1 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) MURs 7951 & 8003 

Kistner for Congress, et al. ) 

 ) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIRMAN SEAN J. COOKSEY AND

COMMISSIONERS ALLEN J. DICKERSON AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

The Complaints alleged that Tyler Kistner and his campaign committee—Kistner for 

Congress (the “Committee”)—converted campaign funds to personal use by reimbursing Kistner 

for travel in his personal vehicle that exceeded his actual campaign travel, in violation of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”). 

Kistner and the Committee denied the allegations and affirmed that all reimbursed mileage 

was for Kistner’s campaign-related travel. As explained below, because we concluded that the 

Complaints failed to meet the evidentiary standard for a finding of reason to believe, we declined 

to support the Office of General Counsel’s (“OGC”) recommendation to launch an investigation.

I. Background 

Tyler Kistner ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in Minnesota’s Second 

Congressional District in 2020 and 2022. As currently drawn, the district includes the south Twin 

Cities metro area and parts of southeastern Minnesota, including all of Scott, Dakota, and Goodhue 

counties, part of northern and eastern Rice County, southern Washington County and northern 

Wabasha County.1

The Complaints maintained that, according to reports filed with the Commission, the 

Committee reimbursed Kistner a total of $32,944.41 between August 11, 2020, and January 3, 

2022 (a period spanning both the 2020 and 2022 election cycles) for campaign-related mileage,2

1 Congressional Maps, Minn. Sec. of State (last accessed Jan. 31, 2023), available at

https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/data-maps/congressional-maps.

2 Complaint at 1, MUR 8003 (identifying $31,587.81 in mileage reimbursements from the Committee to 

Kistner from August 11, 2020, to October 1, 2021, and a $1,356.60 mileage reimbursement dated January 3, 2022); 

Complaint at 3, MUR 7951 (identifying $26,177.65 in mileage reimbursements from the Committee to Kistner 

between August 11, 2020, and July 6, 2021).

MUR795100059
2 

and alleged that Kistner’s claimed mileage for these reimbursements was “unusual”3 and 

“dubious,”4 given the size of the district in which he was running for office. Although neither the 

Complaints nor the Responses cited specific dates for the time period covered by the 

disbursements, OGC estimated that the mileage in question was accrued between April 1, 2020 

and October 1, 2021.5 After dividing the total reimbursed amount by the IRS standard mileage 

reimbursement rates in effect at the relevant times, OGC estimated the average mileage at 101.36 

miles per day for the entire time period—124.12 miles per day for the 2020 election cycle, and 

85.20 miles per day for the 2022 election cycle.6

II. Applicable Law

Under the Act, funds in a candidate’s campaign account may be used for “any [ ] lawful 

purpose, unless such use is personal use,”7 which is prohibited.8 “Personal use” is defined as using 

funds “to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective 

of the candidate’s election campaign or individual's duties as a holder of Federal office.”9 The Act 

and Commission regulations identify certain expenses as per se personal use,10 and require the 

Commission to “determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether other uses of funds in a campaign 

account fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s 

campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder, and therefore are personal use.”11 It is the 

Commission’s “long-standing opinion that candidates have wide discretion over the use of 

campaign funds. If the candidate can reasonably show that the expenses at issue resulted from 

campaign or officeholder activities, the Commission will not consider the use to be personal use.”12 

With respect to our enforcement process, the Commission will find reason to believe a 

violation occurred “only if a complaint sets forth sufficient separate facts, which, if proven true, 

3 Complaint at 3 (June 8, 2022), MUR 8003 (Kistner for Congress, et al.).

4 Complaint at 6 (Jan. 6, 2022), MUR 7951 (Kistner for Congress, et al.).

5 First General Counsel’s Report at 5 (Nov. 29, 2022), MUR 7951 & 8003 (Kistner for Congress, et al.). 

6 Id. at 5–6.

7 11 C.F.R. § 113.2(e); 52 U.S.C. § 30114(a)(6).

8 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b).

9 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b); 11 C.F.R. § 113(g).

10 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(2); 11 C.F.R § 113.1(g)(1)(i).

11 11 C.F.R § 113.1(g)(1)(ii); 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(2) (“[A] contribution or donation shall be considered to be 

converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a 

person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal 

office.”). 

12 Expenditures; Reports by Political Committees; Personal Use of Campaign Funds, 60 Fed. Reg. 7,862, 7,867 

(Feb. 9, 1995).

MUR795100060
3 

would constitute a violation of the FECA.”13 Commissioners are not required to accept all the 

allegations in a complaint as true. If the record contains, or respondents provide, facts or 

information that credibly contradict an allegation contained in a complaint, the Commission must 

weigh this information in deciding whether to proceed with enforcement.14 Moreover, “[a]ll 

statements made in a complaint are subject to the statutes governing perjury and to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1001,” and “[t]he complaint should differentiate between statements based upon personal 

knowledge and statements based upon information and belief.”15 “Statements [in a complaint] 

which are not based upon personal knowledge should be accompanied by an identification of the 

source of information which gives rise to the complainants belief in the truth of such statements.”16

III. Legal Analysis 

In support of their allegations, both Complaints drew heavily upon the same media report 

in the local Star Tribune characterizing Kistner’s reimbursed mileage as “a whole lot” and 

“unusually high”17 vis-à-vis the size of the Second Congressional District. The insinuation, in 

short, is that the district (which comprises 2,438 square miles18 and is, respectively, 120 miles and 

60 miles at its widest and longest points) is too small for all of Kistner’s reimbursed mileage to 

have been for campaign travel.19 

For several reasons, we were unpersuaded by that news report’s inference. Most 

importantly, it is wrong to assume that all campaign travel must occur within the bounds of a 

candidate’s district. Commission regulations define a “campaign traveler” as, inter alia, any 

candidate traveling in connection with an election for Federal office, and do not set any 

geographical limits.

20 In fact, the Commission’s regulations governing campaign travel explicitly 

recognize the long-distance nature of campaign travel in certain instances.21 Moreover, as a matter 

of common sense, candidates will often have legitimate, campaign-connected reasons to travel 

13 Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Mason, Sandstrom, Smith, and Thomas at 1 (Dec. 21, 2000), MUR 

4960 (Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Exploratory Committee, Inc.).

14 See, e.g., First General Counsel’s Report at 5 (July 23, 2004), MUR 5467 (Michael Moore) (“Purely 

speculative charges, especially when accompanied by a direct refutation, do not form an adequate basis to find reason 

to believe that a violation of the [Act] has occurred.”). See also Statement of Reasons of Vice Chairman Cooksey and 

Commissioners Dickerson and Trainor at 5 (Jan. 18, 2023), MUR 7901 (Ethan Owens, et al.) (citing same).

15 11 C.F.R. § 111.4(c).

16 11 C.F.R. § 111.4(d)(2).

17 Brianna Bierschbach and Hunter Woodall, “That’s a lot”: Watchdogs say Tyler Kistner’s campaign mileage 

reimbursements raise questions, STAR TRIBUNE (Nov. 17, 2021), available at https://www.startribune.com/thats-alot-experts-say-tyler-kistners-campaign-mileage-reimbursements-raise-questions/600117791.

18 Minnesota Congressional Districts by Urban and Rural Population and Land Area, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, 

available at https://www2.census.gov/geo/relfiles/cdsld18/27/ur_cd_27.txt.

19 See First General Counsel’s Report at 5 n.11–12 (Nov. 29, 2022), MUR 7951 & 8003 (Kistner for Congress, 

et al.).

20 11 C.F.R. § 100.93(a)(3)(i).

21 See, e.g., 11 C.F.R. § 100.93(c) (Commission regulations governing campaign travel on aircraft). 

MUR795100061
4 

outside of their district—to fundraise, to deliver and receive supplies, to meet supporters, and the 

like. Respondents specifically addressed this point, noting that “[c]ampaign events and meetings 

may occur in St. Paul, Minneapolis, or other towns in the state but outside the Second District, 

round trips that can be 100 miles or more.”22 We find this explanation credible, and we are 

unpersuaded by the speculative assertion that whether campaign travel is “reasonable” can be 

determined solely based on the size of the candidate’s district.23

As further evidence supporting the allegations, one Complaint and OGC pointed to a 

supposed drop in Kistner’s mileage reimbursement after November 17, 2021, when the Star 

Tribune published its article.

24 As the argument goes, the significant decrease in per-day mileage 

reimbursements to Kistner after the article demonstrates some consciousness of guilt and a point 

at which Kistner stopped seeking excessive mileage reimbursements. But once again, this 

argument is pure conjecture unsupported by any additional facts or personal knowledge. For that 

reason, absent other facts supporting the Complaints’ contentions, we are disinclined to infer a 

violation from this later change in reimbursement patterns.

25

Finally, OGC argued that Respondents’ declining to provide the mileage logs required 

under our regulations in their response to the Complaints further counsels in favor of a reason-tobelieve finding.26 But that is not affirmative evidence of a violation, and it unduly puts the burden 

on Respondents to prove their innocence, rather than properly on the Complaints to establish a 

violation. Respondents asserted that the Committee follows all rules for recordkeeping and that all 

campaign staffers seeking reimbursement for campaign travel keep mileage logs that are retained 

by the Committee’s treasurer.27 We had no evidence leading us to doubt that assertion, and we 

declined OGC’s invitation to take the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. 

22 Response at 3 (Jan. 21, 2022), MUR 7951 (Kistner for Congress, et al.).

23 Such a legal rule would, in practice, prejudice active campaigners and those seeking office in smaller or more 

compact states or districts.

24 Complaint at 4 (June 8, 2022), MUR 8003 (Kistner for Congress, et al.); First General Counsel’s Report at 

12–13 (Nov. 29, 2022), MUR 7951 & 8003 (Kistner for Congress, et al.).

25 See Statement of Reasons of Chairman Dickerson and Commissioners Cooksey and Trainor at 6–7 (July 5, 

2022), MUR 7310 (Mark Takai, et al.) (refusing to infer personal use in an earlier period based on vendor contract 

that was subsequently renegotiated to a lower rate). Cf. Factual & Legal Analysis at 6 (April 12, 2022), MUR 7876 

(Lauren Boebert for Congress, et al.) (dismissing allegation that candidate’s reimbursed mileage was partially for 

personal use where complaint relied primarily on characterizations in a newspaper article, rather than personal 

knowledge).

26 First General Counsel’s Report at 13 (Nov. 29, 2022), MUR 7951 & 8003 (Kistner for Congress, et al.).

27 Response at 2 (Jan. 21, 2022), MUR 7951 (Kistner for Congress, et al.).

MUR795100062
5 

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, we found that the Complaints’ allegations failed to clear 

the evidentiary bar for a finding of reason to believe. We voted accordingly, and the Commission 

closed the file. 28

_________________________________ February 27, 2023 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Vice Chairman 

______________________________ February 27, 2023 

Allen Dickerson Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ February 27, 2023 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

28 Certification (Jan. 24, 2023), MUR 7951 & 8003 (Kistner for Congress, et al.).

MUR795100063