FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIR DARA LINDENBAUM, 

COMMISSIONER SHANA M. BROUSSARD, 

AND COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB 

Approximately one month after Greene for Congress (the “Committee”) aired an advertisement 

featuring Marjorie Taylor Greene1 on YouTube, Save America Stop Socialism PAC (“SASS PAC”)2

paid for the same advertisement to run on One America News Network (“OANN”).3 The two 

advertisements were identical except for the disclaimer.4 The first advertisement featured a disclaimer 

read by Greene, while the second advertisement featured a voice-over disclaimer, read by someone else, 

and an on-screen disclaimer that the advertisement was “not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s 

committee.”5 The Complaint in this matter alleged that, among other things, SASS PAC made excessive 

in-kind contributions to the Committee by paying for that advertisement to be aired, in violation of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”).6 Together, Greene, the Committee, 

and SASS PAC responded, arguing that the advertisement at issue was created exclusively for SASS 

PAC and that the Committee had mistakenly published the advertisement.7 Specifically, the Response 

contended that SASS PAC prepared and paid for the advertisement and that an “initial cut” of the 

1

 Marjorie Taylor Greene is a U.S. House member representing Georgia’s 14th Congressional District and a candidate for 

reelection in 2022. First Gen. Couns. Rep. MUR 7936 (July 28, 2022) at 3 (“FGCR”). 

2

 SASS PAC is Greene’s leadership PAC. Id. A leadership PAC is “directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained, 

or controlled by a candidate for Federal office or an individual holding Federal office.” 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(e)(6). 

3

 FGCR at 3. 

4

 FGCR at 3-4. 

5 Id. Because the first advertisement, posted by the Committee, appears to have been removed from YouTube, it is not clear 

what language Representative Greene used in her disclaimer. The Complaint alleges that she said she “approve[s] this 

message so that you know the facts.” Compl. (Oct. 22, 2021) at 2. The FGCR also notes that the disclaimer included in the 

second advertisement was insufficient because it did not state that the advertisement was authorized by Greene, and it was 

included at the beginning of the advertisement instead of the end. FGCR at 12-13; see also 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(c)(3). 

6

 Compl. at 1-2. 

7

 Resp. (Nov. 21, 2021) at 2. 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Greene for Congress, et al. 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

MUR 7936 

MUR793600061
MUR 7936 (Greene for Congress, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 2 of 4 

advertisement was posted by the Committee on YouTube by mistake.8 Regardless, either one of these 

scenarios would have resulted in SASS PAC making an excessive contribution to the Committee.9 

Any expenditure made in “cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or 

suggestion of” a candidate, candidate’s agent, or candidate’s committee, “shall be considered to be a 

contribution to such candidate.”10 Commission regulations also treat the financing of republished 

campaign materials as in-kind contributions to the campaign.11 Under Commission regulations, a 

communication is coordinated when the communication (1) is paid for, in whole or in part, by a person 

other than a candidate or committee; (2) satisfies at least one of the “content” standards in the 

regulation; and (3) satisfies at least one of the “conduct” standards in the coordination regulation.12 

Our Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) concluded that regardless of who paid for the 

advertisement, SASS PAC made an unreported and excessive in-kind contribution to the Committee.13

If the Committee paid for the advertisement, SASS PAC’s republishing of the advertisement on OANN 

was a coordinated communication.14 If SASS PAC paid for the advertisement, SASS PAC’s allowing 

the Committee to access and use the advertisement without charge was an unreported in-kind 

contribution to the Committee.15 Because SASS PAC was limited to making $2,900 in contributions per 

election to the Committee, either scenario would result in excessive contributions under the Act.16 

Further, neither the Committee nor SASS PAC reported making or receiving this contribution.17

Due to the relatively low amount of money at issue in this matter, OGC recommended that the 

Commission exercise its prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the allegations.18 However, due to the 

apparent admission that SASS PAC violated the Act by making an excessive, coordinated in-kind 

contribution and failing to report it, OGC also recommended that the Commission issue caution letters 

8 Id.; see FGCR at 11 (noting that SASS PAC’s explanation that the Committee’s use of the advertisement was a mistake 

“strains credulity”). 

9

 During the 2022 election cycle, non-multicandidate political committees are limited to contributing $2,900 per election to 

candidates, while multicandidate committees are limited to $5,000. At the time of the activity in question, SASS PAC was a 

non-multicandidate political committee and thus limited to $2,900. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a); Price Index Adjustments for 

Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 86 Fed. Reg. 7867 (Feb. 2, 2021). 

10 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(7)(B)(i). 

11 11 C.F.R. §§ 109.23(a), 109.21(b); see also FGCR at 6-7. 

12 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(a). 

13 FGCR at 8. 

14 Id. SASS PAC’s republication of the advertisement would likely meet all three prongs of the coordinated communication 

test because (1) SASS PAC acknowledged that it paid to publish the advertisement on OANN; (2) SASS PAC republished 

campaign materials prepared by the Committee when it broadcast the advertisement on OANN; and (3) the fact that SASS 

PAC is Greene’s leadership PAC suggests, among other things, that she requested or suggested that SASS PAC republish the 

advertisement. Id. at 8-9. 

15 Id. Expenditures made by leadership PACs for the benefit of the sponsoring candidate’s principal campaign committee 

“are in-kind contributions, subject to the Act’s contribution limits and reporting requirements.” Leadership PACs, 68 Fed. 

Reg. 67,017 (Dec. 1, 2003). 

16 FGCR at 11-12. 

17 Id. at 11. 

18 The amount in violation “appears to be $12,400, $6,200, or less.” Id. at 11-12. See also Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 

831 (1985). 

MUR793600062
MUR 7936 (Greene for Congress, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 3 of 4 

to the Respondents to point out their violations of the Act and to direct SASS PAC and the Committee 

to work with the Commission’s Reports Analysis Division to amend their reports.19 The Commission 

agreed that dismissal was appropriate but differed in terms of the legal rationale behind the dismissal 

and did not agree to issue caution letters.20 

We voted to support the Factual and Legal Analysis as drafted by OGC.21 That analysis correctly 

applied the law and our regulations concerning coordinated expenditures and coordinated 

communications to the facts, which showed a likely violation of our coordination and/or in-kind 

contribution regulations.22 We further agreed that caution letters were necessary in this matter because 

the Committee’s response admitted to accepting an excessive in-kind contribution, and believe that it is 

important that the Commission alert committees to violations of the Act or regulations, even when those 

violations do not carry enforcement consequences.23 

19 FGCR at 12. 

20 Cert. ¶¶1-3. 

21 Id. ¶ 1. 

22 FGCR at 8-11. 

23 See also Compl. at 6 (noting that the disclaimer at the beginning of the SASS PAC advertisement did not comply with 

Commission regulations); Compl. at 7 (noting that the Committee did not report any contributions from SASS PAC during 

the time period covering the advertisement); Resp. at 2 (acknowledging that SASS PAC did not report a disbursement for 

running the advertisement on OANN). The Response did not dispute the insufficiencies in its disclaimer. See Resp; FGCR at 

13. 

MUR793600063
MUR 7936 (Greene for Congress, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 4 of 4 

Make no mistake – our votes to dismiss this matter do not indicate that we considered the 

activity at issue to be legal or permissible.24 A reason to believe finding would have been particularly 

appropriate here because both the Complaint and the Response identify a clear and undisputed violation 

of the Act and our regulations.25 PACs that wish to support candidates cannot republish the candidate 

committee’s media materials without making an in-kind contribution, and they certainly cannot pay for 

the production of media favorable to the candidate, let the candidate’s committee air the material, and 

then use it themselves, without making an in-kind contribution. Nevertheless, pursuing a violation of 

this size, even an apparent one, would not be a worthwhile use of Commission resources. Accordingly, 

we voted to dismiss the matter and close the file. 

______________________ __________________________ 

Date Dara Lindenbaum 

Vice Chair 

______________________ __________________________ 

Date Shana M. Broussard 

Commissioner 

______________________ __________________________ 

Date Ellen L. Weintraub 

Commissioner 

24 Cert. ¶¶ 2-3. 

25 The bar for finding reason to believe is not high; it simply means that the Commission found sufficient legal justification 

to believe that a violation may have occurred, and that further investigation is needed to know for sure. Statement of Policy 

Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12,545 (Mar. 16, 

2007) (“A ‘reason to believe’ finding followed by an investigation would be appropriate when a complaint credibly alleges 

that a significant violation may have occurred, but further investigation is required to determine whether a violation in fact 

occurred and, if so, its exact scope.”); 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2) (explaining that the Commission must find “reason to believe 

that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a violation of this Act” before opening an investigation); 11 C.F.R. 

§ 111.9(a).

11/3/2022

11/3/2022

11/3/2022

MUR793600064