FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

 ) MUR 6992 

Donald J. Trump ) 

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Bradley T. ) 

 Crate in his official capacity as treasurer ) 

The Trump Organization LLC ) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF 

CHAIR SHANA M. BROUSSARD AND COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB 

This matter under review (“MUR”) involves yet another instance of Donald Trump and 

his 2016 presidential campaign receiving what may have been illegal contributions, this time in 

the form of high-ranking Trump Organization employees performing campaign activities that 

appear to have been undertaken at the direction of the candidate himself.1

 Former Trump 

Organization Executive Vice President and Special Counsel Michael Cohen and General 

Counsel Alan Garten appear to have performed work on behalf of Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. (the “Trump Committee,” “campaign”) – work that was paid for by the Trump 

Organization and thus likely constituted impermissible in-kind contributions. 

The ban on corporate contributions to federal candidates is one of the foundational 

principles underpinning the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA,” or the “Act”), having been 

firmly ensconced in federal law for well over a century.2 Though the Act includes provisions 

that permit individuals, including corporate employees, to provide personal volunteer services to 

campaigns without making a corporate contribution, if the individual is being compensated for 

his or her services the activity is no longer considered volunteer activity. In that scenario, any 

payment made by someone other than the campaign itself results in an in-kind contribution from 

1

 We previously supported finding reason to believe that Trump or his committee (1) accepted prohibited 

contributions through Trump’s role in the Stormy Daniels payoff (MURs 7313, 7319, 7379), (2) illegally solicited 

excessive contributions to a super PAC that supported Trump’s candidacy (MURs 7135), (3) illegally solicited a 

contribution from Russian nationals (MURs 7265 and 7266), and (4) accepted prohibited contributions when the 

parent company of the former National Enquirer paid Karen McDougal in order to suppress negative stories about 

Trump’s relationship with McDougal through “catch and kill” arrangements (MURs 7324, 7332, 7364 and 7366). 

There were not sufficient votes to approve any of these findings. 2

 See 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a); 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(b). Since the FECA was enacted in 1972, the term 

“contribution” has included “anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing an election for 

Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). “Anything of value” includes all in-kind contributions – whether by a 

corporation or other “persons” under the FECA – such as “the provision of any goods or services without charge” 

or at a charge less than the usual and normal charge. 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.10, 100.52(d). 

MUR699200075
MUR 6992 (Donald J. Trump, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 2 of 7 

the payor, subject to the limits, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act.3 And if the 

individual is a corporate employee, any use of corporate resources and costs incurred in the 

provision of such services – including office space, corporate equipment and supplies, and travel 

costs – are likewise subject to the same requirements.4

 

The Complaint in this matter, received by the Commission in December 2015 – well 

before the criminal and congressional investigations into Trump and his campaign shed more 

light on the relevant facts – alleged that the Trump Organization made prohibited in-kind 

contributions to the Trump Committee when (1) Michael Cohen communicated to the press on 

behalf of the Committee and (2) Alan Garten provided legal services to it by drafting cease and 

desist letters.5 The record supports these allegations. Cohen and Garten appear to have engaged 

in campaign-related conduct in their roles as highly compensated employees who reported 

directly to Trump, thus converting a portion of their salaries and any associated use of corporate 

resources into prohibited contributions – no different than if the Committee had received checks 

for these amounts directly from the Trump Organization.6

 As discussed below, under other 

circumstances we would have supported an investigation into this matter to determine whether, 

and to what degree, the alleged activities violated the Act’s prohibitions and reporting 

requirements.

Michael Cohen’s Activities on Behalf of the Trump Committee 

The Trump Committee did not report any disbursements to Cohen or costs related to his 

activities; however, the record indicates that he made numerous media appearances and public 

communications in support of Trump’s presidential campaign during the 2016 primary period. 

Cohen was a guest on several cable news programs to discuss Trump’s candidacy.7

 Cohen also 

3

 See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101(8)(B)(i); 30101(8)(A)(ii); 11 C.F.R. § 100.54. The regulations provide an 

exception for legal and accounting services not applicable to these facts. See 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.85 and 100.86. 4

 See, e.g., 11 C.F.R. §§ 114.2(f) and 114.9. 5

 Comp. and Supp. Compl. The Complaint specifically alleged that Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30104(b) (disclosure requirements), 30118(a) (corporate contribution prohibition), and 30125(e) (ban on federal 

candidates and entities established, maintained, financed or controlled by them from soliciting, receiving, directing, 

transferring or spending funds in connection with a federal election, unless the funds are subject to the Act’s 

limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements). The Trump Organization denied that the company directed or 

encouraged Cohen’s activities in support of Trump’s candidacy, contending that Cohen volunteered for the Trump 

campaign during his spare time and that any related use of corporate resources was incidental and therefore 

permissible under the Act. Trump Org. Resp. at 10-12. Respondents also denied that the Trump Committee 

requested or suggested that Garten issue the cease and desist letters, asserting that the company’s actions were 

separate and independent from the campaign. See Trump Org. Resp. at 2; Trump Comm. Resp. at 1-2. 6

 As noted by the Trump Organization, the Commission’s regulations (11 C.F.R. § 110.1(g)) provide that, for 

purposes of the Act, LLCs will be considered either partnerships or corporations based on the tax treatment they 

select under the Internal Revenue Code. Trump Org. Resp. at 6, n.3. The Trump Organization did not resolve this 

factual issue in its response, nor did it challenge the Complaint’s reliance on the sections of the Act and regulations 

pertaining to corporations. 

7

 For example, Cohen was interviewed by CNN’s Chris Cuomo, Michael Smerconish, Fox News’ Sean 

Hannity, and appeared as a frequent guest on cable television programs including the Erin Burnett Show, The 

Situation Room, and CNN’s New Day Live. See First Gen. Counsel’s Report in MUR 6992 (Donald J. Trump, et 

al.) at 7. 

MUR699200076
MUR 6992 (Donald J. Trump, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 3 of 7 

participated in campaign events, including a mid-week campaign rally in Cleveland, Ohio, at 

which he provided a nine-minute introduction for the candidate.8

 Throughout this time, Cohen 

steadfastly maintained that he was not associated with the campaign.9

The Complaint alleged that Cohen’s interactions with the press constituted substantive 

campaign work and demonstrate that the Trump Organization and the Trump Committee were 

“virtually indistinguishable.”10 Cohen reportedly told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that the campaign’s 

use of video footage of Morocco instead of Mexico in a Trump television advertisement about 

open borders was a “mistake” and that he would be contacting the responsible vendor, 

specifically by “sending him a letter very soon on behalf of Mr. Trump.”11 The Complaint also 

noted that Cohen directly responded to an email inquiry that a Daily Beast reporter had sent to 

Trump Committee spokesperson Hope Hicks regarding allegations against Trump made by his 

first wife during the campaign; during the course of Cohen’s conversation with the reporter, he 

“repeatedly read from” the reporter’s email, which suggested “that it had been forwarded 

between the Trump campaign and [Trump’s] corporate organization.”12 

A July 2015 news article submitted with the Complaint reported that Cohen “has 

appeared frequently on CNN and Fox News for several weeks talking about Trump’s campaign, 

sometimes more than once a day;” the same article reported that Cohen’s Twitter feed became 

increasingly active after Trump formally entered the race in June 2015 and that, “[s]ince the 

beginning of the campaign, he’s tweeted and retweeted many times per day, with nearly all of the 

content pertaining to the campaign.”13 Based on his subsequent tweets and retweets and publicly 

available media clips, Cohen appears to have continued his feverish pace in vigorously 

promoting his boss’s candidacy throughout the remainder of the 2016 campaign.14

The Complaint raised serious questions, in light of the frequency of Cohen’s media 

appearances and his unusually detailed knowledge of Committee operations, as to whether his 

activities constituted “continuous and substantive Campaign work that is subsidized” by the 

Trump Organization.15 The key question is whether Cohen participated in these activities (a) as 

8

 Michael Cohen Introduces Donald Trump, Cleveland, OH, 9/21/2016, ABC News, YOUTUBE (Sept. 21, 

2016), https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3B2QQQHepE. 

9

 See, e.g., Trump Comm. Resp. at 8. 10 Supp. Compl. at 1-2. 

11 Id. at 2 (citing Eliza Collins, Team Trump All Over the Map on Morocco ‘Mistake,” POLITICO, Jan. 5, 2016, 

attached to the Complaint supplement as Ex. A). 

12 Supp. Compl. at 2 (citing Rosie Gray, Trump Aide’s Outburst Raises Questions About his Ambiguous Role,

BUZZFEED, July 28, 2015, attached to the Complaint supplement as Ex. B). 13 Id. 14 In addition to the media appearances cited supra in fn. 7, see, e.g., 

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20160409_090000_Hannity/start/180/end/240 (4/09/16 appearance on Fox 

News); https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212 (inserted into Wayback Machine at wayback.archive.org); 

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/08/19/michael-cohen-brianna-keilar-says-who-all-of-them-moos-pkgerin.cnn (8/19/16 appearance on CNN); 

https://archive.org/details/CNNW_20161018_210000_Situation_Room_With_Wolf_Blitzer/start/2152/end/2212?q=

Michael+Cohen (10/18/16 appearance on CNN). 15 Supp. Compl. at 3. 

MUR699200077
MUR 6992 (Donald J. Trump, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 4 of 7

a volunteer or (b) at the direction of Trump and as part of his employment with the Trump 

Organization. Cohen himself has definitively answered this, under oath: It’s (b). 

In August 2018, Cohen entered a guilty plea to, inter alia, “caus[ing] $280,000 in 

payments to be made to silence two women who otherwise planned to speak publicly about their 

alleged affairs with a presidential candidate, thereby intending to influence the 2016 election.”16

Under oath before the judge, and knowing that the acceptance of his plea could result in several 

years of imprisonment, Cohen admitted to “knowingly and willfully causing an unlawful 

corporate contribution.”17 In December 2018, Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison and 

to pay $1.39 million in restitution plus $500,000 in forfeiture for his financial and campaign 

finance crimes; he told the judge of his “blind loyalty” to Trump and his regret for “not having 

the strength to question and to refuse his demands.”18

In February 2019, in sworn testimony before Congress, Cohen made statements directly 

refuting the Trump Organization’s claim that Cohen had a “genuine, heartfelt, personal belief 

that [Trump] would be an outstanding President.”

19 Cohen testified that he never imagined that 

Trump “would one day run for President, launch a campaign platform of hate and intolerance, 

and actually win.”20 He further testified that his illegal conduct was “for the benefit of, at the 

direction of, and in coordination” with Trump, and that his “job” was to tout the “Trump 

narrative.”21 Cohen provided documentation to back up his claims about Trump’s direct 

involvement in Cohen’s campaign finance crimes, and also used the occasion to describe how 

Trump “tasked” him during the campaign “to handle the negative press,” specifically mentioning 

questions about Trump’s draft deferment.22 Cohen testified that “nothing went on in Trump 

world, especially the campaign, without Mr. Trump’s knowledge and approval.”23

It strains credulity to conclude that Cohen was acting in a volunteer capacity while 

publicly promoting Trump’s campaign – especially given that the apparent purpose of many of 

these appearances was to fend off allegations arising during the campaign regarding Trump’s 

16 Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax 

Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations, Department of Justice Release dated Aug. 21, 2018, available at

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/michael-cohen-pleads-guilty-manhattan-federal-court-eight-counts-includingcriminal-tax. Information about the Commission’s actions concerning related FEC complaints can be found in the 

matters cited supra in footnote 1, available through the FEC website at https://www.fec.gov/legalresources/enforcement/. 

17 See Trans. of Proceedings before Hon. William H. Pauley III at 11-12, 23, 27-28, No. 1:18-cr-00602-WHP, 

18-CR-602 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2018), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4780185/Cohen-CourtProceeding-Transcript.pdf. 18 Michael Cohen’s Statement in Court, Dec. 12, 2018, available at

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/politics/cohen-court-statement-doc/index.html. 19 Trump Org. Resp. at 11. 20 Michael Cohen Testimony Before House Oversight Committee, Feb. 27, 2019, available at https://www.cspan.org/video/transcript/?id=57772. In stark contrast with the Trump Organization’s characterization of his 

“personal belief,” Cohen opined that Trump “ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. 

He had no desire or intention to lead this nation – only to market himself and to build his wealth and power.” Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 

MUR699200078
MUR 6992 (Donald J. Trump, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 5 of 7 

personal conduct. When the candidate-boss “tasks” his or her corporate employee with handling 

negative campaign press, it is difficult to draw any conclusion other than that “task” is part of the 

employee’s compensable job duties. 

Relevant statements made by Cohen following his court appearances, although unsworn, 

are entirely consistent with his testimony under oath in court and before Congress. For example, 

he is quoted as follows in Vanity Fair in response to a general question about actions he took “at 

the direction” of Trump: “Everything that I did, I did at the direction of, and for the benefit of, 

Donald J. Trump.”24 And a book he published in 2020 contains statements specifically tied to 

his media appearances, such as “[I] regularly show[ed] up on CNN and Fox to shill for the Boss. 

I was the only person Trump allowed to speak on TV without his prior notice and permission 

....”25 Cohen wrote that as Trump traveled to early-primary states, “I remained in New York, 

working as [Trump’s] personal attorney and frequent surrogate on TV, with my ability to 

channel the Boss and his views with great impact. At least, that was how Trump and I saw my 

role.”26 Cohen further explained that “I was more useful to Trump as a resource he could use

quietly, without having to tell the campaign staff.”27 

While Respondents deny the allegations, we find that Cohen’s statements after being 

criminally charged with campaign finance violations – particularly those made against his 

interest, under penalty of perjury, and under threat of imprisonment and severe monetary 

sanction – carry sufficient indicia of reliability so as to easily satisfy the Act’s low reason-tobelieve threshold.28 The record supports the conclusion that none of Cohen’s conduct as alleged 

in the Complaint was performed as a volunteer; it was all part and parcel of his salaried 

employment with the Trump Organization. 

 The value of the apparent contributions under the Act should take into account the 

portion of Cohen’s work hours allocated to providing services to the Committee, which appear to 

have consumed much of his time over the year and a half that Trump was actively campaigning. 

In addition, any corporate resources used in connection with those services (e.g., use of Cohen’s 

corporate office while preparing for interviews or sending campaign tweets) similarly constitute 

prohibited contributions. The hours that it took Cohen to prepare for, travel to, and participate in 

numerous media appearances likely extended beyond his personal time, and his use of corporate 

resources may have been more than the incidental amount claimed in the response.29 In sum, 

24 Emily Jane Fox, “Hand Them a S--t Pie So Gross They Will Choke On It”: Michael Cohen Predicts 

Trump’s Post-Presidency Legal Drama, VANITY FAIR, Dec. 21, 2020 (emphasis added), available at

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/12/michael-cohen-predicts-trumps-post-presidency-legal-drama. 25 Michael Cohen, DISLOYAL – A MEMOIR: THE TRUE STORY OF THE FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (2020), at 216 (emphasis added). 26 Id. at 229-230 (emphasis added). 27 Id. at 282 (emphasis added). 28 The Commission has stated that it will find reason to believe “in cases where the available evidence in the 

matter is at least sufficient to warrant conducting an investigation, and where the seriousness of the alleged violation 

warrants either further investigation or immediate conciliation.” Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action 

in Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12545 (Mar. 16, 2007). 29 Trump Org. Resp. at 9-11. 

MUR699200079
MUR 6992 (Donald J. Trump, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 6 of 7 

there was sufficient information for the Commission to find reason to believe that Trump, the 

Trump Organization, and the Trump Committee violated the Act’s prohibitions in connection 

with the campaign services provided by the Trump Organization through Cohen, and that the 

Committee further violated the Act by failing to report the costs. 

Cease and Desist Letters 

During Trump’s primary campaign, Trump Organization General Counsel Alan Garten 

issued two cease and desist letters on company letterhead in an effort to stop or pre-empt the 

dissemination of communications opposing Trump’s candidacy.30 The Complaint alleges that 

these letters resulted in the use of Trump Organization resources to defend Trump’s presidential 

candidacy and promote Trump’s campaign during the 2016 Republican primary election.31 The 

Complaint states that the provision of these legal services are evidence that Trump misused 

corporate resources to benefit his presidential campaign and constituted prohibited and 

unreported in-kind contributions to the Trump Committee in violation of the Act.32 Respondents 

argue that federal candidates are lawfully permitted to wear multiple hats, and that Trump was 

entitled to be a presidential candidate as well as a business executive without triggering the Act 

and converting business activities into in-kind contributions.”33 

The Commission has previously found that legal services are contributions subject to the 

Act when the underlying dispute arises out of an election, or if a candidate or political committee 

is the intended beneficiary of the legal service.34 The available information supports the 

conclusion that the Trump Organization, through its General Counsel Alan Garten, rendered 

legal services to the Trump Committee in connection with the two cease and desist letters 

demanding that the recipients stop running ads attacking Trump’s candidacy, and did so at 

Trump’s direction. The payment of Garten for his services thus appears to have constituted inkind contributions to the Trump Committee that the Trump Committee failed to report.35

While the amount in violation concerning the Garten allegations may pale in comparison 

to Michael Cohen’s activities, under different circumstances we would have supported finding 

reason to believe so that Garten’s activities could be examined during the same investigation. 

30 See Compl., Cease & Desist Demand from Alan Garten, General Counsel, The Trump Organization to 

David McIntosh, Club for Growth, Sept. 21, 2015, attached to the Complaint as Ex. A; Letter from Alan Garten, 

General Counsel, The Trump Organization to Michael Fernandez, MBF Healthcare Partners, and James P. 

Robinson, Right to Rise PAC, Inc., Dec. 4, 2015, attached to the Complaint as Ex. B. 

31 Id. at 1-2; Supp. Compl. at 1-2. 32 See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30118(a) and 30125(e) (Compl. at 1-2; Supp. Compl. at 1-2). 33 Trump Org. Resp. at 6-9; Trump Comm. Resp. at 7-8. 

34 See Commission Certification, at ¶ 3 c.-d., MUR 6494 (Rep. Jeannette H. Schmidt, et al.) (Jan. 14, 2015). 35 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b), 30118(a), 30125(e). 

MUR699200080
MUR 6992 (Donald J. Trump, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 7 of 7 

* * * 

The Commission found itself in the middle of a perfect storm of unique and unfortunate 

circumstances that prevented it from moving forward in this case. Many of the Trump-related 

matters before the Commission involved legal and factual issues that potentially overlapped with 

pending criminal and congressional investigations, hindering our enforcement efforts and 

complicating decisions concerning our priorities. And just as some of those external proceedings 

were being resolved in some fashion, the Commission lost the quorum necessary to take 

substantive action on any enforcement matters – an occurrence that lasted from August 2019 

through most of 2020. 

During this time when the Commission could not act, new facts surfaced that called into 

question the veracity of the responses. However, since the allegations in the Complaint were 

well over five years old – the relevant statute of limitations – at the time the Commission was 

finally able to consider and vote on this matter, we were ultimately left with no meaningful 

enforcement options. We write this statement to clarify the public record and record our view of 

the merits of these serious allegations. 

August 25, 2021 ____________________________ 

Date Shana M. Broussard 

Chair 

August 25, 2021 ____________________________ 

Date Ellen L. Weintraub 

Commissioner

MUR699200081