1 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 FIRST STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) MUR 7987 

Phil Rizzo for Congress, et. al. ) 

) 

 

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIRMAN SEAN J. COOKSEY AND

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

When this matter came before us after finding reason to believe, we voted to approve the 

recommendation of the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) to take no further action as to the 

allegations that Phil Rizzo for Congress and David Satterfield in his official capacity as treasurer 

(the “Committee”) violated 52 U.S.C. § 30120 and 11 11 C.F.R. § 110.11 by failing to include 

required disclaimers on public communications, and to close the file. However, we write 

separately to express our disagreement with OGC’s suggestion that a telephone bank of less than 

500 calls may be regulated as a “public communication.” 

 

The Complaint in this matter, filed on April 22, 2022, alleged that the Committee

violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), by failing to 

include required disclaimers on robocalls. The Respondent acknowledged that the Committee 

was responsible for the calls and stated that due to a vendor error the calls did not include a 

disclaimer. Accordingly, on January 24, 2023, the Commission voted to find reason to believe

(“RTB”) that the Committee violated the Act’s disclaimer requirements. Following a notification 

of the Commission’s RTB vote, the Respondent informed the Commission that only 75 calls 

were placed (for a total expenditure of $43.97). Consistent with the Commission’s treatment of 

similar matters, OGC recommended the Commission take no further action and close the file. 

We voted to approve OGC’s recommendation. However, buried in its recommendation, was 

OGC’s assertion that although “[75 calls] would not qualify as a public communication based on 

being a ‘telephone bank,’ as defined by 11 C.F.R. § 100.28... the definition of public 

communications also includes ‘any other form of general public political advertising,’ which 

could encompass these robocalls.”1

 This is plainly an incorrect reading of the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission’s regulations define a “public communication” as “a communication by 

means of any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor 

advertising facility, mass mailing, or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of 

1 MUR 7987, Second General Counsel’s Report (GCR #2) at 2. 

MUR798700058
2 

general public political advertising.” 11 C.F.R. § 100.26 (emphasis added). “Telephone bank” is 

defined as “more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or substantially similar nature within 

any 30-day period.” 11 C.F.R. § 100.28. It surely cannot be the case that 75 telephone calls, like 

those in this matter, fall outside the regulatory definition of “public communication” as a 

“telephone bank” but are nonetheless a public communication under the catch-all “general public 

political advertising.” Common sense and basic legal canons of construction suggest otherwise.

 

_________________________________ _________________________ 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Vice Chairman

______________________________ _________________________ 

Allen J. Dickerson Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ _________________________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

5/31/2023

5/31/2023

5/31/2023

MUR798700059