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 VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON AND 

COMMISSIONERS SEAN J. COOKSEY AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

The question in this matter is whether the Commission should use its limited enforcement 

resources to pursue allegations that a candidate’s son provided personal services to his father’s 

campaign at a discount that he could have legally provided for free. To ask that question is to 

answer it, and we voted to dismiss this matter as exercise of prosecutorial discretion under Heckler 

v. Chaney.

1

Heller Enterprises is a limited liability company whose founder, registered agent, and sole 

employee is Harrison Clark Heller, the son of former U.S. Senator Dean Heller.2 Beginning in July 

2016, Heller for Senate (“the Committee”), the principal campaign committee of Senator Heller,

made monthly payments of $2,500 to Heller Enterprises for “social media consulting” services.3

The Complaint alleges—and the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) agreed—that Heller 

Enterprises made, and the Committee accepted, an unreported in-kind contribution in the form of 

a discount.

4 In support of this allegation, the Complaint cites to a news article in which Harrison 

Heller reportedly said he was being paid below market rate for his work on the campaign and the 

 

1 470 U.S. 821 (1985). 

2

 Complaint (May 24, 2018), MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate) (citing James DeHaven, Sen. Dean Heller Paid 

Son At Least $52,500 in Campaign Cash for Social Media Consulting, RENO GAZETTE J. (May 18, 2018)); see also 

“Heller Enterprises, LLC,” Utah Div. of Corps. and Commercial Code, 

https://secure.utah.gov/bes/details.html?entity=8851207-0160#. 

3

 Id. at 2–3. 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).

4

 Complaint (May 24, 2018), MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate). 

MUR739500037
2 

Committee stated, “Harris Heller produces quality content at a cheap discount to the campaign.”5

The weakness of this evidence is noteworthy: as to Harrison Heller, his reported statement that he 

provided a discount is merely a reporter’s characterization of an email statement. 6

In their Response, Harrison Heller and the Committee characterize these press statements 

as “impromptu” and “hyperbole that are inconsistent with the actual facts of the matter.”7 In a 

sworn affidavit submitted to the Commission, Harrison Heller attests that he has experience in 

creating and distributing “digital and web-based media content,” and is “familiar with the fair 

market value for providing these services” for a fee “as an independent contractor.”8 Harrison 

Heller avers that he negotiated an arm’s-length contract with the Committee that provided for a 

reasonable, fair-market fee of $2,500 per month for his services.9 He also specifically denies 

discussing “any special rate, either at a discount or otherwise,” with the Committee.10 These 

countervailing statements provide a compelling rebuttal to the Complaint’s anemic allegations.11

We voted to dismiss this matter based on both the weakness of the legal case and prudential 

factors weighing against enforcement. Even if OGC were correct that Harrison Heller provided an 

in-kind contribution in the form of a below-market rate, that theory would inevitably conflict with

the Commission’s volunteer exemption. In general, under the Act, a contribution includes “any 

gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for 

the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”12 “Anything of value” includes “all inkind contributions,” such as “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[.]”13 The “usual and normal 

 

5

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

Consulting, RENO GAZETTE J. (May 18, 2018). Harrison Heller also appears to go by “Harris.”

6 See Statement of Reasons of Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Lee 

E. Goodman at 7 n.29, MURs 6470, 6482, 6484 (Free and Strong America PAC) (“As a general evidentiary matter, 

we decline to open investigations based solely upon hearsay reports or editorial characterizations contained in press 

articles, particularly where, as here, the speculation is rebutted by record evidence.”).

7 Response at 1 (Jul. 6, 2018), MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate).

8 Id. at Ex. 1 ¶¶ 1–2. 

9

 Id. at ¶¶ 4–6. Additionally, we must also note that determining an appropriate “market rate” for social media 

services is a difficult endeavor. Coordinating social media, even for a political campaign, is not as easy to peg to a 

market rate as is, for example, renting a car from a business with fixed and advertised prices. Yet OGC would ask us 

to do precisely that here. Put simply, we do not believe the Commission could calculate the true market rate for the 

type of services that Harrison Heller provided the Committee with any reasonable level of certainty. 

10 Id. ¶ 8

11 See, e.g., Factual and Legal Analysis to Freedom’s Watch at 6, MUR 5999 (Freedom’s Watch) (“Given that 

there is no probative information of coordination, and [Respondent] has provided specific sworn denials of the 

existence of coordination, there is no basis to open an investigation in this matter.”)

12 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i).

13 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1). The Commission has determined that a discounted price or rate offered in the 

ordinary course of business, which is also available to non-political clients, would still be the “usual and normal 

charge” and therefore would not be an in-kind contribution. See Advisory Op. 2006-01 at 2 (Pac for a Change); 

Advisory Op. 2004-18 at 3 (Friends of Joe Lieberman); see also Factual and Legal Analysis at 4–5, MUR 5942 (Rudy 

Giuliani Presidential Comm., Inc., et al.).

MUR739500038
3 

charge” for services is “the hourly or piecework charge for the services at a commercially 

reasonable rate prevailing at the time the services were rendered.”14 

The definition of “contribution” does not include, however, “the value of services provided 

without compensation by any individual who volunteers on behalf of a candidate or political 

committee.”15 Commission regulations further clarify that “[n]o contribution results where an 

employee engages in political activity during what would otherwise be normal working hours if 

the employee is paid on a commission or piecework basis, or is paid only for work actually 

performed and the employee’s time is considered his or her own to use as he or she sees fit.”16

As described in the Complaint and Response, all of Harrison Heller’s work constituted 

personal services. Therefore, he could have provided all his work to the Committee free of charge 

without running afoul of the Act or Commission regulations. As a result, there is a weighty 

argument that any discount that Harrison Heller provided to the campaign could be considered a 

form of volunteer activity, which would be consistent with his work as an independent contractor. 

Under this view, no violation occurred here. 

Finally, the circumstances of this case counsel in favor of a discretionary dismissal. The 

sums at issue are relatively small.

17 Moreover, the conduct is sufficiently old that the statute of 

limitations period was impending and due to lapse in July 2021, making the possibility of 

completing a full investigation even more remote.

18 With an eye toward our existing backlog of 

enforcement matters, we believe that the Commission is better served prioritizing other 

investigations.19 

In view of these considerations, pursuing this matter further would not be a prudent use of 

the Commission’s limited resources.20 Accordingly, we voted to exercise the Commission’s

prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the allegations in this matter. 

 

14 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(2).

15 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(B)(1); 11 C.F.R. § 100.74.

16 11 C.F.R. § 100.54(b).

17 First General Counsel’s Report at 2 (Oct. 16, 2018), MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate).

18 Id. at 1.

19 See generally Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub on the Senate’s Votes to Restore the Federal 

Election Commission to Full Strength (Dec. 9, 2020), available at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cmscontent/documents/2020-12-Quorum-Restoration-Statement.pdf. 

20 Heckler, 470 U.S. at 832 (“[T]he agency must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but whether 

agency resources are best spent on this violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it acts, whether 

the particular enforcement action requested best fits the agency’s overall policies, ...”). 

MUR739500039
4 

______________________________ April 27, 2021_______________ 

Allen Dickerson Date

Vice Chair

_________________________________ April 27, 2021_______________ 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ April 27, 2021_______________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

MUR739500040