October 25, 2023

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20463

Re:    Advisory Opinion Request

Dear Commissioners and Staff:  

Pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30108, we seek an advisory opinion from the Federal Election

Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”) on behalf of our client Cowboy Analytics, LLC

concerning the formation of a conduit committee to sell political merchandise and raise

money for federal candidates.

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL

Cowboy Analytics provides voter and consumer data to political campaigns,

businesses, and media organizations. The company also owns Rally Piryx, LLC (“Piryx”),

an online payment processing platform for non‐profit and political fundraising.

Cowboy Analytics proposes to form a “nonconnected” conduit PAC1 (the “PAC”)

that would focus on soliciting small‐dollar earmarked contributions for federal candidates

that the PAC chooses to support. The PAC would create and operate a website offering

donors merchandise such as T‐shirts, hats, and other paraphernalia imprinted with a

political message in exchange for making a contribution to one of the PAC’s endorsed

candidates. The messages imprinted on the merchandise may support the PAC’s endorsed

candidates (e.g., “John Doe for President” or “Jane Roe 2024,” where Roe is a U.S. Senate

candidate running in 2024), or the messages may relate to broader political themes (e.g.,

“Impeach Biden”).

The PAC intends to target solicitations to prospective donors by e‐mail, peer‐to‐peer

text messaging, and digital advertising using data provided at fair market value by Cowboy

Analytics. For example, a typical solicitation message would say:

1 In other words, the PAC would not be a “separate segregated fund” of any corporation.

Pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 110.6(b)(2)(ii), the PAC will be a “hard money” PAC that only accepts

contributions within the federal amount limitations and source prohibitions.

AOR001

Received by OGC on Oct. 25, 2023
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 2 OF 12

 

Get your John Doe for President T‐shirt by making a $50 contribution now!

Go to [URL for PAC’s website].  

[Text would be accompanied by an image of the T‐shirt.]

or

Show your support for Jane Roe for Senate with this water bottle. Get it for

only $10 at [URL for PAC’s website].

[Text would be accompanied by an image of the water bottle.]

The PAC intends to target solicitations to individuals who, based on the data, are

likely to make small‐dollar contributions to the candidates the PAC supports. Solicitations

for contributions to presidential candidates will be targeted to potential donors nationwide.

Solicitations for contributions to U.S. House of Representatives and Senate candidates will

be targeted to potential donors both within and outside of those candidates’ districts/states.  

The PAC’s contribution webpages will inform donors of the federal contribution

limits and source prohibitions and collect the information from donors required by the

FEC’s earmarked contributions rules at 11 C.F.R. § 110.6. Contributions will be deposited

into the PAC’s bank account and then forwarded to the candidates designated by donors in

accordance with the same FEC rules.

Before forwarding each earmarked contribution to the designated candidate’s

campaign, the PAC will deduct: (a) the cost it pays for the merchandise; (b) the cost of

processing the contribution; and (c) the PAC’s administrative and solicitation costs, and will

provide donors with a breakdown of how much is being deducted for these costs and how

much is being forwarded to the designated candidate’s campaign.

With respect to contribution processing costs, the PAC will use Piryx as the payment

processor. The PAC will pay Piryx its standard processing fee of 2.9% plus 30 cents per

transaction.2  

2 See Piryx, Frequently Asked Questions (“Does it cost anything to sign up with Piryx?”), at

https://www.piryx.com/help/#:~:text=There%20are%20no%20monthly%20fees,Discover)%20and%20

eCheck%20processing%20fees.

AOR002
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 3 OF 12

 

With respect to the PAC’s administrative and solicitation costs, the PAC proposes to

deduct an additional 10‐15%3 of each contribution to cover costs associated with:

 establishing the PAC,  

 accounting,  

 FEC reporting and recordkeeping,  

 legal compliance,  

 developing and maintaining the website,  

 paying consultants to operate the PAC,  

 communicating with and advertising to prospective donors, including the standard

fees that Cowboy Analytics charges to clients for the use of the company’s data, and

 other operational costs.

Continuing with the example from above of the “John Doe for President” T‐shirt, the

PAC would offer the T‐shirt to donors if they make a $50 contribution earmarked for Doe’s

presidential campaign. From that amount, the PAC will deduct a total of $19.25:

o $10 for the cost it pays to have each T‐shirt produced and shipped to donors,  

o $1.75 for payment processing fees (i.e., 2.9% of $50 plus 30 cents), and  

o $7.50 for the PAC’s administrative and solicitation costs (i.e., 15% of $50).  

The PAC will forward the remaining $30.75 of a donor’s contribution to Doe’s presidential

campaign.

The PAC will operate independently of any candidates and their campaigns and will

not coordinate its merchandise or solicitations with candidates, their campaigns, or agents

thereof, nor will the PAC enter into any contract or other legal agreement with candidates

or their campaigns.

QUESTIONS

1. Would all of the costs the PAC proposes to deduct from a donor’s contribution

be considered contributions to the PAC and not contributions to the designated

candidate?

3 The exact percentage is tentative and is subject to change based on how much the PAC

ultimately determines it needs to charge in order to cover all of these costs.

AOR003
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 4 OF 12

 

Based on AO 2019‐15 (NORPAC), it appears that all of these costs would be

considered contributions to the conduit PAC and not to the designated candidate’s

campaign.  

The activity proposed in this request is similar in all material respects to the activity

addressed in the NORPAC AO, with the only exception being this request’s proposal to

additionally offer donors political merchandise to induce them to make an earmarked

contribution, and to deduct the costs of such merchandise from the contribution that is

forwarded to the designated candidates.

In the context of commercial entities that process and forward contributions to

candidate committees, the Commission has analyzed whether the commercial entity is

providing a service to the contributor or to the candidate committee. Where the commercial

entity has a contractual relationship with the candidate committee, the Commission has

treated the commercial entity as providing a service to the candidate committee. In such

instances, the payment processing fee that is deducted from the contribution is treated as

part of the donor’s contribution to the candidate committee. By contrast, where the

commercial entity does not have a contractual relationship with the candidate committee,

the Commission has treated the commercial entity as providing a service to the donor. In

such instances, the payment processing fee that is deducted from the contribution is not

treated as part of the donor’s contribution.4

The Commission does not appear to apply this same analysis to a conduit PAC that

is not commercial entity. Rather, in the NORPAC AO, the Commission determined that the

payment processing, administrative, and solicitation costs the conduit PAC proposed to

deduct from each earmarked contribution were contributions from the donor to the conduit

PAC and not to the designated candidate.5 This approach makes sense. While a conduit

PAC is in some broad sense providing a service to both donors and candidates, it is not

acting as a commercial service provider to either. Rather, the conduit PAC is advancing its

own political interests by choosing to solicit earmarked contributions for only certain

candidates that the PAC supports. Where, as here, there is also no contractual relationship

between the conduit PAC and the candidates it is supporting, the conduit PAC is not

providing any service to the candidates or their campaign committees within the meaning

of the Commission’s prior advisory opinions.

4 See, e.g., FEC AOs 2014‐07 (Crowdpac), 2012‐22 (Skimmerhat), 2011‐06 (Democracy Engine,

LLC).

5 AO 2019‐15 at 5.

AOR004
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 5 OF 12

 

Moreover, the costs of the proposed political merchandise in this request appear to

qualify as the PAC’s own “solicitation costs” under the NORPAC AO.6 Therefore, the

merchandise costs that the PAC proposes to deduct in this request, along with all of the

PAC’s other payment processing, administrative, and solicitation costs that it proposes to

deduct from each contribution, should be treated as donors’ contributions to the PAC and

not to the designated candidates or their campaign committees.7

2. Would the PAC’s initial payment for the production and distribution of the

political merchandise as described in this request qualify as in‐kind contributions from

the PAC to the candidates receiving the earmarked contributions?

Based on the Commission’s prior advisory opinions, the PAC’s initial payment for

the production and distribution of the political merchandise should not be treated as loans

or in‐kind contributions to benefitting candidates.

As the Commission stated in AO 1994‐30 (Conservative Concepts, Inc.):

The Commission has considered situations involving business ventures by

corporations and other entities involving candidate or party‐related

merchandise. If outlays of funds, goods, or services are made by a business

entity selling items and these outlays are not paid for by the campaigns

benefiting, referred to, or affected, the question arises as to whether such

outlays are contributions or expenditures . . . .

8

The Commission went on to discuss AOs 1976‐50 (Friends of Dick Lugar Committee)

and 1989‐21 (Create‐a‐Craft). In both AOs 1976‐50 and 1989‐21, commercial vendors

proposed to sell political merchandise as fundraising items for candidates, and to remit a

portion of sales to those candidate’s campaign committees. In both AOs, the Commission

determined that the vendors would be making prohibited corporate contributions or loans

to the campaign committees. The Commission apparently reached those conclusions

6 See also 11 C.F.R. § 100.53 (providing that “the entire amount paid as the purchase price for

a fundraising item sold by a political committee is a contribution”). Here, the political merchandise

sold by the conduit PAC should be considered fundraising items for the PAC, and their costs should

be considered contributions to the PAC itself.

7 In the example provided above on Page 2, when a donor purchases a $50 “John Doe for

President” T‐shirt, it appears that $19.25 (the total merchandise, payment processing, and

administrative and solicitation costs that are deducted) would be considered the donor’s

contribution to the conduit PAC, while the remaining $30.75 that is forwarded to Doe’s presidential

campaign would be considered the donor’s contribution to the campaign.

8 AO 1994‐30 at 3‐4.

AOR005
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 6 OF 12

 

because the vendors would be producing and selling the merchandise pursuant to

agreements with the campaign committees.9

By contrast, where “there is no arrangement whereby [a vendor] would lay out funds

for advertising expenses in coordination with a committee and no arrangements whereby a

portion of the sales proceeds will be retained by or remitted to the committee of the

referenced candidate,” there is no contribution.10

As stated above, the PAC does not intend to coordinate its production and

distribution of political merchandise, its advertisements, or its solicitations of earmarked

contributions with the benefitting candidates, their campaign committees, or any agents

thereof.11 Moreover, the PAC will deduct the full costs of the merchandise (along with the

PAC’s payment processing, solicitation, and administrative costs) before forwarding the

remainder of earmarked contributions to the candidates designated by donors. Therefore,

no “portion of the sales proceeds [for the costs of the merchandise] will be retained by or

remitted to the committee of the referenced candidate.”12  

Accordingly, the Commission should conclude that the PAC would not be making

any in‐kind contributions to candidates’ campaign committees through the PAC’s initial

outlays for the costs of producing and distributing the political merchandise. The fact that

the PAC is not a vendor (the type of entity addressed in AO 1994‐30) should not make a

difference to the analysis.

Moreover, assuming the Commission determines in response to Question 1 that the

portion of earmarked contributions that the PAC deducts for merchandise costs is a

contribution from the donor to the PAC, it also logically follows that the PAC’s initial

outlay for those costs is not a contribution to any candidate’s campaign committee. To wit,

9 See AO 1976‐50 at 1 (“Friends of Dick Lugar Committee (Committee) has authorized Logo 7,

Inc., and [sic] Indiana corporation, to produce and market a shirt bearing the candidate’s name.”)

(emphasis added); AO 1989‐21 at 1 (“You are proposing to candidates and committees . . . that their

campaigns use merchandise designed by you for the purpose of raising funds.”) (emphasis added).

10 AO 1994‐30 at 5 (emphasis added).

11 In the event that the PAC determines it is necessary to communicate with candidates or

their campaign committees “only in order to avoid a legal conflict over trademark or other trade

usage,” this should not be considered coordination. See id. at 6. The PAC does not intend to produce

merchandise that would constitute the “republication of campaign materials” under 11 C.F.R. §

109.23, and, in any event, we are aware that certain Commissioners have questioned the validity of

this rule.

12 AO 1994‐30 at 5.

AOR006
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 7 OF 12

 

if the merchandise costs are treated as the PAC’s own solicitation or “fundraising item”

costs, those are not any costs of the candidate’s campaign committee that the PAC is paying

for.  

3. Would the PAC have to report the costs of producing and distributing political

merchandise that includes express advocacy language as independent expenditures?

The PAC should not have to report the costs of producing and distributing political

merchandise as IEs because the donors are ultimately paying for these costs.

As a threshold matter, the Commission’s rules define an IE as “a communication

expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate” that is not

coordinated.13 Notably, unlike some other Commission rules, the IE definition does not use

the term “public communication,” which is a further and specifically defined term.14 The

Commission’s use of an incongruent and undefined term in the IE definition often creates

confusion for the so‐called “regulated community.” Here, it is unclear whether the

proposed political merchandise would qualify as independent expenditures.

In AO 1994‐30 (Conservative Concepts, Inc.), the Commission raised the prospect

that a commercial vendor’s production of T‐shirts bearing express advocacy language for

sale to the general public could constitute IEs, but ultimately concluded that the activity

may “fall within the category of commercial, rather than political, activity.”15

Here, the proposed PAC would not be acting as a commercial vendor and would be

soliciting earmarked contributions for candidates that the PAC supports. Therefore, the

proposed activity here does not appear to fall within the Commission’s commercial

activities doctrine. Nonetheless, unlike in AO 1994‐30, where the sale of the T‐shirts was not

being used as any fundraising item cost to raise money for candidates, here, the proposal is

to have the donors ultimately pay for the costs of the political merchandise by deducting

the costs from the earmarked contributions for the candidates.  

Therefore, even assuming the merchandise containing express advocacy language is

considered a “communication” under the IE definition, the PAC is ultimately not making

any expenditures for the items. Assuming the Commission’s answer to Question 1 is that

the costs that are deducted for the merchandise from the earmarked contributions are

contributions from the donor to the PAC, it would make no sense for those costs also to be

13 11 C.F.R. § 100.16(a) (emphasis added).

14 Id. § 100.26.

15 AO 1994‐30 at 5.

AOR007
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 8 OF 12

 

treated as the PAC’s IEs. Under the logic of the regulatory scheme, a cost cannot be both a

contribution to the PAC and an IE by the PAC. And even if the merchandise bearing

express advocacy language were considered IEs, it would be more proper to treat them as

IEs made by the individual contributors, since they are the ones ultimately making the

expenditures for the items (because the PAC is deducting the full cost of the merchandise

from the donors’ contributions).

In a 2011 interpretive rule on reporting IEs, the Commission assumed that certain

items, including T‐shirts and hats, could be IE “communications” as a general matter if they

included express advocacy language.16 However, the interpretive rule did not address the

particular question presented here: Whether items that are sold for fundraising are

reportable as IEs.

4. Would the PAC have to report its costs of soliciting donors to make earmarked

contributions as independent expenditures?

Based on the literal definition of an “independent expenditure,” the PAC should not

have to report its costs of soliciting donors to make earmarked contributions as IEs.

This issue has been a longstanding and profound source of confusion in the so‐called

“regulated community” and within the Commission itself. As discussed above regarding

Question 3, the Commission’s rules define an IE as “a communication expressly advocating

the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate” that is not coordinated.17 The IE

definition does not encompass advocacy for the “funding,” “fundraising,” or “financing” of

a clearly identified candidate. The term “express advocacy” also has been litigated

numerous times over the past 40‐plus years and, to our knowledge, has never been

construed to extend to fundraising solicitations.

This issue also was presented to the Commission in a pair of 2008 election‐cycle

audits of The Legacy Committee and National Campaign Fund. In those matters, the

Commissioners did not approve by an affirmative four votes the position taken by the

Audit Division, Office of General Counsel (“OGC”), and certain Commissioners that

committees’ fundraising expenses are reportable as IEs. Therefore, the issue was set aside as

an “Additional Issue” in the audits.18 The Commissioners who voted against finding that

16 Interpretive Rule on When Certain Independent Expenditures Are “Publicly

Disseminated” for Reporting Purposes, 76 Fed. Reg. 61254 (Oct. 4, 2011).

17 11 C.F.R. § 100.16(a) (emphasis added).

18 See Final Audit Report on The Legacy Committee Political Action Committee (Jan. 1, 2007‐

Dec. 31, 2008), at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legalresources/enforcement/audits/2008/The Legacy Committee Pol

AOR008
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 9 OF 12

 

fundraising solicitations are reportable IEs represent the “controlling” position of the

Commission until that position is overturned or otherwise superseded.19 To our knowledge,

the Commission has not revisited this issue since those audits and has not superseded the

position established by those deadlocks.

The controlling Commissioners’ position also makes sense. Insofar as fundraising for

Senate and House candidates long ago became nationalized, fundraising solicitations are

often sent to donors outside of a candidate’s state or district. And this is especially so for

solicitations made by independent organizations. It makes no sense to treat solicitations for

contributions to a Senate candidate running in New York sent to donors in California as

expressly advocating for the candidate’s election, since the organization sending such

solicitations clearly is not asking for votes from California donors who are ineligible to vote

for the candidate.

For these reasons, the PAC should not have to report its solicitation costs as IEs.

5. Would the Commission’s analysis for Questions 1‐4 change if the PAC were to

separate the sale of political merchandise from the making of earmarked contributions?

As an alternative to, or in addition to, the proposal described above, the PAC also is

considering making solicitations for donors to purchase political merchandise that are

decoupled from making an earmarked contribution to a designated candidate. Rather, after

a donor completes a purchase of merchandise on the PAC’s website, the PAC would

suggest that the donor make an optional earmarked contribution to a designated candidate

using the PAC’s website.

itical Action Committee/FinalAuditReportoftheCommission1223257.pdf; OGC Memo. on LRA #815

(May 4, 2011), at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legalresources/enforcement/audits/2008/The Legacy Committee Pol

itical Action Committee/OfficeofGeneralCounselLegalAnalysisInterimAuditReportoftheAuditDivis

ion1223249.pdf;Final Audit Report on the National Campaign Fund (Feb. 4, 2008‐Dec. 31, 2008), at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legalresources/enforcement/audits/2008/National Campaign Fund/F

inalAuditReportoftheCommission1229188.pdf;OGC Memo. on LRA #847 (May 2, 2012), at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legalresources/enforcement/audits/2008/National Campaign Fund/

OfficeofGeneralCounselLegalAnalysis‐DraftFinalAuditReportoftheAuditDivision1229183.pdf;

Statement of Vice Chair Ellen L. Weintraub and Commissioners Cynthia L. Bauerly and Steven T.

Walther on A09‐26 (Nov. 6, 2012), at

https://www.fec.gov/resources/legalresources/enforcement/audits/2008/National Campaign Fund/

NCFStatementComplete3.pdf.

19 FEC v. Natʹl Republican Senatorial Comm., 966 F.2d 1471, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

AOR009
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 10 OF 12

 

Based on how the PAC believes the Commission would answer the questions

presented above, under this scenario:

(1) The PAC would treat the entire cost of the donor’s purchase of the merchandise

as a contribution from the donor to the PAC. The PAC would assume the

payment processing, administrative, and solicitation costs associated with the

transaction.  

If a donor chooses to make an optional earmarked contribution to a designated

candidate after completing his or her purchase of merchandise, the PAC would

deduct Piryx’s standard payment processing cost (as described above in the

background section) before forwarding the remainder of the contribution to the

designated candidate’s campaign. The PAC would treat the deducted payment

processing cost as a contribution to the PAC, and the remaining amount as the

donor’s contribution to the designated candidate. The PAC would inform the

donor of this breakdown before the donor completes his or her contribution.  

For example, if a donor makes an optional $100 contribution earmarked for a

candidate after purchasing a political merchandise item, the PAC will deduct

$3.20 for Pyrix’s processing costs (2.9% of $100 plus 30 cents) and forward the

remaining $96.80 to the designated candidate. Based on the NORPAC AO, it is

our understanding that the donor’s optional $100 contribution earmarked for a

candidate will result in an $8.20 contribution from the donor to the PAC, and a

$96.80 contribution to the designated candidate.

The PAC would not deduct any additional amounts for its administrative and

solicitation costs from the optional contribution earmarked to a candidate under

this alternative scenario because the additional solicitation is incidental to the

underlying solicitation to purchase the political merchandise. Again, we assume

the full amount of the initial transaction (i.e., to purchase the merchandise)

would be treated as a contribution to the PAC, and the PAC would bear the full

administrative and solicitation costs (e.g., identifying prospective donors and

communicating with them) for that initial transaction. The cost of the additional

solicitation for an optional earmarked contribution for a candidate would be

negligible and we do not believe it would be fair to deduct an additional amount

for the PAC’s administrative and solicitation costs from that optional

contribution earmarked for a candidate.

(2) The PAC’s payment for the production and distribution of the political

merchandise would not qualify as in‐kind contributions from the PAC if donors

AOR010
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 11 OF 12

 

choose to make optional earmarked contributions to designated candidates after

purchasing the merchandise.

Again, the PAC is not coordinating any of its activities, including its production,

promotion, and distribution of the political merchandise with any candidates,

their campaigns, or agents thereof.

(3) The PAC would not have to report the costs of producing and distributing

political merchandise that includes express advocacy language as IEs.

Again, the merchandise does not clearly qualify as a “communication” under the

Commission’s IE definition. Moreover, assuming the Commission confirms our

understanding that the PAC’s cost of the merchandise is the donor’s contribution

to the PAC when they purchase the merchandise from the PAC, the cost of the

merchandise cannot be both a contribution to the PAC and an IE by the PAC.

(4) The PAC would not have to report the costs of soliciting donors either to

purchase the merchandise or to make optional earmarked contributions to

designated candidates as IEs.

Again, these are fundraising costs, and solicitations for contributions to

candidates or to purchase the PAC’s merchandise are not appeals for the donor

to vote for or against any referenced candidate.

We ask the Commission to confirm our understanding of these points under the

alternative scenario in which the sale of political merchandise is decoupled from the

making of earmarked contributions.

6. Would the PAC’s proposed activities violate the Federal Election Campaign Act

of 1971, as amended (“FECA”) or the Commission’s implementing regulations in any

way?

The PAC’s proposed activities as described above do not appear to violate the FECA

or the Commission’s regulations in any manner, but we would appreciate the

Commission’s confirmation. Additionally, if there are any non‐obvious FECA‐related

concerns (e.g., related to reporting or disclaimers) that the Commission wishes to flag about

the PAC’s proposed activities that are not addressed in the questions presented above, we

would welcome such guidance.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these questions. Please do not

hesitate to contact me if there are any points in this request that need clarification.

AOR011
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

    OCTOBER 25, 2023

    PAGE 12 OF 12

 

Sincerely,  

Eric Wang

Counsel to Cowboy Analytics

AOR012
1

Joanna Waldstreicher

From: Eric Wang <ew@gobergroup.com>

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 5:22 PM

To: Joanna Waldstreicher

Subject: RE: Cowboy Analytics advisory opinion request

Joanna,

Thank you for clarifying those two points. Your e‐mail below accurately summarizes what Cowboy AnalyƟcs is proposing

and asking about.

Eric Wang | Partner | The Gober Group

ew@gobergroup.com | 202.417.3528

If you need to schedule a call with me, you can compare our schedules and book it here

From: Joanna Waldstreicher <JWaldstreicher@fec.gov>  

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 5:04 PM

To: Eric Wang <ew@gobergroup.com>

Subject: Cowboy Analytics advisory opinion request

Dear Mr. Wang:

Thank you for speaking with us this aŌernoon to clarify your advisory opinion request on behalf of Cowboy

AnalyƟcs.  We would like to verify our understanding of the informaƟon we discussed. Please respond to this email to

confirm the accuracy of the informaƟon below, or to clarify or correct any informaƟon as necessary. Please note that

your response may become part of the advisory opinion request. If so, it will be posted on the Commission’s website.

1. The proposal described on pages 1‐3 of the request (scenario 1) and the proposal described in QuesƟon 5

(scenario 2) are both business models that Cowboy AnalyƟcs is seriously considering implemenƟng in good

faith.  Scenario 2 is not a fallback opƟon to be used only if Scenario 1 is not available.  Both scenarios may be

implemented concurrently.  Therefore even if the Commission’s responses to QuesƟons 1‐4 are favorable to

Cowboy AnalyƟcs, QuesƟon 5 would not be moot.   

2. On page 10, in the fourth paragraph, the final sentence should read “. . . the donor’s opƟonal $100 contribuƟon

earmarked for a candidate will result in a $3.20 contribuƟon from the donor to the PAC, and a $96.80

contribuƟon to the designated candidate,” correcƟng the $3.20 contribuƟon, which was previously stated as

$8.20.

Regards,

Joanna S. Waldstreicher

Federal Election Commission

Office of General Counsel – Policy Division

1050 First Street NE

AOR013
2

Washington, DC  20463

202‐694‐1650

Joanna S. Waldstreicher

Federal Election Commission

Office of General Counsel – Policy Division

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC  20463

202‐694‐1650

AOR014