FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc. ) MUR 7652

and Paul Kilgore in his official capacity as Treasurer ) 

Nicole Rodden ) 

Robert Rodden ) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON AND 

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

This Matter involved allegations that Robert Rodden, the husband of 2020 Georgia 

congressional candidate Nicole Rodden, made an impermissible excessive contribution to his 

wife’s campaign committee (the “Committee”) in the form of a $100,000 loan, and that the 

Committee accepted the loan and failed to properly report it in violation of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”).

By way of background, the Committee initially listed the loan as made by Mr. Rodden 

on its original July 2019 quarterly report to the Commission.1 After the Committee filed that

report, the Commission’s Reports Analysis Division (“RAD”) sent the Committee a Request 

for Additional Information (“RFAI”) questioning the loan as an apparent excessive 

contribution from Mr. Rodden.2 In its timely response to the RFAI, which was signed by and 

submitted through counsel, the Committee explained that the loan “was actually made 

almost entirely from personal funds of the candidate Nicole Rodden” and provided a detailed 

accounting of the source of the loan funds, down to the cent.3 Shortly thereafter, the 

Committee filed an amended July 2019 quarterly report disclosing that Ms. Rodden loaned 

her campaign $98,511.71 from her personal funds, and her husband directly contributed the 

remaining $1,488.29.4

1 Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc., 2019 July Quarterly Report at 31, 37 (July 15, 2019). 

2 Letter from Jessica Grainger, RAD, to Paul Kilgore, Treasurer, Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc. 

(Aug. 27, 2019).

3 Email from Douglas Chalmers, Jr., Chalmers & Adams, LLC, to Jessica Grainger, RAD (Sept. 25, 

2019) (“RFAI Resp.”).

4 Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc., Amend. 2019 July Quarterly Report at 30, 32, 38 (Oct. 1, 2019).

MUR765200065
MUR 7652 (Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 6 

2 

Two weeks later, the Commission received the Complaint in this matter, which relied 

on the original July 2019 report in alleging that Mr. Rodden was the source of the loan.5 In 

their responses to the Complaint, Ms. Rodden, Mr. Rodden, and the Committee attached and 

incorporated the Committee’s RFAI response.6

Our Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended that the Commission find reason 

to believe that Mr. Rodden made, and the Committee accepted and failed to report, excessive 

contributions in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30116 and § 30104(b)(3)(E) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(d). 

These recommendations were primarily based on OGC’s comparison of the Committee’s RFAI 

and Complaint responses with Ms. Rodden’s candidate financial disclosure report, which she 

filed with the House Ethics Committee on the same day the Committee responded to the 

RFAI from the Commission. 

We declined to approve OGC’s recommendations because we believe the Committee’s 

RFAI and Complaint responses—which were drafted, signed, and submitted by competent 

counsel—sufficiently address the Complaint’s allegations, and that the information 

contained in Ms. Rodden’s candidate financial disclosure report does not itself raise a 

reasonable inference that a violation of the Act occurred.

I. APPLICABLE LAW

The Act prohibits persons from making contributions to any candidate or authorized 

committee with respect to any election which, in the aggregate, exceed the Act’s contribution 

limit, which was set at $2,800 for the 2020 election cycle.7 Moreover, no candidate or political 

committee shall “knowingly accept” a contribution that exceeds the applicable contribution 

limit.8 The term “contribution” includes “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of 

money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election 

for Federal office.”9

Federal candidates have the First Amendment right, however, to spend unlimited 

amounts of their personal funds on their own campaigns.10 “Personal funds” are defined as 

5 Compl. at 2. 

6 Robert Rodden Resp. at 1 (Nov. 5, 2019); Nicole Rodden and Committee Resp. at 1–2 (Nov. 24, 

2019).

7 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(1); Price Index Adjustments for Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 84 Fed. Reg. 2,504, 2,506 

(Feb. 7, 2019).

8 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f).

9 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i).

10 11 C.F.R. § 110.10; see Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 51, 52, 54 (1976) (“The ceiling on personal 

expenditures by candidates on their own behalf ... imposes a substantial restraint on the ability of 

persons to engage in protected First Amendment expression. ... [The governmental] interest in 

equalizing the relative financial resources of candidates competing for elective office ... is clearly not 

sufficient to justify the provision's infringement of fundamental First Amendment rights.”); see also

Davis v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 554 U.S. 724 (2008) (holding that the “Millionaire’s Amendment” to 

MUR765200066
MUR 7652 (Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 3 of 6 

3 

(a) amounts derived from any asset that, under applicable State law, at the time the 

individual became a candidate, the candidate had legal right of access to or control over, and 

with respect to which the candidate had legal and rightful title or an equitable interest; and 

(b) income received during the current election cycle of the candidate, including a salary and 

other earned income from bona fide employment; dividends and proceeds from the sale of the 

candidate’s stocks or other investments; and gifts of a personal nature that had been 

customarily received by the candidate prior to the beginning of the election cycle.11

Contributions made by a candidate’s immediate family members or his or her spouse

are treated the same way as any other third-party contribution and are subject to per-election 

amount limitations. When a candidate uses personal funds derived from assets that are 

jointly owned with his or her spouse, the amount is limited to “the candidate’s share of the 

asset under the instrument of conveyance or ownership.” If the instrument is silent, the 

Commission presumes that the candidate holds a one-half ownership interest.12

II. ANALYSIS

In our view, the Committee’s RFAI response—which was drafted and signed by 

counsel and provided a high level of detail about the source of the loan funds—sufficiently 

countered the allegations in the Complaint. Moreover, we disagree with OGC’s apparent view

that amending a report in response to an RFAI evinces a lack of candor with respect to the 

Commission, and therefore that the Committee’s original July 2019 quarterly report should 

be given greater weight than the amended July 2019 quarterly report.

We have a duty to credit respondents who adequately address the allegations made 

against them, especially when that response is prepared, signed, and submitted by 

experienced counsel, as was the case here. We have no cause for questioning the candor of 

Respondents’ counsel, and the filed response is not so ambiguous or lacking in detail as to 

raise any serious credibility concerns or material gaps in the record. In such circumstances, 

we could find reason to believe only if significant additional, unrebutted evidence was 

available to contradict the response. 

OGC attempted to provide such evidence, relying heavily upon candidate Rodden’s

2019 House candidate financial disclosure in an effort to gain insight into her personal 

finances at the time the loan was made. After a cursory review of her reportable income (a 

minimal amount in 2018, and none in 2019) and reported personal assets (a USAA 

subscriber’s account and an investment in Victory Foods Holdings stock),13 OGC’s analysis 

the Act contained in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 unconstitutionally infringed on 

self-funded candidates’ First Amendment rights).

11 52 U.S.C. § 30101(26); 11 C.F.R. § 100.33(a), (b).

12 52 U.S.C. § 30101(26)(C); see also 11 C.F.R. § 100.33(c).

13 Candidate Financial Report: Nicole Rodden (filed Sept. 25, 2019), available at https://disclosuresclerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial-pdfs/2019/10029442.pdf.

MUR765200067
MUR 7652 (Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 4 of 6 

4 

essentially ignores the Committee’s response to the RFAI and Complaint and concludes that 

Rodden’s financial disclosure “raises questions” about the source of the loan.14 

We do not believe these “questions” are sufficient to cast doubt on Respondents’ 

granular response. Notably, these financial disclosure forms do not account for certain types 

of income, including income received from the government—which, as a military veteran and 

former reservist,15 Rodden may have been entitled to.16 Nor do they account for bank or 

investment accounts that are valued at less than $1,000 at the end of a reporting period, or 

that generate less than $200 during a reporting period.17 

As the Committee explained in its response to the RFAI, on or about June 18, 2019, 

candidate Rodden reportedly transferred the bulk of the $100,000 loan—$88,719.53—from a 

personal account held only in her name to another account held jointly with her husband.18

Given that this transfer occurred more than three months prior to the filing of the financial 

disclosure with the House of Representatives on September 25, 2019, Respondents’ claim is 

entirely consistent with the record. Given Rodden’s comparatively modest means, such a 

transfer likely involved closing out an account before the end of the reporting period. After 

all, the transfer of such an arbitrary sum likely reflects the entire value of an account, as 

opposed to the direction of a lump sum toward Rodden’s own campaign. Moreover, with 

average interest rates for savings and interest checking accounts resting between .06% and 

.10% throughout calendar years 2018 and 2019,19 it is reasonable to believe the account 

generated less than $200 in unearned income between the beginning of 2018 and the time of 

14 First Gen. Counsel’s Rept. at 8, MUR 7652 (Nicole Rodden for Congress, et al.).

15 The Rodden campaign, and media reports contemporaneous with her candidacy, identified Rodden 

as a Merchant Marine and Navy Reserve veteran. See, e.g., Georgia 6th: Military vet promises to 

bring new perspective to GOP race, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION (May 28, 2019), available at

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/georgia-6th-military-vet-promises-bring-newperspective-gop-race/rNAshOyo9dfmRHx6ALXhWM/. 

16 Instruction Guide: Financial Disclosure Statements and Periodic Transaction Reports, Calendar 

Year 2019 at 30, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON ETHICS, available at

https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/CY%202019%20Instruction%20Guide

%20for%20Financial%20Disclosure%20Statements%20and%20PTRs%20%281%29.pdf (“You do not 

have to report the following on Schedule C, regardless of the amount: ...Income from any other 

current U.S. government employment, including military pay such as from the National Guard or 

Reserve.”).

17 Id. at 14 (“You are required to disclose the following on Schedule A: ... Assets (real and personal 

property) held for investment or the production of income valued at more than $1,000 at the close of 

the reporting period; and ... [u]nearned income that exceeds $200 during the reporting period.”) 

18 RFAI Resp. The Committee also explained that $9,792.18 of the remaining balance of the loan was 

derived from the candidate’s half of the funds held in a joint account in the name of Ms. Rodden and

her husband, and the last $1,488.29 was attributable to a personal contribution from Mr. Rodden 

that fell within the legal limits.

19 National Rates and Rate Caps – Previous Rates for 2018 and 2019, FED. DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORP., available at https://www.fdic.gov/resources/bankers/national-rates/previous-rates.html.

MUR765200068
MUR 7652 (Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 5 of 6 

5 

the transfer in mid-2019.20 In short, the response is not inconsistent with OGC’s proffered 

evidence. 

We further note that while the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the 

Act’s limits on family member contributions, the Court also explained that the potential for 

actual or apparent corruption resulting from family member contributions is diminished, 

compared to contributions from other third parties.21 The Commission’s prior treatment of 

contributions from family members has also lacked consistency. Prior Commissioners have 

characterized this approach as “arbitrary and capricious” and inconsistent with Supreme 

Court precedent and have suggested that “the corruption potential of [family gifts] is so 

insignificant as to make penalties for them unnecessary.”22 

We acknowledge that family member contributions to a federal candidate are subject 

to the Act’s limits, but we also believe, as have other Commissioners, that the Commission 

should account for this diminished potential for corruption in its decision to proceed with 

enforcement or engage in an invasive investigation into the personal finances of candidates 

and their families.23 Moreover, responses through counsel that provide specific, creditable 

rebuttals to allegations set forth in a complaint should be given at least as much weight as 

the complaint itself, and should be credited where the Commission has no contradictory 

information that undermines the respondent’s asserted defense. 

20 An account with a .10% APY containing $89,000 would earn $178.09 in interest over a two-year 

period.

21 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 53 (1976) (“The prevention of actual and apparent corruption of the 

political process does not support the limitation on the candidate’s expenditure of his own personal 

funds .... Although the risk of improper influence is somewhat diminished in the case of large 

contributions from immediate family members, we cannot say that the danger is sufficiently reduced 

to bar Congress from subjecting family members to the same limitations as nonfamily 

contributors.”).

22 See Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Matthew S. Petersen and Comm’r Caroline C. Hunter at 4-

6, MUR 5724 (Jim Feldkamp for Congress, et al.) (declining to find probable cause in matter 

involving candidate who received a monetary gift from his mother, and comparing to MUR 5321 

(Mary Robert, et al.) (Commission declined to seek civil penalties in matter involving gifts of stock 

between parent and candidate/adult child) and MUR 5138 (Ferguson for Congress, et al.) 

(Commission approved $210,000 penalty in matter where candidate received $1 million family trust 

bequest)). 

23 See, e.g., Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Bradley A. Smith and Michael E. Toner at 3, 

MUR 5138 (Ferguson for Congress, et al.) (dissenting from Commission’s decision to levy a $210,000 

civil penalty given “the Supreme Court’s admonition in Buckley that contributions from family 

members do not have the same potential for actual or apparent corruption as other kinds of 

contributions”); Statement of Reasons of Comm’rs Bradley A. Smith and Michael E. Toner at 4, MUR 

5321 (Mary Robert, et al.) (declining to support conciliation and compulsory process in a matter 

involving gifts of stock between parents and adult children); Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair 

Matthew S. Petersen and Comm’r Caroline C. Hunter at 4, MUR 6848 (Friends of George Demos, et 

al.) (declining to find probable cause in matter involving transfers of funds between spouses).

MUR765200069
MUR 7652 (Nicole Rodden for Congress, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 6 of 6 

6 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth herein, we declined to approve OGC’s recommendation to 

find reason to believe that Robert Rodden made, and the Committee accepted and failed to 

report, excessive contributions in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30116 and § 30104(b)(3)(E) and 11 

C.F.R. § 104.3(d).

November 18, 2021

Date

___________________________ 

Allen Dickerson

Vice Chair

November 18, 2021

Date

___________________________

Sean J. Cooksey

November 18, 2021

Date

Commissioner

___________________________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor III

Commissioner 

MUR765200070