FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Heller for Senate and Chrissie ) 

 Hastie in her official capacity ) MUR 7395 

 as treasurer ) 

Sen. Dean Heller ) 

Heller Enterprises, LLC ) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF 

CHAIR SHANA M. BROUSSARD AND COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB

The complaint in this matter alleges that Heller Enterprises, LLC (“Heller Enterprises”) 

made, and Sen. Dean Heller and Heller for Senate (the “Committee”) knowingly accepted and 

failed to report excessive or prohibited in-kind contributions in the form of discounted social 

media consulting services performed by Sen. Heller’s son, Harrison Clark Heller. In light of the 

circumstances presented, we voted to exercise prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the 

allegations.1

 

Beginning in July 2016, the Committee made monthly payments of $2,500 to Heller 

Enterprises, Harrison Heller’s company, for his services.2 Pointing to reports that the Committee 

received a discount from Harrison Heller, the complaint asserts that the Committee paid Heller 

below market rate, which resulted in excessive or prohibited contributions. Respondents contend 

that the rate was “neither below nor greater than the value of services Heller Enterprises has 

received for similar services.”3 

The provision of services below market rate typically results in an excessive or prohibited 

in-kind contribution.4 Where a political committee receives goods or services from a company 

partly owned by a candidate or his or her family, it must walk a fine line to avoid paying more or 

less than the fair market rate. Payments over the market rate risk illegally converting campaign 

1

 See Vote Certification, MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate, et al.); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). 2

 See, e.g., Heller for Senate 2016 Oct. Quarterly Report at 40, 60 (Oct. 15, 2016); Heller for Senate 2016 

Year-End Report at 63 (Jan. 31, 2017). As of August 2018, the Committee had reported disbursements to Heller 

Enterprises totaling $60,175. FEC Report Summaries, Heller for Senate, Disbursements, 2015-2016, 2017-2018; 

FEC Report Summaries, All Disbursements, 2013-2014, 2015-2016, 2017-2018. 3

 Resp. at 3 (July 5, 2018). Harrison Heller also submitted an affidavit in which he attested that he did not 

discuss a discount with the Committee, but came short of addressing his reported statements in the press about 

providing a discount. 

4

 See 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1) (defining an in-kind contribution as, in part, “the provision of any goods or 

services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge for such goods or services”).

MUR739500041
MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate, et al.) – Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 2 

May 7, 2021

May 7, 2021

funds to personal use, and payments below the market rate may cause the services to be 

impermissible in-kind contributions.5

 

Here, we do not know if the Committee struck the right balance. However, considering 

the circumstances presented, we voted to dismiss the allegations.6 First, the statute of limitations 

in this matter will begin to run in July 2021. And, though the press reports of a discount may 

suggest a potentially impermissible in-kind contribution, they appear to be driven in part by what 

the Respondents label “hyperbole.”7 Notwithstanding his general experience in social media 

consulting, Harrison Heller was not a seasoned political consultant when he was hired to work 

for his father’s campaign. He does not appear to have worked for other political committees. 

According to news reports, Heller cited campaigning with his father as a child as his only prior 

campaign experience.8 Given Heller’s lack of experience, it might have been difficult to 

determine the exact fair market rate even with an investigation. Had the Committee paid him in 

line with more established campaign vendors who provided a wider array of services to the 

Committee, they would have risked converting campaign funds to personal use. If the Committee 

erred, it appears to have done so in a way that at least avoided using campaign funds to line the 

pockets of the candidate’s relatively inexperienced son. Under these circumstances, and in light 

of the imminent statute of limitations and other priorities on the Commission’s docket, we voted 

to dismiss the allegations as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. 

____________________ _____________________ 

Date Shana M. Broussard

Chair

______________________ _______________________ 

Date Ellen L. Weintraub 

 Commissioner

 

5

 See Advisory Op. 1995-08 (Stupak); Advisory Op. 1994-22 at 2 n.1 (Patrick Combs for U.S. Congress) 

(“[I]f the Committee pays more than usual and normal charge for the rental, it would unduly augment the earnings 

of an asset owned by the candidate and thereby violate [the personal use provisions now at 52 U.S.C. § 30114]. If, 

on the other hand, the Committee pays less than fair market value, this would constitute a contribution by Woody 

Combs Auto Sales and Leasing [a partnership between the candidate and his father] to the campaign[.]”) (citations 

omitted).

6

 See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985). 7

 See Resp. at 1. 8

 See James DeHaven, Sen. Dean Heller Paid Son At Least $52,500 in Campaign Cash for Social Media 

Consulting, RENO GAZETTE JOURNAL (May 18, 2018). 

MUR739500042