FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF 

COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB

The Complaint in this matter alleged that Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc. (“JPF”), a 501(c)(4)

organization, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), by 

becoming a political committee at some point before 2018 but failed to register as a political 

committee and file appropriate reports.1 Consistent with the Office of General Counsel’s 

recommendations, I voted to dismiss the allegations.

2

In addition, I supported the Office of General 

Counsel’s Factual and Legal Analysis, subject to minor edits. I attach here the proposed Factual and 

Legal Analysis that I supported, which provides the explanation for my vote.3

December 3, 2021 ____________________________

Date Ellen L. Weintraub

Commissioner

1 The Complaint also alleged that JPF’s present and former officers, Vaughn Church, Thomas Norris, and Mark Miller, 

violated the Act in their individual capacities by failing to register JPF as a political committee and report as a political 

committee. Compl. ¶¶ 11-13 (Nov. 20, 2020). Consistent with the Office of General Counsel’s recommendations, I 

voted to find no reason to believe a violation occurred. Certification in MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc., et al.), 

dated Nov. 2, 2021.

2 See Certification in MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc., et al.), dated Nov. 2, 2021.

3 See Attachment A (Proposed Factual and Legal Analysis). As noted, this version was not adopted by the Commission.

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of

Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.; Vaughn Church; 

Thomas Norris; Mark Miller

)

)

)

)

)

MUR 7860

MUR786000081
ATTACHMENT A

MUR786000082
Proposed Factual and Legal Analysis

1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

2 FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

3

4 RESPONDENTS: Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc. MUR 7860

5 Vaughn Church

6 Thomas Norris

7 Mark Miller

8 I. INTRODUCTION

9 The Complaint alleges that Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc. (“JPF”), a 501(c)(4) 

10 organization, became a political committee “no later than 2018” and consequently violated the 

11 Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), and Commission regulations

12 by failing to register as a political committee and file appropriate reports. The Complaint also 

13 alleges that JPF’s present and former officers, Vaughn Church, Thomas Norris, and Mark Miller,

14 violated the Act in their individual capacities by failing to register JPF as a political committee

and report as a political committee.1 15 The Complaint, analyzing JPF’s Internal Revenue Service 

(“IRS”) Form 990 filings,2 16 contends that JPF either became a political committee in its 2013 

17 fiscal year (October 1, 2013-September 30, 2014) or in its 2017 fiscal year (October 1, 2017-

18 September 30, 2018) because in those two years, more than 50% of its funds were spent making 

contributions to federal independent expenditure-only political committees (“IEOPCs”).3 19 

20 Respondents contend that the facts alleged in the Complaint are legally insufficient to meet the 

1 Compl. ¶¶ 11-13 (Nov. 20, 2020). The Complaint notes that Vaughn Church is JPF’s sole director and was 

listed as such beginning in FY 2017. Id. ¶ 11. Thomas Norris was reported as JPF’s Chairman and President for the 

fiscal reporting period that covered Oct. 1, 2012 - Sept. 30, 2014 and is the treasurer for several Super PACs to 

which JPF made contributions. Id. ¶ 12. Mark Miller was JPF’s treasurer for the fiscal year covering Oct. 1, 2013 -

Sept. 30, 2014. Id. ¶ 13.

2 All references to “fiscal year” in this report refer to JPF’s fiscal year, used in its tax filings, which runs 

from October 1 to September 30.

3 Compl. ¶¶ 2-3.

MUR786000083
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 2 of 16

1 political committee statutory threshold and alternatively contend that the matter should be 

2 dismissed as time barred.

3 For the reasons set forth below, the Commission exercises its prosecutorial discretion and 

4 dismisses the allegations that JPF violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, and 30104 by failing to 

register and report as a political committee.4 5 Although the record indicates that JPF may have

6 become a political committee between 2013 and 2014, this activity occurred more than five years 

7 ago, limiting the Commission’s remedies, and the factual record is less developed concerning its 

8 activity in subsequent years. Finally, because the Complaint does not appear to allege any 

9 cognizable violations against the individual respondents, the Commission finds no reason to 

10 believe that Church, Norris, and Miller violated the Act’s registration and reporting provisions.

11 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12 JPF was initially incorporated in Ohio in 2011 as Ohio First for a Better Government, 

Inc., but changed its name to JPF in 2012.5 13 JPF is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(4) tax 

exempt organization.6 14 According to its IRS filings, JPF’s stated purpose is “to promote the 

15 common good and general welfare through education and legislative participation on public 

16 policy matters that significantly impact the economy, job growth and retention, and employment, 

and that are designed to promote fiscal responsibility.”7 17 

4 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32 (1985).

5 Ohio Secretary of State, Business Details and Filing Search, https://businesssearch.ohiosos.gov/ (search for 

“Jobs and Progress Fund”) (last visited July 7, 2021).

6

IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search, https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch (search for “Jobs and Progress 

Fund”) (last visited Jul. 7, 2021) [hereinafter JPF IRS Data].

7 Form 990-EZ, 2015 Tax Return of Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc. (Aug. 14, 2017) [hereinafter JPF 2015 Tax 

Return].

MUR786000084
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 3 of 16

1 During its 2012 fiscal year, Mark Miller served as JPF’s President, and during its 2013 

fiscal year, served as its treasurer.8 2 Thomas Norris served as JPF’s chairman during its 2012 

fiscal year and JPF’s Director and President during its 2013 fiscal year.9 3 In fiscal year 2017, 

Vaughn Church was listed as JPF’s sole officer, and served as its director.10 4 

5 During its 2013 fiscal year, JPF reported in its tax return spending a total of $3,217, 826, 

$1,815,000 of which it identified to the IRS as “political expenditures.”11 6 These political 

7 expenditures consisted of making contributions to two IEOPCs: Citizens for a Working America 

PAC ($1,735,000) and Hometown Freedom Action Network ($80,000).12 8 JPF did not report 

9 making any independent expenditures. Between its 2014 and 2016 fiscal years, JPF did not 

make any political expenditures and had limited activity.13 10

11 During its 2017 fiscal year, JPF reported to the IRS that it had spent a total of $297,403, 

12 of which $175,000 was for identified as “political expenditures.” In addition to the political 

8 Compl. at 4 (citing Form 990, 2012 Tax Return of Jobs and Progress Fund (Mar. 11, 2014), 

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/275401086/2014_03_EO%2F27-5401086_990O_201309

(last visited Jul. 8, 2021) [hereinafter JPF 2012 Tax Return]; Form 990, 2013 Tax Return of Jobs and Progress Fund 

(Aug. 15, 2015) https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/275401086/2015_10_EO%2F27-

5401086_990O_201409 (last visited July 8, 2021) [hereinafter JPF 2013 Tax Return]). Miller also served as JPF’s 

director during its 2014 and 2015 fiscal years. See Form 990-EZ, 2014 Tax Return of Jobs and Progress Fund 

(Sept. 19, 2016); https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/275401086/2016_09_EO%2F27-

5401086_990EO_201509 (last visited Aug. 23, 2021); Form 990-EZ, 2015 Tax Return of Jobs and Progress Fund 

(Aug. 21, 2017), https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/275401086_201609_990EO_2017082814680091.pdf. In 

Fiscal Year 2016, JPF had limited activity and filed a Form 990-N (an “e-postcard) with the IRS listing Miller as a 

principal officer. See JPF IRS Data.

9 See JPF 2012 Tax Return; JPF 2013 Tax Return.

10 Form 990, 2017 Tax Return of Jobs and Progress Fund (Aug. 15, 2019) [hereinafter JPF 2017 Tax Return].

11 JPF 2013 Tax Return at Schedule C, Part I-A, line 2, Part IV.

12 Id. Citizens for a Working America PAC’s FEC disclosure reports indicate that JPF contributed an 

additional $10,000, which was not reflected on JPF’s 2013 Tax Return. See Compl. ¶ 25; see also FEC Individual 

Contributions: Filtered Results, FEC.GOV, https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individualcontributions/?contributor_name=Jobs+and+Progress+Fund (last visited July 20, 2021) [hereinafter JPF 

Contribution History] (reflecting results for contributions from “Jobs and Progress Fund”). As such, the Complaint 

contends that this contribution should also be included in analyses of JPF’s activity. Compl. ¶ 25. 

13 Compl. ¶ 26; JPF, Church, Norris, & Miller Joint Resp. at 6 (Jan. 26, 2021) (“Resp.”).

MUR786000085
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 4 of 16

1 activity acknowledged on the tax return, according to FEC disclosure reports, JPF also 

contributed $18,500 to Make Cincinnati Better, a federally registered IEOPC.14 2

3 Although JPF’s IRS filing for its 2018 fiscal year is not publicly available, based on its 

Response, it appears to have had limited activity during that fiscal year.15 4 JPF continued to make 

5 contributions to IEOPCs in 2020, spending a total of $266,000 according to disclosure reports 

filed by the recipient committees.16 6 The vast majority of these contributions, $260,000, were 

7 made to Fighting for Kansas PAC, which also reported making independent expenditures during 

the relevant time period.17 8 JPF’s tax returns for the relevant time period for these expenditures 

9 are not yet available, so it is not known what percentage of JPF’s overall spending went toward 

10 these contributions. JPF filed dissolution papers with the Ohio Secretary of State on or about 

11 February 26, 2021, and its dissolution appears to have been approved by the Ohio Secretary of 

State and became effective March 4, 2021.18 12 In that filing, JPF included several board 

13 documents, which stated that JPF was seeking to terminate and wind-down its affairs and had 

amended its articles of incorporation to terminate.19 14

15 The Complaint alleges that “despite its heavy political spending, JPF never registered as a 

16 political committee with the FEC and failed and continues to fail to file reports disclosing its 

14 Compl. ¶ 15; Make Cincinnati Better, 2017 Year-End Report at 6 (Jan. 25, 2018).

15 See Resp. at 6 (reporting $264,030 of expenses and no political expenses). The Response does not address 

fiscal year 2019, which would have covered JPF’s activity until September 30, 2020. 

16 JPF Contribution History.

17 See Fighting for Kansas PAC, 2020 October Quarterly Report (Oct. 15, 2020) (reporting all contributions 

as being from JPF and reporting independent expenditures that were made in connection with Congressional 

elections in Kansas).

18 Ohio Sec’y of State, Dissolution of Jobs and Progress Fund (Mar. 11, 2021), 

https://bizimage.ohiosos.gov/api/image/pdf/202106301942. 

19 Id. at 12-13.

MUR786000086
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 5 of 16

contributors.”20 1 The Complaint notes JPF’s contributions to various IEPOCs and contends that 

2 the recipient organization’s reporting of JPF’s “gifts, deposits, or distributions” as contributions, 

3 as that term is defined under the Act, serves as support for the conclusion that JPF’s payments 

were intended to influence elections.21 4 The Complaint also contends that the recipient IEOPCs 

5 made independent expenditures in connection with federal elections during the relevant time 

periods.22 6 According to the Complaint, between October 1, 2013, and September 30, 2014, 

JPF’s political spending represented 56.7% of its total aggregate spending,23 7 and between 

8 October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018, JPF’s political spending represented 65% of its total 

spending.24 9 Based on these conclusions, the Complaint further alleges that Church, Norris, and 

10 Miller should be held liable in their official and personal capacities for JPF’s purported failure to 

11 register and report as a political committee and contends that their violations were knowing and 

willful.25 12

13 In a joint response, Respondents deny the allegations, and contend that because JPF’s 

14 activity consisted solely of “making contributions to several other organizations, some of which 

15 were registered federal political committees, some of which, in turn did federal independent 

16 expenditures,” the available information is insufficient as a matter of law for a finding that JPF 

was itself a political committee.26 17 Respondents do not dispute that during the 2013 fiscal year, 

20 Compl. ¶ 3.

21 Id. ¶¶ 16, 24, 33. 

22 Id. ¶¶ 18, 25.

23 Id. ¶ 25.

24 Id. ¶ 21.

25 Id. ¶¶ 51-76.

26 Resp. at 2 (citing Statement of Reasons, Comm’rs Hunter & Goodman, MUR 6872 (New Models)). The 

Response states that “a single transaction cannot be deemed both an expenditure and a contribution by the same 

entity.” Id.

MUR786000087
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 6 of 16

JPF’s political expenses constituted 56% of its overall spending.27 1 Respondents do, however, 

2 dispute the Complaint’s characterization of 65% of its 2017 fiscal year spending as federal 

3 election-related political expenditures. In support of this, Respondents note that during the 

4 reporting period where JPF made contributions to Kansas First, Kansas First only reported 

making expenditures that related to state-level races.28 5 As a result, Respondents contend that 

6 only 25 percent of its overall spending in that year consisted of “federal campaign activity 

spending”.29 7

JPF’s Self-Reported Receipts and Expenditures30 8

Tax Year

(Oct. 1 to 

Sept. 30)

Gross 

Receipts

Total 

Expenses

Political 

Expenses (as 

reported on 

Sch C)

Federal 

Election 

Expenses

State Election 

Expenses

Federal as % 

of Total

2012 $912,780 $630,113 $0 $0 $0 0%

2013 $3,329,318 $3,217,826 $1,815,000 $1,815,000 $0 56%

2014 $4,922 $299,081 $0 $0 $0 0%

2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%

2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0%

2017 $452,300 $297,403 $175,000 $75,000 $100,000 25%

2018 $200,000 $264,030 $0 $0 $0 0%

TOTAL $4,799,320 $4,708,453 $1,990,000 $1,890,000 $100,000 40%

9 Respondents further contend that much of the activity identified in the Complaint 

occurred more than five years ago and claim that as a result, “these claims are unactionable.”31 10 

11 Finally, Respondents argue that any claims as to Church, Norris, and Miller, in their individual 

27 Id. at 6.

28 Id. at 7. Disclosure reports from Kansas First confirm that it did not make federal IEs during the period 

where JPF was making contributions. See Kansas First, 2018 April Quarterly Report at 8 (Apr. 12, 2018).

29 Resp. at 7.

30 Reproduced from Resp. at 6 [hereinafter “JPF Spending Chart”].

31 Resp. at 8-11.

MUR786000088
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 7 of 16

1 capacities should be dismissed because the Complaint does not contain any factual allegations 

that any of the individual respondents acted knowingly and willfully.32 2

3 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

4 A. Determining Political Committee Status

5 Under the Act and Commission regulations, as construed by controlling Supreme Court 

6 precedent, an organization that is not controlled by a candidate must register as a political 

7 committee only if it both (1) receives contributions or makes expenditures aggregating in excess 

8 of $1,000 during a calendar year and (2) has as its “major purpose” the nomination or election of 

federal candidates.33 9 

10 In 2007, following litigation resulting from the Commission’s decision not to pursue a 

11 rulemaking on the subject of political committee status, the Commission issued a Supplemental 

12 Explanation and Justification (“Supplemental E&J”) to provide the public with additional 

guidance as to its process for determining political committee status.34 13 As explained in the 

14 Supplemental E&J, to determine an entity’s “major purpose,” the Commission considers a 

15 group’s “overall conduct,” including public statements about its mission, organizational 

16 documents, government filings (e.g., IRS notices), the proportion of spending related to “Federal 

17 campaign activity (i.e., the nomination or election of a Federal candidate),” and the extent to 

18 which fundraising solicitations indicate funds raised will be used to support or oppose specific 

32 Id. at 12.

33 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A) (defining “political committee” based on the $1,000 thresholds); 11 C.F.R. 

§ 100.5 (same); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976) (holding that the term “political committee” “need only 

encompass organizations that are under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or 

election of a candidate”).

34 Political Committee Status, 72 Fed. Reg. 5,595 (Feb. 7, 2007) (Supplemental Explanation and Justification 

(“Supplemental E&J”)). The Supplemental E&J was issued following a court challenge to the Commission’s 

decision to engage in case-by-case decision-making rather than formal rulemaking. See Shays v. FEC, 

424 F. Supp. 2d 100, 117 (D.D.C. 2006).

MUR786000089
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 8 of 16

candidates.35 1 The Commission stated in the Supplemental E&J that it compares how much of an 

2 organization’s spending is for “federal campaign activity” relative to “activities that [a]re not 

campaign related.”36 3

4 In 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Citizens for 

5 Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC instructed the Commission, when examining an 

6 organization’s major purpose, to look beyond express advocacy and consider whether other

communications at issue indicate a “campaign-related purpose.”37 7 The Court also held that the 

8 Commission’s analysis of the relevant time period for evaluating a group’s spending must retain 

the flexibility to account for changes in an organization’s major purpose over time.38 9

10 B. The Available Information Indicates that JPF Became a Political Committee 

11 in 2013-2014 but Has Had Limited Political Activity in Subsequent Years

12 1. JPF Exceeded the Statutory Threshold for Political Committee Status

13 As a threshold matter, for an organization to be required to register as a political 

14 committee, it must receive contributions or make expenditures aggregating in excess of $1,000 

35 Supplemental E&J at 5,597, 5,605 (Feb. 7, 2007).

36 Id. at 5,601, 5,605.

37 209 F. Supp. 3d 77, 92-93 (D.D.C. 2016) (“CREW I”). The same District Court later held that 

electioneering communications “presumptively have an election-related purpose,” but the analysis by that Court in 

CREW I and its subsequent decision refers generally to all speech that is campaign-related but does not contain 

express advocacy. Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, 299 F. Supp. 3d 83, 93 (D.D.C. 2018) 

(“CREW II”). The court refrained from establishing its own bright-line rule regarding which communications 

inherently have a campaign-related purpose, but stated that the First Amendment does not require “the agency to 

exclude from its consideration all non-express advocacy in the context of disclosure.” CREW I, 209 F. Supp. 3d 

at 93.

38 CREW I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 94. In its subsequent Factual and Legal Analysis, the Commission accepted 

the court’s remand of the enforcement matter, found that the organization’s campaign-related spending exceeded 

50% of its overall spending approximately one year before the 2010 election, and found reason to believe that the 

organization violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, and 30104 by failing to organize, register, and report as a political 

committee. Factual and Legal Analysis (“F&LA”) at 14-15, MUR 6538R (Americans for Job Security); see 

Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6538R.

MUR786000090
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 9 of 16

during a calendar year.39 1 Under the Act, a “contribution” includes “any gift, subscription, loan, 

2 advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of 

influencing any election for Federal office,”40 3 and an “expenditure” includes “any purchase, 

4 payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money or anything of value, made by any 

person for the purpose of influencing any election to Federal office.”41 5 The Commission has also 

6 previously concluded that organizations could trigger the $1,000 expenditure threshold by 

making contributions to a political committee.42 7 

8 In this matter, JPF contends that because it did not make independent expenditures of its 

9 own, but instead made contributions to other entities that in turn engaged in express advocacy, it 

cannot be said to have made expenditures.43 10 JPF does not disclose who its contributors are in its 

11 IRS filings, and there does not appear to be any publicly available information concerning 

12 whether it solicited funds for the purpose of influencing federal elections. However, JPF admits 

13 in its Response that during its 2013 fiscal year, it incurred $1,815,000 of federal election relatedexpenses.44 14 In particular, these contributions from JPF to IEOPCs can be linked to independent 

15 expenditures. Moreover, the recipient committees “deposited” these funds into their accounts 

39 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A) (defining “political committee” based on the $1,000 thresholds); 11 C.F.R. 

§ 100.5 (same).

40 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A).

41 52 U.S.C. § 30101(9)(A).

42 See Akins v. FEC, 101 F.3d 731, 742 (D.C. Cir. 1996), vacated by 524 U.S. 11, 118 S. Ct. 1777, 

141 L. Ed. 2d 10 (1998) (finding that $1,000 in “campaign contributions” would have qualified AIPAC as a political 

committee if it had also satisfied the major purpose test). See also Advisory Op. 1996-18 (Int’l Ass’n of Fire 

Fighters) (finding that a conduit organization that accepted funds from individual donors and then exercised control 

over the funds by contributing the funds to political committees would itself become a political committee because 

“making contributions” would trigger political committee status (e.g. the contributions would be expenditures). 

43 Resp. at 2. 

44 JPF Spending Chart. The plain definition of both contribution and expenditure would encompass gifts and 

payments intended to influence elections. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101(8)(A), 30101(9)(A).

MUR786000091
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 10 of 16

1 and reported the deposits on FEC disclosure reports as “contributions” (made for the purpose of 

influencing an election).45 2 As such, these deposits used for independent expenditures satisfy the 

3 statutory threshold for making more than $1,000 in expenditures. 

4 2. JPF’s Spending Indicates that Its Major Purpose in 2013-2014 May Have

5 Been the Nomination or Election of Federal Candidates

6 As to the second element of political committee status, JPF states in its Response and in 

7 its tax returns that its major purpose is not federal campaign activity, but rather “to promote the 

8 common good and general welfare through education and legislative participation on public 

9 policy matters that significantly impact the economy, job growth and retention, and employment, 

and that are designed to promote fiscal responsibility.”46 10 The Commission has noted in a 

11 Supplemental E&J that it may consider such statements made by an organization in its analysis 

of an organization’s major purpose,47 but that such statements are not necessarily dispositive.48 12

13 As noted above, JPF acknowledges that during its 2013 fiscal year, 56% of its spending 

14 involved making contributions to IEOPCs. While the Commission has never set a threshold on 

15 the proportion of spending on federal campaign activity required to satisfy the major purpose 

16 analysis, it has previously found reason to believe in matters where the organization’s proportion 

45 See Compl. ¶¶ 24-25.

46 See JPF 2015 Tax Return. 

47 Supplemental E&J at 5,606. The Commission also has noted that in its consideration of an organization’s 

“overall conduct,” it will look at that organization’s public statements, including its own materials, statements to 

donors, or statements made on its website, “giving due weight to the form and nature of the statement, as well as the 

speaker’s position within the organization.” Id. at 5,601.

48 See Real Truth About Obama v. FEC, No. 3:08-cv-00483, 2008 WL 4416282, at *14 (E.D. Va. Sept. 24, 

2008) (“A declaration by the organization that they are not incorporated for an electioneering purpose is not 

dispositive.”) (emphasis in original), aff’d, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2009), vacated on other grounds, 130 S. Ct. 2371 

(2010), remanded and decided, 796 F. Supp. 2d 736, aff’d sub nom. Real Truth About Abortion v. FEC, 

681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 81 U.S.L.W. 3127 (U.S. Jan. 7, 2013) (No. 12-311). 

MUR786000092
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 11 of 16

was comparable or less than the apparent minimum 56% proportion present here.49 1 As explained 

2 below, this significant tranche of activity supports a finding that JPF’s major purpose was 

3 political activity.

4 Although it appears that JPF’s major purpose in 2013-2014 involved engaging in political 

5 activity, JPF has also had long periods of subsequent inactivity, punctuated by smaller bouts of 

6 political spending, and during those subsequent years, it is not clear whether JPF’s major purpose 

7 continued to be political activity. It was not until its 2017 fiscal year that JPF began to make 

political contributions again, contributing $75,000 to American Jobs and Growth PAC.50 8 The 

9 same day, American Jobs and Growth PAC made seven disbursements, totaling $66,500 on cable 

10 television and radio advertising placements in connection with a congressional election in 

Florida’s 6th District.51 11 

Similarly, JPF provided $18,500 to Make Cincinnati Better on November 1, 2017,52 12 and 

$100,000 to Kansas First,53 13 both of which are registered with the Commission. However, it 

appears that these IEOPCs ultimately used JPF’s contributions for non-federal elections,54 14 and it 

15 is possible, as Respondents contend, that only 25% of JPF’s expenditures during fiscal year 2017 

49 See, e.g., F&LA at 15, MUR 6538R (Americans for Job Security, et al.) (“More than half of [AJS’s total 

spending] was for independent expenditures . . . and the electioneering communications analyzed above . . . . The 

Commission has never set a threshold on the proportion of spending on major purpose activities required for 

political committee status and declines to do so now. Without determining whether it is necessary to cross a 50 

percent threshold to determine an organization’s major purpose, it is sufficient in this case, based on the available 

information, to find reason to believe that AJS’s major purpose had become the nomination or election of federal 

candidates.”) (emphases in original).

50 American Jobs and Growth PAC, 2018 October Quarterly Report at 6 (Oct. 14, 2018) (disclosing a 

contribution from JPF of $75,000 on August 13, 2018). Respondent Thomas Norris is listed on the disclosure report 

as the treasurer for American Jobs and Growth PAC. 

51 Id. at 9-13.

52 Make Cincinnati Better, 2017 Year-End Report at 6 (Jan. 25, 2018).

53 Kansas First, 2018 April Quarterly Report at 6 (Apr. 12, 2018).

54 Id. at 8; see also Make Cincinnati Better, 2017 Year-End Report at 7. 

MUR786000093
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 12 of 16

were federal election-related.55 1 While ordinarily a contribution to an IEOPC would indicate 

2 intent to support the election or nomination of federal candidates, the specific IEOPCs at issue 

3 here do not appear to have undertaken any activity in connection with federal elections. Kansas 

4 First did not undertake activity in connection with federal elections during the relevant reporting 

5 period and does not appear to have ever made an independent expenditure in connection with a 

federal election.56 6 The other IEOPC in question, Make Cincinnati Better, only filed a single 

report with the Commission and that report only disclosed involvement in a city-level election.57 7 

8 As such, it appears possible that JPF may not have intended to influence federal elections with its 

9 contributions to Kansas First or Make Cincinnati Better. 

10 In 2020, JPF continued its involvement in federal elections, contributing a total of 

11 $266,000 to IEOPCs registered with the Commission, according to disclosure reports filed by 

those committees.58 12 The vast majority of these contributions, $260,000, were made to Fighting 

13 for Kansas PAC, which reported making independent expenditures during the relevant time 

period.59 14 JPF’s total spending in 2020 is not publicly available so it is not known whether this 

15 represented a majority of JPF’s activity or was only a small portion of JPF’s overall activity. As 

16 such, while it appears that throughout its organizational life, JPF continued to fund IEOPCs and 

55 See Resp. at 4. 

56 See Kansas First, 2018 April Quarterly Report at 8; see generally Kansas First Regularly filed reports for 

the 2018 Election Cycle, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00659250/?tab=filings&cycle=2018#reports (last 

accessed Aug. 25, 2021). After the 2018 election cycle, Kansas First engaged in no activity and carried a $0.05 

account balance with according to its filings with the Commission until it sought to terminate in 2021. See Kansas 

First, 2021 Termination Approval (Aug. 3, 2021). 

57 Make Cincinnati Better, 2017 Year-End Report at 7 (Jan. 25, 2018). The 2017 Year-End Report was the 

only report that Make Cincinnati Better ever filed with the Commission, and that report only disclosed support for a 

Cincinnati City Council candidate. It received multiple Requests for Additional Information concerning its failure 

to file subsequent reports and was administratively terminated in 2019. See Make Cincinnati Better, 2019 

Administrative Termination (Nov. 15, 2019).

58 JPF Contribution History.

59 See Fighting for Kansas PAC, 2020 October Quarterly Report at 8-11 (Oct. 15, 2020).

MUR786000094
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 13 of 16

1 support their efforts to influence federal elections, that degree of involvement may have 

2 diminished over time. 

3 The court decisions and Commission precedent discussed above make clear that a 

committee’s major purpose can shift over time.60 4 Indeed, the Commission has regularly 

5 examined organizations that started out with a non-electoral purpose, but whose activity shifted 

6 over time, and has explained that “the Commission’s analysis of the relevant time period for 

7 evaluating a group’s spending must be flexible to account for changes in an organization’s major 

purpose over time.”61 8 The Commission has not, however, opined that an organization can 

9 qualify as a political committee and then, by virtue of its future conduct, “un-ring the bell,” 

10 shedding its political committee status, and reverting back to its original purpose. Indeed, the 

11 Act is clear that political committees have an ongoing obligation to report and comply with the 

12 Act until notified of their termination, and allowing a committee to “self-terminate” by never 

13 registering and eventually shifting away from political activity would run counter to the Act. As 

60 See CREW I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 94 (“The Commissioners’ refusal to give any weight whatsoever to an 

organizations’ [sic] relative spending in the most recent calendar year — particularly in the case of a fifteen-year-old 

organization like AJS — indicates an arbitrary ‘fail[ure] to consider an important aspect of the [relevant] problem.’” 

(quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 664, 658 (2007)); see also FEC v. Malenick,

310 F. Supp. 2d 230, 237 (D.D.C. 2004) (“Accordingly, because Triad and then Triad Inc.’s major purpose was the 

nomination or election of specific candidates in 1996, and because Triad received contributions aggregating more 

than $1,000 in 1996, I find that Triad and Triad, Inc. operated as a ‘political committee’ in 1996.”) (emphases 

added); FEC v. GOPAC, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 851, 853 (D.D.C. 1996) (discussing major purpose only in 1989 and 

1990 with respect to group formed in 1979); see also MUR 5492 (Freedom, Inc.) (analyzing admitted major purpose 

in 2004 of group formed in 1962); MURs 5577, 5620 (National Association of Realtors — 527 Fund) (analyzing 

2004 spending of NAR-527 Fund registered with IRS in 2000); MUR 5755 (New Democrat Network) (analyzing 

1996 group New Democrat Network’s 2004 spending); MUR 5753 (League of Conservation Voters) (analyzing 

LCV’s 2004 spending when one of LCV’s funds had registered with the IRS as early as 2000); MURs 5694, 5910 

(Americans for Job Security) (analyzing activity for group founded in 1997 from 2000 through 2006 in determining 

group’s major purpose in 2006); MUR 5487 (Progress for America VF) (analyzing group’s major purpose based on 

2004 disbursements where group had raised $4.6 million and spent $11.2 million through 2006).

61 See, e.g., F&LA at 14-15, MUR 6538R (Americans for Job Security) (examining whether respondent’s 

major purpose may have changed over time); cf. CREW I, 209 F. Supp. 3d at 94 (noting “that an organization’s 

major purpose can change”) (citing FEC v. Mass. Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 262 (1986)) (emphasis in 

original).

MUR786000095
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 14 of 16

1 such, JPF’s decline in political activity does not obviate the fact that it became a political 

2 committee with ongoing reporting obligations during its 2013 fiscal year.

3 C. The Commission Dismisses the Allegations as to JPF as a Matter of 

4 Prosecutorial Discretion

5 Although the available information could support a finding that JPF became a political 

6 committee in 2013-2014, several prudential considerations lead us to dismiss this matter. As 

7 described above, the age of the predicate activity, which establishes that JPF was a political 

8 committee in 2013-2014, limits the enforcement remedies available to the Commission. Further, 

9 the apparent decline of JPF’s political activity in the intervening years, as well as JPF’s 

10 subsequent corporate dissolution, present investigatory challenges. As a result, the Commission 

11 exercises its prosecutorial discretion and dismisses the allegations. 

12 First, a potential investigation into JPF’s major purpose in 2013, would, by its nature, be 

13 fact intensive, require substantial Commission resources, and likely face obstacles both in terms 

14 of acquiring relevant documents and obtaining accurate statements from the individuals 

involved. JPF has been dissolved as a corporate entity,62 15 and while such a dissolution would not 

16 preclude enforcement action, it would present additional difficulties in terms of locating 

17 individuals and documents, and it is possible that documents are no longer available. Indeed, it 

18 was not until November 2020, approximately seven years after the qualifying activity occurred, 

19 that the Complaint was filed and JBF was notified of its legal obligation to preserve documents 

20 relating to this matter. Although there is a potential benefit in seeking to promote the 

21 Commission’s interest in public disclosure, under these circumstances, given these difficulties 

62 See supra n. 18 and accompanying text (discussing JPF’s dissolution).

MUR786000096
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 15 of 16

1 and in light of the Commission’s current caseload related to more recent activity, pursuing JPF 

2 would not be an efficient use of the Commission’s limited resources. 

3 Second, JPF raises the issue of the statute of limitations and claims that because the 

4 underlying activity that gave rise to the allegation that JPF may be a political committee occurred 

5 more than five years ago, the action is time-barred and equitable remedies are not available due 

to a lack of significant risk of future harm.63 6 The vast majority of the underlying conduct in this 

7 matter occurred in 2013-2014, and although additional activity did occur within the statute of 

8 limitations, that activity only represents a small portion of JPF’s overall political activity. 

9 The statute of limitations does not bar the Commission from finding reason to believe 

10 based on JPF’s 2013-2014 activity and seeking injunctive relief, including compelling JPF to 

11 register as a political committee and file reports for all of its receipts and disbursements since its 

2013 fiscal year.64 12 Indeed, the Commission approved precisely that type of injunctive relief in 

13 MUR 6538R (Americans for Job Security), which resulted in the disclosure of the respondent’s 

14 contributions and expenditures during the relevant time period, even though much of the activity 

fell outside the five-year statute of limitations.65 15 Consistent with that matter, the Commission 

16 has the authority to seek equitable relief from JPF. However, given the age of the predicate 

17 activity and the fact that JPF has ceased to exist, pursuing an investigation and injunctive relief 

18 in this case would not be a prudent use of the Commission’s limited resources. 

63 Resp. at 9-10.

64 See FEC v. Christian Coal., 965 F. Supp. 66, 71 (D.D.C. 1997) (holding that injunctive relief is not a 

penalty); FEC v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 877 F. Supp. 15, 20-21 (D.D.C. 1995) (same).

65 See Conciliation Agreement at 5-6, MUR 6538R (Americans for Job Security); cf. CREW v. American 

Action Network, No. 18-cv-945 (CRC), 2019 WL 4750248, at *14 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2019) (finding that a court may 

order defendant to disclose activity post-dating the alleged conduct in the administrative complaint when fashioning 

an equitable remedy). But see Certification ¶ 1 (Mar. 1, 2021), MUR 7181 (Independent Women’s Voice) 

(reflecting 3-3 Commission split on finding reason to believe predicated on conduct that occurred more than five 

years ago where OGC recommended seeking equitable relief). 

MUR786000097
MUR 7860 (Jobs and Progress Fund, Inc.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 16 of 16

1 In conclusion, although the available information is sufficient to support a reason to 

2 believe finding that JPF violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, 30104 by failing to register and 

3 report as a political committee, given the passage of time since JPF may have become a political 

4 committee, and the Commission’s limited resources, the Commission exercises its prosecutorial 

5 discretion and dismisses the allegations that JPF failed to register and report as a political 

committee.66 6 Additionally, because these registration and reporting obligations apply only to 

7 committees and treasurers, the Commission finds no reason to believe that Church, Norris, and 

8 Miller violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, 30104.

66 Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831-32.

MUR786000098