FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Washington, DC 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

VoteVets and Rick Hegdahl in his ) MUR 7700 

 official capacity as treasurer ) 

Win the Era PAC (formerly Pete for ) 

 America) and Ed Jordanich in his ) 

 official capacity as treasurer ) 

Michael Halle ) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. DICKERSON, 

COMMISSIONER SEAN J. COOKSEY, COMMISSIONER JAMES E. “TREY” 

TRAINOR, III, AND COMMISSIONER ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB 

The complaint in this matter alleged coordination between a candidate and a super PAC 

via a tweet. The theory of the complaint is that the tweet by a senior official for the candidate’s 

committee constituted a request or suggestion that brought later advertising by the super PAC 

under the Commission’s coordination regulations. The candidate and the super PAC both deny 

coordinating. The PAC points out that it was already supporting the candidate and that its 

advertising both before and after the tweet sounded similar themes. But the fatal flaw in the 

complaint’s theory is simple: The Commission stated at the time it issued its coordination 

regulation, and confirmed in subsequent enforcement decisions, that the request or suggestion 

standard is meant to cover requests to select audiences, not statements to the general public. And 

there are few more public ways for a campaign to communicate than by campaign officials 

putting out statements on Twitter. 

Specifically, the complaint alleged that Pete for America (the “Committee,” now called 

Win the Era PAC), the principal campaign committee of 2020 presidential candidate Pete 

Buttigieg, through its agent Michael Halle, requested or suggested that VoteVets create and air 

pro-Buttigieg television advertisements in Nevada. The allegations center around a tweet from 

Halle that stated: “Pete’s military experience and closing message from Iowa work everywhere 

especially in Nevada where it’s critical they see this on the air through the caucus.”1

 According 

to the Complaint, VoteVets, a multicandidate, hybrid political committee, responded to the tweet 

by spending $639,000 to produce and air television advertisements, which it reported as 

independent expenditures. 

1 Compl. ¶ 10 (Feb. 18, 2020). 

MUR770000127
MUR 7700 (VoteVets, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 2 of 5 

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) prohibits any 

person from making, and any candidate or committee from knowingly accepting, an excessive 

contribution.2

 A multicandidate committee, such as VoteVets, may contribute from its federal 

account to a candidate and his or her authorized committee up to $5,000 per election.3

Under Commission regulations, a communication is coordinated with a candidate, an 

authorized committee, a political party committee, or their agent if it: (1) is paid for, in whole or 

in part, by a person other than the candidate or committee (the “payment prong”); (2) satisfies at 

least one of the content standards set out at 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(c) (the “content prong”); and (3) 

satisfies at least one of the conduct standards set out at 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d) (the “conduct 

prong”).4 All three prongs are required for a communication to be considered a coordinated 

communication under these regulations.5 Payments made for coordinated communications are inkind contributions to the candidate or committee with which the communication was 

coordinated.6

 In this matter, the analysis as to whether coordination occurred turned on the 

conduct prong, specifically whether Halle’s tweet constituted a “request or suggestion,” for the 

purposes of the coordination regulations, to VoteVets that it create and disseminate the 

advertisements at issue. 

In 2003, when the Commission issued its Explanation and Justification on Coordinated 

and Independent Expenditures, the Commission explained that a request or suggestion is the 

“most direct form of coordination” whereby “the candidate or political party committee 

communicates desires to another person who effectuates them,” and that the determination of 

whether a third party acted in response to a request or suggestion must be “based on specific 

facts, rather than presumed.”7

 The Commission further elaborated that the standard “is intended 

to cover requests or suggestions made to a select audience, but not those offered to the public 

generally.”8

 For example, “a request that is posted on a web page that is available to the general 

public is a request to the general public and does not trigger the [request or suggestion] conduct 

standard,” but an email to a discrete group of recipients would meet the standard.9 

Consistent with this guidance, the Commission dismissed a matter where an authorized 

committee published a “Notice” page on its public website that contained a list of specific 

messages about the candidate and her opponents, specified who needed to know them (e.g., 

“[v]oters in Philadelphia”), and offered a general sense of timing (e.g., “[a]t this point of the 

2 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a), (f); 11 C.F.R. §§ 110.1(b)(1), 110.9. 

3 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(2). Committee treasurers are required to disclose the identification of each political 

committee that makes a contribution to the reporting committee during the reporting period, along with the date and 

amount of any such contribution. Id. § 30104(b)(3)(B); 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a). If a committee makes a contribution, it 

shall disclose the name and address of the recipient. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(6)(B)(i); 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b). 

4 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(a). 

5 Id. § 109.21(a). 

6 Id. § 109.21(b)(1). 

7 Coordinated and Independent Expenditures, 68 Fed. Reg. 421, 431-32 (Jan. 3, 2003). 

8 Id. at 432. 

9 Id.

MUR770000128
MUR 7700 (VoteVets, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 3 of 5 

campaign”).10 Similarly, the Commission has found no reason to believe that a violation of the 

Act occurred when an authorized committee posted a message and related documents on its 

public website with information on the candidate and allegations about her opponent, which the 

complaint had argued were “requests and suggestions” for an outside group that allegedly 

distributed a television advertisement based on the posted message.11 We did not see a pertinent 

distinction between those fact patterns and the one at issue here. Moreover, the tweet itself is 

ambiguous. For instance, it could have been a generalized call for other independent Buttigieg 

supporters to get off the sidelines and full-throatedly support the candidate ahead of the Nevada 

caucuses. It could also be interpreted as a statement forecasting the Committee’s intentions for 

its own advertising in Nevada, rather than a request for someone else’s spending. 

When the tweet at issue in this matter was published, VoteVets had already reported 

approximately $610,000 in independent expenditures supporting Buttigieg.12 One ad, which ran 

prior to the Iowa caucuses, highlights Buttigieg’s military service and states that he will “turn the 

page on our divisive politics to a new era, where everyone belongs.”13 A second ad, which aired 

the day that Halle issued his tweet, features New Hampshire-based veterans who state that the 

country is “more divided than I’ve ever seen it,” praise Buttigieg’s military experience, and state 

that he “reminds us of what we can be as a country, if we just work together.”14 

In the run-up to the Nevada caucuses (after Halle’s tweet), VoteVets made pro-Buttigieg 

independent expenditures of approximately $639,000 for television ads directed at Nevada.15 

VoteVets’s Response identifies its Nevada ad as “Sunrise.”16 The ad features a Nevada veteran, 

10 Factual and Legal Analysis at 1-2, 4-5, MUR 7124 (Katie McGinty for Senate, et al.). 

11 Factual and Legal Analysis at 2-3, MUR 6821 (Shaheen for Senate, et al.). 

12 VoteVets also reported an additional $809,404 in pro-Buttigieg independent expenditures on February 5, 

2020, apparently several hours after the tweet. VoteVets, 24-Hour Report of Independent Expenditures at 1 (Jan. 25, 

2020), https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/440/202001259167367440/202001259167367440.pdf; VoteVets, 24-Hour 

Report of Independent Expenditures at 1 (Feb. 5, 2020), https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/

791/202002059186470791/202002059186470791.pdf. VoteVets’s monthly reporting indicated that all of these 

disbursements related to the New Hampshire primary. VoteVets, 2020 February Monthly Report at 69 (Feb. 19, 

2020), https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/081/202002199186542081/202002199186542081.pdf; VoteVets, 2020 March 

Monthly Report at 128, 140 (Mar. 20, 2020), https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/654/202003

209204669654/202003209204669654.pdf. 

13 VoteVets Resp. at 5 n.12 (Mar. 30, 2020) (citing VoteVets, “Together” 2020, YOUTUBE (Apr. 6, 2020), 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBm9o0dlohg). 

14 Id. at 5 n.12 (citing VoteVets, Divided America 2020, YOUTUBE (Apr. 6, 2020), https://www.youtube.com

/watch?v=poYRx77IaOs). 

15 VoteVets, Amended 24-Hour Report of Independent Expenditures at 1 (Feb. 20, 2020), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/323/202002209186573323/202002209186573323.pdf (disclosing a February 12, 2020, 

payment or obligation to Kate Nelson Media, LLC, of $600,000 for a “TV Advertising Buy” and a February 13, 

2020, payment or obligation to 76 Words of $39,652.90 for “TV Advertising Production”). 

16 VoteVets Resp. at 2 n.3 (citing VoteVets, Sunrise 2020 Anamorphic, YOUTUBE (Apr. 6, 2020)), 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Rjf47Ssig. 

MUR770000129
MUR 7700 (VoteVets, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 4 of 5 

who praises Buttigieg’s military experience and states that Buttigieg will “turn the page on all 

this division and hate. One team, one America. Pete’s the one who can do it.”17

VoteVets specifically and repeatedly denied that its advertising was in any way 

influenced by the tweet. The Complaint contended that the tweet was directed to VoteVets 

because it was “the only super PAC or other outside group making significant independent 

expenditures supporting Buttigieg at the time, and therefore the only group that could reasonably 

be expected to follow through on the request or suggestion.”18 But the fact that VoteVets’ 

Nevada advertising was consistent with its previous advertising supports rather than contradicts 

its assertion of independence. As the VoteVets response details: 

The Advertisement is substantially similar to the previous two 

television advertisements disseminated by VoteVets – featuring a 

local veteran and/or discussing Buttigieg’s military service and 

unifying vision for the country. 

. . . [A]t the time of the Advertisement, Nevada was the next state 

to vote in the Democratic Party’s nominating process. VoteVets 

simply did not need to be told by a campaign official’s public 

tweet or by anyone else, to know that the organization should start 

running ads in Nevada after New Hampshire voted in its primary 

election. Mr. Halle’s tweet was not material to VoteVets’ 

messaging, targeting, or spending in any way.19

The complaint also cited to a Politico article, from the same day that Halle published his 

tweet, that quoted Committee spokesperson Chris Meagher as stating, “Pete is the only candidate 

who isn’t a millionaire or billionaire. And if the largest progressive veterans group wants to help 

spread the word about his service, we welcome it.”20 The article also quoted VoteVets Chairman 

Jon Soltz as stating that VoteVets “cannot and do[es] not coordinate our ads with the campaign 

in any way.”21 The record does not contain any indications of direct communications between 

VoteVets and Halle. And, even assuming arguendo that the Politico quote may hit closer to the 

mark, there is insufficient additional information to determine how the quote related to the tweet, 

if at all. There is no basis to conclude that Meagher was confirming that the tweet was intended 

for VoteVets (as opposed to, for instance, merely expressing gratitude for independent support). 

Ultimately, the factual record in this matter closely resembled the factual records in other 

matters where allegations of coordination centered around publicly available internet materials. 

Consistent with those matters, we voted to find no reason to believe that Respondents violated 

17 Id.; see also Compl. ¶ 12. 

18 Compl. ¶¶ 9, 27. 

19 VoteVets Response, at 6 (emphasis original). 

20 Elena Schneider, Buttigieg Camp Invites More Super PAC Help, POLITICO, Feb. 5, 2020, https://www.

politico.com/news/2020/02/05/buttigieg-super-pac-111217 (cited at Compl. ¶ 11 n.12). 

21 Id. 

MUR770000130
MUR 7700 (VoteVets, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons 

Page 5 of 5 

the Act and Commission regulations in connection with VoteVets’ advertisements supporting 

Buttigieg. 

_______________________ __________________________ 

Date Allen J. Dickerson 

Chairman 

_______________________ __________________________ 

Date Sean J. Cooksey 

Commissioner 

_______________________ __________________________ 

Date James E. “Trey” Trainor, III 

Commissioner 

_______________________ __________________________ 

Date Ellen L. Weintraub 

Commissioner 

April 29, 2022

April 29, 2022

April 29, 2022

April 29, 2022

MUR770000131