BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

MUR: 8091 

Harwell PAC 

Government Of The People PAC 

RESPONSE 

 Comes now Debra Y. Maggart, denies all allegations raised in the complaints in MUR 

8091, and makes the following response to the Federal Election Commission (“Commission”) 

with respect to all complaints alleged in MUR 8091: 

Background 

1. Debra Y. Maggart serves as the Treasurer of Government Of The People (“GOTP”) PAC. 

2. GOTP PAC was registered with the Federal Election Commission on July 20, 2022 as an 

Independent Expenditure-Only Political Committee (“IEOPC”), and from its inception, 

Debra Y. Maggart has served as its Treasurer. 

3. During the period of July 1, 2022 through November 28, 2022, GOTP PAC raised a total 

of $123,250.00 from fifteen (15) contributors. 

4. During the period of July 1, 2022 through November 28, 2022, GOTP PAC disbursed a 

total of $118,219.50. Disbursements were directed to three entities. 

5. During the period of July 1, 2022 through November 28, 2022, GOTP PAC’s 

disbursements were primarily directed in support of Beth Harwell, a candidate for the 

United States House of Representatives (TN-05), and in opposition to Andy Ogles, also a 

candidate for the United States House of Representatives (TN-05). 

6. Debra Y. Maggart neither is the Treasurer of the other Committees referred to in MUR 

8091, nor does she have any involvement or communication with those Committees. 

GOTP PAC is an IEOPC and has not operated in coordination with a candidate or candidate 

committee 

7. Pursuant to 11 CFR 109.20, the Commission has developed a three-pronged test to 

determine if coordinated communications have occurred with respect to a particular 

Committee’s activities. 

MUR809100018
8. The first prong of the Coordinated Communications Test concerns payment. 11 CFR 

109.21(a)(I) requires that a communication be paid for in whole or in part by a person or a 

committee other than the candidate, the candidate’s authorized committee or the political 

party committee with whom the communication is coordinated. In this instance, GOTP 

PAC made disbursements between July 1, 2022 and November 28, 2022 and GOTP PAC 

is not the candidate or the candidate’s authorized committee. 

9. The second prong of the Coordinated Communications Test concerns content. In this 

instance, GOTP PAC made disbursements for the explicit support of Beth Harwell and the 

explicit opposition to Any Ogles. 

10. The third prong of the Coordinated Communications Test concerns conduct. When one of 

the five conduct standards is satisfied and the first two prongs of the Coordinated 

Communications Test are also satisfied, the Commission finds the communication to be 

coordinated with the result that the communication is deemed an in-kind contribution to 

the candidate’s committee rather than an independent expenditure. 

a. If the person creating, producing or distributing the communication does so at the 

request or suggestion of a candidate, the candidate’s authorized committee, political 

party committee or an agent of any of these, the conduct prong will be satisfied. In 

the present instance, the person(s) creating, producing or distributing the 

communication on behalf of GOTP PAC had no interaction with, no request from, 

and no suggestion from the candidate or any of the candidate’s agents regarding the 

communications. 

b. If a candidate, candidate committee, political party committee or an agent of any of 

these was “materially involved in decisions” regarding certain aspects of a public 

communication paid for by someone else, it will be deemed a coordinated 

communication. In the present instance, neither the candidate, the candidate’s 

committee, nor an agent of any of these made had no material involvement in any 

decisions related to the communications. In fact, the candidate and the candidate’s 

committee had absolutely no involvement or communications with GOTP PAC or 

the vendors producing involved in the disbursements. 

c. A communication meets the substantial discussion conduct test if a communication 

is created, produced or distributed after one or more substantial discussions 

between the candidate and/or the candidate’s committee and the person paying for 

the communication. In the present instance, there were absolutely no substantial 

discussions between GOTP PAC or its vendors and the candidate or the candidate’s 

committee or its agents. 

d. If a common vendor is used between the candidate or the candidate’s committee 

and the person paying for the communication, it will satisfy the employment of a 

common vendor conduct test. In the present instance, common vendors were not 

utilized for the GOTP PAC disbursements. 

MUR809100019
e. Finally, communications paid for by a person who has previously been an employee 

or an independent contractor of the candidate clearly identified in the 

communication will satisfy the former employee/independent contractor conduct 

test. In the present instance, GOTP PAC disbursements were authorized by the 

Treasurer who is not a former employee or independent contractor of the candidate 

or the candidate’s committee. 

11. While the GOTP PAC disbursements meet the first two prongs of the Coordinated 

Communications test, none of the specified conduct tests in the third prong of the test have 

been satisfied. As a result, there was no coordinated communications involved in the 

disbursements from GOTP PAC. 

Contributions received by IEOPCs. 

12. Consistent with Citizen’s United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 

599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the Commission has recognized that “IEOPCs may solicit 

and accept unlimited contributions from corporations, labor organizations, political 

committees and individuals, but must follow the Act’s registration and reporting 

requirements.” Advisory Op. 2011-12. 

13. Key to an IEOPCs status in soliciting and accepting unlimited contributions is the 

prohibition on IEOPCs coordinating communications or making contributions to federal 

candidate committees. 

14. Additionally, while 52 U.S.C. 30125(e)(1) places certain restrictions on candidates for 

federal office and their ability to “solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in 

connection with an election for Federal office, including funds for any Federal election 

activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 

requirements of this Act...”, the restrictions are not similarly placed on IEOPCs. 

15. GOTP PAC has properly registered, reported and complied with all aspects of the Act. It 

is permitted to accept unlimited contributions from corporations, labor organizations, 

political committees and individuals, which it has done. 

16. Because GOTP PAC has not coordinated with any candidate or candidate committee, all 

of its disbursements have been properly categorized as independent expenditures as 

reflected in GOTP PAC’s reporting to the Commission. 

CONCLUSION 

17. GOTP PAC has operated as an IEOPC during all relevant times, and has accepted 

unlimited contributions as permitted by federal law. 

18. GOTP PAC has made disbursements independently and with no coordinated 

communication with any candidate or candidate committee. 

MUR809100020
19. GOTP PAC believes it has complied with all aspects of the Act, and has properly 

registered and reported on its operations with the Commission. 

Prayer for Relief 

Based on the foregoing, GOTP PAC respectfully requests that the Commission review this 

response and dismiss MUR 8091 and the underlying complaints thereto with no further action. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 Ronnie L. Miller 

 Frost Brown Todd LLP 

 

Attorney for Government Of The People 

PAC 

MUR809100021