BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

William Figlesthaler for Congress ) MUR 7759 

 and Steven Martin in his official capacity as treasurer ) 

William M. Figlesthaler ) 

Matthew Hurley ) 

Collin Osborne ) 

Rachael Schaaf ) 

Landslyde Media Group, LLC ) 

Southern Strategies, LLC ) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. DICKERSON AND 

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

The Complaint in this Matter alleged that the congressional campaign committee of Dr. 

William Figlesthaler violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) 

by improperly concealing disbursements ostensibly intended for a political consultant named 

Mathew Hurley and instead routing those disbursements through two limited liability companies, 

Landslyde Media Group, LLC (“Landslyde”) and Southeastern Strategies, LLC (“Southeastern”). 

The Complainant characterized these payments as an effort by Respondents to “secretly launder 

campaign funds through corporate shells in order to assist Hurley to [sic] to evade his legitimate 

creditors” resulting from state court judgments against him.1

Respondents denied the allegations. The Figlesthaler campaign asserted that it had duly 

retained and paid both Landslyde and Southeastern for media buying and consulting services and 

reported those payments in accordance with the Act, and that Hurley only served in a volunteer 

capacity with the campaign.2 Landslyde and Southeastern, through an individual named Rachel 

Schaaf, confirmed the campaign’s account and provided information indicating that Schaaf, rather 

than Hurley, provided the services in question for which the campaign paid Landslyde and 

Southeastern.

3

The Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) nonetheless recommended that we find reason to 

believe that the Figlesthaler campaign failed to properly report the disbursements at issue. Based 

1 Compl. at 1, MUR 7759. 

2 Figlesthaler Resp. at 2–3, MUR 7759.

3 Schaaf Resp., MUR 7759.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

MUR775900226
on the evidence available, however, we did not believe there was sufficient legal justification to 

open an investigation, or that an investigation would be a prudent use of agency resources. Both 

the Complaint and OGC’s recommendation to pursue the Figlesthaler campaign rely on a series of 

bootstrapped inferences and general speculation in reaching their conclusion that the Figlesthaler 

campaign failed to fulfill its reporting obligations with the Commission—but inferences alone are 

not adequate, in our view, to reach a finding of reason to believe and open an investigation. As 

such, we voted to dismiss this Matter pursuant to our prosecutorial discretion.4 Pursuant to 

governing law, we provide this statement to explain the reasoning for our votes in this Matter.5

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Dr. William M. Figlesthaler was a 2020 candidate for Florida’s 19th Congressional 

District. Dr. Figlesthaler’s authorized campaign committee, William Figlesthaler for Congress, 

and Steven Martin, in his official capacity as treasurer (“the Committee”) reported payments to 

Landslyde Media Group, LLC, and Southeastern Strategies, LLC. Specifically, between 

November 2019 and November 2, 2020, the Committee made a total of $2.1 million in 

disbursements to Landslyde advertising services, and $79,616 in disbursements to Southeastern 

for “strategic campaign consulting.” 

Records from Florida’s state Division of Corporations show that Landslyde Media Group 

LLC, was formed on November 12, 2019, and appears to be a going concern.6 Southeastern 

Strategies LLC was also formed on November 12, 2019.7 It, too, appears to be a going concern. 

4 See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).

5 See Dem. Cong. Campaign Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“DCCC”) 

(establishing requirement that “[t]he Commission or the individual Commissioners” must provide a statement of 

reasons why the agency “rejected or failed to follow the General Counsel’s recommendation”); Common Cause v. 

Fed. Election Comm’n, 842 F.2d 436, 453 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“A statement of reasons...is necessary to allow 

meaningful judicial review of the Commission’s decision not to proceed”); see also id. at 451 (R.B. Ginsburg, J., 

dissenting in part and concurring in part) (“I concur in part III of the court’s opinion holding the DCCC rule applicable, 

prospectively, to all Commission dismissal orders based on tie votes when the dismissal is contrary to the 

recommendation of the FEC General Counsel”); Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 966 

F.2d 1471, 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“We further held that, to make judicial review a meaningful exercise, the three 

Commissioners who voted to dismiss must provide a statement of their reasons for so voting. Since those 

Commissioners constitute a controlling group for purposes of the decision, their rationale necessarily states the 

agency’s reasons for acting as it did”) (citation omitted); Campaign Legal Ctr. & Democracy 21 v. Fed. Election 

Comm’n, 952 F.3d 352, 355 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

6

 DETAIL BY ENTITY NAME: LANDSLYDE MEDIA GROUP LLC, FLA. DEP’T OF STATE DIV. OF CORP., available at

https://search.sunbiz.org (last accessed Aug. 23, 2022). Landslyde Media Group LLC’s last annual report was filed in 

April 2022, and it is listed as “active” with the state.

7

 DETAIL BY ENTITY NAME: SOUTHEASTERN STRATEGIES LLC, FLA. DEP’T OF STATE DIV. OF CORP., available at

https://search.sunbiz.org (last accessed Aug. 23, 2022). Southeastern Strategies LLC’s last annual report was filed in 

April 2022, and it is listed as “active” with the state.

MUR775900227
Mathew Hurley is a businessman and political consultant. He is not, and has never been,

listed on the corporate documents of the respondent LLCs. 

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Act requires authorized committees to report the name and address of each “person” 

to whom they make disbursements aggregating more than $200 per election cycle, together with 

the date and amount of any such disbursement.8 The Act and Commission regulations are silent 

with respect to any definition or description of the meaning of “the person” to whom an 

expenditure is made. Moreover, they do not address the concepts of ultimate payees, vendors, 

agents, contractors, or subcontractors. 

The Complaint asserted that Mr. Hurley was a “main consultant” for the Committee and 

generally played a central and active role in the campaign, and speculates that Landslyde and 

Southern Strategies were “shell companies” formed by Hurley to get paid while “avoid[ing] 

collection” of certain state court judgments against him, and that by making the disbursements to 

Landslyde and Southern Strategies rather than to Mr. Hurley, the Committee violated the Act’s 

reporting requirements by obscuring the ultimate payee of the disbursements. OGC, taking this 

assertion at face value, argued that “[t]he available information supports an inference that the 

committee routed payments to Hurley through Landslyde and Southeastern, apparently in an effort 

to shield Hurley’s assets from the outstanding judgments against him,”9 and upon that basis 

recommended the Commission find reason to believe that the Committee violated the Act and 

Commission regulations when it reported the payments to Landslyde and Southeastern. 

We agreed with OGC that the “complaint alleges no conduct that would constitute a 

violation” as to William M. Figlesthaler, Matthew Hurley, Collin Osborne, Rachael Schaaf, 

Landslyde Media Group, LLC, and Southeastern Strategies, LLC, 10 and accordingly voted to find 

no reason to believe as to those Respondents.11 However, for the reasons set out below, we 

supported dismissing the allegations against the Committee as a matter of prosecutorial 

discretion.12

8 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6); see also 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b) (requiring authorized committee to report, inter alia, the full 

name of each person to whom an expenditure in an aggregate amount or value in excess of $200 within the election 

cycle is made by the reporting authorized committee). 

9 First Gen. Counsel’s Rep. at 12, MUR 7759.

10 First Gen. Counsel’s Rep. at 19 (“As the Committee is the only respondent with reporting obligations under the Act, 

and because the Complaint alleges no conduct that would constitute a violation by Figlesthaler, Hurley, Osborne, 

Schaaf, Landslyde, or Southeastern, we recommend the Commission find no reason to believe that these respondents 

violated the Act or Commission regulations.”).

11 Certification, MUR 7759 (June 9, 2022). 

12 See Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 

MUR775900228
First, as the Committee correctly noted in its Response,

13 even assuming that Mr. Hurley 

was being compensated for his services through Landslyde and Southeastern—an inference that 

the factual record before the Commission does not support—there is nothing per se impermissible 

about such an arrangement. Political consultants and other individuals who provide services to 

federal campaign committees (such as event planners, fundraisers, media buyers, bookkeepers, 

and IT service providers) regularly set up legal entities through which they provide services to 

campaign committees and are compensated by those committees for the provision of those 

services. The legality under the Act of such arrangements does not turn on the involvement of the 

principal in the provision of the services by the entity to the campaign. 

OGC also suggested that Mr. Hurley’s use of common business practices, such as the use 

of a registered agent to establish a business entity, evidenced a “a pattern of using the identities of 

his associates to hide his political work,”14 which supported an inference that the payments to 

Landslyde and Southeastern were intended to obscure Mr. Hurley as the ultimate payee of the 

payments. Of course, the use of a registered agent and registered agent’s address for a business is 

an entirely legal and common practice—not evidence of intent to commit fraud or violate the Act. 

The Complaint spills much ink detailing the work that Mr. Hurley apparently did on behalf 

of the campaign and argues that the payments to Landslyde and Southeastern must have actually

been payment for these services. The Committee’s Response explains that as a factual matter, Mr. 

Hurley’s involvement with the campaign was “in a volunteer capacity,”15 which is not inconsistent 

with the description of Mr. Hurley’s participation with the campaign described by the 

Complainant, and for which no reporting is required under the Act and Commission regulations. 

Moreover, OGC’s analysis, in our view, did not give adequate weight to Ms. Schaaf’s 

response and draws a series of unfounded assumptions about her and the services she provided to 

the campaign through Landslyde and Southeastern. The Complaint alleges that Ms. Schaff was 

used “as a front person” in the formation and operation of Landslyde and Southeastern, and that 

she could not possibly have performed services for the campaign and that the work was performed 

by Mr. Hurley. But in her Response, Ms. Schaaf provided copies of email correspondence and 

other documents demonstrating the work she did on behalf of the committee, which is consistent 

with how the committee reported the disbursements to Landslyde and Southeastern. Additionally, 

there is nothing in the record to support the totally unfounded allegation in the Complaint that, 

“[Mr. Hurley] is using [Ms. Schaaf]’s digital signature” to make advertising purchases for the 

Committee.”16 

In sum, we were unpersuaded by OGC’s assertion that “the available information supports 

an inference that the Committee routed payments to Hurley through Landslyde and Southeastern, 

13 Figlesthaler Resp. at 2.

14 First Gen. Counsel’s Rep. at 12. 

15 Figlesthaler Resp. at 2

16 Compl. at 2 n.2. 

MUR775900229
apparently in an effort to shield Hurley’s assets from the outstanding judgments against him.”17

As OGC concedes, “the Committee’s reasons for agreeing to the scheme alleged in the complaint 

“are unknown.”18 Given these evidentiary issues, we did not believe that proceeding with

enforcement in this matter would be likely to succeed, or, moreover, that an enforcement action 

would accord with the Commission’s overall priorities. Accordingly, we voted to dismiss the 

allegations as to the Committee as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and to close the file as 

to all Respondents.19

9/16/2022 

____________________ __________________________ 

Date Allen Dickerson 

Chairman

9/16/2022 

____________________ __________________________ 

Date Sean J. Cooksey 

Commissioner

9/16/2022 

____________________ __________________________ 

Date James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Commissioner 

17 First Gen. Counsel’s Rep. at 12. 

18 Id. at 11. 

19 Certification, MUR 7759 (June 9, 2022). 

MUR775900230