1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

) MUR 7957

Marie Newman, et al. )

)

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIR DARA LINDENBAUM, VICE CHAIRMAN 

SEAN J. COOKSEY, AND COMMISSIONERS ALLEN J. DICKERSON AND 

JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

This matter involved allegations about salary payments made by Marie Newman for 

Congress (the “Committee”) to Iymen Chehade in exchange for campaign research work.

1

Specifically, the Complaint claimed that Newman and the Committee hired Chehade to write 

foreign policy briefs as part of a legal settlement after Chehade sued Newman for breach of 

contract in 2018, and that by doing so, Newman and the Committee violated various provisions of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended.

2

In its review, the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) determined that the payments to 

Chehade—whether for work performed or in settlement of a lawsuit—did not constitute a 

prohibited personal use of campaign funds.

3 OGC therefore recommended finding no reason to 

believe that a violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b) occurred.4 We agreed with OGC’s analysis and 

recommendations on these points and voted to find no reason to believe.

5

But because the Complaint further suggested that at least part of the reported “salary” paid 

to Chehade was in furtherance of the settlement, OGC also recommended the Commission find

reason to believe that the Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) by reporting improper 

disbursement purposes.6 OGC sought to investigate the Committee’s documents and records 

pertaining to Chehade’s employment and settlement agreement and to interview individuals likely 

to have knowledge of such terms.7

1 First General Counsel’s Report at 1–2 (Sept. 26, 2022), MUR 7957 (Marie Newman, et al.).

2

Id. at 3.

3

Id. at 11–14.

4

Id.

5 Certification (June 23, 2023), MUR 7957 (Marie Newman, et al.).

6 First General Counsel’s Report at 15 (Sept. 26, 2022), MUR 7957 (Marie Newman, et al.).

7

Id.

MUR795700079
2

We declined to proceed pursuant to our prosecutorial discretion under Heckler v. Chaney.

8

Marie Newman lost her bid for reelection in 2022 and no longer serves in Congress.9 Since then, 

the Committee had raised no funds, had made no expenditures, and had no cash on hand.10 Given 

the Committee’s documented inability to pay any sort of civil penalty, the technical nature of the 

alleged offense, and the fact that the Committee was no longer active, we could not justify 

expending further Commission resources pursuing enforcement. Accordingly, we elected to 

dismiss the matter as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion.11

_________________________________ July 21, 2023

Dara Lindenbaum Date

Chair

_________________________________ July 21, 2023

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Vice Chairman

__________________________________ July 21, 2023

Allen Dickerson Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ July 21, 2023

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

8 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

9 First General Counsel’s Report at 5 (Sept. 26, 2022), MUR 7957 (Marie Newman, et al.).

10 Marie Newman for Congress 2023 April Quarterly Report (April 7, 2023). Indeed, five days after the 

Commission resolved this matter, the Committee filed its termination report. Marie Newman for Congress 2023 

Termination Report (June 26, 2023).

11 Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831 (“Thus, the agency must not only assess whether a violation has occurred, but 

whether agency resources are best spent on this violation or another ... and, indeed, whether the agency has enough 

resources to undertake the action at all. An agency generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute 

it is charged with enforcing.”). 

MUR795700080