FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20463 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Greitens for US Senate and Eric Greitens ) MUR 7938 

 in his official capacity as treasurer ) 

Greitens for Missouri ) 

Eric R. Greitens ) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIR DARA LINDENBAUM, VICE CHAIRMAN 

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

JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

The Complaint in this matter alleged that Eric R. Greitens used funds from his state 

campaign committee, Greitens for Missouri (the “State Committee”), to impermissibly test the 

waters for his federal campaign and transferred the State Committee’s website (the “Greitens 

Website”) to his federal authorized campaign committee, Greitens for US Senate and Eric 

Greitens in his official capacity as treasurer (the “Federal Committee”), and that the Federal 

Committee misreported the transfer of the Greitens Website as an in-kind contribution from 

Greitens.

1

 Greitens, the State Committee, and the Federal Committee (collectively, the “Greitens 

Respondents”) filed a joint Response (the “Response”), denying the allegations and attaching 

exhibits containing invoices and other documents to assert that some of the alleged testing-thewaters expenses identified in the Complaint were for services unrelated to Greitens’s federal 

campaign.2 The Response further asserted that Greitens owns the Greitens Website personally 

and licensed its use to the State Committee and the Federal Committee, attaching a copy of the 

signed licensing agreement with the Federal Committee.3 Finally, the Response asserted that the 

Federal Committee properly reported its licensing of the Greitens Website as an $18,000 in-kind 

contribution from Greitens to the Federal Committee.4

The Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended that the Commission find no 

reason to believe that the Greitens Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125 and 11 C.F.R. 

§ 110.3(d) by using State Committee funds to pay for federal testing-the-waters expenses, or that 

the Federal Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) by failing to report federal testing-the1

 First Gen. Counsel’s Rpt. (“FGCR”) at 1-3, 5-12 (June 15, 2023).

2

 Id. at 2, 8-10.

3

 Id. at 2, 11-12.

4

 Id. at 2, 10-11.

MUR793800128
MUR 7938 (Greitens for US Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 7 

waters expenses, with respect to most of the disbursements identified in the Complaint.5 Based 

on the credible explanations and documentation provided by the Response, we agreed with OGC

and voted to approve its recommendations on the testing-the-waters and associated reporting 

allegations.6

However, OGC further recommended that the Commission find reason to believe that the 

Greitens Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104(b), 30125(e) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.3(d) by 

transferring the Greitens Website from the State Committee to the Federal Committee without 

paying fair market value and by misreporting the transfer of the Greitens Website as an in-kind 

contribution from Greitens in disclosure reports filed with the Commission.7 OGC reasoned, 

inter alia, that the State Committee made an impermissible transfer to the Federal Committee 

because the State Committee “made disbursements [of state funds] for improvements to the 

Greitens Website, which was then transferred to the Federal Committee.”8

We disagreed and voted to find no reason to believe the allegations concerning the 

transfer of the Greitens Website.

9

 This Statement explains the reasons for our votes as to those 

allegations. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Greitens is a former Governor of Missouri, who served from January 2017 until he 

resigned in June 2018, and former candidate for U.S. Senate for Missouri in the 2022 Republican 

primary election.10 The State Committee was Greitens’s state political committee for his 

gubernatorial campaign and remained active after Greitens’s resignation in 2018.

11

5

 OGC recommended no reason to believe as to the alleged testing-the-waters expenses identified in the 

Complaint other than $2,400 to Octavian Group, LLC, an LLC owned by Dylan Johnson, Greitens’s federal 

campaign manager. Id. at 18-20. OGC also recommended that the Commission exercise its prosecutorial discretion 

and dismiss the testing-the-waters and associated reporting allegations with respect to the disbursements to Octavian 

Group, LLC, based on the potential amount in violation and the resources that would be required to investigate. Id.

at 20-21 (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985)).

6

 Certification ¶ 2.a-d (July 14, 2023).

7

 FGCR at 21-29.

8

 Id. at 23-24. 

9

 Specifically, we voted to find no reason to believe that that (1) the Greitens Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30125(e) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.3(d) by transferring the Greitens Website from the State Committee to the Federal 

Committee without paying fair market value; (2) the Federal Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) by 

misreporting the transfer of the Greitens Website as an in-kind contribution from Greitens in disclosure reports filed 

with the Commission; and (3) the Greitens Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by making, allowing, and 

knowingly accepting a contribution in the name of another related to the transfer of the Greitens Website. 

Certification ¶ 2.e-g.

10 FGCR at 4-5.

11 Id. at 4 & n.4. After Greitens’s election on November 8, 2016, the State Committee amended its Statement 

of Committee Organization with the Missouri Ethics Commission to reflect that it had become a committee to 

support Greitens as a gubernatorial candidate in 2020. Id. at 4 n.4. 

MUR793800129
MUR 7938 (Greitens for US Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 3 of 7 

According to the Complaint, the Greitens Website was updated in May 2020, which then 

included at the bottom of the page a copyright symbol followed by “Greitens for Missouri. All 

Rights Reserved” and a statement that it was “created by Abrot Creative.”12 The State 

Committee reported its first of three disbursements to Abrot Creative for “web services” on 

May 14, 2020.13 In total, the State Committee disbursed $19,000 to Abrot Creative: $9,500 on 

May 14, 2020; $4,750 on June 19, 2020; and $4,750 on July 31, 2020.14 According to the 

Response, the Greitens Website was updated and relaunched in an effort to publicize the findings 

of a Missouri Ethics Commission investigation dismissing various state campaign finance 

allegations against Greitens and the State Committee and to rehabilitate Greitens’s reputation.15

Greitens did not ultimately run for Governor or other statewide or federal elected office 

in 2020.16 However, on June 9, 2020, amidst the time period of its disbursements to Abrot 

Creative, the State Committee amended its Statement of Committee Organization to reflect it 

was a committee to support Greitens as a gubernatorial candidate in 2024.17 The Response 

asserted that Greitens began exploring a potential gubernatorial campaign for the 2024 election 

cycle “[o]n or around December of 2020.”18 Additionally, according to the Response, Greitens 

did not decide to run for federal office until former Senator Roy Blunt announced his retirement 

on March 8, 2021.19 On March 22, 2021, Greitens publicly announced his campaign for U.S. 

Senate for Missouri, and the next day Greitens filed his Statement of Candidacy naming the 

Federal Committee as his principal campaign committee.20

According to the Complaint, around the time Greitens announced his federal candidacy, 

the disclaimer on the Greitens Website changed to “Paid for by Eric Greitens for U.S. Senate,” 

but the layout and design of the website was “otherwise unchanged.”21 The Federal Committee 

reported the receipt of an $18,000 in-kind contribution from Greitens individually for “INKIND: WEBSITE” on March 23, 2021.22 Greitens lost the Missouri Republican primary 

election for U.S. Senate on August 2, 2022.23

12 Id. at 10 (citing Compl. ¶ 11 (Oct. 28, 2021)).

13 Id.

14 Id. 

15 Id. at 8, 22 (citing Resp. at 2-3, 6 (Dec. 8, 2021)).

16 Id. at 4; FEC Candidates: Filtered Results, FEC.GOV, https://www.fec.gov/data/candidates/?q=greitens&

election_year=2020 (last visited Aug. 18, 2023) (reflecting Greitens was not a federal candidate in 2020).

17 FGCR at 4 n.4.

18 Id. at 9 (citing Resp. at 4).

19 Id. at 8 (citing Resp. at 2, 4).

20 Id. at 4-5.

21 Id. at 10 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 28-29). 

22 Id. at 10-11. 

23 Id. at 5.

MUR793800130
MUR 7938 (Greitens for US Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 4 of 7 

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), defines the term 

“contribution” to include “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything 

of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election to Federal office.”24 

The phrase “anything of value” includes “all in-kind contributions,” defined as the “provision of 

any goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge 

for such goods or services.”25 Commission regulations provide that “candidates for Federal 

office may make unlimited expenditures from personal funds.”26 Advisory opinions have 

consistently interpreted this provision to permit a candidate to make unlimited contributions to 

his or her principal campaign committee.27

The Act and Commission regulations prohibit candidates, individuals holding Federal 

office, agents of a candidate or an individual holding Federal office, or an entity directly or 

indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by or acting on behalf of one or more 

candidates or individuals holding Federal office from “solicit[ing], receiv[ing], direct[ing], 

transfer[ing], or spend[ing] funds in connection with an election for Federal office, including 

funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, 

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of th[e] Act.”28 The Commission’s regulations 

explicitly prohibit “[t]ransfers of funds or assets from a candidate’s campaign committee or 

account for a nonfederal election to his or her principal campaign committee or other authorized 

committee for a federal election.”29 The Commission has explained that this prohibition on all 

transfers from a candidate’s state or local committee to the candidate’s federal committee is 

intended to prevent a federal committee’s indirect use of nonfederal funds.30

OGC found the Response’s argument that Greitens owns and licensed the Greitens 

Website to the State Committee and then to the Federal Committee unpersuasive and viewed the 

State Committee’s disbursements to improve the Greitens Website as an indirect use of 

nonfederal funds to the Federal Committee’s benefit.31 Specifically, OGC concluded that the 

24 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i). 

25 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(d)(1).

26 11 C.F.R. § 110.10 (implementing the holding from Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)).

27 See, e.g., Advisory Opinion 2010-15 (Pike) at 2 (“The Commission has interpreted this provision to mean 

that a candidate may also make unlimited contributions to his or her authorized committee.”); Advisory Opinion

1984-60 (Mulloy) at 2 (“Commission regulations explicitly permit a candidate for Federal office to make unlimited 

expenditures from his or her personal funds, including contributions to the candidate’s principal campaign 

committee.”).

28 52 U.S.C § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

29 11 C.F.R. § 110.3(d).

30 See Transfers of Funds from State to Federal Campaigns, 58 Fed. Reg. 3474, 3474-75 (Jan. 8, 1993), 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1993-01-08/pdf/FR-1993-01-08.pdf (explaining that the Commission was 

adopting total prohibition in this circumstance because of the practical difficulty in linking or otherwise accounting 

for federally permissible funds available for transfer). 

31 See FGCR at 21-29.

MUR793800131
MUR 7938 (Greitens for US Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 5 of 7 

“independent third party . . . valuation of the Greitens Website described in the Response” of 

$18,000 appeared to be “based on the improvements made by Abrot Creative” in the amount of 

$19,000 “that were paid for by the State Committee’s nonfederal funds,” which reflected an 

indirect use of nonfederal funds “akin to matters in which a state committee pays for goods or 

services used by the federal committee.”32

 

We disagreed with OGC’s recommendations and voted to find no reason to believe the 

allegations regarding the Greitens Website. Even assuming, arguendo, that the valuation of the 

Greitens Website was based on the improvements made by the State Committee, there is not a 

violation of the Act and Commission regulations here because the attendant circumstances, 

timeline of events, and the substantial information and documents provided in the Response 

reveal no indirect use of nonfederal funds or circumvention of the Act’s limitations and 

prohibitions. 

Under the Act and Commission regulations and precedent, Greitens is permitted to 

contribute unlimited personal funds, including in-kind contributions of assets, to the Federal 

Committee. To document its assertion that Greitens owns the Greitens Website personally and 

licensed its use to the State and Federal Committees, the Response attached a copy of the 

licensing agreement between Greitens and the Federal Committee.33 Under the terms of the 

licensing agreement, the Greitens Website remained Greitens’s personal property and did not 

become the property of the Federal Committee.34 We therefore concluded that Greitens was 

permitted to make an in-kind contribution to the Federal Committee in the form of the Greitens 

Website, which the available information indicates was his personal asset.

Contrary to OGC’s suggestion of an indirect use of nonfederal funds, the available 

information supports the Response’s characterization of the purpose of the State Committee’s 

$19,000 in disbursements to Abrot Creative for “web services”: to “assist in relaunching the 

[Greitens W]ebsite” which “coincided with the publication of the [Missouri Ethics 

Commission’s] findings in the investigation of” Greitens and the State Committee in February 

2020.35 First, the State Committee’s disbursements to Abrot Creative began in May 2020 — 

three months after the Missouri Ethics Commission released its findings in connection with the 

complaints against Greitens and the State Committee.

36

32 Id. at 26-27.

33 Resp. at 5, Ex. C; FGCR at 11-12. The Response also represented that a “copy of purchase confirmation” 

by Greitens in 2007 could be provided “upon request.” Resp. at 3 & n.8; FGCR at 11-12.

34 Resp., Ex. C; FGCR at 12; see also Resp. at 5-6. 

35 Resp. at 3. Indeed, the Response broadly asserted that the State Committee’s disbursements identified in 

the Complaint during 2020 and early 2021 were related to efforts to publicize findings of the Missouri Ethics 

Commission’s investigation into allegations of misconduct by Greitens and the State Committee and to rehabilitate 

Greitens’s reputation. Resp. at 2-3; FGCR at 8, 19-20.

36 See FGCR at 4 n.3; id. at 10.

MUR793800132
MUR 7938 (Greitens for US Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 6 of 7 

Next, an archived version of the Greitens Website from May 19, 2020, reflects content 

relating to the Missouri Ethics Commission’s findings and bears the statement that it was 

“created by Abrot Creative.”37 This corroborating information is comparable to the material in

the Meta Ad Library that appears to confirm the Response’s assertion that the State Committee 

disbursements for “digital media” in March and April 2020 were in connection with publicizing 

the Missouri Ethics Commission’s findings.38 Notably, OGC credited the Response’s 

representations and attached documents based, inter alia, on that material in the Meta Ad Library 

in recommending that the Commission find no reason to believe regarding those alleged testingthe-waters expenses.39

 We likewise credited the Response’s representations regarding the

disbursements in connection with the Greitens Website, where those representations are

supported by publicly-available information and absent any evidence to the contrary. 

Furthermore, the disbursements related to the Greitens Website appear to be consistent

with other disbursements the State Committee was making in 2020 in connection with the 

Missouri Ethics Commission’s findings.40 If the nature of the State Committee’s disbursements

to Abrot Creative or other circumstances indicated that the State Committee disbursed nonfederal 

funds with an intent to support the Federal Committee or otherwise circumvented the Act’s

limitations and prohibitions, our conclusion may have been different. However, to the extent

that the State Committee’s funds were used to improve the Greitens Website, which Greitens

personally owns and then subsequently licensed to the Federal Committee for its use, there is not

a violation of the Act or Commission regulations under these circumstances.41

37 Id. at 10 & n.33; ERIC GREITENS (Mar. 23, 2021), www.ericgreitens.com [https://web.archive.org/web/

20200519045445/https://www.ericgreitens.com/]. The Internet Archive’s most recent archived version of the 

Greitens Website before May 19, 2020, was captured on June 12, 2018, and reflects Greitens’s gubernatorial 

campaign. FGCR at 10 n.33; ERIC GREITENS (Mar. 23, 2021), www.ericgreitens.com [https://web.archive.org/web/

20180612113003/https://ericgreitens.com/]. 

38 See FGCR at 19 (“[M]aterials in the Meta Ad Library support the Response’s assertion that the State 

Committee disseminated materials addressing the Missouri Ethics Commission’s investigation around the time the 

services were originally invoiced in March and April 2020.”).

39 See id. at 18-20 (“[A]s discussed above, the Response credibly assert[ed] that the State Committee spent 

funds in 2020 to rehabilitate Greitens’s reputation following the release of the Missouri Ethics Commission’s 

investigative findings.”).

40 See id. at 18-19 (analyzing the State Committee’s payments to Driver Eight Media for “investigation[-] 

related media bookings in 2020” and to Push Digital LLC for digital media “in connection with ‘efforts to publicize 

the [Missouri Ethics Commission’s] investigative findings’”).

41 To the extent that Greitens retaining the improvements to the Greitens Website that the State Committee 

paid for implicates the personal use prohibition of Missouri state law, we decline to opine on matters of state law 

that are outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.

MUR793800133
MUR 7938 (Greitens for US Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 7 of 7 

For the reasons set forth above, we voted to find no reason to believe that the Greitens 

Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.3(d) by transferring the Greitens 

Website and that the Federal Committee violated 52 U.S.C.§ 30104(b) by misreporting the 

transfer of the Greitens Website as an in-kind contribution from Greitens.42

__________________ _______________________ 

Date Dara Lindenbaum 

Chair 

__________________ _______________________ 

Date Sean J. Cooksey 

Vice Chairman

__________________ _______________________ 

Date Allen J. Dickerson 

Commissioner

__________________ _______________________ 

Date James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Commissioner 

42 Certification ¶¶ 2.e-f. Because we voted to find no reason to believe that the Greitens Respondents 

transferred the Greitens Website from the State Committee to the Federal Committee without paying fair market 

value and that the Federal Committee misreported the transfer of the Greitens Website as an in-kind contribution 

from Greitens, we also voted to find no reason to believe the Greitens Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by 

making, allowing, and knowingly accepting a contribution in the name of another related to the transfer of the 

Greitens Website. Certification ¶ 2.g.

August 18, 2023

August 18, 2023

August 18, 2023

August 18, 2023

MUR793800134