1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

) MURs 7265 and 7266

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and )

Bradley T. Crate in his official capacity as treasurer; )

Donald Trump, Jr.; Paul Manafort; )

Jared Kushner; Rob Goldstone )

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON AND 

COMMISSIONERS SEAN J. COOKSEY AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

The Complaints in these matters claim that Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Bradley 

T. Crate in his official capacity as treasurer (“Trump Committee”),

1

through its agents, solicited a 

prohibited foreign-national contribution in the form of negative information about the committee’s

2016 election opponent. The allegations center around a meeting between Trump Committee

representatives and various foreign nationals on June 9, 2016, at Trump Tower in New York City.2

The Commission received the first complaint on July 10, 2017, and the second complaint 

three days later, but it did not immediately assess their merits.3Instead, the Commission opted to 

hold the matters in abeyance for nearly two years pending the outcome of other publicly known 

government investigations. By the time the relevant investigations finished in mid-2019 with no 

civil or criminal charges, however, the Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) still had not evaluated 

the complaints to make recommendations to the Commission as to how to proceed. Shortly 

thereafter, the Commission lost its quorum to do business, leaving it, except for a few weeks, 

unable to deliberate or vote to open any investigations until December 2020.4 The current 

Commission finally received a First General Counsel’s Report recommending enforcement and 

 

1 These Complaints were originally filed against, among others, the political committee Donald J. Trump for 

President, Inc. After the 2020 election, the committee changed its name to Make America Great Again PAC. See 

Trump Committee, Amend. Statement of Org. (Feb. 27, 2021).

2 See Complaint at 2–4 (July 10, 2017), MUR 7265 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.); Complaint at 

2–9 (July 13, 2017), MUR 7266 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.).

3 Complaint (July 10, 2017), MUR 7265 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. et al.).

4 See Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub on the Senate’s Votes to Restore the Federal Election 

Commission to Full Strength (Dec. 9, 2020), available at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cmscontent/documents/2020-12-Quorum-Restoration-Statement.pdf (“We have had enough commissioners to vote on 

enforcement matters for only 28 days since September 2019.”).

MUR726500121
2

conciliation with the Respondents on February 5, 2021, and OGC’s recommendations were first 

placed on the agenda for discussion at our March 9, 2021, executive session.

5

By that point, the statute of limitations had nearly run: a mere 92 days remained, despite 

our having received the complaints 1,332 days prior.

6 Being only at the initial stage of 

enforcement—considering whether there was reason to believe the law had been violated—there 

was no reasonable chance for the Commission to bring an enforcement action to fruition in the 

remaining time.

7 Moreover, attempting to press enforcement in these matters would have required

expending significant resources and forgoing critical Commission deliberation. All this, in pursuit 

of a tenuous legal theory of what constitutes a “thing of value” under our statutes—a legal theory 

that would likely be the subject of protracted and costly litigation.8

In short, the Commission had no viable course of action but to dismiss these matters. 

Indeed, the Commission recently unanimously dismissed another matter that faced a nearly 

identical statute-of-limitations problem.

9

Nonetheless, it is regrettable that the Commission did not have the opportunity to consider 

these matters with the luxury of time. This outcome should prompt the Commission to reflect on

when, and under what circumstances, it abates its own investigations pending the work of other 

agencies. In many cases, the Commission does so to its own detriment, and this is perhaps one 

example. 

 

5 First General Counsel’s Report at 36–37 (Feb. 5, 2021), MURs 7265 and 7266 (Donald J. Trump for President,

Inc., et al.); Certification (March 9, 2021), MURs 7265 and 7266 (Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., et al.).

6 See 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (“[A]n action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or 

forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when 

the claim first accrued.”). The Complainants might have brought a delay suit against the Commission for failing to act 

on their complaints after 120 days under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), but did not in this case.

7 After finding reason to believe a violation has occurred, the Commission must undertake additional 

investigatory and deliberative steps before it can bring an enforcement action in federal court in a matter. After any 

attempt to conciliate with Respondents fails, OGC would then need to draft probable-cause briefs recommending that 

the Commission pursue enforcement. Respondents would be given fifteen days to respond to those briefs, as well as 

the right to request a probable-cause hearing. Following any hearing, the Commission would need to deliberate again

over whether to find probable cause to believe Respondents violated the law. If the Commission found probable cause,

under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it must then attempt to conciliate with respondents again for no less than 

thirty days. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6). Only after that effort would the Commission consider whether to file a civil 

enforcement suit. Completing these steps within the remaining statute of limitations in these matters was a practical 

impossibility.

8 OGC’s theory of a violation relied upon an expansive and novel definition of what constitutes a “thing of 

value” and, consequently, a “contribution” under the Federal Election Campaign Act. 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A). The 

Commission has previously divided over whether general information that is helpful to a campaign is a “thing of 

value.” See Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter and Commissioners Lee E. Goodman and Matthew 

S. Petersen at 6–7, MUR 6958 (Senator Claire McCaskill, et al.) (concluding that general advice from polling was not 

a “thing of value”).

9 See Certification (April 9, 2021), MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate, et al.) (dismissing under Heckler v. Chaney

a matter with 88 days remaining on the statute of limitations); see also Statement of Chair Shana M. Broussard and 

Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub at 2, MUR 7395 (Heller for Senate, et al.) (“[I]n light of the imminent statute of 

limitations and other priorities on the Commission’s docket, we voted to dismiss the allegations.”). 

MUR726500122
3

In this position, however, our agency’s limited enforcement resources are better directed 

toward other investigations with better odds of success. Commission staff time and funds are 

especially precious in light of the significant backlog of enforcement cases that the Commission 

accrued while lacking a quorum.10 Considering the foregoing, three Commissioners declined to 

pursue this quixotic enforcement effort and instead voted to dismiss the complaints as a matter of 

prosecutorial discretion under Heckler v. Chaney.

11

______________________________ May 10, 2021

Allen Dickerson Date

Vice Chair

_________________________________ May 10, 2021

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ May 10, 2021

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

 

10 Statement of Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub, supra n.4.

11 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

MUR726500123