FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

) 

John James for Senate, Inc. ) MURs 7686, 7714, and 7716

 and Timothy Caughlin ) 

 in his official capacity as treasurer ) 

John James ) 

Better Future Michigan ) 

Victoria Sachs ) 

) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. DICKERSON AND 

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

In these matters, we voted to approve the Office of General Counsel’s (“OGC”) 

recommendations to dismiss the allegations that Better Future Michigan made, and John 

James, John James for Senate, and Timothy Caughlin in his official capacity as treasurer 

accepted or received, a prohibited in-kind contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a).

We further voted to approve OGC’s recommendations to dismiss the allegation that 

Better Future Michigan and Victoria Sachs violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) by soliciting, 

receiving, directing, transferring, or spending funds prohibited under the Act in connection 

with an election for federal office; and to dismiss the allegation that John James, John James 

for Senate, and Timothy Caughlin in his official capacity as treasurer violated 52 U.S.C. § 

30125(e)(1) by soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending funds prohibited 

under the Act in connection with an election for federal office.

For the purposes of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), we attach the proposed Factual and Legal 

Analysis we voted to approve in this matter.

April 13, 2022

Date

___________________________ 

Allen J. Dickerson 

Chairman

April 13, 2022

Date

___________________________ 

Sean J. Cooksey

Commissioner 

MUR768600070
MURs 7686, 7714, and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 2 

2 

April 13, 2022

Date

___________________________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Commissioner 

MUR768600071
Attachment 1

Page 1 of 13

1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

2 

3 FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

4 

5 RESPONDENTS: John James for Senate, Inc. and Timothy Caughlin in his official capacity 

6 as treasurer

7 John James 

8 Better Future Michigan

9 Victoria Sachs

10

11 I. INTRODUCTION

12 The Complaints in these matters allege that Better Future Michigan, Inc. (“BFM”), a non13 profit corporation, made prohibited in-kind contributions to John James and John James for 

14 Senate, Inc. and Timothy Caughlin in his official capacity as Treasurer (the “Committee”), in 

15 violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of l97l as amended (“the Act”). The Complaints

16 allege that within a month of leaving her employment with the Committee in May 2019, Victoria 

17 Sachs became Executive Director of BFM, which ran negative advertisements featuring Gary 

18 Peters, James’s opponent in the 2020 race for U.S. Senate in Michigan, in coordination with 

19 James and the Committee. The Complaint in MUR 7716 also alleges that James, through Sachs 

20 as his agent, directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled (“EFMC’d”) 

BFM.1 21 

22 The Respondents deny that the advertisements satisfy the Commission’s standards for 

23 coordinated communications because they do not satisfy the conduct prong. Further, 

24 Respondents deny that the Committee had any involvement, directly or indirectly through Sachs, 

25 in the establishment of BFM. 

26 As discussed below, there is insufficient information to support the allegations that BFM 

27 made communications in coordination with James and the Committee or that Sachs acted as 

1 MUR 7716 Compl. at 3-5.

MUR768600072
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 2 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 2 of 13

1 James’s agent when she became BFM’s Executive Director. Thus, the Commission: 

2 (1) dismisses the allegation that BFM made, and James and the Committee accepted, a prohibited 

3 in-kind contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a); and (2) dismisses the allegation that 

4 James, the Committee, BFM, and Sachs violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) by soliciting, 

5 receiving, directing, transferring, or spending funds prohibited under the Act in connection with 

6 an election for federal office. 

7 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

8 On June 6, 2019, James declared his 2020 candidacy for U.S. Senate in Michigan; his 

opponent is Senator Gary Peters.2 9 John James for Senate, Inc., is James’s principal campaign 

committee.

3 10 

11 In 2018, James also ran for U.S. Senate in Michigan against Senator Debbie Stabenow 

and designated the Committee as his principal campaign committee.4 12 Sachs was James’s 

13 campaign manager for his 2018 candidacy. After James lost the election, Sachs began serving 

14 James as an independent contractor in January 2019 to “assist with 2018 vendor issues, 2018 

15 donor maintenance, and Mr. James [sic] 2020 testing-the-waters process to decide whether to run 

for office again, and if so, for what office.”5 16 Sachs received her last payment from the 

2

 MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 John James and John James for Senate, Inc. Resp. at 2 (Apr. 1, 

2020) (“MUR 7716 James Resp.”); John James, Amended Statement of Candidacy, FEC Form 2 (Sept. 11, 2020). 

3

 John James for Senate, Inc., Statement of Organization, FEC Form 1 (May 4, 2020). 

4

 See John James for Senate Inc., Amended Statement of Organization, FEC Form 1 (Oct. 4, 2018); John 

James, Amended Statement of Candidacy, FEC Form 2 (June 6, 2018). 

5

 MUR 7686 John James and John James for Senate, Inc. Resp. at 3 (Feb. 19, 2020) (“MUR 7686 James 

Resp.”); see also MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 James Resp. at 1-2; MUR 7686 Victoria Sachs and Better 

Future Michigan Resp. at 2 (Apr. 2, 2020) (“MUR 7686 BFM Resp.”); MUR 7714 Victoria Sachs and Better Future 

Michigan Resp. at 2 (Apr. 2, 2020) (“MUR 7714 BFM Resp.”); MUR 7716 Victoria Sachs and Better Future 

Michigan Resp. at 2 (Apr. 2, 2020) (“MUR 7716 BFM Resp.”). 

MUR768600073
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 3 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 3 of 13

Committee on May 3, 2019.6 1 While the Complaints allege that Sachs served the Committee for 

2 the entire month of May, Respondents contend that Sachs’s independent contractor relationship 

with the Committee concluded the same day she received final payment.

7 3 

4 The next month, Sachs became the first Executive Director of BFM, which was 

5 incorporated on June 12, 2019, as a section 501(c)(4) organization established under the Internal 

Revenue Code.8 6 According to its Articles of Incorporation, BFM’s purpose is “to educate and 

7 engage the public on the need for leadership committed to taking action to secure a better future 

8 through strong national security, and increased economic and educational opportunities with the 

objective of ensuring everyone the opportunity to achieve the American Dream.”9 9 

10 The Complaints and Responses identify three advertisements paid for by BFM. The 

Complaints focus on “Eliminate,”10 11 which ran on Facebook from August 7-12, 2019 (within 120 

days of Sachs’s departure from the Committee).

11 12 The Responses cite two additional 

6

 MUR 7686 James Resp. at 3; see also MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 James Resp. at 1-2; 

MUR 7686 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 BFM Resp. at 2; John James for Senate, Inc., 

Amended 2019 July Quarterly Report at 347 (Aug. 21, 2019).

7

 MUR 7686 Compl. at 6; MUR 7716 Compl. at 3; MUR 7686 James Resp. at 3; see also MUR 7714 James 

Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 James Resp. at 1-2; MUR 7686 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 

BFM Resp. at 2.

8

 MUR 7686 BFM Resp. at 2; see also MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 BFM Resp. at. 2.

9

 Better Future Michigan, Articles of Incorporation (June 12, 2019), available at

https://cofs.lara.state.mi.us/CorpWeb/CorpSearch/CorpSearchFormList.aspx?SEARCH_TYPE=3. We also note the 

existence of Better Future MI Fund, a similarly named independent expenditure-only political committee 

(“IEOPC”). See Statement of Organization, FEC Form 1 (Oct. 31, 2019). We analyze the issues under the 

assumption that the relevant organization is the 501(c)(4), as the Complaint alleges and the records support. See

infra nn. 11-14. 

10 Better Future Michigan, Eliminate, FACEBOOK AD LIBRARY (Aug. 7-12, 2019), 

https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=2470707176327256. 

11 MUR 7686 Compl. at 5-6; see also MUR 7716 Compl. at 4.; see also Ads from Better Future Michigan, 

FACEBOOK, https://bit.ly/2yQqiAi (last accessed Sept. 22, 2020) (“Facebook Ad Library”). 

MUR768600074
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 4 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 4 of 13

advertisements – “Falling in Line”12 and “Radical Washington Liberals”13 1 – that BFM states it 

publicly distributed in December 2019 (more than 120 days after Sachs’s departure).14 2 

3 Relying on a Daily Beast article, the Complaint in MUR 7714 alleges that the Committee 

and BFM used some of the same vendors – IMGE and Smart Media Group.15 4 First, the article 

5 notes that James’s largest vendor during the 2020 cycle is IMGE, a digital consulting firm. The 

6 article states that BFM used IMGE to create its website and “[h]ours after [The Daily Beast

7 journalist] asked the James campaign about that particular case of apparent vendor overlap, 

BFM’s website registration data was scrubbed of fingerprints tying it to IMGE.”16 8 Second, the 

9 Complaint alleges an overlap because the Committee used Smart Media Group to place its ads in 

2018, and BFM used Del Cielo Media, a subsidiary of Smart Media group, to place its ads.17 10 

11 In response, BFM and the Committee both admit that they have each used IMGE. BFM 

12 hired IMGE to create its website, which the non-profit described as “an online platform 

dedicated to educating Michiganders on important policy issues.”18 13 The Committee hired IMGE 

12 Better Future Michigan, Falling in Line, YOUTUBE (Dec. 10, 2019),

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfAv5r4trHE&feature=youtu.be. 

13 Better Future Michigan, Radical Washington Liberals, FACEBOOK AD LIBRARY (Dec. 17-23, 2019), 

https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1009141209419973. 

14 MUR 7686 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 BFM Resp. at 2; see also Facebook 

Ad Library. BFM stated that it “disseminated” “Falling in Line,” which was posted to BFM’s YouTube page on 

December 10, 2019. See MUR 7686 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 BFM Resp. at 2. 

Although “Falling in Line” does not appear in either BFM’s Facebook Ad Library or in the Google Transparency 

Report, as of August 4, 2020, the “pinned” tweet on BFM’s account was to an article dedicated to BFM’s release of 

the ad, including its “spending $300,000 to run the ad across the state on television and digital platforms,” and that 

quoted Sachs’s statement about the ad. See BetterFutureMichigan (@BetterFutureMI), TWITTER (Dec. 11, 2019), 

https://twitter.com/BetterFutureMI/status/1204846944851578881?s=20 (linking to William Davis, 2020 Anxiety: 

Outside Groups Pour First Million into Michigan, Daily Caller (Dec. 11, 2019), 

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/11/2020-liberal-groups-better-future-michigan/). 

15 See MUR 7714 Compl. at 1-2.

16 Id. (quoting from The Daily Beast Article).

17 MUR 7714 Compl. at 1.

18 MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 7. A case study on IMGE’s website profiles work done for “a c4 that cares about 

economic freedom [and] wanted to build a strong, state-wide network of activists who were passionate about freemarket health care.” See Build a Statewide Network of Issue Advocates, IMGE, https://imge.com/case-study/buildMUR768600075
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 5 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 5 of 13

1 for “media buying services” shortly before James announced his candidacy; since then, the 

Committee has disbursed $728,566.39 to the firm though July 15, 2020.19 2 Both respondents 

3 contend that IMGE used a firewall policy to prevent its work from being shared with other 

clients and provided excerpts of the firewall policy from their respective contracts.20 4 

5 As to Smart Media Group and its subsidiary Del Cielo Media (“Del Cielo”), the 

6 Committee acknowledges that it used Smart Media Group for ad placements, but states that its 

contract ended after the 2018 election, more than 120 days before BFM incorporated.21 7 BFM 

acknowledges that it currently uses Del Cielo for ad placement.22 8 

9 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

10 A. The Available Information Is Insufficient to Support Finding Reason to 

11 Believe That Respondents Made Coordinated Communications 

12 Corporations are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and their authorized 

committees,

23 13 and federal candidates and their authorized committees may not knowingly accept 

such contributions.24 14 When a person makes an expenditure in cooperation, consultation, or in 

a-statewide-network-of-issue-advocates/ (last visited Aug. 4, 2020). The page, which features multiple images 

reading “Medicare for All,” states that the services provided included IMGE “us[ing] an interstitial ad network to 

catch locals online and drive them directly to an action center where they could contact their senator.” Id. IMGE 

reports that it “drove over 11,000 contacts to a U.S. Senator’s office from their constituents on health care policy, 

despite there being no urgent legislation on the topic.” Id.

19 MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; John James for Senate, Inc., Amended 2019 July Quarterly Report at 335 

(Aug. 21, 2019) (showing disbursements to IMGE LLC beginning June 5, 2019); John James for Senate, Inc., 2020 

Pre-Primary Report at 603 (July 23, 2020) (showing disbursements to IMGE as late as July 15, 2020); John James 

for Senate, Inc., 2019-2020 Disbursements to IMGE, 

https://www.fec.gov/data/disbursements/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00651208&recipient_name=IMGE

&two_year_transaction_period=2020. 

20 MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2, 5-6; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 7-8.

21 MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; see also John James for Senate, Inc., 2018 Post-General Report at 856 

(Jan. 24, 2019). 

22 MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2, 6.

23 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a); 11 C.F.R. § 114.2(b).

24 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). 

MUR768600076
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 6 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 6 of 13

1 concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate or the authorized committee or their 

agents, it is treated as an in-kind contribution.25 2 

3 Under the Commission’s regulations, a communication is “coordinated” with a candidate, 

4 an authorized committee, a political party committee, or agent thereof, and is treated as an in5 kind contribution, if the communication satisfies a three-prong test: (1) it is paid for, partly or 

6 entirely, by a person other than the candidate, authorized committee, political party committee, 

7 or agent thereof; (2) it satisfies at least one of the “content standards” at 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(c); 

and (3) it satisfies at least one of the “conduct standards” at 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d).26 8 All three 

prongs must be satisfied for a communication to be considered coordinated.27 9 

10 The three advertisements in question satisfy the first prong because BFM, not James or 

11 the Committee, paid for the ads. However, they do not appear to constitute coordinated 

12 communications because they do not meet any of the conduct standards set forth at section 

109.21(d).28 13 The “conduct” prong will be satisfied if: (1) the communication was created, 

14 produced, or distributed at the request or suggestion of a candidate or his campaign; (2) the 

15 candidate or his campaign was materially involved in decisions regarding the communication; 

16 (3) the communication was created, produced, or distributed after substantial discussions with 

17 the campaign or its agents; (4) the parties contracted with or employed a common vendor that 

18 used or conveyed material information about the campaign’s plans, projects, activities or needs, 

25 Id. § 30116(a)(7)(B); 11 C.F.R. § 109.20; see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 46-47 (1976).

26 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(a); see also id. § 109.21(b) (describing in-kind treatment and reporting of coordinated 

communications). 

27 Id. § 109.21(a); see also Coordinated and Independent Expenditures, 68 Fed. Reg. 421, 453 (Jan. 3, 2003) 

(Explanation and Justification) (“E&J”). 

28 We do not analyze whether the advertisements meet the content standards because they do not appear to 

satisfy any of the conduct standards, as explained below. 

MUR768600077
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 7 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 7 of 13

1 or used material information gained from past work with the candidate to create, produce, or 

2 distribute the communication; (5) the payor employed a former employee or independent 

3 contractor of the candidate who used or conveyed material information about the campaign’s 

4 plans, projects, activities or needs, or used material information gained from past work with the 

5 candidate to create, produce, or distribute the communication; or (6) the payor republished 

campaign material.29 6 

7 The Complaints allege that the ads satisfy the conduct prong because: (1) Sachs joined 

8 BFM approximately a month after she had served as an advisor to James; and (2) BFM shared 

common vendors with the Committee.

30 9 

10 1. Former Employee or Independent Contractor 

11 Under the “former employee or independent contractor standard,” the conduct prong may 

12 be satisfied if: (1) the payor employed a person who had been an employee or independent 

13 contractor of the candidate’s authorized committee during the previous 120 days; and (2) that 

14 former employee or independent contractor conveyed to the payor material information about the 

15 campaign’s plans, projects, activities or needs, or used information gained from past work with 

the candidate that was material to creating, producing, or distributing the communication.31 16 The 

17 first part of the former employee standard is satisfied here because the Committee had an 

18 independent contractor arrangement with Sachs within 120 days of BFM creating “Eliminate,” 

29 See 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d); see also Factual & Legal Analysis at 6, MUR 6660 (Angus King for

U.S. Senate Campaign et al) (“F&LA”); F&LA at 5, MUR 6337 (Jay Riemersma for Congress Campaign 

Committee); F&LA at 5, MUR 5999 (Freedom’s Watch, Inc.).

30 MUR 7686 Compl. at 6-7; MUR 7714 Compl. at 1-2; see also MUR 7716 Compl. at 4. 

31 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d)(5).

MUR768600078
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 8 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 8 of 13

1 which was the only ad of the three in question disseminated in the 120 days after Sachs left the 

Committee.32 2 

3 Regarding the second part of the standard, the Commission has explained that “campaign 

4 information must be both current and proprietary (that is, non-public) to be subject to the 

coordinated communications regulation.”33 5 Similarly, when creating the standard, the 

6 Commission noted “much of the information gained working for candidates during primary races 

becomes largely irrelevant for general elections.”34 7 

8 Here, the Complaint does not allege, nor are we aware of, any specific facts indicating 

9 that Sachs used non-public material information in creating, producing, or distributing 

10 “Eliminate.” The campaign that Sachs managed for James in 2018 was against a different 

11 opponent – Debbie Stabenow, not Gary Peters – suggesting that whatever Sachs may have 

12 learned from her work in the 2018 race would have less value for the 2020 race. Although Sachs 

13 also advised James while he was testing the waters for his 2020 campaign, there is insufficient 

14 information to support finding reason to believe that any non-public information she may have 

15 had about the Committee’s plans was actually material to the creation, development, or 

16 distribution of “Eliminate.”

17 Instead, the Complaint posits that “[i]f Ms. Sachs used or conveyed any material, non18 public information regarding the James campaign’s projects, plans, activities or needs, the 

conduct prong is clearly met.” 35 19 The Commission has previously declined to investigate matters 

32 Respondents assert that Sachs’s last day with the Committee was May 3, 2019. See MUR 7686 James 

Resp. at 3. According to the Facebook Ad Library, BFM distributed “Eliminate” on August 7, 2019.

33 Coordinated Communications Explanation & Justification, 75 Fed. Reg. 55,947, 55,959 (Sept. 15, 2010). 

34 Coordinated Communications Explanation & Justification, 71 Fed. Reg. 33,190, 33,205 (June 8, 2006).

35 MUR 7686 Compl. at 6 (emphasis added). 

MUR768600079
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 9 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 9 of 13

where the allegations of coordinated conduct are similarly speculative and lacked support.36 1 A 

2 review of the available information does not support a finding that Sachs used non-public 

3 information in providing services to James and that that same information was material to the 

4 creation, production, or distribution of “Eliminate.” 

5 2. Common Vendor 

6 The “common vendor” conduct standard is satisfied if all of the following are true: 

(1) the person paying for the communication employs a commercial vendor37 7 to “create, 

8 produce, or distribute” the communication; (2) the vendor has provided certain delineated 

9 services to the recipient of the contribution during the 120 days preceding the communication; 

10 and (3) the vendor conveys non-public information about the campaign’s “plans, projects, 

11 activities, or needs,” or services previously provided to the campaign by the vendor, and that 

information is material to the creation, production, or distribution of the communication.38 12 

13 Under a “safe harbor” provision, the common vendor conduct standard is not satisfied if a 

14 commercial vendor has established and implemented a written firewall policy that meets certain 

requirements, so long as material information is not shared.39 15

36 Cf. F&LA at 8-9, MUR 6358 (Jaime for Congress) (finding no reason to believe where available 

information did not indicate that campaign or its agents requested or suggested that third party organization “create 

the ad, participated in any discussion about the ad on behalf of the Committee, were materially involved in its 

creation or dissemination as Committee agents, or otherwise informed [organization] about the campaign’s plans, 

projects, activities or needs.”), F&LA at 5-6, MUR 5999 (NRCC, et al.) (finding no reason to believe where 

respondents rebutted allegations that former employees of party committee shared material information to create 

communication). We note that in prior matters, such as MURs 6368 and 5999, the Commission relied, in part, on 

respondents’ sworn affidavits or declarations and respondents in the instant matters did not provide such statements. 

However, because the Complaints rely on speculation to satisfy the former employee standard, and we are not aware 

of information supporting the allegation, the lack of sworn statements is of less import. 

37 “Commercial vendor” means any persons providing goods or services to a candidate or political committee 

whose usual and normal business involves the sale, rental, lease or provision of those goods or services. 11 C.F.R. 

§ 116.1(c).

38 Id. § 109.21(d)(4)(i)-(iii).

39 Id. § 109.21(h). A firewall policy satisfies this safe harbor if it (1) is designed and implemented to prohibit 

the flow of information between employees or consultants providing services for the person paying for the 

MUR768600080
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 10 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 10 of 13

1 The information does not support a finding that the Committee and BFM coordinated 

2 communications through Smart Media Group and Del Cielo. Even assuming that the parent firm 

3 and its subsidiary are a “common vendor,” their work does not satisfy the second part of the 

4 standard: providing certain delineated services to the Committee during the 120 days preceding 

BFM’s advertisements.40 5 Smart Media Group stopped providing services to the Committee 

more than 120 days before BFM began using Del Cielo.41 6 

7 IMGE, on the other hand, did provide qualifying services to the Committee within 120 

8 days of all three of BFM’s advertisements. The Committee has used IMGE for media 

placements since James announced his candidacy in June 2019,42 9 and during that time, BFM 

hired IMGE to build its website.43 10 There is no information in the record, however, that the first 

11 part of the common vendor standard is satisfied: there is no allegation that IMGE “create[d], 

12 produce[d], or distribute[d]” any of BFM’s three advertisements, and we are not aware of any 

such information.44 13

communication and those employees or consultants currently or previously providing services to the candidate who 

is clearly identified in the communication, or that candidate’s authorized committee, the candidate’s opponent, the 

opponent’s authorized committee or a political party committee; and (2) is described in a written policy distributed 

to all relevant employees, consultants and clients. Id. § 109.21(h)(1)-(2). This safe harbor does not apply if specific 

information indicates that, despite the firewall policy, material information about the candidate’s campaign plans, 

projects, activities, or needs was used or conveyed to the person paying for the communication. Id. § 109.21(h).

40 See Id. § 109.21(d)(4)(ii). 

41 MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2, 6; see also John James for Senate, Inc., 2018 

Post-General Report at 856 (Jan. 24, 2019).

42 MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; John James for Senate, Inc., Amended 2019 July Quarterly Report at 335 

(Aug. 21, 2019) (showing disbursements to IMGE LLC beginning June 5, 2019); John James for Senate, Inc., 2020 

Pre-Primary Report at 603 (July 23, 2020) (showing disbursements to IMGE as late as July 15, 2020); see 11 C.F.R. 

§ 109.21(d)(4)(ii)(A) (“Development of media strategy, including the selection or purchasing of advertising slots”).

43 MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 7. Respondents also rebut the allegation by invoking the safe-harbor provision 

and pointing to IMGE’s internal firewall policy found in the entities’ contracts with the consulting firm. MUR 7714 

James Resp. at 5; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2-3, 7-8. We note that Respondents did not provide copies of the actual 

signed contracts or of IMGE’s firewall policy.

44 See 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d)(4)(i); MUR 7714 Compl. at 1-2. 

MUR768600081
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 11 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 11 of 13

1 In addition, the Complaint does not allege that IMGE conveyed material non-public 

2 information about the Committee’s plans, projects, activities, or needs to create, produce, or 

distribute the communications paid for by BFM.45 3 And we are not aware of any. Rather, the 

4 Complaint relies on the fact the Committee and BFM used IMGE within the same 120 days, but 

such facts are insufficient to satisfy this element of the conduct prong.46 5 The Commission has 

6 explained that “the mere presence of a common vendor” does not result in a presumption of 

coordination.47 7 Thus, the available information indicates that the common vendor conduct 

8 standard has not been satisfied.

9 Because the record does not support a finding that the conduct standard is satisfied for 

10 any of the advertisements in question, the Commission dismisses the allegation that Respondents 

made or accepted a prohibited in-kind contribution in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). 48 11

12 B. There Is Insufficient Information to Support a Reason to Believe Finding 

13 That Respondents Violated the Act’s Soft-Money Provisions 

14 The Complaint in MUR 7716 alleges that James, through his agent, Sachs, established 

BFM to raise and spend non-federal funds to support his election.49 15 The Complaint asserts that 

16 “[i]t is nearly impossible” to believe Sachs acted of her own accord, and not as an agent of 

17 James, in helping to establish BFM because: (1) she went from the Committee directly to BFM 

45 See 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d)(4)(iii). 

46 See F&LA at 9, MUR 6477 (Huey, et al.) (finding no reason to believe that common vendor standard was 

satisfied where there was no information indicating that common vendor “used or conveyed information material to 

the creation, production, or distribution of the communication”). 

47 Coordinated & Independent Expenditures, 68 Fed. Reg. 421, 437 (Jan. 3, 2003).

48 In addition, none of the remaining conduct standards appear to be satisfied. The available information does 

not indicate that BFM created, produced, or distributed the relevant ads at the request or suggestion of James or the 

Committee. Further, the record does not indicate that James or the Committee were materially involved in or had a 

substantial discussion with BFM to create, produce, or distribute the ads, or that BFM republished the Committee’s 

campaign material. 

49 MUR 7716 Compl. at 1.

MUR768600082
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 12 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 12 of 13

1 just a few weeks later; and (2) BFM promptly ran negative advertisements featuring Gary Peters, 

the incumbent senator and James’s opponent.50 2 

3 The Act prohibits a candidate, an agent thereof, or an entity directly or indirectly 

4 established, financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on behalf of a candidate from 

5 soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending funds in connection with a federal 

election that do not comply with the limits, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act.51 6 

7 Commission regulations provide that an agent is “any person who has actual authority, either 

8 express or implied,” to solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with any 

election.52 9 

10 Here, the record does not contain sufficient information to support a reasonable inference 

11 that Sachs continued to serve as James’s agent after she terminated her independent contractor 

12 relationship with him in May 2019. According to the Committee’s 2019 July Quarterly Report, 

13 Sachs received her last payment from the Committee on May 3, 2019, and Respondents contend 

that she stopped providing services to James and the Committee at or before that time.53 14

15 Although the Complaints suggest that Sachs continued her work for the Committee throughout 

16 May, Respondents directly rebut the suggestion, and there is no available information 

17 corroborating it. The Complaint relies on the timing of Sachs’s transition from the Committee to

18 BFM and BFM’s advertising attacking James’s opponent, but the available information is 

50 See id. at 4. 

51 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

52 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(3). 

53 John James for Senate, Inc., Amended 2019 July Quarterly Report at 347 (Aug. 21, 2019); MUR 7686 

James Resp. at 3; see also MUR 7714 James Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 James Resp. at 1-2; MUR 7686 BFM Resp. at 

2; MUR 7714 BFM Resp. at 2; MUR 7716 BFM Resp. at 2.

MUR768600083
MURs 7686, 7714 and 7716 (John James for Senate, Inc., et al.) 

Factual & Legal Analysis

Page 13 of 13

Attachment 1

Page 13 of 13

1 insufficient to create a reasonable inference that James gave Sachs actual authority, express or 

implied, to solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds to support his election.54 2 

3 Accordingly, the Commission dismisses the allegations that Respondents violated 52 

4 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) by soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, or spending funds 

5 prohibited under the Act in connection with an election for federal office. 

54 See F&LA at 6, MUR 7288 (DNC) (requiring specific information that individual was acting on behalf of 

principal); Definitions of “Agent” for BCRA Regulations on Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money and Coordinated 

and Independent Expenditures, 71 Fed. Reg. 4,975, 4,978 n.6 (Jan. 31, 2006) (quoting Final Rules and Explanation 

and Justification for Prohibited Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 

49,083 (July 29, 2002)) (“‘Specifically, it is not enough that there is some relationship or contact between the 

principal and agent; rather, the agent must be acting on behalf of the principal to create potential liability for the 

principal.’”). 

MUR768600084