1 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) MUR 7501 

Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate and Peggy Gagnon ) 

in her official capacity as treasurer ) 

) 

Democratic Executive Committee of Florida and ) 

Fran Garcia in her official capacity ) 

as treasurer ) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF VICE CHAIR ALLEN DICKERSON AND

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

The Complaint in this matter alleges that the Democratic Executive Committee of Florida 

(“Florida Democratic Party”) made, and the Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate campaign committee

(“Nelson Campaign”) accepted, over $58,000 in in-kind contributions.1

 Specifically, the 

Complaint cited at least 19 entries on Florida Democratic Party disclosure reports which list 

“Senate 18/Nelson,” “USS/Nelson,” “Senate/Nelson” or a similar notation as part of the reported 

purpose for disbursements primarily to individuals for payroll and consulting, to companies for 

insurance, and to a printing company.

2

 The Complaint infers that because these memo entries 

reference Senator Nelson, the associated expenditure must have been made on behalf of the Nelson 

Campaign. The Complaint does not identify additional facts that support this inference. 

The Respondents deny the allegations. The Nelson Campaign asserts that “none of the 

disbursements were made for the exclusive benefit of the Committee or on the Committee’s 

behalf.”3

 The Nelson Campaign further avers that while some of the individuals identified by the 

Complaint were employed by the campaign, they were paid for that work by the campaign.4

Moreover, even if the entries were accurate and the staff at issue did some work related to the 

 

1 Complaint (Sept. 18, 2018), MUR 7501 (Bill Nelson for Senate, et al.).

2 Id. at Exhibit A. 

3 Response of Bill Nelson for Senate at 2 (Nov. 13, 2018), MUR 7501 (Bill Nelson for Senate, et al.) (emphasis 

in the original). 

4 Id. at 3. 

MUR750100057
2 

Nelson Campaign, that does not necessarily mean the payments are attributable to the 

Respondents.5

 

The Florida Democratic Party denies that the expenses identified in the Complaint are 

attributable to any one campaign, asserting “the [staff] activities supported the Committee’s own 

activities for the benefit of candidates up and down the ballot.”6

 The Florida Democratic Party 

attributes the reporting to “simple administrative error due to a misunderstanding of the differences 

between federal and state reporting requirements and general miscommunication between lower 

level staff responsible for data entry for the Committee reports and Committee management” and 

subsequently amended their disclosure reports.7 There is nothing in the record which contradicts 

the Florida Democratic Party’s assertion.

The Commission has previously made clear that “purely speculative charges, especially 

when accompanied by a direct refutation, do not form an adequate basis to find reason to believe 

that a violation of the [law] has occurred.”8 As the courts have stated, “mere ‘official curiosity’ 

will not suffice as the basis for FEC investigations.”9

 Therefore, “[t]he Commission cannot launch 

investigations into Americans’ political activities based on speculation or official curiosity, or shift 

the burden to respondents to prove their innocence.”10

Ultimately, the Commission does not have a set of facts before it that supports the 

Complaint’s allegations. It merely has speculation that the Florida Democratic Party’s initial 

memo entries were more accurate (and unintentionally revealing) then their amended reports. The 

Respondents directly deny the Complaint’s allegations, and there is no information in the record 

that contradicts this denial.11 Under these circumstances, speculation is insufficient to support a 

 

5 Id. See also 11 C.F.R. § 106.1(c)(1) (“Expenditures for rent, personnel, overhead, general administrative, 

fund-raising, and other day-to-day costs of political committees need not be attributed to individual candidates, 

unless these expenditures are made on behalf of a clearly identified candidate and the expenditure can be directly 

attributed to that candidate.”). 

6 Response of the Democratic Executive Committee of Florida at 1 (Dec. 10, 2018), MUR 7501 (Bill Nelson 

for Senate, et al.). 

7 Id. at 2.

8 Statement of Reasons of Commissioners David M. Mason, Karl J. Sandstrom, Bradley A. Smith, and Scott 

E. Thomas at 3 (Dec. 21, 2000), MUR 4960 (Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate). See also First General Counsel’s 

Report at 5 (July 23, 2004), MUR 5467 (Michael Moore) (quoting the Statement of Reasons of four Commissioners 

in MUR 4960 (Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Exploratory Committee, Inc.)); Statement of Reasons of Vice 

Chairman Donald F. McGahn and Commissioners Caroline C. Hunter and Matthew S. Petersen at 6 (Sept. 19, 2013), 

MUR 5878 (Arizona Democratic Central Committee) (same).

9 FEC v. Machinists Non-Partisan Political League, 655 F.2d 380, 388 (D.C. Cir. 1981). 

10 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Caroline C. Hunter and Commissioners Lee E. Goodman and Matthew 

S. Petersen at 2 (Feb. 15, 2017), MUR 6747 (Rick Santorum for President);see also Statement of Reasons of Chairman

Darryl R. Wold and Commissioners David M. Mason, and Scott E. Thomas at 2 (July 20, 2000), MUR 4850 (Deloitte 

& Touche, LLP, et al.) (“The burden of proof does not shift to a respondent merely because a complaint is filed.”).

11 Some have suggested that this denial needed to be accompanied by a sworn affidavit to be credible. Yet 

knowingly and willfully making false representations to the Commission is already a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 

MUR750100058
3 

reason to believe finding, let alone the costly and invasive investigation recommended by the 

Commission’s Office of General Counsel. 

Accordingly, we voted to find no reason to believe a violation occurred in this matter. 

_________________________________ June 28, 2021______________ 

Allen Dickerson Date

Vice Chair

_________________________________ June 28, 2021______________ 

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Commissioner

_________________________________ June 28, 2021______________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner

 

and knowingly and willfully filing false report amendments with the Commission may be prosecuted under 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(d). 

MUR750100059