1 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 FIRST STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

) MURs 7581/7614

Li Juan “Cindy” Yang a/k/a ) 

Li Juan “Cindy” Gong, et al.1 ) 

) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN DICKERSON

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

These Matters involved serious allegations of illegal conduit contributions and 

illegal foreign national activity. A combination of factors, however, including our

inability to build a record in time to avoid an impending statute of limitations,2 led 

us to conclude that attempting enforcement in these Matters would not be a prudent 

use of agency resources.3 Because invoking our prosecutorial discretion went against

1 In all of her correspondence with the Commission, both through attorneys and while she was 

unrepresented by counsel, the captioned respondent used the surname “Gong.” However, in newspaper 

articles, and in our Office of General Counsel’s (“OGC”) report to us in these Matters, which heavily 

relied on media reporting, Ms. Gong is referred to by the surname “Yang,” which appears to be her 

maiden name. The general counsel’s report therefore errantly refers to her as “Yang f/k/a Gong,” when 

in practice it seems Ms. Gong has used both names in recent years. Because the respondent went by 

Li Juan Gong in her communications with the Commission, this Statement of Reasons will refer to her 

by that name. First Gen’l Counsel’s Report (“FGCR”) at 1, MURs 7581/7614 (Yang/Gong), June 28, 

2022. 

2 The statute of limitations would have swallowed all of the allegations in MUR 7614 on December 2, 

2022, and all of MUR 7581 on March 1, 2023. 52 U.S.C. § 30145(a) (“No person shall be...punished for 

any violation of” the Act “unless...the information is instituted within 5 years after the date of the 

violation”); 28 U.S.C. § 2462 (“Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an 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 if, 

within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that 

proper service may be made thereon”). 

3 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985); Certification at 3-4, MURs 7581/7614 (Yang/Gong), July 28, 

2022. The fourth commissioner to vote in favor of invoking the agency’s prosecutorial discretion, 

Commissioner Steven Walther, retired from service on July 31, 2022.

MUR758100167
MUR758100168
3 

The principal allegations in the complaints all involve Ms. Li Juan “Cindy” 

Gong, an American citizen who formerly resided in Florida.8 Both complaints heavily 

rely on media reports concerning Ms. Gong, and they each allege two different efforts 

by Ms. Gong to evade the strictures of the Act. 

The first complaint we received9 was based almost entirely on a New York 

Times article published two days earlier,10 and it alleged that Ms. Gong solicited 

contributions from nine individuals who appear to be family and employees so she 

could meet a $50,000 threshold for a donor photo with then-President Donald Trump. 

The complaint suggested that it was very unlikely that these persons freely gave the 

funds without reimbursement from Ms. Gong. 

The second complaint we received alleged a different scheme, relying on media 

reporting in the Miami Herald, Mother Jones, and the Washington Post.11

Specifically, it tagged Ms. Gong as one of many U.S. facilitators of efforts to bring 

Chinese nationals to American political events.12 In sum, the complaint alleged that 

it was unlikely that the Americans involved were not acting as conduits for Chinese 

money to flow into American political campaigns.13

Ms. Gong responded through counsel by conceding her attendance at several 

fundraisers, including a March 2018 event where she was photographed with the 

President of the United States, and conceded that “‘nine people in [her] orbit, some of 

them with modest incomes, made donations at exactly $5,400’”14 for that event, and

furthermore that she “for a short time ran a travel service to the US for Chinese 

8 Ms. Gong informed the Commission that she currently resides in Mexico. Email from Li Juan Gong 

to Richard Weiss, May 2, 2022, 12:01 PM; see also FGCR at 5, n.11.

9 Common Cause Cmplt. at 1. The Commission labeled this complaint MUR 7581.

10 Id. at 3-7.

11 Campaign Legal Ctr. Cmplt. The Commission labeled this complaint MUR 7614.

12 Id. at 20-23, ¶¶ 28-34.

13 Id. at 20, ¶ 27 (“It is not known whether U.S. nationals are making contributions using their personal 

funds, and then being reimbursed for those contributions by selling the event tickets and photo 

opportunities to foreign nationals, or whether the U.S. nationals are first receiving payment from 

foreign nationals for political tourism packages and using those funds to make contributions; in either 

case,” it would be a substantial-assistance violation).

14 7581 Gong Resp. at 2, ¶ 2 (“The allegations within paragraph [sic] 31, 32, 39 are admitted”). 

MUR758100169
4 

business people, and the only events at Mar-A-Largo to which she brought her clients 

were club guest [sic] and/or local charity events, not political fundraisers.”15 She then 

asked “that the Commission find no reason to believe that [she]...committed any 

violations, and for dismissal of this complaint.”16 Other responses denied involvement 

in any alleged scheme.17

 By that time, Ms. Gong was no longer represented by counsel and informed the 

Commission that she now resided in Mexico, had recently been extremely ill, and that 

she anticipated that future communication would be difficult.18 

, the Commission was not presented with a First 

General Counsel’s Report until June 28, 2022. Given the press of the statute of 

limitations, no time remained in which the Commission could find reason-to-believe 

(“RTB”) and conduct an investigation. Accordingly, OGC suggested that we engage in 

pre-probable cause conciliation with Ms. Gong.19 In other words, OGC’s enforcement 

strategy relied upon Ms. Gong conceding a violation despite insufficient information 

to find probable cause, which the Commission is required to do before filing suit, and 

no prospect of supplementing the record. 

II. RELEVANT LAW

OGC recommended RTB findings regarding two sets of violations. 

15 7614 Gong Resp. at 3, ¶ 6.

16 7581 Gong Resp. at 4; 7614 Gong Resp. at 4. The FGCR in these Matters suggests that Ms. Gong 

sought pre-probable cause conciliation for the allegations. FGCR at 5, n.11. While it is true that the 

cover page that Ms. Gong’s lawyer appended to her substantive response stated “that Mrs Gong seeks 

to enter into early conciliation,” given that the same lawyer also signed the response requesting a noRTB finding, we assume that Ms. Gong—at least while she was still represented by counsel—was 

merely seeking to resolve these Matters as quickly as possible. 7581 Gong Resp. at 1; 7614 Gong Resp. 

at 1. In any event, by the time these Matters was considered by the Commission, Ms. Gong was 

unrepresented by counsel and her communications evidenced a general desire for help, and not a 

specific desire or willingness to enter into conciliation negotiations. Email from Li Juan Gong to 

Richard Weiss, May 2, 2022, 12:01 PM. 

17 See Jon Deng Resp. at 1-2; Li Jing Resp.

18 Email from Li Juan Gong to Richard Weiss, May 2, 2022, 12:01 PM. 

19 OGC recommended that the Commission dismiss the remaining respondents from the case. FGCR 

at 30-31.

MUR758100170
5 

The first was that Ms. Gong reimbursed nine individuals who each gave $5,400

to the Trump Victory committee and thus violated the Act’s prohibitions against 

making contributions in the name of another

20 and, concomitantly, also violated the 

individual contribution limit.

21 But aside from mere suspicion based on the fact that 

those individuals were Gong’s friends and employees, OGC had no direct 

evidence that Ms. Gong had reimbursed any of those nine individuals,

22 a number 

of whom filed explicit denials.

23 

The second was that Ms. Gong’s political tourism company, GY US, which 

advertised that it had “successfully planned various high-end business investment 

plans and international mainstream public relations planning activities for [its] 

clients,” including various opportunities to meet and be photographed with thenPresident Trump, was actually a scheme to funnel Chinese funds into American 

campaigns.

24 Specifically, OGC argued that she “was being compensated directly and 

through her tourism company...for those tickets and by foreign nationals and using

those funds to offset attendance costs by making contributions.”

25 But other than 

reporting that Ms. Gong had attended various Republican events in Florida in the 

company of some Chinese foreign nationals, OGC had no evidence that Ms. Gong

received any money from any Chinese national to attend an American political event.

Unfortunately, as OGC’s own recommendation for pre-probable cause 

conciliation indicated, even if there were evidence of RTB at this stage, the impending 

statute of limitations provided no time for us to sufficiently investigate and 

supplement the speculative media reporting and general denials that constitute the 

record in front of the Commission. 

OGC contended that Ms. Gong was likely to conciliate, solving this problem., 

But we believe that Ms. Gong’s relevant communications with the Commission belie 

that optimistic view.

26 A respondent residing in a foreign country claiming an 

20 52 U.S.C. § 30122.

21 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1).

22 Collecting contributions from others and then delivering them to a political committee is colloquially 

called “bundling,” and it is lawful so long as the donations are all properly attributed.

23 E.g. Katrina Eggertsson Resp.; Li Jing Resp.; Gong Haizhen Resp.

24 FGCR at 24.

25 Id. at 27, see also id. at 24-27.

26 Nor, in our view, should the Commission pursue conciliation where it lacks a record that could 

support a finding of probable cause and eventual enforcement in court—and where, due to the 

MUR758100171
6 

inability to communicate, ill health, and a shot memory27 may or may not be telling 

the truth. But that presentation does not strike us as an offer to confess.28 In such 

circumstances, conciliation would have likely failed, leaving us to vote on probable 

cause and rush to file papers in federal court before the expiry of the statute of 

limitations.

Worse, we would have been on track to do so with a record that, unless 

backfilled with more evidence at a later date, would not have met the standard to 

support probable cause (“PC”), and would be unlikely to succeed in federal court.29

Indeed, the main “evidence” supporting this effort would consist of news articles, 

which are inadmissible hearsay.30 We determined that engaging on this selfdefeating path would risk making bad law and wasting the agency’s litigation 

resources at a time when we are defending an unprecedented number of delay suits 

expiration of the statute of limitations, it cannot hope to build one. In such cases, entities represented 

by sophisticated counsel will understand the situation and decline to confess to an unprovable charge. 

The same may not be true for individuals with modest resources and political experience. 

27 Email from Li Juan Gong to Richard Weiss, May 2, 2022, 12:01 PM. 

28 See Statement of Reasons of Chairman Dickerson and Comm’rs Cooksey and Trainor at 3, MUR 

7425 (Trump Found.), Feb. 22, 2022 (“Even if the Commission had chosen not to investigate and 

instead moved to pre-probable cause conciliation, there would be little chance the Commission could 

successfully find probable cause and file an enforcement action before the total lapse of the statute of 

limitations at the end of May – and correspondingly little incentive for respondents to agree to a 

conciliation agreement”). 

29 52 U.S.C. § 30109(6)(A) (“If the Commission is unable to correct or prevent any violation of this Act 

or of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of Title 26, by the methods specified in paragraph (4), the Commission 

may, upon an affirmative vote of 4 of its members, institute a civil action for relief, including a 

permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or any other appropriate order (including an 

order for a civil penalty which does not exceed the greater of $5,000 or an amount equal to any 

contribution or expenditure involved in such violation) in the district court of the United States for the 

district in which the person against whom such action is brought is found, resides, or transacts 

business”). 

30 Metro. Council of NAACP Branches v. Fed. Communications Comm’n., 46 F.3d 1154, 1165 (D.C. Cir. 

1995) (“We seriously question whether a New York Times article is admissible evidence of the 

truthfulness of its contents”) (see citing Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) and 802); Spotts v. United States, 562 

F.Supp.2d 46, 54 (D.D.C. 2008) (“[N]ewspaper articles constitute inadmissible hearsay, which cannot

serve as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted, because they ‘provide no evidence of the reporter’s

perception, memory or sincerity and, therefore, lack circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.’”)

(quoting Hutira v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 211 F. Supp. 115, 123 (D.D.C. 2002)); Konah v. District of

Columbia, 971 F. Supp. 2d 74, 80 (D.D.C. 2013) (“The Court does not rely on other materials submitted

by Ms. Konah because tenuous relevance is the least severe of their infirmities. For example, she has

offered two newspaper articles from the Washington City Paper describing assaults on inmates by

other inmates, which are inadmissible hearsay”).

MUR758100172
MUR758100173
MUR758100174