FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF COMMISSIONER SHANA M. BROUSSARD 

AND COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB 

On July 23, 2019, the Commission found reason to believe that former Arizona State 

Senator and 2018 Congressional candidate, Debbie Lesko and her state committee, Re-Elect Debbie 

Lesko for Senate (the “State Committee”) violated the soft money prohibitions contained in the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) when it transferred $50,000 to 

Conservative Leadership for Arizona (“CLA”), an independent expenditure-only political 

committee (“IEOPC”), which then used the funds to support Lesko’s federal campaign.1

 

The Act prohibits federal candidates and officers, their agents, and entities directly or 

indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by (“EFMC’d”) a federal candidate or 

officeholder from “solicit[ing], receiv[ing], direct[ing], transfer[ing], or spend[ing] funds in 

connection with an election for Federal office, . . . unless the funds are subject to the limitations, 

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of [the] Act.”2 

On December 21, 2027, Lesko filed her statement of candidacy with the Commission.3 On 

January 10, 2018, CLA registered with the Commission as an IEOPC.4

 Eight days later, Lesko’s 

State Committee, where Lesko served as chair and treasurer, transferred $50,000 to CLA.5

 At this 

point, CLA had only reported receiving $50 in contributions.6 Within that month, CLA moved 

quickly and reported spending $21,000 on polling that focused on the special election where Lesko 

was a candidate and voter opinions on Lesko and her opponents,7 as well as $20,193.50 for mailers, 

and $7,581 for road signs, all supporting Lesko.8 All of these “independent” expenditures could be 

1

 Certification ¶4, MURs 7327, 7337, and 7344 (Debbie Lesko, et al.) (July 23, 2019). 2

 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A); see also 11 C.F.R. § 300.61. 3

 Factual and Legal Analysis at 2, MURs 7327, 7337, and 7344 (Debbie Lesko, et al.). 4

 Id. 5

 Id. 6

 Id. 7

 General Counsel’s Brief at 2, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko, et al.). 8

 Id. 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Debbie Lesko, et al. 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 ) 

 

 

 

 MUR 7337 

 

MUR733700287
MUR 7337 

Statement of Commissioners Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub 

Page 2 of 3 

traced to funds originating with Lesko’s state committee. The Commission concluded that, by 

authorizing the transfer of funds that comprised 99% of CLA’s funding, Lesko EFMC’d not only 

her state Committee but also CLA.9

 Accordingly, the Commission found reason to believe that 

“Lesko and the entities she EFMC’d transferred, spent, and received funds that had not been 

reported to the Commission.”10

CLA entered into a negotiated conciliation agreement, in which it admitted that the State 

Committee provided it with “99% of CLA’s total contributions” and that it was EMFC’d by Lesko 

through her Committee’s transfer of funds.11 CLA further admitted to violating “52 U.S.C. 

§ 30125(e)(1)(A) by receiving and spending $50,000 in funds from Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for 

Senate that were not subject to the limitations, prohibition, and reporting requirements of the Act 

and were used in connection with a federal election.”12 Lesko and her State Committee did not 

conciliate, and our Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended that the Commission pursue 

this apparent violation by finding probable cause to believe that both Lesko and her State 

Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A).We approved OGC’s recommendations, as did 

another one of our colleagues. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient Commission support to 

continue to pursue this matter.13 

An IEOPC materialized out of thin air days after a state candidate announced her federal 

candidacy, was funded almost entirely with funds controlled by that candidate, spent all of those 

funds purportedly “independently” supporting that candidate, and then ceased virtually all activity.14

This was a textbook lesson in soft money infiltrating federal elections and was the exact activity 

that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was designed to prevent. At a time when 

fostering trust in our electoral system is of paramount importance, we should be doing all that we 

can to ensure transparency and legality in how our elections are funded and hold those who skirt the 

law to funnel soft money into federal elections accountable. It is regrettable that after forging 

consensus that there was reason to believe that the law was violated and securing an admission from 

9

 See id. at 6-8. 10 Id. at 9. 11 Conciliation Agreement at IV. 

12 Id. at V. 13 Certification (Sept. 29, 2022). 

14 See General Counsel’s Brief at 3, n.12 (noting that CLA had only $1,230.50 cash-on-hand after the special 

primary election in which Lesko participated, and that “On subsequent disclosure reports, CLA disclosed no additional 

receipts.”). OGC further noted that CLA reported a zero cash on hand balance since its 2018 October Quarterly Report 

and no financial activity on any of its 2019, 2020, and 2021 disclosure reports. Id. 

MUR733700288
MUR 7337 

Statement of Commissioners Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub 

Page 3 of 3 

one of the parties that the law had indeed been violated, we nonetheless could not muster four votes 

to hold all parties accountable for an obvious violation of the Act. 

_______________________ __________________________ 

Date Shana M. Broussard 

Commissioner 

_______________________ __________________________ 

Date Ellen L. Weintraub 

Commissioner 

11/4/2022

11/4/2022

MUR733700289