May 15, 2023

VIA E-MAIL

Roy Q. Luckett, Acting Assistant General Counsel

Attn.: Christal Dennis, Paralegal

Federal Election Commission

Office of Complaints Examination and Legal Administration 

1050 First Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20463

Email: cela@fec.gov

Re: Matter Under Review 8113

Dear Mr. Luckett:

We write as counsel to Representative Elissa Slotkin, Elissa Slotkin for Congress (the 

“Campaign”), and Janica Kyriacopoulos in her official capacity as treasurer for the Campaign

(collectively, the “Respondents”), in response to the complaint filed by the Committee to Defeat 

the President (“Complainant”) in MUR 8113 (the “Complaint”).

Last year, Rep. Slotkin rented a home to use as her primary residence in Lansing, Michigan. The 

Complaint alleges that Rep. Slotkin received an unreported, excessive, in-kind contribution for her 

personal use because she allegedly paid too little for the property. There is simply no basis to 

support this claim. To reach its convoluted conclusions, the Complaint makes a series of incorrect

assumptions and outright errors. The reality is that, based on actual comparable prices of rentals

in Lansing, Michigan, Rep. Slotkin paid the usual and normal charge for her home. The Complaint 

fails to set forth any evidence to suggest a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 

as amended (the “Act”), or Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”) regulations.

There is no reason to believe that Respondents violated the Act and we urge Commission to dismiss 

this frivolous complaint immediately.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Rep. Elissa Slotkin began renting a home located at Lansing MI 48906 (the 

“Residence”) on April 15, 2022.1 The owners of the Residence were Jerry and Kathy Hollister—

both of whom were listed on the lease.

1 Rep. Slotkin rented the Residence with Dave Moore. The Complaint identified this property as “Residence 2.” See 

Compl. at ¶ 23. The Complaint expresses that it could not determine whether Rep. Slotkin lived at this residence or 

at another location, which it labeled “Residence 1.” Id. at ¶¶ 24-25. Neither Rep. Slotkin nor Mr. Moore ever

occupied Residence 1; it is wholly irrelevant to this matter.

By OGC-CELA at 1:40 pm, May 16, 2023

MUR811300032
-2- 

All parties to the lease intended to rent the property at the usual and normal charge, the fair 

market value. It is Respondents’ understanding that the Hollisters conducted research using 

Zillow.com (“Zillow”) for comparable properties that also had two bedrooms and two bathrooms 

in the Lansing and East Lansing area and found apartments ranging from $1000 - $1750 per 

month. Accounting for rent, utilities, and some furnishings, the parties agreed on a monthly rate 

of $2,000, which was $250 higher than the highest end properties revealed in the research. 

Notably, the Complaint points out that Zillow’s rent estimating tool predicts a fair market value 

for the Residence of $1,875.2

 This price was lower than the rate that was actually paid. The 

$1,875 estimate also reflects a 2023 price and therefore incorporates inflation between April 

2022 and February 2023.3

 The Department of Housing and Urban development estimated that 

rent in Ingham County, Michigan on a four-bedroom apartment rose roughly 12.5% between 

2022 and 2023.4 So the Complaint’s figure of $1,875 would likely have been substantially lower 

in April 2022. In addition, as of April 2023, Zillow’s rent estimating tool predicts a rate of 

$1,749, $151 per month less than the price cited in the Complaint.5

Finally, a current search of Zillow reveals the price the Hollisters charged to still be reasonable. 

A search for comparable two-bedroom and two-bathroom properties for rent in Lansing and East 

Lansing in in May 2023 reveals results ranging from $850 to $1,915 per month.6

 The $2,000 rent 

that the Hollisters charged would remain at the top of the market even a year later. 

Moreover, nearby properties that are larger than the Residence have been listed with comparable 

prices (even in 2023 dollars). For example, a furnished three-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment 

that is just a four-minute drive from the Residence was recently listed for $1,900.7

 A furnished 

four-bedroom two-and-a-half-bathroom apartment that is a 10-minute drive from the residence 

was recently listed for $2,000.8 Notably, both properties are furnished—something the 

Complaint claims could lead to a “reasonable and moderate rent increase of 30%.”9

The evidence, and Complainant’s own estimates, demonstrate that the rent Rep. Slotkin paid 

reflected a reasonable fair market value. 

LEGAL DISCUSSION 

This is a simple FEC complaint. All of the legal claims in the Complaint rest absolutely on the 

faulty allegation that the Hollisters rented the Residence to Rep. Slotkin at below fair market value, 

2

 Compl. at ¶ 26. 

3

 Compl. at ¶ 26. 

4 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, The FY 

2023 Lansing-East Lansing, MI HUD Metro FMR Area FMRs for All Bedroom Sizes, Exhibit A (Showing rent at 

the 40th percentile rising from $1,269 in 2022 to $1,428 in 2023). 5 See Exhibit B. 6

 See Exhibit C. 

7

 See Exhibit D. 

8

 See Exhibit E. 

9

 Compl. at ¶ 53. 

MUR811300033
-3- 

for less than the usual and normal charge. In Count I, the Complaint alleges that the supposedly 

below-market rent constituted an in-kind contribution for Rep. Slotkin’s personal use. In Count II, 

the Complaint claims that these so-called in-kind contributions constitute an excessive contribution 

from Jerry Hollister—one of the co-owners of the Residence. In Count III, Complainant accuses 

Respondents of failing to accurately report the alleged in-kind contribution on their filings to the 

Commission. However, because Rep. Slotkin did not, in fact, pay less than the usual and normal 

charge for her home, each claim is entirely meritless. Complainant has failed to provide the 

Commission any reason to believe Respondents have violated the act. 

A. The Complaint does not establish any in-kind contributions from the Hollisters 

Commission regulations state that when goods or services are “provided at less than the usual 

and normal charge, the amount of the in-kind contribution is the difference between the usual 

and normal charge for the goods or services at the time of the contribution and the amount 

charged the political committee.”10 In this case, the price of the rental was within the range of the 

“usual and normal” charge, therefore no in-kind contribution occurred.11

The $2,000 per month rental price that Rep. Slotkin paid represents a fair market value for the 

Residence; the amount paid was not less than the usual and normal charge. The Complaint’s only 

basis to allege that Rep. Slotkin paid less than the usual and normal charge for her residence was 

an untimely estimate from Zillow, which it then had to multiply by 30% to get it over the rate 

that Rep. Slotkin actually paid. This multiplication factor was itself based wholly off of a single 

blog post, having nothing to do with the Residence or even rental properties in Lansing, 

Michigan generally. This kind of baseless speculation cannot serve as the basis for an FEC 

complaint. In reality, the parties to the lease intentionally based the price off of comparable other 

properties in Lansing, Michigan they found available at the time. Moreover, as detailed above, 

even current comparable prices in Lansing for furnished apartments (after a year of inflation), as 

well as larger homes, are still less than the amount Rep. Slotkin paid in 2022. 

Count I of the Complaint alleges that Rep. Slotkin and the Campaign converted campaign funds 

to the personal use of the candidate.12 As explained above, Rep. Slotkin paid the fair market value 

to rent the Residence, therefore there was no in-kind contribution to convert to personal use. There 

is no other allegation or alternative basis to this claim to consider. As the Complaint acknowledges, 

“campaign funds are not believed to have been withdrawn from the Campaign’s bank account to 

pay for Slotkin’s rental personal residence,” and indeed they were not.13 

Count III of the complaint alleges that Rep. Slotkin and the Campaign failed to report in-kind 

contributions from Jerry Hollister related to the Residence. As the discussion above has made 

clear, there were no in-kind contributions associated with the rental payments, therefore there were 

10 11 CFR 100.52(d)(1) (emphasis added). 

11 See e.g. MUR 7961 (LOU PAC), Factual and Legal Analysis at 9-10 (“However, LOU PAC and Barletta assert 

that pursuant to the lease, the monthly payments were $2,200 per month, which was fair market value”). 

12 Compl. at ¶ 30. 

13 Compl. at ¶ 39. 

MUR811300034
-4- 

no in-kind contributions to report. There is no reason for the Commission to believe the basis for 

Count III. 

B. The Complaint Fails to Demonstrate Excessive Contributions

Count II of the Complaint alleges Jerry Hollister made excessive contributions to the Campaign in 

the form of in-kind contributions, and Rep. Slotkin and the Campaign accepted such excessive 

contributions.14 As explained above, all rent payments for the residence reflected the fair market 

value, so the Hollisters did not make any in-kind contributions to Rep. Slotkin related to such 

payments. 

However, even if the Commission were to accept the Complaint’s wholly baseless numbers as 

true, these figures still do not result in an excessive contribution. The Complaint claims that the 

“true” monthly fair market value for rent of the Residence was $2,600.15 It arrives at this inflated 

figure through misleading calculations, and yet still fails to allege an excessive contribution. 

To calculate its fair market value estimate, Complainant applied a 30% increase to a rental price 

because the property was furnished.16 The Complaints arrives at a 30% increase for a furnished 

long-term rental by cherry-picking figures from a single, dubious blog post.17 But even assuming 

that a 30% charge is reasonable, Complainant arrives at its “fair market value” estimate by 

applying that 30% increase to the $2,000 price that the Hollisters negotiated with Rep. Slotkin.18

However, that $2,000 price already accounted for the fact that the apartment had furnishings. 

Complainant even concedes that the $2,000 price was above the 2023 median price and that 

Zillow’s estimate for the rental price was just $1,875.19 In an effort to exaggerate the fair market 

value of the rental, Complainant double counted the charge for furnishings. In reality, $2,000 was 

a reasonable fair market rental price for the Residence, and Complainant’s attempts to increase 

that price fail to pass muster. 

14 Compl. at ¶ 45. 

15 Compl. at ¶¶ 39, 42. 

16 Id. 17 The Complaint’s only source of authority to justify applying a 30% increase was a blog post claiming that 

furnished rentals could result in a 15% to 20% increase in price, or “even 30%” (or even 400% for certain short-term 

rentals). See Compl. at ¶ 52 citing Chris Lee, Best Ways to Increase Rent: Furnished Rental Apartments, 

landlordgurus.com (Sept. 23, 2022), https://landlordgurus.com/best-ways-to-increase-rent-furnished-rentalapartments/. Clicking the links in the very sentence quoted in the Complaint brings a reader to a different blog post 

that states “[o]n average, landlords can typically charge 15 to 20 percent more for a furnished long-term rental.” See 

Apartments.com, Furnished vs. Unfurnished Rental: Pros and Cons for Landlords (Jan. 5, 2021), 

https://www.apartments.com/rental-manager/resources/property-management/furnished-vs-unfurnished-rental-prosand-cons-landlords. That second blog post goes on to explain that “[f]or a furnished short-term rental, landlords can 

typically charge 40 to 50 percent more,” but that “a short-term rental is usually a few weeks or a month, which 

includes vacation rentals.” Id. The Residence does not meet this definition of a short-term rental. Complainant 

ignores the “typical” increase for a furnished long-term rental of 15% to 20% and instead opted to apply a 30% 

increase. 

18 Compl. at ¶ 54 n. 30. 

19 Compl. at ¶ 54 n. 30. 

MUR811300035
-5- 

Using its exaggerated price estimate, Complainant claims that Jerry Hollister made an excessive 

contribution to the Campaign for the primary election.20 Complainant alleges that Mr. Hollister’s 

total contributions were $3,625, exceeding the $2,900 per election limit by $725.21 Jerry Hollister 

donated $1,225 to Rep. Slotkin during the primary, so the total in-kind alleged in the complaint is 

$2,400.22 Complainant concedes that Mr. Hollister did not make an excess contribution for the 

general election, even using the Complaint’s estimate of fair market value.23

However, Jerry Hollister co-owns the Residence with his wife, Kathy Hollister—a fact that the 

Complaint acknowledges but then fails to incorporate into its analysis.24 The Complaint chose to 

attribute the full amount of the alleged in-kind to Jerry Hollister. Yet, as a co-owner of the property 

who was even named in the lease, any in-kind contribution would be equally allocable to Kathy 

Hollister. The Commission addressed this issue in Advisory Opinion 1995-08 where it advised a 

candidate that charging his committee a discount to rent a property that was co-owned by the his 

spouse would “be an in-kind contribution from your spouse and you.” 25 The Commission 

explained to the candidate that “half of the difference between the amount of rent paid by your 

committee and the usual and normal charge for the rent will be a contribution from your spouse.”26

Therefore, even if the Commission credited the Complainant’s inflated rental price, the in-kind 

contribution would total $1,200 per owner, not $2,400 from Mr. Hollister alone. Jerry Hollister 

would have donated $2,425 in the primary election—less than the individual contribution limit of 

$2,900 per election.27

The Complaint concocts a misleading formula that overstates the potential value of the Residence, 

but then fails to show an excessive contribution even if the Commission agrees with its approach. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, there is no reason to believe that Respondents violated the Act and the 

Commission should dismiss this matter against Respondents immediately. 

Very truly yours, 

Graham Wilson 

Maxwell Schechter 

Counsel to Respondents

20 Compl. at ¶ 57. 

21 Compl. at ¶ 57. 

22 Compl. at ¶ 28. 

23 Compl. at ¶ 57 n. 32. 

24 Compl. at ¶¶ 9, 19 n. 4. 

25 Fed. Elect. Comm’n, Adv. Op. 1995-08 (Stupack) at 3. 

26 Id. 27 86 Fed. Reg. 7867, published February 2, 2021. 

MUR811300036
Exhibit A 

MUR811300037
MUR811300038
MUR811300039
MUR811300040
MUR811300041
Exhibit B 

MUR811300042
MUR811300043
Exhibit C 

MUR811300044
MUR811300045
MUR811300046
Exhibit '

MUR811300047
MUR811300048
Exhibit (

MUR811300049
MUR811300050