-3. ' 

MEMORANDUM 

The Commissioners 

Staff Director 

.De p u ty Staff D i recto r 

Acting General Counsel '7-l 

Office of the Commission Secreta y 

August 15,2001 

(h@ u 

Statement of Reasons for MUR 5100 

+ Attached is a copy of the Statement of Reasons for gj 

MUR 5100 signed by Chairman Danny L. McDonald, 

Vice Chairman David M. Mason, Commissioner Karl J. Sandstrom, 

Commissioner Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner Scott E. Thomas, and 

Commissioner Darryl R. Wold. 

2- 

-i.- 

This was received in the Commission Secretary's Office on 

Tuesday, August 34,2001 at 428 .p.m. 

cc: Vincent J. Con'very, Jr. 

Information Division 

Press Office 

Public Disclosure 

Attachment 
. .. BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In re McCallion for Congress and 

Darrell L. Paster, as treasurer, 

. -. STATEMENT OF REASONS 

On May 1,2001, the Commission voted 5-0' to approve the General Counsel's 

recommendations, inter alia, finding reason to believe that the Respondents McCallion 

for Congress (Committee) and Darrell L. Paster, as treasurer, violated 2 U.S.C. § 

434(a)(2)(A)(i), but taking no hrther action and sending an admonishment letter.2 While 

the Commission is not required to issue this Statement of Reasons because it approved 

the General Counsel's recommendations, we do so to clarify the history of part of this 

matter and the rationale for our actions. 

Factual and Procedural History . 

On August 7,2000, a Prior Notice was sent to the Committee; stating that 

unopposed candidates who seek nomination in the primary election must file a PrePrimary Report by August 3 1,2000. On September 1, the Commission sent the 

Committee a Non-Filer Notice that it had failed to file a 12-Day Pre-Primary Election 

Report for the period July 1,2000 through August 23,2000. On September 8, the 

Commission voted 5-0 to publish the Committee as a non-filer. The Committee replied 

to the Non-Filer Notice by letter received September 8, stating that it acted in good faith 

and did not file the Report because it was not engaged in a primary campaign and did not 

engage in fundraising for a primary election? 

' Commissioner Thomas was absent for this nieeting vote. I-Ie had approved the rccommciiclations via tally 

vote, except for the minor correction needed. at the meeting. 

* The commission also voted 5-0 to (1) find no RTB that the Respondenti violated 2 U.S.C. § § 

434(a)(G)(A), 44 1 b, 44 1 c or 44 1 e; (2) approve the appropriate letters, as recommcndcd in thc General 

Counsel's Report dated April 13, 2001, and (3) close the file. ' The Committee's July Quarterly Report covering January 1, 2000 through June 30,2000 reported rcccipts 

and disbursements as primary-related. 'I'lie Conunittee's September 8 response indicated that the pririiary 

dcsigriations wcre "incorrectly chccked." 
.$. 1 Statement of Reasons - MUR 5 100 

page 2 or 3 

Staff in the Commission’s Reports Analysis Division then decided the same day -- 

September 8 (under short time constraints and based upon the Committee’s response and 

a misunderstanding by Commission staff of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s 

reporting requirenients) -- not to publish the Coniniittee as a non-filer. The Commission 

has now clarified that the decision not to publish was erro~ieous.~ 

The Complaint underlying this MUR was filed on September.22 with the 

Commission, pointing out the Committee’s reporting failure. The Committee responded 

to the Complaint by letter dated October 27, citing the argument in its letter received 

September 8 and also claiming that it justifiably relied on statements made in the media 

attributed to a Commission spokesperson indicating that no Pre-Primary Report was 

necessary. 

On October 11, the Commission discussed this matter at length, including the 

possibility of making a public statement, but decided instead to direct the Office of 

General Counsel to activate this case at the earliest appropriate opportunity. Then, as 

mentioned previously, on May 1, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the 

General Counsel’s recommendations: to find reason to believe that the Committee and its 

treasurer violated 2 U.S.C. § 434(a)(2)(A)(i), but take no further action because of the 

possible conhsion concerning reporting obligations created by Commission staff. 

The General Counsel’s Report in this matter and this Statement, however, serve to 

correct any doubt concerning a committee’s obligation to file a Pre-Primary Report when 

a candidate is not on a primary election ballot and even if all findraising allegedly is 

directed toward the general election? Under 0 434(a)(2)(A)($ an authorized 

committee’s reporting obligations essentially are generated by the candidate’s status. 

Once spending or findraising of a person seeking federal office crosses the $5,000 

thresholdJunder the FECA (see 2 U.S.C. 0 43 1(2)), the “candidate” is-required to register 

a campaign committee and the committee is required to report pursuant to a stated 

schedule. Thus, even if no finds at all were raised or expended during a particular preelection reporting period, an authorized candidate would be required to file a report. 

In this matter, not only had Mr. McCallion filed on June 2 as a candidate with the 

Commission (see 2 U.S.C. 5 432(e)(1) and 11 C.F.R. 6 lOl.l(a)); he had been receiving 

and spending contributions before the New York primary qualifying date of July 13, and 

The Committee claims that in a .telephone conversation-on September 8, a Commission Press Office ’ 

employee told the Committee that no Pre-Primary Report had been required. The employee disputes this 

allegation. 

contribution limit for candidates for each election, including those in which candidates are unopposed. 2 

U.S.C. 5 44 1 a(a)( l)(A); Advisory Opinion 1982-47. 

The provision requires that in any calendar year during which there is a regularly scheduled election for 

which a candidate is seeking election, or norhination for election, the candidate’s treasurer shall file a pre- 

.election report “no later than the 12* day before.. . any election in which such candidate is seeking election, 

or nomination for election.. . .” 

The logic behind this requirement is evident when considering that contributors have a separate 

.. ._...__.. . ..._....._.. ... ....... . _... ...., -r-..- ... . . - ._.- .. _. _.. . .. . .. .. .. ._- .- .. - .. .. .. - ._-. .~- .. .. .. . ~ 
;*in * ’ 

Statement of Reasons - MUR 5 100 

Page 3 of 3 

had followed New York procedures to be designated a primary election candidate. He 

thus was “seeking . . . nomination for election” under § 434(a)(2)(A)(i);’ 

August 7,2001 

Q3w 

Danny L. &Donald, 

.“e 

Chairman 

n 

darl J ._ gandstrom, Commissionef 

- .-_.. . . *--- . --- 

- 

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner Darryl R. V&ld, Commissioner 

. 

‘Tlie Commission made clcar years ago that being unopposed for a noniiiiation ami riot on a ballot did riot 

obviate a prc-primary rcporting obligation. See Advisory Opinion 1986-2 1 (requiring pre-elcction rcporiiiig 

for unopposed convention nomination candidate and superseding prior advisory opinions to thc extent thcy 

would rcquire different result for unopposed candidate not on a primary ballot).