on-screen chryon that says, "Help Anne [sic] Marie Buerkle Make America Work Again." The 

ad does not state that the Respondent "is responsible for the content of this advertising" - either 

aurally or in writing. 

- See Exhibits A and B. 

' See Exhibit C. 
DCCC 

OemoerBflfe CMigmssiofia/ 

'Committee 

As of October 1,2010, Respondent had not reported any of these advertisements to the 

Federal Election Commission (the "Commission"). 

B. LEGAL BACKGROUND 

Commission regulations define an "independent expenditure" as an "expenditure by a 

person for a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

candidate" that is not coordinated with a Federal candidate or political party. 11 C.F.R. § 

100.16(a). The term "expressly advocate" means any communication that either uses the socalled "magic words" set forth in 11 C.F.R. § 100.22(a) or "[w]hen taken as a whole and with 

limited reference to external events, such as the proximity to the election, could only be 

interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or 

more clearly identified candidate(s) because - (1) [t]he electoral portion of the communication is 

unmistakable, unambiguous, and suggestive of only one meaning; and (2) [rjeasonable minds 

could not differ as to whether it encourages actions to elect or defeat one or more clearly 

identified candidate(s) or encourages some ether kind of action." Id, § 100.22(b) 

\ 

Commission regulations define an "electioneering communication" as any bmadcast. 

(2) is publicly distributed within 60 days before a general election for the office sought by the 

candidate, and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate, in the case of a candidate for the House 

of Representatives. See 11 C.F.R. § 100.29(a). 

I 

cable, satellite communication that (1) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office, j 

\ 
DCCC 

DeaaeiaSeCongiasiaml 

Campaign Cammttaa 

C. LEGAL ARGUMENT 

1. Respondent Failed to File Independent Expenditure or Electioneering 

Communication Reports 

Commission regulations require persons other than political committees that "make[] 

independent expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more with respect to a given election any time 

during the ealendar year up to and includiog the 20th day before an eleetion" to report the 

independent expenditures by ll:S9 p.m. on the second day following the date on which a 

communication is publicly distributed or otherwise publicly disseminated." 11 C.F.R. § 

109.10(c). Likewise, Commission regulations require persons other than political committees 

that make "an electioneering communication ... aggregating in excess of $10,000 during any 

calendar year [to] file a statement with the Commission by 11:59 p.m. on the day following the 

disclosure date." Id. § 104.20(b). 

The advertisements publicly disseminated by Respondent were either independent 

expenditures or electioneering communications. The advertisements expressly advocated for the 

election of the Republican candidates and the defeat of the Democratic candidatfes. Even if the 

Commission concludes that the advertisements did not contain express advocacy, they are clearly 

"electioneering commimications," because they were broadcast, cable, or satellite 

communications that referred to clearly identified candidates for public office, were publicly 

distributed within 60 days of the general election, and were targeted to the relevant electorate. 

However, as of October 1, 2010, Respondent had failed to file any independent 

expenditure or electioneering communication reports, even though the advertisements clearly 
DCCC 

DemomSeCaagiesacnal 

CampaignOmnaiBe 

exceeded the $10,000 threshold and qualified as either independent expenditures or 

electioneering communications. Therefore, Respondent violated either section 104.20(b) or 

109.10(c) of the regulations. 

2. Respondent Failed to Include Proper Disclaimers on the Advertisements 

Commission regulations require certain television communications to have disclaimers. 

A television communication by a person otlier than a political committee is required to have a 

disclaimer if it expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or 

qualifies as an electioneering communication. See id § 110.11(a)(2), (4). All such television 

communications must include the following audio statement: "XXXX is responsible for the 

content of this advertising," with the blank to be filled in with the name of the person paying for 

the communication. See id. § 110.1 l(c)(4)(i). The statement must be "spoken clearly" and 

"conveyed by an unobscured full-screen view of a representative of the ... person making the 

statement, or by a representative of such ... other person in voice-over." Id. § 110.1 l(c)(4)(ii). 

Furthemiore, such a television communication must also "include a similar statement that must 

appear in clearly readable writing at the end of the communication." /d. § 110.1 l(c)(4)(iii). 

Because they were either independent expenditures or electioneering communications. 

Respondent's television advertisements were required to include the aural and written "stand by 

your ad" disclaimer. However, none of Respondent's advertisements contained the aural or 

written "stand by your ad" disclaimer. Therefore, Respondent violated section 110.11(c) of the 

regulations. 
DCCC ssssass" 

D. REQUESTED ACTION 

As we have shown, there is substantial evidence that Respondent has violated the Federal 

Election Campaign Act. We respectfully request the Commission to investigate these violations. 

Should the Commission determine that Respondents have violated FECA, we request that 

Respondents be enjoined from further vrolations and be fined the maximum amount permitted by 

law. 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day 2010. 

Notary Public 

lission Expires: