FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF 

COMMISSIONERS SHANA M. BROUSSARD AND ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB

After Russia’s repeated attempts to interfere in our elections,

1

and at a time when Russia’s 

contempt for democratic principles is horrifically demonstrated in Ukraine daily, keeping 

Russian oligarchs’ money out of our elections should be a goal upon which all members of the 

Federal Election Commission could agree. 

Yet, sadly, in this case, half the Commission chose to reject the recommendation of the agency’s 

nonpartisan Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) and turned a blind eye to the documented use of 

Russian money for contributions to various federal and state committees in the 2018 elections.

Federal law bans foreign money from U.S. elections.

2 This is a cornerstone of campaign-finance 

law, one the Supreme Court has consistently upheld.

3 When considering whether contributions 

by U.S. corporations constitute prohibited foreign national contributions, the Commission has 

consistently required that the contributions be made with funds that are “home-grown,” that is, 

solely generated by the corporation’s domestic operations, and that no foreign national be 

involved with the decision to make the contributions.4 Both criteria are required. Even if a U.S. 

1 See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential 

Election 14 (Mar. 2019), https://go.usa.gov/xmV6R; U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on 

Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election, Vol. 2: Russia’s Use of Social 

Media 32, 37-39; Joint Statement from DOJ, DOD, DHS, DNI, FBI, NSA, and CISA on Ensuring Security of 2020 

Elections, Nov. 5, 2019, https://www.cisa.gov/cisa/news/2019/11/05/joint-statement-doj-dod-dhs-dni-fbi-nsa-andcisa-ensuring-security-2020. 

2 See 52 U.S.C. § 30121. 

3 See, e.g., Bluman v. Federal Election Comm'n, 800 F.Supp. 2d 281, 286-289 (D.C.Cir. 2011), aff'd, 565 U. S. 1104 

(2012).

4 Sec. Gen. Counsel’s Rpt. at 1. See e.g., Conciliation Agreement, MUR 2892 (RHCC) at ¶6 (July 21, 1994); 

Conciliation Agreement, MUR 2892 (West Beach Estates) (Mar. 15, 1994). Like those matters, American Ethane, a 

U.S. corporation majority-owned by foreign nationals, had no domestically generated income and made political 

contributions using funds that had been obtained through loans from shareholders. See Sec. Gen. Counsel’s Rpt. at 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of

American Ethane Co., LLC, et al.

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 MUR 7491

 

 

MUR749100215
MUR 7491 (American Ethane Co., LLC, et al.)

Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 2 of 3

citizen makes the decision to donate a corporation’s funds, that citizen is prohibited from 

injecting foreign funds into the U.S. political system. The money used may not be from foreign 

sources.

As established by OGC’s investigation, American Ethane Co., LLC (“American Ethane”), a U.S. 

corporation majority-owned by Russian nationals, and its CEO, John Houghtaling, made 

prohibited foreign national contributions.

5 Houghtaling and three Russian nationals founded

American Ethane in New Orleans in 2014.6 According to the company’s website, its business is 

the exportation of ethane, primarily to China.7 At the time the contributions in question were 

made, according to American Ethane’s Lobbying Disclosure Act reports, three Russian nationals 

owned 88% of the company.8

The Commission voted unanimously in 2019 to investigate whether American Ethane used 

foreign money to make contributions in U.S. elections. OGC’s meticulous investigation, 

carefully laid out to the Commission in the Second General Counsel’s Report, revealed 

American Ethane made contributions using funds derived from loans from foreign entities

ultimately owned by Russian nationals; in fact, the investigation revealed that American Ethane 

had zero domestic funds available to make those contributions.9 We will not repeat all the facts 

and law laid out by OGC in the Second General Counsel’s Report. In brief, while the funding 

mechanisms were intricate and involved layers of entities, the sources of the funds were a small 

number of Russian oligarchs. The investigation concluded that American Ethane made $66,200 

in prohibited foreign national contributions: $36,200 in contributions to federal candidates and 

16. See also F&LA at 7, MUR 7141 (Beverly Hills Residents and Businesses to Preserve our City) (finding no 

foreign national contribution violation but relying on fact that U.S. subsidiary of foreign corporation borrowed funds 

from U.S. lender to make contributions). In more recent matters involving domestic subsidiaries of foreign 

corporations, the Commission has reiterated that corporate contributions must be from domestic funds, not foreign 

sources. See, e.g., Conciliation Agreement, MUR 6093 (Transurban Grp.) (Jan. 29, 2009) (U.S. subsidiary violated 

foreign national provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended (“FECA” or the “Act”) by making 

contributions when it had no revenue from U.S. operations). It cannot be seriously argued that U.S. companies that 

are owned by foreign individuals are subject to fewer restrictions on the use of foreign money in U.S. elections than 

companies whose foreign owners have taken the legal steps necessary to insulate themselves from liability through 

incorporation.

5 See Sec. Gen. Counsel’s Rpt., MUR 7491 (American Ethane Co., LLC, et al.) (Feb. 11, 2021).

6

Id. at 4-5. While seeking investors, Houghtaling, through his wife, met a number of interested Russians. Through 

an entity called Amshale Energy, LLC, Houghtaling and three Russian investors, Andrey Kunatbaev, Mikhail 

Yuriev, and Konstantin Nikolaev, borrowed funds to purchase 47.5% of the outstanding shares of American Ethane. 

The remaining 52.5% of American Ethane’s shares were owned by a Russian individual, Alexander Voloshin, 

(2.500002%) and another LLC owned by Russians, primarily Roman Abramovich (49.999998%). Sec. Gen. 

Counsel’s Rpt. at 4-5.

7 Factual & Legal Analysis, MUR 7491 (American Ethane Co., LLC, et al.) (July 23, 2019) at 1.

8

Id. at 2.

9 See Sec. Gen. Counsel’s Rpt.

MUR749100216
MUR 7491 (American Ethane Co., LLC, et al.)

Statement of Reasons of Commissioners Shana M. Broussard and Ellen L. Weintraub

Page 3 of 3

committees, a $15,000 donation to a state political action committee, and a $15,000 contribution 

to a super PAC.

10

OGC’s recommendation that the Commission pursue the foreign-national violations was 

supported by the facts and decades of Commission precedent. Ignoring those longstanding 

precedents, three of the Commission’s current members blocked the Commission from holding 

American Ethane accountable for injecting foreign funds into U.S. elections. Instead, the only 

conciliation agreement they would approve was one that cited a different violation involving far 

fewer dollars: that American Ethane made prohibited corporate contributions11 (which, make no 

mistake, it certainly did). Though American Ethane did pay a civil penalty, it was a slap on the 

wrist that failed to account for a violation of one the most fundamental provisions entrusted to 

this Commission to enforce.

At the Commission’s public meeting on September 15, 2016, the Commission unanimously 

directed the Office of General Counsel to prioritize cases involving allegations of foreign 

influence. The foreign-influence problem has not gone away in the meantime, to put it mildly. In 

this case, it is beyond unfortunate that for three of our colleagues, it was a bridge too far to 

penalize the use of Russian oligarchs’ money to influence U.S. elections.

12 One can only hope 

that in future cases, the Commission will once again muster the political will to work together to 

wall off our elections from the malign influence of foreign money.

__________________________

Oct. 27, 2022 Shana M. Broussard 

 Commissioner

__________________________

Oct. 27, 2022 Ellen L. Weintraub

 Commissioner

10 Id. at 4. The investigation also revealed that American Ethane is taxed as a corporation. Thus, the evidence also 

establishes that American Ethane violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a) by making $36,200 in prohibited corporate 

contributions. Id. 

11 Certification, MUR 7491 (American Ethane Co., LLC, et al.) (Feb. 15, 2022). See Conciliation Agreement at 1, 

MUR 7491 (American Ethane Co., LLC, et al.) (Aug. 10, 2022). 

12 See Stmt. of Reasons of Comm’r Ellen L. Weintraub at 2, MURs 7581 and 7614 (Li Juan “Cindy” Gong, et al.) 

(Sept. 9, 2022) (citing Stmt. of Reasons of Chair Shana M. Broussard & Comm’r Ellen L. Weintraub at 4, MURs 

7350, 7351, 7357, & 7382 (Cambridge Analytica LLC, et al.) (Nov. 4, 2021)). 

MUR749100217