FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

) MUR 7512

Pembina Pipeline Corporation, et al. ) 

SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIR SHANA M. BROUSSARD

This matter involved allegations that Pembina Pipeline Corporation (“Pembina”), a 

Canadian corporation, and its U.S. domestic subsidiaries (the “Jordan Cove entities”)

1

(collectively, “Respondents”) made prohibited foreign national donations to Save Coos Jobs 

Committee, an Oregon ballot measure committee, and to Oregon state and local candidate 

committees and other non-federal committees.

2

 I joined three of my colleagues in dismissing the 

allegations that these Respondents made, and Save Coos Jobs Committee accepted, prohibited 

foreign national donations.

3 The Commission, however, divided 3-3 on the Office of General 

Counsel’s recommendation that the Commission find reason believe that Pembina and the Jordan 

Cove entities made prohibited foreign national donations to the other candidate and non-ballot 

measure committees.4

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) requires that the 

Commission “find reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a 

violation” of the Act before opening an investigation into the alleged violation.5 A “reason to 

believe” finding is a threshold determination that does not establish that the law has been 

violated.6 Rather, “reason to believe” only means that the available information is at least 

sufficient to warrant an investigation to determine whether a violation actually occurred.7 When 

a complaint “credibly alleges that a significant violation has occurred,” the Commission should 

find “reason to believe” and conduct an investigation into the alleged violation.8 In making this 

1 These entities include Fort Chicago Holdings, II US, LLC, Jordan Cove Energy Project L.P., Jordan Cove 

LNG, LLC, and Jordan Cove LNG, L.P.

2 Compl. at 1-2, Attach. 3 (Oct. 12, 2018).

3 Certification ¶ 2, MUR 7512 (July 13, 2021); Factual & Legal Analysis, MUR 7512; see also Statement of 

Reasons of Chair Shana M. Broussard, MURs 7512 (Pembina Pipeline Corporation, et al.) and 7523 (Stop I-186, et 

al.).

4 Certification ¶ 3.

5 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2); see also Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the 

Initial Stage in the Enforcement Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12,545 (Mar. 16, 2007).

6 Statement of Policy Regarding Commission Action in Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement 

Process, 72 Fed. Reg. at 12,545.

7

Id.

8

Id.

MUR751200496
MUR 7512 (Pembina Pipeline Corp., et al.)

Supplemental Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 4

threshold determination, the “Commission must take into consideration all available information 

concerning the alleged wrongdoing.”9

With respect to the contributions made by the Jordan Cove entities to the non-ballot 

measure committees, the Complaint and its attachments contained sufficient information to 

satisfy this low threshold. The Commission has previously permitted contributions by the 

domestic subsidiaries or affiliates of foreign national corporations (when corporate contributions 

are otherwise permitted) if the contributions were from funds generated solely by their domestic 

operations and if no foreign nationals were involved in the decision to make the contributions.

10

 

Here, the limited information available to the Commission indicates that the Jordan Cove entities

had no apparent domestic revenue stream to make the approximately $243,000 in donations to

the non-ballot measure committees because, at the time of the contributions, construction of their

liquified natural gas (“LNG”) project in Coos Bay, Oregon had not yet started.

11 Pembina and 

the Jordan Cove Respondents acknowledge in their Response that the project was in 

development at the time of their donations and therefore not operational.12 In fact, at all times 

relevant to this matter, the Jordan Cove entities never actively conducted revenue-generating 

activities through the LNG project. And Pembina has since paused the project’s development 

because of denials of required regulatory authorizations.13 Further, the Complaint’s attachments 

contained information indicating that Pembina was budgeting and spending approximately $10 

million per month on expenses associated with the LNG project.14 Respondents did not fully 

address this information in their responses. Nor did they provide any affidavits or other 

documentation identifying any domestic source of revenue. And OGC was unable to locate 

evidence that the donating Jordan Cove entities engaged in domestic activities unrelated to the

LNG project at the time of the donations or since. 

Thus, the Complaint and its attachments supplied two critical pieces of information: that 

the Jordan Cove entities’ domestic project was not operational and therefore incapable of 

generating revenue within the United States; and it appeared that the project was being financed 

by their foreign parent company, Pembina. Accordingly, I voted to support OGC’s 

recommendation to find reason to believe that the Jordan Cove entities and Pembina Pipeline 

Corporation made prohibited foreign national contributions, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30121(a)(1)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.20(b).

9

In re Fed. Election Campaign Act Litig., 474 F. Supp. 1044, 1046 (D.D.C. 1979).

10 E.g., Factual & Legal Analysis at 4, MUR 7122 (American Pacific International Capital, Inc.); Factual & 

Legal Analysis at 4-5, MUR 6099 (Sam Page); Advisory Op. 1992-16 (Nansay Hawaii) at 3-4; Advisory Op. 1989-

20 (Kuilima).

11 See generally Compl.; id., Attachs. 3, 5, 7, 9, 15.

12 See Jordan Cove Resp. at 2, MUR 7512 (Jan. 8, 2019). 

13 See First General Counsel’s Report at 13 & n.34, MUR 7512.

14 Compl., Attach. 7 (attaching Canadian Press Article); id. at 7, Attach. 5 (attaching Dennis Webb, 

Geopolitical Case for Jordan Cove, DAILY SENTINEL (Sept. 12, 2018), 

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/geopolitical-case-for-jordan-cove/article_cd728716-b64a-11e8-

9ed7-10604b9f7e7c.html); id., Attach. 15 (attaching Ted Sickinger, Jordan Cove LNG Campaign Contributions 

Raise Questions, OREGONIAN (Jan. 29, 2019), 

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2018/09/jordan_cove_campaigns_contribu.html (quoting Jordan Cove 

spokesperson)). 

MUR751200497
MUR 7512 (Pembina Pipeline Corp., et al.)

Supplemental Statement of Reasons

Page 3 of 4

In declining to find reason to believe, my colleagues essentially endorsed the 

Respondents’ arguments.15 Respondents argued, inter alia, that the Commission should find no 

reason to believe because the Complainant appears to base the alleged violation “solely on the 

fact that the contributors were related to Pembina, and that the domestic respondents are 

registered as ‘foreign’ with the Oregon Secretary of State.”16 If that were all of the information 

provided in the Complaint and attachments, then I would agree. But it is not. As outlined above, 

the Complaint provided enough information to support a reason to believe determination. My 

colleagues’ Statement of Reasons does not appear to consider, let alone mention, the other 

relevant information attached to the Complaint.

17

 

My colleagues also accuse OGC of improperly shifting the burden on the Respondents. 

They take issue with the “foreign funding” aspect of OGC’s analysis, among other things, calling

OGC’s reliance on the lack of evidence that the Jordan Cove entities had a domestic revenue 

stream a “faulty presumption.”18 I believe this alone would have been sufficient to support 

reason to believe at this initial stage of the enforcement process because the Jordan Cove 

entities’ U.S.-based project was not operational. In addition, OGC relied on information that 

Pembina, the foreign parent company, was paying all expenses associated with the proposed 

project. Combined, this information supports OGC’s common-sense conclusion that Pembina 

may have also funded the donations made by the Jordan Cove entities, a conclusion that is also 

consistent with decades of well-established Commission precedent.

19

15 See generally Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson & Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey & 

James E. “Trey” Trainor III, MUR 7512 (Sept. 28, 2021).

16 Id. Respondents correctly note that the designation “foreign” in their corporate filings with the Oregon 

Secretary of State does not necessarily mean they are organized in another country. Jordan Cove Resp. at 2, 4.

However, this error alone does not render the Complaint insufficient. As detailed above, there was still enough 

information supplied by the Complaint to satisfy the reason to believe standard. 

17 See Level the Playing Field v. FEC, 232 F. Supp. 3d 130, 140 (D.D.C. 2017) (finding that the “FEC’s Legal 

and Factual Analyses do not provide any evidence that the FEC considered the relevant factors or took a hard look at 

the evidence,” as the FEC does not “even mention the vast majority of the substantive evidence” that was submitted 

with the complaints); Antosh v. FEC, 599 F. Supp. 850, 855 (D.D.C. 1984) (finding that the Commission acted 

contrary to the law by ignoring evidence in the record).

18 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson & Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey & James E. 

“Trey” Trainor III at 3-4.

19 See Factual & Legal Analysis at 1, 4, MUR 6093 (Transurban Group) (finding reason to believe where 

domestic subsidiary toll road developer began to generate income from domestic operations mid-way through 

contribution period, but relied upon foreign parent as “predominant source of funds”); Advisory Op. 1989-20 

(Kuilima) at 1 (determining company involved in developing commercial real estate projects in the first stages of 

development that did not generate income — and were therefore funded by loans and contributions by foreign parent 

company — was prohibited from making contributions); Factual & Legal Analysis at 6 & n.5, MUR 4250 

(Republican Nat’l Comm.) (finding reason to believe committee accepted foreign national contributions from a 

domestic subsidiary with no significant assets and only apparent income from rental properties owned by foreign 

parent company); Conciliation Agreement ¶ IV.6, MUR 2892 (Royal Hawaiian Country Club and Y.Y. Valley 

Corp.) (“At the time of the events in this matter, neither [domestic companies] were generating income. 

Respondents’ funds consisted of either capital contributions and/or loans from [respondent’s] owners.”). 

MUR751200498
MUR 7512 (Pembina Pipeline Corp., et al.)

Supplemental Statement of Reasons

Page 4 of 4

In sum, the foreign national prohibition does not bar the domestic subsidiaries of foreign 

parent companies from making otherwise lawful political contributions so long as those 

contributions are funded by revenue generated within the United States. This requirement 

ensures that their foreign parents are not doing indirectly what they cannot do directly by 

providing their domestic subsidiaries with the funds for political contributions. The result in this 

case is yet another recent example of the Commission’s failure to investigate well-placed 

complaints alleging significant campaign finance violations.20 

____________________ ____________________________

Date Shana M. Broussard 

Chair

20

I disagree with my colleagues’ claim that the Complaint fails to “satisfy the most basic standard for a 

complaint to be considered complete and proper,” because it fails to differentiate statements based on personal 

knowledge and those based on information and belief. Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson & 

Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey & James E. “Trey” Trainor III at 4 (citing FED. ELECTION COMM’N,

GUIDEBOOK FOR COMPLAINANTS AND RESPONDENTS ON THE FEC ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (May 

2012), available at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/respondent_guide.pdf). The complainant 

appears to be a nonlawyer who is inexperienced in this area of the law and the agency’s procedures. While this does 

not relieve him of his obligation to comply with the Commission’s procedures, we must make sure that we are 

treating complaints filed by such individuals with the same consideration that we afford those filed by sophisticated 

parties. The Complaint here complies with the Commission’s standards and procedures and was appropriately 

processed by the Office of Complaints Examination and Legal Administration. 

11/2/2021

MUR751200499