1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

2 

3 FIRST GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT

4 

5 MUR 8091 

6 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: Nov. 15, 2022 

7 DATE OF NOTIFICATIONS: Nov. 22, 2022 

8 LAST RESPONSE RECEIVED: Mar. 31, 2023 

9 DATE ACTIVATED: June 2. 2023 

10 

11 EXPIRATION OF SOL: July 22, 2027– 

12 Aug. 4, 2027 

13 ELECTION CYCLE: 2022 

14 

15 

16 COMPLAINANT: Campaign Legal Center

17 

18 RESPONDENTS: Beth Harwell

19 Beth Harwell (House 18) 

20 Tennesseans for Good State Government 

21 Government of the People and Debra Y. Maggart in 

22 her official capacity as treasurer

23 

24 RELEVANT STATUTES

25 AND REGULATIONS: 52 U.S.C. § 30125 

26 11 C.F.R. § 100.5 

27 11 C.F.R. § 110.3 

28 11 C.F.R. § 300.2 

29 11 C.F.R. § 300.61 

30 11 C.F.R. § 300.62 

31 

32 INTERNAL REPORTS CHECKED: Disclosure Reports 

33 

34 FEDERAL AGENCIES CHECKED: None 

35 

36 STATE AGENCIES CHECKED: 

37 

38 I. INTRODUCTION

On July 22, 2022, Beth Harwell (House 18) (the “State Committee”),1 39 a Tennessee 

40 single-candidate committee established by former member of the Tennessee House of 

1 The Complaint makes allegations against the “Beth Harwell Committee.” Compl. at 1, 5-6 (Nov. 15, 

2022). It appears that the legal name of that committee is Beth Harwell (House 18). See Search Reports, TENN.

ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search for “Harwell” and select the 

MUR809100036
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 2 of 25

1 Representatives and 2022 Congressional candidate Beth Harwell, contributed $35,000 to 

2 Government of the People (“GOTP”), an independent expenditure-only political committee. 

That same day, Tennesseans for Good State Government (the “State PAC”),2 3 a Tennessee state 

4 political committee also established by Harwell, contributed $12,000 to GOTP. 

5 The Complaint asserts that the State Committee and the State PAC are entities 

6 established, financed, maintained or controlled (“EFMC’d”) by Harwell, a federal candidate, and 

7 that their contributions to GOTP included funds that were not subject to the Act’s limitations, 

8 prohibitions, and reporting requirements (“nonfederal funds”) which were then spent supporting 

9 Harwell’s federal candidacy and opposing her primary election opponent. As a result, the 

10 Complaint alleges, Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC violated the soft money 

11 provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), by directing 

12 or transferring nonfederal funds in connection with a federal election. Harwell, the State 

13 Committee, the State PAC, and GOTP deny violating the Act. 

14 For the reasons set forth below, the State Committee and the State PAC are entities 

15 EFMC’d by Harwell within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1). Accordingly, because the 

16 record indicates that the State Committee and the State PAC transferred nonfederal funds to 

17 GOTP in connection with an election for federal office, we recommend that the Commission find 

18 reason to believe that Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC violated 52 U.S.C. 

19 § 30125(e)(1)(A). We further recommend that the Commission find reason to believe GOTP, as

4th Quarter 2018 report for “Harwell (House 18), Beth”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing the same ending cash 

on hand as the “Harwell Committee” discussed in the joint response from Harwell, the State Committee, and the 

State PAC (the “Harwell Response”)). 

2 The State PAC was formerly called Harwell PAC but changed its name in 2017 to Tennesseans for Good 

State Government. Harwell Resp. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2023).

MUR809100037
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 3 of 25

1 an entity EFMC’d by Harwell, violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by receiving and spending 

2 those funds in connection with an election for federal office. Finally, we recommend that the 

3 Commission authorize pre-probable cause conciliation with Harwell, the State Committee, and 

4 the State PAC, and GOTP.

5 II. BACKGROUND

Beth Harwell is a former member of the Tennessee House of Representatives.3 6 She 

served as speaker from 2011 to 2018.4 7 The State Committee is a state-level single-candidate 

8 committee established to “support [Harwell’s] political undertakings as the leader of her party’s 

state house caucus.”5 9 The State Committee’s mailing addresses is Harwell’s home address, and 

its email address is “beth@bethharwell.com.”6 10 

11 The State PAC is a state-level multi-candidate committee established by Harwell in 

2006.7

 Harwell serves as President of the State PAC.8 12 Like the State Committee, the State 

13 PAC’s mailing address is Harwell’s home address and its email address is

“beth@bethharwell.com.”9 14 

3 Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

4

 House Archives 1870 to Present, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/ (last 

visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

5 Harwell Resp. at 1-2; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search 2018 1st Quarter Reports for “Harwell”).

6

 Search the Online Campaign Finance Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell” and select “Harwell (House 18), Beth”) (last 

visited Oct. 10, 2023); supra n. 3 (disclosing Harwell’s address). 

7 Harwell Resp. at 2.

8 Id.

9

 Search the Online Campaign Finance Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell” and select “Harwell (House 18), Beth”) (last 

visited Oct. 10, 2023); supra n. 3 (disclosing Harwell’s address). 

MUR809100038
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 4 of 25

1 On February 24, 2022, Harwell announced her federal candidacy to represent 

Tennessee’s newly-drawn 5th Congressional District.10 2 She filed her Statement of Candidacy 

the same day.

11 Her principal campaign committee is Harwell for Congress.12 3 Harwell lost the 

Republican primary election on August 4, 2022.13 4 

5 GOTP incorporated in Tennessee on July 13, 2022, and it registered with the 

Commission as an independent expenditure-only political committee on July 20, 2022.14 6 It 

received $35,000 from the State Committee on July 22, 2022.15 7 GOTP also received $12,000 

from the State PAC on July 22, 2022.16 8 Six days later, it reported spending $90,084 on 

9 independent expenditures supporting Hartwell or opposing her Republican primary election 

opponent Andy Ogles.17 10 GOTP reported additional independent expenditures of $19,475 on 

10 See Nate Rau, Beth Harwell Enters District 5 Congressional Race, AXIOS (Feb. 25, 2022), 

https://www.axios.com/local/nashville/2022/02/25/beth-harwell-enters-congressional-race-district-5. 

11 Beth Harwell, Statement of Candidacy at 1 (Feb. 24, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/060/202202249493674060/202202249493674060.pdf. 

12 Harwell for Congress, Statement of Org. at 1 (Feb. 24, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/051/202202249493674051/202202249493674051.pdf. 

13 STATE OF TENN., Republican Primary Results at 2 (Aug. 4, 2022), https://sos-prod.tnsosgovfiles.com/s3fspublic/document/20220804RepublicanPrimarybyCounty.pdf. 

14 Government of the People, Statement of Organization (July 20, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/588/202207209522341588/202207209522341588.pdf; Business Information Search, 

TENN. SEC’Y OF STATE, https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingSearch.aspx (search “Government of the People”)

(last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

15 Government of the People, Amended 2022 October Quarterly Report at 11 (Jan. 11, 2023), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/561/202301119574673561/202301119574673561.pdf; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search “Harwell” in “Annual Year End 

Supplemental” reports for 2022) (last visited Aug. 11, 2023) (showing $35,000 contribution to GOTP). 

16 Government of the People, Amended 2022 October Quarterly Report at 11 (Jan. 11, 2023), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/561/202301119574673561/202301119574673561.pdf; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm, (search “Tennesseans for Good State 

Government” in “Pre-Primary” reports for 2022) (last visited Aug. 11, 2023) (showing $12,000 contribution to 

GOTP). 

17 Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (July 28, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/507/202207289525071507/202207289525071507.pdf; Erik Schelzig, New Local 

MUR809100039
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 5 of 25

1 August 2, 2022, and $3,580 on August 4, 2022, again in support of Harwell or opposing Ogles, 

and did not make any more independent expenditures that election cycle.

18 2 For the 2022 election 

3 cycle, GOTP received $123,500 in total contributions from fifteen contributors and spent a total 

of $113,139.50 on independent expenditures, all of which supported Harwell or opposed Ogles.19 4 

5 Since August 31, 2022, GOTP has not received any contributions or made any expenditures and 

has $5,030.40 remaining cash on hand.20 6 

7 A. The Complaint

8 The Complaint asserts that Harwell was a federal candidate from February 2022 through 

the Tennessee primary election on August 4, 2022.21 9 The Complaint also states that the State 

10 Committee and the State PAC are entities EFMC’d by Harwell and that she directed the State 

Committee and State PAC to make contributions to GOTP on July 22, 2022.22 11 The Complaint 

12 further states that those contributions were comprised of nonfederal funds, which were then spent 

13 on independent expenditures supporting Harwell’s federal candidacy and opposing her primary 

opponent between July 27, 2022 and August 1, 2022.23 14 As a result, the Complaint alleges that 

SuperPAC Running Ads Supporting Harwell, THE TENN. JOURNAL (July 30, 2022), 

https://onthehill.tnjournal.net/new-super-pac-running-supporting-harwell/. 

18 Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (Aug. 4, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/188/202208049525120188/202208049525120188.pdf (reporting $3,580 on GOTV 

texts and GOTV calls); Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (Aug. 2, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/562/202208029525110562/202208029525110562.pdf (reporting $19,475 spent on 

broadcast TV and GOTV efforts). 

19 Government of the People: Financial Summary, FEC.GOV, 

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00821009/?tab=summary (last visited July 13, 2023). 

20 Id.

21 Compl. at 5.

22 Id. at 5-6.

23 Id. at 2-3, 5-6.

MUR809100040
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 6 of 25

1 Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by 

directing or transferring nonfederal funds in connection with a federal election.24 2 

3 B. The Responses

4 The Commission received a joint response from Harwell, the State Committee, and the 

5 State PAC, and a separate response from GOTP. The Harwell Response makes several 

6 arguments in support of its request that the Commission find no reason to believe. First, the 

7 Harwell Response contends that the State Committee and State PAC were not EFMC’d within 

8 the meaning of 52 U.S.C § 30125(e)(1) because the relationship between Harwell and the 

9 committees satisfies only two out of the ten affiliation factors set forth in the Commission’s 

regulatory definition of EFMC.25 10 Second, the Harwell Response argues that the State PAC’s 

11 contributions to GOTP consisted “primarily” of federal funds and that the State Committee’s 

contributions included “some” federal funds.26 12 Third, the Harwell Response cites MUR 7114 

13 (Casperson for Congress, et al.) and MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko, et al.) as examples of cases 

14 where the Commission has either voted to dismiss or voted to take no action and states that a 

different decision in this matter would be “unfair.”27 15 Fourth, the Harwell Response argues that 

16 if Harwell EFMC’d the State Committee and State PAC as alleged, enforcement would raise 

17 constitutional concerns because she would be both the donor and recipient (because the funds 

would support her own election), making a quid pro quo arrangement impossible.28 18 

24 Id.

25 See Harwell Resp. at 3-4 (citing Statement of Commissioner Lee E. Goodman on the “Established, 

Financed, Maintained or Controlled” Doctrine (Feb. 26, 2018)).

26 Id. at 4-5.

27 Id. at 5.

28 Id. at 5.

MUR809100041
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 7 of 25

1 The GOTP Response focuses on the issue of coordination and asserts that GOTP did not 

2 engage in any coordinated conduct as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d), and that no coordinated 

communication occurred as a result.29 3 GOTP further asserts that independent expenditure-only 

political committees are not subject to the provisions of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A).30 4 

5 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

6 

7 A. The Commission Should Find Reason to Believe that Respondents Violated

8 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A)

9 1. Legal Standard

10 

11 The Act and Commission regulations prohibit candidates, individuals holding Federal 

12 office, agents of a candidate or an individual holding Federal office, or an entity directly or 

13 indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by or acting on behalf of one or more 

14 candidates or individuals holding Federal office from “solicit[ing], receiv[ing], direct[ing], 

15 transfer[ing], or spend[ing] funds in connection with an election for Federal office, including 

16 funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, 

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.”31 17 

This prohibition reinforces 52 U.S.C § 30125(a)32 18 by preventing federal candidates and 

19 officeholders—who controlled the national committees of the political parties—from 

20 circumventing the prohibitions applying to national committees by controlling ostensibly 

separate entities that could accept and spend nonfederal funds.33 21 

29 GOTP Resp. at 2-3 (Dec. 16, 2022). 

30 Id. at 3.

31 52 U.S.C § 30125(e)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 300.61. 

32 See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 133 (2003) (“The remaining provisions of new FECA § 323 largely 

reinforce the restrictions in § 323(a)”).

33 See id. at 121, 133. 

MUR809100042
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 8 of 25

1 The Commission defines the phrase established, financed, maintained or controlled by 

2 examining a non-exhaustive list of ten affiliation factors set forth in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2). 

3 The factors “must be examined in the context of the overall relationship between the [candidate] 

4 and the entity to determine whether the presence of any factor or factors is evidence that the 

[candidate] directly or indirectly [EFMC’d] the entity.”34 5 The ten factors are:

6 (i) A controlling interest in an entity’s voting stock or securities;

7 (ii) Authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the entity,

8 “formal or informal;”

9 (iii) Authority or ability to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control an

10 entity’s officers or other decision-making employees or members;

11 (iv) Common or overlapping members with an entity;

12 (v) Common or overlapping officers or employees with an entity;

13 (vi) Having members, officers, or employees who were former members,

14 officers, or employees of an entity;

15 (vii) Providing an entity “funds or goods in a significant amount or on an

16 ongoing basis” such as through direct and indirect payments for

17 administrative, fundraising, or other costs;

18 (viii) Causing or arranging “funds or goods in a significant amount or on an

19 ongoing basis” to be provided to an entity;

20 (ix) Having “an active or significant role in the formation of an entity;”

(x) Similar patterns of receipts or disbursements with an entity.35 21 

34 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c); Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, Final 

Rules, 67 Fed. Reg. 49064, 49084 (July 29, 2002).

35 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c). In promulgating the rule which defines “EFMC,” the Commission “recast” the 

existing affiliation factors found at 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(g)(4)(ii) in order to apply the existing affiliation concepts in a 

different context. Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49064, 

49084 (July 29, 2002). Committees that are affiliated, that is, committees that are established, financed, maintained, 

or controlled by the same corporation, labor organization, person or group of persons, share a single limitation on 

the amount they can accept from any one contributor. 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.5(g), 110.3(a)(1), 110.3(a)(3)(ii).

MUR809100043
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 9 of 25

1 2. The State Committee and the State PAC are Entities EFMC’d by or Acting 

2 on Behalf of a Federal Candidate that Spent Nonfederal Funds in 

3 Connection with a Federal Election

4 

5 a. The State Committee and State PAC are EFMC’d by Harwell

6 The Commission has determined that a state campaign committee of a federal candidate 

is, as a matter of law, EFMC’d by the federal candidate and is acting on that candidate’s behalf.36 7 

8 Here, the acknowledged purpose of the State Committee was to support Harwell’s “political 

undertakings as the leader of her party’s state house caucus.”37 9 Structurally, the State Committee

10 resembles a leadership PAC which, at the federal level, is a political committee directly or 

indirectly EFMC’d by a federal candidate.38 11 Therefore, the State Committee should be 

12 considered EFMC’d by Harwell as a matter of law. 

13 The Harwell Response also acknowledges that Harwell established the State Committee 

in January 2017.39 14 And while the Commission provides for the possibility that the relationship 

15 between an entity established by a person before they become a candidate may later be severed, 

it does not appear that Harwell severed her relationship with the State Committee.

40 16 Harwell’s 

36 See Factual and Legal Analysis (“F&LA”) at 8, MUR 7853 (Lance Harris, et al.); F&LA at 6, MUR 7337 

(Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate); F&LA at 9, MUR 7246 (Buddy Carter for Congress, et al.); 

F&LA at 4, MUR 6985 (Zeldin for Senate, et al.); F&LA at 9, MUR 6601 (Oelrich for Congress); see also Advisory 

Opinion (“AO”) 2009-26 at 5 (Coulson); AO 2007-26 at 4 (Schock); AO 2007-01 at 3 (McCaskill).

37 Harwell Resp. at 2.

38 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(e)(6); F&LA at 2 n.4, MUR 6435 (Rep. Charles B. Rangel, et al.) (“Generally, 

leadership PACs are formed by individuals who are federal officeholders or candidates to raise funds that they in 

turn contribute ‘to other Federal candidates to gain support when the officeholder seeks a leadership position in 

Congress, or are used to subsidize the officeholder’s travel when campaigning for other Federal candidates.’”)

(quoting Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Leadership PACs, 67 Fed. Reg. 78,753, 78,754 (Dec. 26, 2002)). 

39 Harwell Resp. at 1.

40 A sponsor that has established an entity under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2) may request a Commission advisory 

opinion determining that the relationship between the sponsor and the entity has been severed. 11 C.F.R. 

§ 300.2(c)(4)(ii). Such an advisory opinion request must, among other things, “demonstrate that all material

connections between the sponsor and the entity have been severed for two years.” Id. The Commission’s

explanation and justification did note, however, that this provision does not require an “entity that has not directly or

indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled another entity to obtain a determination to that effect

MUR809100044
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 10 of 25

1 Response states that she “‘has the authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance 

2 of’ [the State Committee]” and “‘has the authority to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control 

the officers’ of [the State Committee].”41 3 Thus, the record shows that the relationship between 

4 Harwell and the State Committee has not been severed. Further, Harwell’s personal address and 

5 the State Committee’s physical address are the same and the State Committee’s email address is 

6 “beth@bethharwell.com,” which suggests that Harwell maintains material connections with the 

State Committee.

42 7 Finally, the name itself—the Beth Harwell Committee—at the very least, 

8 suggests that Harwell maintains material connections with the State Committee and that it is 

EFMC’d by Harwell and not by anyone else.43 9 

10 For many of the same reasons, the record also indicates that the State PAC is EFMC’d by 

Harwell. Like the State Committee, Harwell admittedly established the State PAC.44 11 And like 

before the two entities may operate independently of each other.” Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: NonFederal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49064, 49085 (July 29, 2002). 

41 Harwell Resp. at 4 (quoting 11 CFR § 300.2(c)(2)(ii), (iii)).

42 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(ii). Compare Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10, 

2023) (showing email address and physical address), with Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

43 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(ii). The evidentiary value of a committee’s inclusion of a candidate’s name in 

its own name was the subject of disagreement in MUR 7783 (Byron Donalds for Congress, et al.). In that matter, 

OGC recommended finding that Friends of Byron Donalds, a Florida state political committee established by federal 

candidate Byron Donalds in August 2019, was EFMC’d by Donalds at the time it spent nonfederal funds on June 22, 

2020 because the committee (1) never changed its name after Donalds resigned as chairman; (2) continued to 

display Donalds on its website along with the statement that it “associated” with Donalds; and (3) spent almost all of 

its funds supporting Donalds’ federal candidacy. See First Gen. Counsel’s Rpt. (“GCR”) at 11, MUR 7783 (Byron 

Donalds for Congress, et al.). The Commission split 3-3 on OGC’s recommendations and closed the file. 

Certification (“Cert.”) ¶¶ 1-3 (Apr. 26, 2022), MUR 7783 (Byron Donalds for Congress, et al.). In their statement of 

reasons, the Commissioners who voted against OGC’s recommendations stated that the committee’s name “would 

not affect whether Donalds exercised authority over the committee” and that there was no apparent rational 

connection between the committee’s inclusion of Donalds’ name and his decision-making power. Statement of 

Reasons (“SOR”) at 3, Comm’rs. Dickerson, Cooksey, and Trainor, III, MUR 7783 (Byron Donalds for Congress, et 

al.). Unlike the situation in MUR 7783, Harwell did not resign her position of authority with the State Committee or 

the State PAC prior to her federal candidacy. 

44 Harwell Resp. at 2.

MUR809100045
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 11 of 25

1 the State Committee, the fact that Harwell has authority or ability to direct or participate in the 

2 governance of the State PAC and has the authority or ability to hire, appoint, demote, or 

3 otherwise control the officers of the State PAC indicates that the relationship between Harwell 

and the State PAC has not been severed.

45 4 Indeed, Harwell remains President of the State PAC, 

a position that ordinarily indicates the ability to control an organization.46 5 And although the 

6 State PAC’s name is Tennesseans for Good State Government and no longer bears Harwell’s 

7 name, its contribution was reported by GOTP as being from Harwell PAC, which, like the Beth 

8 Harwell Committee suggests that the State PAC is EFMC’d by Harwell and not by someone 

else.47 9 At the very least, it is suggestive of GOTP’s understanding of the continuing material 

10 connections between Harwell and the State PAC. Finally, the fact that Harwell’s home address 

11 and the State PAC’s physical address are the same and that the State PAC’s email address is 

“beth@bethharwell.com” supports a conclusion that Harwell EFMC’d the State PAC.

48 12 

13 The Harwell Response makes a number of arguments in support of its view that neither 

14 the State Committee nor the State PAC are EFMC’d within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. 

15 § 30125(e)(1). These arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First, the Harwell

16 Response argues that a candidate or officeholder must “establish, finance, maintain, or control 

45 Id. at 4.

46 Id. 

47 The State PAC is also included in Tennessee’s Registry of Election Finance as “Harwell PAC.” See 

Harwell Resp. at 2 n.1; Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

48 Compare Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing email 

address and physical address), with Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

MUR809100046
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 12 of 25

the entity while the person is a federal candidate or officeholder.”49 1 But that interpretation 

2 conflicts with the reason for 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(i)-(ii). Moreover, the Commission has 

3 already rejected that view, insofar as the Commission has determined that a federal candidate’s 

4 state campaign committee is, as a matter of law, an EFMC’d entity. Indeed, the Commission has 

5 determined that a state officeholder’s state committee is an EFMC’d entity despite being formed 

long before their federal candidacy.50 6 In short, the State PAC and State Committee may still be 

7 considered EFMC’d by Harwell despite their formation prior to Harwell’s federal candidacy.

8 Next, the Harwell Response contends that an insufficient number of the factors listed in 

9 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c), the Commission’s regulation defining EFMC, were satisfied to establish 

10 that Harwell EFMC’d the committees. The Harwell Response acknowledges that Harwell’s 

11 relationship with the State Committee and State PAC satisfies two factors listed in section 

12 300.2(c): she has authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the State 

13 Committee and State PAC and has the authority or ability to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise 

control the officers of the State Committee and the State PAC.51 14 But the Harwell Response 

15 argues that Harwell’s authority with regard to the State Committee and State PAC is insufficient 

16 to find that she EFMC’d the committees because eight other factors listed in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c) 

are absent.52 17 Similar arguments were rejected by the Commission in both MUR 7337 (Debbie 

49 Harwell Resp. at 3 (emphasis in original) (quoting Statement of Commissioner Lee E. Goodman on the 

“Established, Financed, Maintained or Controlled” Doctrine (Feb. 26, 2018)).

50 See, e.g., F&LA at 2, 9, MUR 7246 (Buddy Carter for Congress, et al.) (state committee of Buddy Carter 

was established in 2009 but deemed an EFMC’d entity within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) despite his 

federal candidacy starting May 6, 2013); AO 2007-01 at 3 (McCaskill) (state committee of Claire McCaskill 

established in preparation for her 2002 re-election campaign for state auditor ruled to be an EFMC’d entity in 2007).

51 Harwell Resp. at 4 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(ii)-(iii)). There is no indication that Harwell did not also 

have such authority or ability while she was a federal candidate. 

52 Id. 

MUR809100047
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 13 of 25

Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate) and MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth).

53 1 By doing so, 

2 the Commission confirmed what it said during the soft money rulemaking: that the factors set 

forth in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c) address the four different statutory terms that comprise EFMC.

54 3 

4 Such an interpretation is consistent with the plain text of the Act, because it’s inclusion of the 

word “or” indicates that only one type of specified relationship is necessary.55 5 Here, Harwell’s 

6 establishment of the committees, her authority to direct or participate in the governance of the 

7 committees, and her authority to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control the officers of the 

8 committees is sufficient to find at this preliminary stage of administrative enforcement that she 

EFMC’d the committees within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1).56 9 

53 See F&LA at 7-8, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate) (finding EFMC based 

on financing despite respondents’ argument that “most of the [EFMC] factors do not apply to them”). Most 

recently, in MUR 7853 respondent Stand for Truth argued that the Commission must weigh all the factors listed in 

11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(i)–(x) before finding the Stand for Truth became EFMC’d as a result of accepting 

contributions from federal candidate Lance Harris’ state campaign committee. See Stand for Truth Resp. at 4 (Dec. 

28, 2020). The Commission nevertheless found reason to believe Stand for Truth became EFMC’d solely as a result 

of accepting funds in a significant amount from Harris’ state committee. See F&LA at 8-13, MUR 7853 (Stand for 

Truth). Stand for Truth made the same argument in response to the Commission’s reason to believe finding. See 

Stand for Truth Resp. at 2-3 (June 17, 2022). The Commission proceeded to conciliate with Stand for Truth. See 

Memorandum to the Commission & Attach. 1, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (May 3, 2023) & Cert. at ¶ 1, 

MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, et al.) (May 31, 2023) (accepting negotiated conciliation agreement). 

54 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Prohibited and Excessive Contributions; Non-Federal Funds or Soft 

Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 35654, 35658-59 (May 20, 2002) (“Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would focus on the 

establishment of entities . . . . Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would address financing of an entity . . . . Proposed 

paragraph (c)(1)(iv) would address the maintenance of an entity by a sponsor. . . Proposed paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and 

(c)(1)(vi) would go to control of an entity by a sponsor.”).

55 See F&LA at 3 n.10, MUR 6985 (Zeldin for Senate, et al.) (“[a]ny one of the four factors [i.e., EFMC] will 

suffice if it provides the basis for four or more Commissioners to find reason to believe.”); see also ANTONIN 

SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW at 116 (2012) (“Under the conjunctive/disjunctive canon, and 

combines items while or creates alternatives.”) (emphasis in original).

56 The Harwell Response argues that Harwell did not “exercise control” over the State Committee and State 

PAC and was not involved in the committees’ activities “in any significant way” since 2018. Harwell Resp. at 3, 

Ex. A (Decl. of Beth Harwell). But the Commission’s regulatory definition speaks in terms of a sponsor’s authority 

or ability to direct or participate in an entity’s governance and the sponsor’s authority or ability to hire, appoint, 

demote, or otherwise control an entity’s officers, other decision-making employees or members, not whether a 

sponsor exercised that authority or ability on a particular occasion. See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(ii)-(iii). 

MUR809100048
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 14 of 25

1 b. The State Committee and State PAC Transferred Nonfederal Funds in 

2 Connection with a Federal Election

3 As entities EFMC’d by Harwell, any funds the State Committee and State PAC solicited, 

4 received, directed, transferred, or spent in connection with a federal election after Harwell 

5 became a federal candidate were required to be federally permissible and subject to the Act’s 

reporting provisions.57 6 

7 The State Committee and State PAC’s disclosure reports (Attachments 1 and 2 to this

8 Report) reveal that they accepted nonfederal funds. Since its establishment in 2017, the State 

9 Committee received $63,100 in contributions from the following sources: $54,200 from 

10 corporate PACs, $8,000 directly from corporations, $500 from the committee of former 

Nashville mayor Megan Barry, and $400 from two individuals.58 11 The State PAC last received 

contributions in 2018.59 12 The State PAC’s total individual contributions received in 2018 total 

$118,000, of which $84,700 (71.7%) exceeded the Act’s amount limitations.60 13 The State PAC 

also received a $143,500 loan from Sam Harwell (Beth Harwell’s spouse) on July 31, 2018.61 14 

The entire amount of the loan remains outstanding.62 15 If the loan is considered a contribution, 

16 86.1% of the State PAC’s individual contributions since January 2018 exceeded the Act’s 

17 amount limitations. 

57 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

58 See Attachment 1 (showing the State Committee’s receipts); Attachment 2 (showing the State PAC’s 

receipts).

59 Resp. at 2.

60 See Attachment 2 (showing the State PAC’s 2018 receipts). 

61 Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm

(search “Tennesseans for Good State Government” in “3rd Quarter” reports for 2018) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

62 Id. (search “Tennesseans for Good State Government” in “Annual Mid Year Supplemental” reports for 

2023) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

MUR809100049
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 15 of 25

1 The Harwell Response acknowledges that the State PAC’s contributions to GOTP 

included nonfederal funds.63 2 However, the Harwell Response cites to advisory opinions where 

3 the Commission allowed a state officeholder and federal candidate to donate federally 

4 permissible funds in a state account to other state and local political committees where the state 

5 committee used a “reasonable accounting method” to separate permissible from impermissible 

6 funds (i.e., those raised consistent with state law but outside the Act’s contribution limitations 

and source prohibitions), and then made the contributions with the permissible funds.64 7 The 

8 Harwell Response argues that the State PAC can show, using the “last in, first transferred” 

9 accounting method described in 11 C.F.R § 110.3(c)(4), that only $2,500 of the $12,000 the State 

PAC contributed to GOTP included nonfederal funds.65 10 But even assuming that the advisory 

11 opinions cited in the Harwell Response extend to a candidate’s state committee’s contributions to 

12 independent expenditure-only political committees, and assuming that the State PAC did, in fact, 

13 utilize a last in, first transferred account method at the time, the Harwell Response’s assertion

14 does not appear to be correct. According to the State PAC’s disclosure reports, the last $12,000 

15 received included a $7,500 individual contribution, which exceeded the Act’s amount limits by 

$4,600.66 16 And in any event, the entire $12,000 contribution consisted of nonfederal funds 

because the State PAC did not report those funds to the Commission.67 17 

63 Harwell Resp. at 4-5.

64 See id. at 4 n.16 (citing, among other advisory opinions, AO 2007-26 at 3-5 (Schock); AO 2005-38 at 4 

(Casey)). 

65 Id. at 4-5.

66 See Attachment 2; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search “Tennesseans for Good State Government” in “3rd 

Quarter” reports for 2018) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

67 F&LA at 8 n.35, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate) (“Even assuming that 

the funds comprising the [state committee’s] $50,000 contribution [to the independent expenditure-only political 

MUR809100050
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 16 of 25

1 Next, Harwell’s Response argues that less than the full $35,000 of the State Committee’s 

2 contribution to GOTP included excessive or prohibited funds under the Act if the last in, first 

transferred accounting method is used.

68 3 Again, assuming that the advisory opinions cited in the 

4 Harwell Response extend to a candidate’s state committee’s contributions to independent 

5 expenditure-only political committees, and assuming that such an accounting method was, in 

6 fact, used by the State Committee at the time, it still appears that many of the funds provided to 

GOTP after Harwell became a federal candidate included excessive or prohibited funds.69 7 This 

8 is because the last $35,000 reported by the State Committee includes a $2,000 contribution from 

9 “United Health Group Incorporated” and because the overwhelming majority of the remainder of 

10 the last $35,000 came from PACs, which, under Tennessee state law, may accept contributions 

from individuals without limit and from corporations.70 11 And, the entire $35,000 contribution 

12 consisted of nonfederal funds because the State Committee did not report those funds to the 

Commission.

71 13 

14 The Harwell Response further argues for dismissal because it says the amount in 

violation is “modest.”72 15 But the cases cited—MURs 7114 and MUR 7337—do not support 

committee] did not violate the Act’s source prohibitions and amount limitations, the State Committee had not 

reported those funds to the Commission, thus, the contribution was not permissible.”).

68 Harwell Resp. at 4-5.

69 See F&LA at 8, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth) (“it appears that some portion of the funds provided to the 

Stand for Truth after Harris became a federal candidate were funds that did not comply with the Act’s source 

prohibitions”) (citing F&LA at 4, MUR 6985 (Zeldin for Senate, et al.)). 

70 TENN. BUREAU OF ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE, PAC FAQS, https://www.tn.gov/tref/tref-pacs/trefpacs0.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (“corporate contributions are allowed to be made to candidates and PACs . . . 

. there are no limits on the amount of contributions that may be made to a PAC”).

71 F&LA at 8 n.35, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate).

72 Harwell Resp. at 5.

MUR809100051
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 17 of 25

1 dismissal of this matter, which involves $47,000 of nonfederal funds. The Commission 

2 dismissed MUR 7114, where a federal candidate’s state committee raised at least $3,000 in 

nonfederal funds after his federal candidacy and spent $1,849.73 3 In MUR 7337, far from the 

4 $50,000 amount in violation being considered too modest, the Commission found reason to 

5 believe and conciliated with the federal recipient committee Conservative Leadership for 

Arizona.74 6 The Commission did not agree on whether there was probable cause that the 

candidate and her state committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A).75 7 Finally, in both MUR 

8 7114 and 7337, unlike in the instant matter, the relevant state law prohibited state PACs from 

accepting corporate contributions.76 9 

10 * * *

11 Because the record indicates that Harwell EFMC’d the State Committee and the State 

12 PAC, and that the State Committee and State PAC’s contributed nonfederal funds to GOTP, we 

13 recommend that the Commission find reason to believe that Harwell, the State Committee, and 

14 the State PAC violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by transferring nonfederal funds in 

15 connection with an election for federal office.

73 First GCR at 6-7, MUR 7114 (Casperson for Congress, et al.). The Commission did not agree on the 

rationale for its dismissal pursuant to Heckler v. Chaney. See Cert. ¶ 1 (June 22, 2017) & Cert. ¶¶ 1, 2 (Sept. 20, 

2017), MUR 7114 (Casperson for Congress, et al.).

74 See Conciliation Agreement, MUR 7337 (Conservative Leadership for Arizona).

75 Cert. (Sept. 29, 2022), MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate). 

76 F&LA at 8 n.34, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate); Tom Casperson for 

State Senate Resp. at 2, MUR 7114 (Casperson for Congress, et al.). 

MUR809100052
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 18 of 25

1 3. Government of the People’s Receipt of $47,000 From Entities EFMC’d 

2 by Harwell Caused it to Become Financed by Harwell

3 The sizable contributions made by entities EFMC’d by Harwell to GOTP raise the issue 

4 of whether GOTP became financed by Harwell, thereby causing GOTP to be EFMC’d by 

5 Harwell as well. The question of whether Harwell financed GOTP turns on whether the State 

6 Committee and the State PAC’s contributions constitute providing funds in a “significant amount 

or on an ongoing basis” to GOTP.77 7 The determination of whether an amount is “significant” 

8 under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii) may depend to some extent on what percentage of the entity’s 

total receipts the funding represents.78 9 The Commission has explained that providing amounts 

10 that are so large or comprise a substantial percentage of an entity’s receipts would qualify as 

being a “significant amount.”79 11 

12 Whether funds provided to an entity qualify as “significant” under 11 C.F.R. 

13 § 300.2(c)(2)(vii) and whether the receiving entity should, in turn, be considered to be EFMC’d

14 by a candidate or officeholder is determined by the Commission “on a case-by-case basis and in 

view of all the relevant circumstances.”80 15 For example, in AO 2006-04, the Commission 

16 determined that a federal candidate’s proposed donation to a state ballot-initiative committee that 

17 would constitute 50% of the committee’s total receipts at the time of the donation “must be 

18 considered ‘a significant amount’” under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(vii) such that the federal 

77 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). 

78 F&LA at 9, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (citing Advisory Opinion 2004-29 at n.4 (Akin) and 

Advisory Opinion 2004-25 at 4 (Corzine)). 

79 Id. 

80 See AO 2006-04 at 4 (Tancredo) (contextual factors considered by the Commission in determining that “at 

the time of the donation” 25% funding was a “significant amount” included the fact that funds provided by 

Tancredo’s committee would be used as “seed money” for the ballot initiative committee); Prohibited and Excessive 

Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,084 (July 29, 2002). 

MUR809100053
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 19 of 25

candidate “financed” the state committee.81 1 In considering whether a donation of 25% (up to 

2 $50,000) of the organization’s total receipts at the time of the donation would constitute “a 

3 significant amount,” the Commission said that the donation “must be examined in the context of 

the overall relationship” between the committee and the entity.82 4 In this analysis, the 

5 Commission considered the impact of “seed money” to be important in the context of the overall 

6 relationship and the question of whether the entity was financed under the Act. The Commission 

7 concluded that a donation of up to $50,000 when the entity had just a little more than $9,000 

8 “would represent substantial ‘seed money’ for [the entity] and would result in [the entity] 

depending in large part on [the candidate] for its initial existence.”83 9 

10 In the enforcement context, the Commission also considers the various facts and 

11 circumstances of a particular matter in analyzing whether an entity was financed within the 

12 meaning of Section 30125(e)(1) and 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). Recently, in MUR 7853, the 

13 Commission concluded that the contribution of $126,500 by Campaign to Elect Lance Harris, the 

14 state campaign committee of Louisiana Rep. and federal candidate Lance Harris, to the 

15 independent expenditure-only political committee Stand for Truth, Inc., at a time when Stand for 

Truth had only $5,639.20, caused Stand for Truth to become financed by Lance Harris.84 16 In 

17 MUR 7337, the Commission found reason to believe that a $50,000 contribution from a federal 

18 candidate’s state committee which comprised ninety-nine percent of an independent expenditure81 AO 2006-04 at 4.

82 Id.

83 Id.

84 F&LA at 12, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.).

MUR809100054
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 20 of 25

only political committee’s total receipts constituted a “significant amount.”85 1 In MUR 5367, the 

2 Commission determined that Darrell Issa’s provision — both individually and through an 

3 organization he controlled with his spouse — of more than $1.76 million (over 60% of the 

receipts) to a state ballot measure committee, constituted a “significant amount.”86 4 

5 Here, when examined in the context of the overall relationship between Harwell, the 

6 State Committee and State PAC, and GOTP, the record indicates that the state committees’ 

7 combined provision of $47,000 to GOTP on July 22, 2022 qualifies as a “significant amount” 

8 under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). The State Committee and State PAC’s contributions 

represented 60.8% of GOTP’s total receipts at the time they were made.

87 9 In light of the 

10 Commission’s previous assessments in AO 2006-04 and MUR 5367, the fact that the State 

11 Committee’s and State PAC’s combined contributions amounted to 60.8% of GOTP’s receipts 

must be considered a substantial percentage.

88 12 The State Committee and State PAC’s combined 

85 See F&LA at 7, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate). Cf. F&LA at 3-5, 

MUR 6753 (People for Pearce) (noting the “relatively low dollar amount at issue,” and the fact that the contribution 

was refunded as justifications for dismissal in matter involving candidate committee’s $10,000 donation to an 

independent expenditure-only political committee). 

86 See F&LA at 4-8, MUR 5367 (Congressman Darrell Issa). 

87 See supra at pp.4-5. 

88 Even if the Commission were to apply a lifetime receipts-only rule—which it rejected in MUR 7853 (Stand 

for Truth, Inc.) as contrary to the regulation’s “situation-specific” test for determining when a sponsor’s provision of 

funds constitutes a “significant amount”—the State Committee and State PAC’s share of 38% of GOTP’s lifetime 

funding would still qualify as a substantial percentage. See F&LA at 10-11, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth). In the 

context of affiliation, the Commission has viewed a committee’s contribution of 40% and 35% of its receipts to 

represent a “substantial portion” of its receipts. See AO 1976-104 at 3 (Good Government Committee of First 

Federal Savings of Miami) (40% of receipts is substantial); First GCR at 8 & Cert. ¶ 4 (May 10,1982), MUR 1425 

(Columbia River Trust Political Action Committee) (35% of receipts is substantial). In promulgating the rule which 

defines “EFMC,” the Commission “recast” the existing affiliation factors found at 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(g)(4)(ii) in

order to apply the affiliation concepts in a different context. Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal 

Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,084 (July 29, 2002). Accordingly, it appears that even if a lifetime 

receipts-only rule were applied to GOTP, the $47,000 (38%) it received from the State Committee and State PAC 

should be considered significant. 

MUR809100055
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 21 of 25

contributions also represent GOTP’s largest contributions.89 1 Finally, GOTP was also newly 

2 incorporated and newly registered with the Commission, and does not appear to have been able 

3 to finance its first (and largest) reported independent expenditures in support of Harwell or 

opposing her opponent Andy Ogles without the State Committee and State PAC’s funds.

90 4 In 

5 this context, the State Committee and the State PAC’s contributions to GOTP constitute 

6 providing funds in a “significant amount” under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). 

7 It cannot be credibly argued that contributions of $35,000 and $12,000 are too small to 

8 constitute financing under 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1). The Commission has never established a 

9 funding floor, either in terms of dollar amount or percentage of receipts, under which an 

10 organization will be deemed per se not to have been financed by another entity. Indeed, when 

11 the Commission promulgated 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii), it rejected carving out a $5,000 de 

minimis exception as contrary to the regulation and plain meaning of the Act.91 12 And the $35,000 

13 and $12,000 contributions here are well above even the proposed and rejected $5,000 exception. 

14 Nor should the State Committee’s $35,000 contribution and the State PAC’s contribution 

15 of $12,000 be assessed separately to determine whether GOTP became financed by Harwell. 

16 Section 30125(e)(1) speaks in terms of entities EFMC’d or acting on behalf of one or more 

17 candidates. Thus, it is the link to the candidate that is required for liability under 52 U.S.C. 

18 § 30125(e)(1) and Harwell’s control of the State Committee and State PAC provide that

89 Even if not combined, the State Committee’s $35,000 contribution represented GOTP’s largest contribution 

and the State PAC’s $12,000 contributions was GOTP’s third largest. See supra pp. 4-5. 

90 See supra pp. 4-5; F&LA at 11, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (noting that the only independent 

expenditure made by Stand for Truth after receiving funds from Lance Harris’s state committee was to support 

Lance Harris’s federal candidacy).

91 Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,084 

(July 29, 2002). 

MUR809100056
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 22 of 25

necessary link.92 1 Accordingly, the combined $47,000 contributed by the State Committee and 

2 State PAC to GOTP is the relevant figure for determining whether GOTP became financed by 

Harwell.93 3 

4 Any funds GOTP solicited, received, directed, transferred, or spent in connection with a 

5 federal election after becoming financed by Harwell, a federal candidate, were required to be 

federally permissible.94 6 The Harwell Response admits that portions of the State Committee and 

7 State PAC’s contributions included funds that did not comply with the Act’s amount limitations 

8 and source prohibitions. But even assuming — contrary to the Harwell Response’s admissions 

9 — that the State Committee’s and State PAC’s contributions did not violate the Act’s source 

10 prohibitions and amount limitations, the committees did not report any of those funds to the 

Commission. Thus, their contributions did not consist of federal funds.95 11 

12 Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission find reason to believe that GOTP 

13 violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by receiving and spending nonfederal funds in connection 

with an election for federal office.96 14 

92 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e). 

93 See Conciliation Agreement ¶ IV.13, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (independent expenditure-only 

committee became financed by a federal candidate through an entity that candidate EFMC’d); F&LA at 6-7, MUR 

5367 (Congressman Darrell Issa) (combining Darrell Issa’s direct donations and donations by his company to 

determine that he EFMC’d ballot measure committee). 

94 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

95 F&LA at 8 n.35, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate).

96 The Harwell Response’s final argument is that enforcement would raise constitutional concerns. Harwell 

Resp. at 5-6. We disagree. The Act’s soft money prohibitions were upheld in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93

(2003). Nowhere in that decision, or any other decision that we are aware of, did the Court suggest that soft money 

in a state committee’s campaign account transforms into hard money (or the candidate’s personal funds) merely by 

the passage of time. 

MUR809100057
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 23 of 25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

MUR809100058
MUR809100059
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

First General Counsel’s Report

Page 25 of 25

1 

2 ______________________________ 

3 Christopher S. Curran 

4 Attorney 

5 

6 Attachments: 

7 1. Beth Harwell (House 18) Reported Contributions Received

8 2. Tennesseans for Good State Government Reported Contributions Received

9 3. Factual and Legal Analysis for Beth Harwell, Beth Harwell (House 18) and Tennesseans for

10 Good State Government 

11 4.

12 

13 5. Factual and Legal Analysis for Government of the People

14 6.

MUR809100060
CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY HARWELL COMMITTEE

Date Source Amount Report 

1/3/2017

MAXIM HEALTHCARE INC 

TN PAC $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/3/2017

TENNESSEE VOLUNTEER 

PAC $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017

AMERICAN INSURANCE 

ASSOCIATION $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017

AMERIGROUP TENNESSEE, 

INC. $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017

ASSN BUILDERS & 

CONTRACTORS - MID. TN $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017 INSURORS OF TN PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017

MID-SOUTH CARPENTERS 

REGIONAL COUNCIL $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL 

GROUP, INC. PAC $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017

TENNESSEE APPRAISER 

COALITION PAC $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017 TENNESSEE REALTORS PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/4/2017 THE KROGER CO. $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/5/2017

CONCERNED AUTO.

RETAILERS PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/5/2017 HOSPAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/5/2017 TDG-PAC $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/5/2017

TENNESSEE BANKERS ASSN 

PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/5/2017

TENNESSEE CHAMBER OF 

COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 

PAC $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/5/2017

TENNESSEE INTERIOR 

DESIGNERS PAC $300.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017 BICO ASSOCIATES $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017 BIV-PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD 

OF TN PAC $5,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017

CSX GOOD GOVERNMENT 

FUND - TN $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017

DELTA DENTAL OF 

TENNESSEE PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017 TENNESSEANS FOR TRANSIT $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017

TENNESSEE 

ANESTHESIOLOGISTS PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 1 of 2

MUR809100061
1/6/2017

TENNESSEE EDUC ASSN 

FUND FOR CHILDREN & 

PUBLIC EDU $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017

TENNESSEE HOSPITALITY 

PAC $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/6/2017

TENNESSEE PROFESSIONAL 

ENGINEERS PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/9/2017 BMHC PAC $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/9/2017 FRIENDS OF MEGAN BARRY $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/9/2017

HOMETOWN PHARMACY 

PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/9/2017 MILLER AND MARTIN PAC $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/9/2017 MWB PAC $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

1/9/2017

TENNESSEE EMPLOYEES 

ACTION MOVEMENT $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2016)

6/30/2017 ETLINGER , FRANK C. $250.00 Early Mid Year Supplemental (2017)

6/30/2017 MARTIN , WILLIAM B. $150.00 Early Mid Year Supplemental (2017)

6/30/2017 TENNESSEE REALTORS PAC $2,500.00 Early Mid Year Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

INDEPENDENT MEDICINE'S 

PAC-TN $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL 

ADVISORS PAC $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

MICROSOFT POLITICAL 

ACTION COMMITTEE $1,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

TDS 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

CORPORATION PAC $400.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

TDS 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

CORPORATION PAC $2,500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP 

INCORPORATED $2,000.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018 WPG PAC $500.00 Early Year End Supplemental (2017)

ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 2 of 2

MUR809100062
CONTRIBUTIONS RECEIVED BY TENNESSEANS FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT 

Date Source Amount Report 

1/8/2017

RETIREMENT CO. OF AMERICA 

LLC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 ADAMS AND REESE PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 ANHEUSER BUSCH $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 COMCAST CORPORATION $ 3,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 ELI LILLY & CO. PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 H. G. HILL REALTY PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 HCA TRISTAR FUND $ 2,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 JACK DANIEL'S PAC $ 10,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017

SANOFI US SERVICES INC. 

EMPLOYEES PAC - TN $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017

TENNESSEE RADIOLOGISTS 

PAC $ 500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 TENNESSEE REALTORS PAC $ 2,500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017

TENNESSEE REYNOLDS 

AMERICAN INC. PAC $ 5,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

10/19/2017 WALLER LANSDEN PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 ALKERMES $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017

AMERIGROUP TENNESSEE, 

INC. $ 2,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017

BB&S GOOD GOVT. 

COMMITTEE $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 CIGNA CORPORATION PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 COMCAST CORPORATION $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 CORECIVIC, INC. PAC $ 5,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 HOUSING INDUSTRY PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 INSURORS OF TN PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017

INTERNATIONAL PAPER PAC 

(IP PAC) $ 1,500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 PFIZER INC. PAC $ 2,500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017

TENNESSEE ASSN OF NURSE 

ANESTHETISTS PAC $ 750.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017

TENNESSEE CERTIFIED PUBLIC 

ACCOUNTANTS PAC $ 750.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

12/28/2017 VERIZON PAC $ 500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018

ASSN BUILDERS & 

CONTRACTORS - MID. TN 

CHAPTER $ 500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018

BRADLEY ARANT BOULT 

CUMMINGS TENNESSEE STATE 

PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018 BUTLER SNOW PAC $ 750.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

ATTACHMENT 2 

Page 1 of 2

MUR809100063
1/7/2018

CONCERNED AUTOMOTIVE 

RETAILERS PAC $ 2,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018 CVS HEALTH $ 500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018 HUMANA INC. $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018

TENNESSEE GROCERS & 

CONVENIENCE STORE PAC $ 500.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018 TENNESSEE REALTORS PAC $ 5,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/7/2018 VALERO ENERGY CORP. PAC $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 

INC., TENNESSEE PAC $ 2,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

EASTMAN STATE OF 

TENNESSEE PAC $ 2,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018 SCAROLA , FREDERIC A. $ 25,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

1/8/2018

TENNESSEANS FOR PUTTING 

STUDENTS FIRST $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

7/23/2018 Steve McDaniel $ 10,000.00 Pre-Primary 2018

7/24/2018 David Ingram $ 30,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

7/26/2018 Goven White $ 7,500.00 3rd Quarter 2018

7/27/2018 Fred Dettwiler $ 20,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

7/27/2018 Robert S. Doochin $ 1,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

7/27/2018 John Ferguson $ 2,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

7/27/2018 James Loden $ 500.00 3rd Quarter 2018

7/30/2018

Sevier County Good 

Government PAC $ 5,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

7/31/2018 Sam Harwell $ 143,500.00 3rd Quarter 2018

8/1/2018 Earl Dunn $ 2,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

8/1/2018 James P. O'Rourke $ 2,500.00 3rd Quarter 2018

8/1/2018 Thompson Patterson $ 1,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

8/1/2018 John Simmonds $ 5,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

8/13/2018 Barry Banker $ 2,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

8/13/2018 Orrin Ingram $ 7,500.00 3rd Quarter 2018

8/13/2018 Thomas Loventhal $ 2,000.00 3rd Quarter 2018

Unitemized $ 1,000.00 Annual Year End Supplemental (2017)

ATTACHMENT 2 

Page 2 of 2

MUR809100064
1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

2 

3 FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

4 

5 RESPONDENTS: Beth Harwell MUR: 8091 

6 Beth Harwell (House 18) 

7 Tennesseans for Good State Government 

8 

9 I. INTRODUCTION

On July 22, 2022, Beth Harwell (House 18) (the “State Committee”),1 10 a Tennessee 

11 single-candidate committee established by former member of the Tennessee House of 

12 Representatives and 2022 Congressional candidate Beth Harwell, contributed $35,000 to 

13 Government of the People (“GOTP”), an independent expenditure-only political committee. 

That same day, Tennesseans for Good State Government (the “State PAC”),2 14 a Tennessee state 

15 political committee also established by Harwell, contributed $12,000 to GOTP. 

16 The Complaint asserts that the State Committee and the State PAC are entities 

17 established, financed, maintained or controlled (“EFMC’d”) by Harwell, a federal candidate, and 

18 that their contributions to GOTP included funds that were not subject to the limitations, 

19 prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as 

20 amended (the “Act”) (“nonfederal funds”) which were then spent supporting Harwell’s federal 

21 candidacy and opposing her primary election opponent. As a result, the Complaint alleges, 

22 Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC violated the soft money provisions of the Act, 

1 The Complaint makes allegations against the “Beth Harwell Committee.” Compl. at 1, 5-6 (Nov. 15, 

2022). It appears that the legal name of that committee is Beth Harwell (House 18). See Search Reports, TENN.

ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search for “Harwell” and select the 

4th Quarter 2018 report for “Harwell (House 18), Beth”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing the same ending 

cash on hand as the “Harwell Committee” discussed in the joint response from Harwell, the State Committee, and 

the State PAC (the “Harwell Response”)). 

2 The State PAC was formerly called Harwell PAC but changed its name in 2017 to Tennesseans for Good 

State Government. Harwell Resp. at 2 (Apr. 4, 2023).

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 1 of 16

MUR809100065
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 2 of 16

1 by directing or transferring nonfederal funds in connection with a federal election. Harwell, the 

2 State Committee, and the State PAC deny violating the Act. 

3 For the reasons set forth below, the State Committee and the State PAC are entities 

4 EFMC’d by Harwell within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1). Accordingly, because the 

5 record indicates that the State Committee and the State PAC transferred nonfederal funds to 

6 GOTP in connection with an election for federal office, the Commission finds reason to believe 

7 that Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A).

8 II. BACKGROUND

Beth Harwell is a former member of the Tennessee House of Representatives.3 9 She 

served as speaker from 2011 to 2018.4 10 The State Committee is a state-level single-candidate 

11 committee established to “support [Harwell’s] political undertakings as the leader of her party’s 

state house caucus.”5 12 The State Committee’s mailing addresses is Harwell’s home address, and 

its email address is “beth@bethharwell.com.”6 13 

14 The State PAC is a state-level multi-candidate committee established by Harwell in 

2006.7 Harwell serves as President of the State PAC.8 15 Like the State Committee, the State 

3 Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

4

 House Archives 1870 to Present, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/ (last 

visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

5 Harwell Resp. at 1-2; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search 2018 1st Quarter Reports for “Harwell”).

6

 Search the Online Campaign Finance Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell (House 18), Beth”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

7 Harwell Resp. at 2.

8 Id.

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 2 of 16

MUR809100066
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 3 of 16

1 PAC’s mailing address is Harwell’s home address and its email address is

“beth@bethharwell.com.”9 2 

3 On February 24, 2022, Harwell announced her federal candidacy to represent 

Tennessee’s newly-drawn 5th Congressional District.10 4 She filed her Statement of Candidacy 

the same day.

11 Her principal campaign committee is Harwell for Congress.12 5 Harwell lost the 

Republican primary election on August 4, 2022.13 6 

7 GOTP incorporated in Tennessee on July 13, 2022, and it registered with the 

Commission as an independent expenditure-only political committee on July 20, 2022.14 8 It 

received $35,000 from the State Committee on July 22, 2022.15 9 GOTP also received $12,000 

from the State PAC on July 22, 2022.16 10 Six days later, it reported spending $90,084 on 

9 Search the Online Campaign Finance Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

10 See Nate Rau, Beth Harwell Enters District 5 Congressional Race, AXIOS (Feb. 25, 2022),

https://www.axios.com/local/nashville/2022/02/25/beth-harwell-enters-congressional-race-district-5. 

11 Beth Harwell, Statement of Candidacy at 1 (Feb. 24, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/060/202202249493674060/202202249493674060.pdf. 

12 Harwell for Congress, Statement of Org. at 1 (Feb. 24, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/051/202202249493674051/202202249493674051.pdf. 

13 STATE OF TENN., Republican Primary Results at 2 (Aug. 4, 2022), https://sos-prod.tnsosgovfiles.com/s3fspublic/document/20220804RepublicanPrimarybyCounty.pdf. 

14 Government of the People, Statement of Organization (July 20, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/588/202207209522341588/202207209522341588.pdf; Business Information Search, 

TENN. SEC’Y OF STATE, https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingSearch.aspx (search “Government of the People”)

(last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

15 Government of the People, Amended 2022 October Quarterly Report at 11 (Jan. 11, 2023), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/561/202301119574673561/202301119574673561.pdf; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell” in “Annual Year End Supplemental” reports for 

2022) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing $35,000 contribution to GOTP). 

16 Government of the People, Amended 2022 October Quarterly Report at 11 (Jan. 11, 2023), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/561/202301119574673561/202301119574673561.pdf; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search “Tennesseans for Good Government” 

in “Pre-Primary” reports for 2022) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing $12,000 contribution to GOTP). 

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 3 of 16

MUR809100067
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 4 of 16

1 broadcast ads supporting Harwell or opposing her Republican primary election opponent Andy 

Ogles.17 2 GOTP reported additional independent expenditures of $19,475 on August 2, 2022, and 

3 $3,580 on August 4, 2022, again in support of Harwell or opposing Ogles, and did not make any 

more independent expenditures that election cycle.

18 4 For the 2022 election cycle, GOTP 

5 received $123,500 in total contributions from fifteen contributors and spent a total of

$113,139.50 on independent expenditures, all of which supported Harwell or opposed Ogles.19 6 

7 Since August 31, 2022, GOTP has not received any contributions or made any expenditures and 

has $5,030.40 remaining cash on hand.20 8 

9 A. The Complaint

10 The Complaint asserts that Harwell was a federal candidate from February 2022 through 

the Tennessee primary election on August 4, 2022.21 11 The Complaint also states that the State 

12 Committee and the State PAC are entities EFMC’d by Harwell and that she directed the State 

Committee and State PAC to make contributions to GOTP on July 22, 2022.22 13 The Complaint 

14 further states that those contributions were comprised of nonfederal funds, which were then spent 

17 Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (July 28, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/507/202207289525071507/202207289525071507.pdf; Erik Schelzig, New Local

SuperPAC Running Ads Supporting Harwell, THE TENN. JOURNAL (July 30, 2022), 

https://onthehill.tnjournal.net/new-super-pac-running-supporting-harwell/. 

18 Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (Aug. 4, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/188/202208049525120188/202208049525120188.pdf (reporting $3,580 on GOTV 

texts and GOTV calls); Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (Aug. 2, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/562/202208029525110562/202208029525110562.pdf (reporting $19,475 spent on 

broadcast TV and GOTV efforts). 

19 Government of the People: Financial Summary, FEC.GOV, 

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00821009/?tab=summary (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

20 Id.

21 Compl. at 5.

22 Id. at 5-6.

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 4 of 16

MUR809100068
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 5 of 16

1 on independent expenditures supporting Harwell’s federal candidacy and opposing her primary 

opponent between July 27, 2022 and August 1, 2022.23 2 As a result, the Complaint alleges that 

3 Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by 

directing or transferring nonfederal funds in connection with a federal election.24 4 

5 B. The Response

6 The Response from Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC makes several 

7 arguments in support of its request that the Commission find no reason to believe. First, the 

8 Harwell Response contends that the State Committee and State PAC were not EFMC’d within 

9 the meaning of 52 U.S.C § 30125(e)(1) because the relationship between Harwell and the 

10 committees satisfies only two out of the ten affiliation factors set forth in the Commission’s 

regulatory definition of EFMC.

25 11 Second, the Harwell Response argues that the State PAC’s 

12 contributions to GOTP consisted “primarily” of federal funds and that the State Committee’s 

contributions included “some” federal funds.26 13 Third, the Harwell Response cites MUR 7114 

14 (Casperson for Congress, et al.) and MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko, et al.) as examples of cases 

15 where the Commission has either voted to dismiss or voted to take no action and states that a 

different decision in this matter would be “unfair.”27 16 Fourth, the Harwell Response argues that 

17 if Harwell EFMC’d the State Committee and State PAC as alleged, enforcement would raise 

23 Id. at 2-3, 5-6.

24 Id.

25 See Harwell Resp. at 3-4 (citing Statement of Commissioner Lee E. Goodman on the “Established, 

Financed, Maintained or Controlled” Doctrine (Feb. 26, 2018)).

26 Id. at 4-5.

27 Id. at 5.

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 5 of 16

MUR809100069
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 6 of 16

1 constitutional concerns because she would be both the donor and recipient (because the funds 

would support her own election), making a quid pro quo arrangement impossible.28 2 

3 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

4 

5 A. There is Reason to Believe that Harwell, the State Committee, and the State

6 PAC Violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A)

7 1. Legal Standard

8 

9 The Act and Commission regulations prohibit candidates, individuals holding Federal 

10 office, agents of a candidate or an individual holding Federal office, or an entity directly or 

11 indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by or acting on behalf of one or more 

12 candidates or individuals holding Federal office from “solicit[ing], receiv[ing], direct[ing], 

13 transfer[ing], or spend[ing] funds in connection with an election for Federal office, including 

14 funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, 

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.”29 15 

This prohibition reinforces 52 U.S.C § 30125(a)30 16 by preventing federal candidates and 

17 officeholders—who controlled the national committees of the political parties—from 

18 circumventing the prohibitions applying to national committees by controlling ostensibly 

separate entities that could accept and spend nonfederal funds.31 19 

20 The Commission defines the phrase established, financed, maintained or controlled by 

21 examining a non-exhaustive list of ten affiliation factors set forth in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2). 

28 Id. at 5.

29 52 U.S.C § 30125(e)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 300.61. 

30 See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 133 (2003) (“The remaining provisions of new FECA § 323 largely 

reinforce the restrictions in § 323(a)”).

31 See id. at 121, 133.

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 6 of 16

MUR809100070
MUR809100071
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 8 of 16

1 Here, the acknowledged purpose of the State Committee was to support Harwell’s “political 

undertakings as the leader of her party’s state house caucus.”35 2 Structurally, the State Committee

3 resembles a leadership PAC which, at the federal level, is a political committee directly or 

indirectly EFMC’d by a federal candidate.

36 4 Therefore, the State Committee should be 

5 considered EFMC’d by Harwell as a matter of law. 

6 The Harwell Response also acknowledges that Harwell established the State Committee 

in January 2017.37 7 And while the Commission provides for the possibility that the relationship 

8 between an entity established by a person before they become a candidate may later be severed, 

it does not appear that Harwell severed her relationship with the State Committee.

38 9 Harwell’s 

10 Response states that she “‘has the authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance 

11 of’ [the State Committee]” and “‘has the authority to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control 

the officers’ of [the State Committee].”39 12 Thus, the record shows that the relationship between 

13 Harwell and the State Committee has not been severed. Further, Harwell’s personal address and 

14 the State Committee’s physical address are the same and the State Committee’s email address is 

35 Harwell Resp. at 2.

36 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(e)(6); F&LA at 2 n.4, MUR 6435 (Rep. Charles B. Rangel, et al.) (“Generally, 

leadership PACs are formed by individuals who are federal officeholders or candidates to raise funds that they in 

turn contribute ‘to other Federal candidates to gain support when the officeholder seeks a leadership position in 

Congress, or are used to subsidize the officeholder’s travel when campaigning for other Federal candidates.’”)

(quoting Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Leadership PACs, 67 Fed. Reg. 78,753, 78,754 (Dec. 26, 2002)). 

37 Harwell Resp. at 1.

38 A sponsor that has established an entity under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2) may request a Commission advisory 

opinion determining that the relationship between the sponsor and the entity has been severed. 11 C.F.R. 

§ 300.2(c)(4)(ii). Such an advisory opinion request must, among other things, “demonstrate that all material

connections between the sponsor and the entity have been severed for two years.” Id. The Commission’s

explanation and justification did note, however, that this provision does not require an “entity that has not directly or

indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled another entity to obtain a determination to that effect

before the two entities may operate independently of each other.” Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: NonFederal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,085 (July 29, 2002).

39 Harwell Resp. at 4 (quoting 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(ii), (iii)).

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 8 of 16

MUR809100072
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 9 of 16

1 “beth@bethharwell.com,” which suggests that Harwell maintains material connections with the 

State Committee.

40 2 Finally, the name itself—the Beth Harwell Committee—at the very least, 

3 suggests that Harwell maintains material connections with the State Committee and that it is 

EFMC’d by Harwell and not by anyone else.41 4 

5 For many of the same reasons, the record also indicates that the State PAC is EFMC’d by 

Harwell. Like the State Committee, Harwell admittedly established the State PAC.42 6 And like 

7 the State Committee, the fact that Harwell has authority or ability to direct or participate in the 

8 governance of the State PAC and has the authority or ability to hire, appoint, demote, or 

9 otherwise control the officers of the State PAC indicates that the relationship between Harwell 

and the State PAC has not been severed.

43 10 Indeed, Harwell remains President of the State PAC, 

a position that ordinarily indicates the ability to control an organization.44 11 And although the 

12 State PAC’s name is Tennesseans for Good State Government and no longer bears Harwell’s 

13 name, its contribution was reported by GOTP as being from Harwell PAC, which, like the Beth 

14 Harwell Committee, suggests that the State PAC is EFMC’d by Harwell and not by someone 

else.45 15 At the very least, it is suggestive of GOTP’s understanding of the continuing material 

40 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(ii). Compare Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10,

2023) (showing email address and physical address), with Speaker Beth Harwell, Tennessee General Assembly, 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

41 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(ii). 

42 Harwell Resp. at 2.

43 Id. at 4.

44 Id. 

45 The State PAC is also included in Tennessee’s Registry of Election Finance as “Harwell PAC.” See 

Harwell Resp. at 2 n.1; Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 9 of 16

MUR809100073
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 10 of 16

1 connections between Harwell and the State PAC. Finally, the fact that Harwell’s home address

2 and the State PAC’s physical address are the same and that the State PAC’s email address is 

“beth@bethharwell.com” supports a conclusion that Harwell EFMC’d the State PAC.

46 3 

4 The Harwell Response makes a number of arguments in support of its view that neither 

5 the State Committee nor the State PAC are EFMC’d within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. 

6 § 30125(e)(1). These arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First, the Harwell

7 Response argues that a candidate or officeholder must “establish, finance, maintain, or control 

the entity while the person is a federal candidate or officeholder.”47 8 But that interpretation 

9 conflicts with the reason for 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(i)-(ii). Moreover, the Commission has 

10 already rejected that view, insofar as the Commission has determined that a federal candidate’s 

11 state campaign committee is, as a matter of law, an EFMC’d entity. Indeed, the Commission has 

12 determined that a state officeholder’s state committee is an EFMC’d entity despite being formed 

long before their federal candidacy.48 13 In short, the State PAC and State Committee may still be 

14 considered EFMC’d by Harwell despite their formation prior to Harwell’s federal candidacy.

15 Next, the Harwell Response contends that an insufficient number of the factors listed in 

16 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c), the Commission’s regulation defining EFMC, were satisfied to establish 

17 that Harwell EFMC’d the committees. The Harwell Response acknowledges that Harwell’s 

46 Compare Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing email 

address and physical address), with Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

47 Harwell Resp. at 3 (emphasis in original) (quoting Statement of Commissioner Lee E. Goodman on the 

“Established, Financed, Maintained or Controlled” Doctrine (Feb. 26, 2018)).

48 See, e.g., F&LA at 2, 9, MUR 7246 (Buddy Carter for Congress, et al.) (state committee of Buddy Carter 

was established in 2009 but deemed an EFMC’d entity within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) despite his 

federal candidacy starting May 6, 2013); AO 2007-01 at 3 (McCaskill) (state committee of Claire McCaskill 

established in preparation for her 2002 re-election campaign for state auditor ruled to be an EFMC’d entity in 2007).

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 10 of 16

MUR809100074
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 11 of 16

1 relationship with the State Committee and State PAC satisfies two factors listed in section 

2 300.2(c): she has authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the State 

3 Committee and State PAC and has the authority or ability to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise 

control the officers of the State Committee and the State PAC.49 4 But the Harwell Response 

5 argues that Harwell’s authority with regard to the State Committee and State PAC is insufficient 

6 to find that she EFMC’d the committees because eight other factors listed in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c) 

are absent.50 7 Similar arguments were rejected by the Commission in both MUR 7337 (Debbie 

Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate) and MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth).

51 8 By doing so, 

9 the Commission confirmed what it said during the soft money rulemaking: that the factors set 

forth in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c) address the four different statutory terms that comprise EFMC.

52 10 

11 Such an interpretation is consistent with the plain text of the Act, because its inclusion of the 

49 Harwell Resp. at 4 (citing 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(ii)-(iii)). There is no indication that Harwell did not also 

have such authority or ability while she was a federal candidate.

50 Id. 

51 See F&LA at 7-8, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate) (finding EFMC based 

on financing despite respondents’ argument that “most of the [EFMC] factors do not apply to them”). Most 

recently, in MUR 7853 respondent Stand for Truth argued that the Commission must weigh all the factors listed in 

11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(i)–(x) before finding the Stand for Truth became EFMC’d as a result of accepting 

contributions from federal candidate Lance Harris’ state campaign committee. See Stand for Truth Resp. at 4 

(Dec. 28, 2020). The Commission nevertheless found reason to believe Stand for Truth became EFMC’d solely as a 

result of accepting funds in a significant amount from Harris’ state committee. See F&LA at 8-13, MUR 7853 

(Stand for Truth). Stand for Truth made the same argument in response to the Commission’s reason to believe 

finding. See Stand for Truth Resp. at 2-3 (June 17, 2022). The Commission proceeded to conciliate with Stand for 

Truth. See Memorandum to the Commission & Attach. 1, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (May 3, 2023) & Cert. 

at ¶ 1, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, et al.) (May 31, 2023) (accepting negotiated conciliation agreement). 

52 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Prohibited and Excessive Contributions; Non-Federal Funds or Soft 

Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 35654, 35658-59 (May 20, 2002) (“Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii) would focus on the 

establishment of entities . . . . Proposed paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would address financing of an entity . . . . Proposed 

paragraph (c)(1)(iv) would address the maintenance of an entity by a sponsor. . . Proposed paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and 

(c)(1)(vi) would go to control of an entity by a sponsor.”).

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 11 of 16

MUR809100075
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 12 of 16

word “or” indicates that only one type of specified relationship is necessary.53 1 Here, Harwell’s 

2 establishment of the committees, her authority to direct or participate in the governance of the 

3 committees, and her authority to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control the officers of the 

4 committees is sufficient to find at this preliminary stage of administrative enforcement that she 

EFMC’d the committees within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1).54 5 

6 b. The State Committee and State PAC Spent Nonfederal Funds in

7 Connection with a Federal Election

8 As entities EFMC’d by Harwell, any funds the State Committee and State PAC solicited, 

9 received, directed, transferred, or spent in connection with a federal election after Harwell 

10 became a federal candidate were required to be federally permissible and subject to the Act’s 

reporting provisions.55 11 

12 The State Committee and State PAC’s disclosure reports (Attachments 1 and 2) reveal 

13 that they accepted nonfederal funds. Since its establishment in 2017, the State Committee 

14 received $63,100 in contributions from the following sources: $54,200 from corporate PACs, 

15 $8,000 directly from corporations, $500 from the committee of former Nashville mayor Megan 

53 See F&LA at 3 n.10, MUR 6985 (Zeldin for Senate, et al.) (“[a]ny one of the four factors [i.e., EFMC] will 

suffice if it provides the basis for four or more Commissioners to find reason to believe.”); see also ANTONIN

SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW at 116 (2012) (“Under the conjunctive/disjunctive canon, and 

combines items while or creates alternatives.”) (emphasis in original).

54 The Harwell Response argues that Harwell did not “exercise control” over the State Committee and State 

PAC and was not involved in the committees’ activities “in any significant way” since 2018. Harwell Resp. at 3, 

Ex. A (Decl. of Beth Harwell). But the Commission’s regulatory definition speaks in terms of a sponsor’s authority 

or ability to direct or participate in an entity’s governance and the sponsor’s authority or ability to hire, appoint, 

demote, or otherwise control an entity’s officers, other decision-making employees or members, not whether a 

sponsor exercised that authority or ability on a particular occasion. See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(ii)-(iii). 

55 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 12 of 16

MUR809100076
MUR809100077
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 14 of 16

Committee contributed to the State PAC included nonfederal funds.63 1 But even assuming that 

2 the advisory opinions cited in the Harwell Response extend to a candidate’s state committee’s 

3 contributions to independent expenditure-only political committees, and assuming that the 

4 Committee did, in fact, utilize a last in, first transferred account method at the time, the Harwell 

5 Response’s assertion does not appear to be correct. According to the State PAC’s disclosure 

6 reports, the last $12,000 received included a $7,500 individual contribution, which exceeded the 

Act’s amount limits by $4,600.64 7 And in any event, the entire $12,000 contribution consisted of 

nonfederal funds because the State PAC did not report those funds to the Commission.65 8 

9 Next, Harwell’s Response argues that less than the full $35,000 of the State Committee’s 

10 contribution to GOTP included excessive or prohibited funds under the Act if the last in, first 

transferred accounting method is used.

66 11 Again, assuming that the advisory opinions cited in the 

12 Harwell Response extend to a candidate’s state committee’s contributions to independent 

13 expenditure-only political committees, and assuming that such an accounting method was, in 

14 fact, used by the State Committee at the time, it still appears that many of the funds provided to 

GOTP after Harwell became a federal candidate included excessive or prohibited funds.67 15 This 

63 Id. at 4-5.

64 See Attachment 2; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm, (search “Tennesseans for Good State Government” in “3rd 

Quarter” reports for 2018) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

65 F&LA at 8 n.35, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate) (“Even assuming that 

the funds comprising the [state committee’s] $50,000 contribution [to the independent expenditure-only political 

committee] did not violate the Act’s source prohibitions and amount limitations, the State Committee had not 

reported those funds to the Commission, thus, the contribution was not permissible.”).

66 Harwell Resp. at 4-5.

67 See F&LA at 8, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth) (“it appears that some portion of the funds provided to the 

Stand for Truth after Harris became a federal candidate were funds that did not comply with the Act’s source 

prohibitions”) (citing F&LA at 4, MUR 6985 (Zeldin for Senate, et al.)). 

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 14 of 16

MUR809100078
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 15 of 16

1 is because the last $35,000 reported by the State Committee includes a $2,000 contribution from 

2 “United Health Group Incorporated” and because the overwhelming majority of the remainder of 

3 the last $35,000 came from PACs, which, under Tennessee state law, may accept contributions 

from individuals without limit and from corporations.68 4 And, the entire $35,000 contribution 

5 consisted of nonfederal funds because the State Committee did not report those funds to the 

Commission.

69 6 

7 The Harwell Response further argues for dismissal because it says the amount in 

violation is “modest.”70 8 But the cases cited—MUR 7114 and MUR 7337—do not support 

9 dismissal of this matter, which involves $47,000 of nonfederal funds. The Commission 

10 dismissed MUR 7114, where a federal candidate’s state committee raised at least $3,000 in 

nonfederal funds after his federal candidacy and spent $1,849.71 11 In MUR 7337, far from the 

12 $50,000 amount in violation being considered too modest, the Commission found reason to 

13 believe and conciliated with the federal recipient committee Conservative Leadership for 

Arizona.72 14 The Commission did not agree on whether there was probable cause that the 

candidate and her state committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A).73 15 Finally, in both MUR 

68 TENN. BUREAU OF ETHICS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE, PAC FAQs, https://www.tn.gov/tref/tref-pacs/trefpacs0.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (“corporate contributions are allowed to be made to candidates and PACs . . . 

. there are no limits on the amount of contributions that may be made to a PAC”).

69 F&LA at 8 n.35, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate).

70 Harwell Resp. at 5.

71 First GCR at 6-7, MUR 7114 (Casperson for Congress, et al.). The Commission did not agree on the 

rationale for its dismissal pursuant to Heckler v. Chaney. See Cert. ¶ 1 (June 22, 2017) & Cert. ¶¶ 1, 2 (Sept. 20, 

2017), MUR 7114 (Casperson for Congress, et al.). 

72 See Conciliation Agreement, MUR 7337 (Conservative Leadership for Arizona).

73 Cert. (Sept. 29, 2022), MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate).

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 15 of 16

MUR809100079
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 16 of 16

1 7114 and 7337, unlike in the instant matter, the relevant state law prohibited state PACs from 

accepting corporate contributions.74 2 

3 * * *

4 Because the record indicates that Harwell EFMC’d the State Committee and the State 

5 PAC, and that the State Committee and State PAC’s contributed nonfederal funds to GOTP, the 

6 Commission finds reason to believe that Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC 

7 violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by transferring nonfederal funds in connection with an 

8 election for federal office.

74 F&LA at 8 n.34, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate); Tom Casperson for 

State Senate Resp. at 2, MUR 7114 (Casperson for Congress, et al.). 

ATTACHMENT 3 

Page 16 of 16

MUR809100080
1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

2 

3 FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

4 

5 RESPONDENTS: Government of the People and MUR: 8091 

6 Debra Y. Maggart in her official 

7 capacity as treasurer 

8 I. INTRODUCTION

On July 22, 2022, Beth Harwell (House 18) (the “State Committee”),1 9 a Tennessee 

10 single-candidate committee established by former member of the Tennessee House of 

11 Representatives and 2022 Congressional candidate Beth Harwell, contributed $35,000 to 

12 Government of the People (“GOTP”), an independent expenditure-only political committee. 

That same day, Tennesseans for Good State Government (the “State PAC”),2 13 a Tennessee state 

14 political committee also established by Harwell, contributed $12,000 to GOTP. 

15 For the reasons set forth below, the State Committee and the State PAC are entities 

16 established, financed, maintained or controlled (“EFMC’d”) by Harwell, a federal candidate, and 

17 their contributions to GOTP consisted of funds that were not subject to the Act’s limitations, 

18 prohibitions, and reporting requirements (“nonfederal funds”) which were then spent supporting 

19 Harwell’s federal candidacy and opposing her primary election opponent. Accordingly, the 

20 Commission finds reason to believe GOTP, as an entity EFMC’d by Harwell, violated 52 U.S.C. 

21 § 30125(e)(1)(A) by receiving and spending nonfederal funds in connection with an election for

22 federal office. 

1 The Complaint references the “Beth Harwell Committee.” Compl. at 1, 5-6 (Nov. 15, 2022). It appears 

that the legal name of that committee is Beth Harwell (House 18). See Search Reports, TN Online Campaign 

Finance, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search for “Harwell” and select the 4th Quarter 2018 

report for “Harwell (House 18), Beth”)” (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

2 The State PAC was formerly called Harwell PAC but changed its name in 2017 to Tennesseans for Good 

State Government. 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 1 of 13

MUR809100081
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 2 of 13

1 II. BACKGROUND

Beth Harwell is a former member of the Tennessee House of Representatives.3 2 She 

served as speaker from 2011 to 2018.4 3 The State Committee is a state-level single-candidate 

4 committee established to support Harwell’s political undertakings as the leader of her party’s 

state house caucus.5 5 The State Committee’s mailing address is Harwell’s home address, and its 

email address is “beth@bethharwell.com.”6 6 

7 The State PAC is a state-level multi-candidate committee established by Harwell in 2006. 

8 Harwell serves as President of the State PAC. Like the State Committee, the State PAC’s 

mailing address is Harwell’s home address and its email address is “beth@bethharwell.com.”7 9 

10 On February 24, 2022, Harwell announced her federal candidacy to represent 

Tennessee’s newly-drawn 5th Congressional District.8 11 She filed her Statement of Candidacy the 

3 Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

4

 House Archives 1870 to Present, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/ (last 

visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

5 Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm

(search 2018 1st Quarter Reports for “Harwell”).

6 Search the Online Campaign Finance Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell” in 4th quarter 2018 reports and select “Harwell 

(House 18), Beth”) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

7 Search the Online Campaign Finance Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC” and “Harwell Committee”) (last visited Oct. 

10, 2023).

8 See Nate Rau, Beth Harwell Enters District 5 Congressional Race, AXIOS (Feb. 25, 2022), 

https://www.axios.com/local/nashville/2022/02/25/beth-harwell-enters-congressional-race-district-5. 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 2 of 13

MUR809100082
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 3 of 13

same day.

9

 Her principal campaign committee is Harwell for Congress.10 1 Harwell lost the 

Republican primary election on August 4, 2022.11 2 

3 GOTP incorporated in Tennessee on July 13, 2022, and it registered with the 

Commission as an independent expenditure-only political committee on July 20, 2022.12 4 It 

received $35,000 from the State Committee on July 22, 2022.13 5 GOTP also received $12,000 

from the State PAC on July 22, 2022.14 6 Six days later, it reported spending $90,084 on 

7 independent expenditures supporting Harwell or opposing her Republican primary election 

opponent Andy Ogles.15 8 GOTP reported additional independent expenditures of $19,475 on 

9 August 2, 2022, and $3,580 on August 4, 2022, again in support of Harwell or opposing Ogles, 

9 Beth Harwell, Statement of Candidacy at 1 (Feb. 24, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/060/202202249493674060/202202249493674060.pdf. 

10 Harwell for Congress, Statement of Org. at 1 (Feb. 24, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/051/202202249493674051/202202249493674051.pdf. 

11 STATE OF TENN., Republican Primary Results at 2 (Aug. 4, 2022), https://sos-prod.tnsosgovfiles.com/s3fspublic/document/20220804RepublicanPrimarybyCounty.pdf. 

12 Government of the People, Statement of Organization (July 20, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/588/202207209522341588/202207209522341588.pdf; Business Information Search, 

TENN. SEC’Y OF STATE,, https://tnbear.tn.gov/Ecommerce/FilingSearch.aspx (search “Government of the People”)

(last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

13 Government of the People, Amended 2022 October Quarterly Report at 11 (Jan. 11, 2023), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/561/202301119574673561/202301119574673561.pdf; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search “Harwell” in “Annual Year End 

Supplemental” reports for 2022) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing $35,000 contribution to GOTP). 

14 Government of the People, Amended 2022 October Quarterly Report at 11 (Jan. 11, 2023), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/561/202301119574673561/202301119574673561.pdf; Search Reports, TENN. ONLINE 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/repsearch.htm (search “Tennesseans for Good State 

Government” in “Pre-Primary” reports for 2022) (last visited Oct. 10, 2023) (showing $12,000 contribution to 

GOTP). 

15 Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (July 28, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/507/202207289525071507/202207289525071507.pdf; Erik Schelzig, New Local

SuperPAC Running Ads Supporting Harwell, THE TENN. JOURNAL (July 30, 2022), 

https://onthehill.tnjournal.net/new-super-pac-running-supporting-harwell/. 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 3 of 13

MUR809100083
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 4 of 13

and did not make any more independent expenditures that election cycle.

16 1 For the 2022 election 

2 cycle, GOTP received $123,500 in total contributions from fifteen contributors and spent a total 

of $113,139.50 on independent expenditures, all of which supported Harwell or opposed Ogles.17 3 

4 Since August 31, 2022, GOTP has not received any contributions or made any expenditures and 

has $5,030.40 remaining cash on hand.18 5 

6 A. The Complaint

7 The Complaint asserts that Harwell was a federal candidate from February 2022 through 

the Tennessee primary election on August 4, 2022.19 8 The Complaint also states that the State 

9 Committee and the State PAC are entities EFMC’d by Harwell and that she directed the State 

Committee and State PAC to make contributions to GOTP on July 22, 2022.20 10 The Complaint 

11 further states that those contributions were comprised of nonfederal funds, which were then spent 

12 on independent expenditures supporting Harwell’s federal candidacy and opposing her primary 

13 opponent between July 27, 2022 and August 1, 2022 in violation of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30125(e)(1)(A).21 14 

16 Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (Aug. 4, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/188/202208049525120188/202208049525120188.pdf (reporting $3,580 on GOTV 

texts and GOTV calls); Government of the People, 24/48 Hour Report of Independent Expenditures (Aug. 2, 2022), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/562/202208029525110562/202208029525110562.pdf (reporting $19,475 spent on 

broadcast TV and GOTV efforts). 

17 Government of the People: Financial Summary, FEC.GOV, 

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00821009/?tab=summary (last visited Oct. 10, 2023). 

18 Id.

19 Compl. at 5.

20 Id. at 5-6.

21 Id. at 2-3, 5-6. 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 4 of 13

MUR809100084
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 5 of 13

1 B. The Response

2 The GOTP Response focuses on the issue of coordination and asserts that GOTP did not 

3 engage in any coordinated conduct as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d), and that no coordinated 

communication occurred as a result.22 4 GOTP further asserts that independent expenditure-only 

political committees are not subject to the provisions of 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A).23 5 

6 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

7 

8 A. There is Reason to Believe that GOTP Violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) 

9 1. Legal Standard

 10 

11 The Act and Commission regulations prohibit candidates, individuals holding Federal 

12 office, agents of a candidate or an individual holding Federal office, or an entity directly or 

13 indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled by or acting on behalf of one or more 

14 candidates or individuals holding Federal office from “solicit[ing], receiv[ing], direct[ing], 

15 transfer[ing], or spend[ing] funds in connection with an election for Federal office, including 

16 funds for any Federal election activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, 

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.”24 17 

This prohibition reinforces 52 U.S.C § 30125(a)25 18 by preventing federal candidates and 

19 officeholders—who controlled the national committees of the political parties—from 

22 GOTP Resp. at 2-3 (Dec. 16, 2022). 

23 Id. at 3.

24 52 U.S.C § 30125(e)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 300.61. 

25 See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 133 (2003) (“The remaining provisions of new FECA § 323 largely 

reinforce the restrictions in § 323(a)”).

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 5 of 13

MUR809100085
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 6 of 13

1 circumventing the prohibitions applying to national committees by controlling ostensibly 

separate entities that could accept and spend nonfederal funds.26 2 

3 The Commission defines the phrase established, financed, maintained or controlled by 

4 examining a non-exhaustive list of ten affiliation factors set forth in 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2). 

5 The factors “must be examined in the context of the overall relationship between the [candidate] 

6 and the entity to determine whether the presence of any factor or factors is evidence that the 

[candidate] directly or indirectly [EFMC’d] the entity.”27 7 The ten factors are:

8 (i) A controlling interest in an entity’s voting stock or securities;

9 (ii) Authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the entity,

10 “formal or informal;”

11 (iii) Authority or ability to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control an

12 entity’s officers or other decision-making employees or members;

13 (iv) Common or overlapping members with an entity;

14 (v) Common or overlapping officers or employees with an entity;

15 (vi) Having members, officers, or employees who were former members,

16 officers, or employees of an entity;

17 (vii) Providing an entity “funds or goods in a significant amount or on an

18 ongoing basis” such as through direct and indirect payments for

19 administrative, fundraising, or other costs;

20 (viii) Causing or arranging “funds or goods in a significant amount or on an

21 ongoing basis” to be provided to an entity;

22 (ix) Having “an active or significant role in the formation of an entity;”

(x) Similar patterns of receipts or disbursements with an entity.28 23 

26 See id. at 121, 133.

27 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c); Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 

Final Rules, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,084 (July 29, 2002). 

28 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c). In promulgating the rule which defines “EFMC,” the Commission “recast” the 

existing affiliation factors found at 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(g)(4)(ii) in order to apply the existing affiliation concepts in a 

different context. Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49064, 

49084 (July 29, 2002). Committees that are affiliated, that is, committees that are established, financed, maintained, 

or controlled by the same corporation, labor organization, person or group of persons, share a single limitation on 

the amount they can accept from any one contributor. 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.5(g), 110.3(a)(1), 110.3(a)(3)(ii).

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 6 of 13

MUR809100086
MUR809100087
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 8 of 13

1 address and the State Committee’s physical address are the same and the State Committee’s 

2 email address is “beth@bethharwell.com,” which suggests that Harwell maintains material 

connections with the State Committee.32 3 Finally, the name itself—the Beth Harwell 

4 Committee—at the very least, suggests that Harwell maintains material connections with the 

State Committee and that it is EFMC’d by Harwell and not by anyone else.33 5 

6 For many of the same reasons, the State PAC also appears to be EFMC’d by Harwell. 

7 Information in the Commission’s possession indicates that Harwell (1) established the State 

8 PAC; (2) has authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the State PAC and 

9 has the authority or ability to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control the officers of the State 

10 PAC; and (3) remains President of the State PAC, a position that ordinarily indicates the ability 

11 to control an organization. Thus, it appears that the relationship between Harwell and the State 

12 PAC has not been severed. And although the State PAC’s name is Tennesseans for Good State 

13 Government and no longer bears Harwell’s name, its contribution was reported by GOTP as 

14 being from Harwell PAC, which, like the Beth Harwell Committee, suggests that the State PAC 

is EFMC’d by Harwell and not by someone else.34 15 At the very least, it is suggestive of GOTP’s 

16 understanding of the continuing material connections between Harwell and the State PAC. 

17 Finally, the fact that Harwell’s home address and the State PAC’s physical address are the same 

32 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(ii). Compare Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE

CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 10, 

2023) (showing email address and physical address), with Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

33 See 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(4)(ii). 

34 The State PAC is also included in Tennessee’s Registry of Election Finance as “Harwell PAC.” TENN.

ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited 

Oct. 10, 2023).

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 8 of 13

MUR809100088
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 9 of 13

1 and that the State PAC’s email address is “beth@bethharwell.com” supports a conclusion that 

Harwell EFMC’d the State PAC.

35 2 

3 3. Government of the People’s Receipt of $47,000 From Entities EFMC’d

4 by Harwell Caused it to Become Financed by Harwell

5 The sizable contributions made by entities EFMC’d by Harwell to GOTP raises the issue 

6 of whether GOTP became financed by Harwell, thereby causing GOTP to be EFMC’d by 

7 Harwell. The question of whether Harwell financed GOTP turns on whether the State 

8 Committee and the State PAC’s contributions constitute providing funds in a “significant amount 

or on an ongoing basis” to GOTP.36 9 The determination of whether an amount is “significant” 

10 under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii) may depend to some extent on what percentage of the entity’s 

total receipts the funding represents.37 11 The Commission has explained that providing amounts 

12 that are so large or comprise a substantial percentage of an entity’s receipts would qualify as 

being a “significant amount.”38 13 

14 Whether funds provided to an entity qualify as “significant” under 11 C.F.R. 

15 § 300.2(c)(2)(vii) and whether the receiving entity should, in turn, be considered to be EFMC’d

16 by a candidate or officeholder is determined by the Commission “on a case-by-case basis and in 

view of all the relevant circumstances.”39 17 For example, in AO 2006-04, the Commission 

35 Compare Search the Online Campaign Database, TENN. ONLINE CAMPAIGN FINANCE, 

https://apps.tn.gov/tncamp/public/cpsearch.htm (search “Harwell PAC”) (last visited Oct. 4, 2023) (showing email 

address and physical address), with Speaker Beth Harwell, TENN. GEN. ASSEMB., 

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/archives/107GA/members/h56.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2023).

36 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). 

37 F&LA at 9, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (citing Advisory Opinion 2004-29 at n.4 (Akin) and 

Advisory Opinion 2004-25 at 4 (Corzine)). 

38 Id. 

39 See AO 2006-04 at 4 (Tancredo) (contextual factors considered by the Commission in determining that “at 

the time of the donation” 25% funding was a “significant amount” included the fact that funds provided by 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 9 of 13

MUR809100089
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 10 of 13

1 determined that a federal candidate’s proposed donation to a state ballot-initiative committee that 

2 would constitute 50% of the committee’s total receipts at the time of the donation “must be 

3 considered ‘a significant amount’” under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(vii) such that the federal 

candidate “financed” the state committee.40 4 In considering whether a donation of 25% (up to 

5 $50,000) of the organization’s total receipts at the time of the donation would constitute “a 

6 significant amount,” the Commission said that the donation “must be examined in the context of 

the overall relationship” between the committee and the entity.41 7 In this analysis, the 

8 Commission considered the impact of “seed money” to be important in the context of the overall 

9 relationship and the question of whether the entity was financed under the Act. The Commission 

10 concluded that a donation of up to $50,000 when the entity had just a little more than $9,000 

11 “would represent substantial ‘seed money’ for [the entity] and would result in [the entity] 

depending in large part on [the candidate] for its initial existence.”42 12 

13 In the enforcement context, the Commission also considers the various facts and 

14 circumstances of a particular matter in analyzing whether an entity was financed within the 

15 meaning of Section 30125(e)(1) and 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). Recently, in MUR 7853, the 

16 Commission concluded that the contribution of $126,500 by Campaign to Elect Lance Harris, the 

17 state campaign committee of Louisiana Rep. and federal candidate Lance Harris, to the 

18 independent expenditure-only political committee Stand for Truth, Inc., at a time when Stand for 

Tancredo’s committee would be used as “seed money” for the ballot initiative committee); Prohibited and Excessive 

Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,084 (July 29, 2002). 

40 AO 2006-04 at 4.

41 Id.

42 Id.

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 10 of 13

MUR809100090
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 11 of 13

Truth had only $5,639.20, caused Stand for Truth to become financed by Lance Harris.43 1 In 

2 MUR 7337, the Commission found reason to believe that a $50,000 contribution from a federal 

3 candidate’s state committee which comprised ninety-nine percent of an independent expenditureonly political committee’s total receipts constituted a “significant amount.”44 4 In MUR 5367, the 

5 Commission determined that Darrell Issa’s provision — both individually and through an 

6 organization he controlled with his spouse — of more than $1.76 million (over 60% of the 

receipts) to a state ballot measure committee, constituted a “significant amount.”45 7 

8 Here, when examined in the context of the overall relationship between Harwell, the 

9 State Committee and State PAC, and GOTP, the record indicates that the state committees’ 

10 combined provision of $47,000 to GOTP on July 22, 2022 qualifies as a “significant amount” 

11 under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). The State Committee and State PAC’s contributions 

represented 60.8% of GOTP’s total receipts at the time they were made.

46 12 In light of the 

13 Commission’s previous assessments in AO 2006-04 and MUR 5367, the fact that the State 

14 Committee’s and State PAC’s combined contributions amounted to 60.8% of GOTP’s receipts 

must be considered a substantial percentage.

47 15 The State Committee and State PAC’s combined 

43 F&LA at 12, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.).

44 See F&LA at 7, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate). Cf. F&LA at 3-5, 

MUR 6753 (People for Pearce) (noting the “relatively low dollar amount at issue,” and the fact that the contribution 

was refunded as justifications for dismissal in matter involving candidate committee’s $10,000 donation to an 

independent expenditure-only political committee). 

45 See F&LA at 4-8, MUR 5367 (Congressman Darrell Issa). 

46 See supra at 3-4. 

47 Even if the Commission were to apply a lifetime receipts-only rule—which it rejected in MUR 7853 (Stand 

for Truth, Inc.) as contrary to the regulation’s “situation-specific” test for determining when a sponsor’s provision of 

funds constitutes a “significant amount”—the State Committee and State PAC’s share of 38% of GOTP’s lifetime 

funding would still qualify as a substantial percentage. See F&LA at 10-11, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth). In the 

context of affiliation, the Commission has viewed a committee’s contribution of 40% and 35% of its receipts to 

represent a “substantial portion” of its receipts. See AO 1976-104 at 3 (Good Government Committee of First 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 11 of 13

MUR809100091
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 12 of 13

contributions also represent GOTP’s largest contributions.48 1 Finally, GOTP was also newly 

2 incorporated and newly registered with the Commission, and does not appear to have been able 

3 to finance its first (and largest) reported independent expenditures in support of Harwell or 

opposing her opponent Andy Ogles without the State Committee and State PAC’s funds.

49 4 In 

5 this context, the State Committee and the State PAC’s contributions to GOTP constitute 

6 providing funds in a “significant amount” under 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii). 

7 It cannot be credibly argued that contributions of $35,000 and $12,000 are too small to 

8 constitute financing under 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1). The Commission has never established a 

9 funding floor, either in terms of dollar amount or percentage of receipts, under which an 

10 organization will be deemed per se not to have been financed by another entity. Indeed, when 

11 the Commission promulgated 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c)(2)(vii), it rejected carving out a $5,000 de 

minimis exception as contrary to the regulation and plain meaning of the Act.50 12 And the $35,000 

13 and $12,000 contributions here are well above even the proposed and rejected $5,000 exception. 

14 Nor should the State Committee’s $35,000 contribution and the State PAC’s contribution 

15 of $12,000 be assessed separately to determine whether GOTP became financed by Harwell. 

Federal Savings of Miami) (40% of receipts is substantial); First GCR at 8 & Cert. ¶ 4 (May 10, 1982), MUR 1425 

(Columbia River Trust Political Action Committee) (35% of receipts is substantial). In promulgating the rule which

defines “EFMC,” the Commission “recast” the existing affiliation factors found at 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(g)(4)(ii) in

order to apply the affiliation concepts in a different context. Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal 

Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,084 (July 29, 2002). Accordingly, it appears that even if a lifetime 

receipts-only rule were applied to GOTP, the $47,000 (38%) it received from the State Committee and State PAC 

should be considered significant.

48 Even if not combined, the State Committee’s $35,000 contribution represented GOTP’s largest contribution 

and the State PAC’s $12,000 contributions was GOTP’s third largest. See supra p. 3. 

49 See supra pp. 3-4; F&LA at 11, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (noting that the only independent 

expenditure made by Stand for Truth after receiving funds from Lance Harris’s state committee was to support 

Lance Harris’s federal candidacy).

50 Prohibited and Excessive Contributions: Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money, 67 Fed. Reg. 49,064, 49,084 

(July 29, 2002). 

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 12 of 13

MUR809100092
MUR 8091 (Government of the People)

Factual and Legal Analysis

Page 13 of 13

1 Section 30125(e) speaks in terms of entities EFMC’d or acting on behalf of one or more 

2 candidates. Thus, it is the link to the candidate that is required for liability under 52 U.S.C. 

3 § 30125(e)(1)(A) and Harwell’s control of the State Committee and State PAC provide that 

necessary link.51 4 Accordingly, the combined $47,000 contributed by the State Committee and 

5 State PAC to GOTP is the relevant figure for determining whether GOTP became financed by 

Harwell.52 6 

7 Any funds GOTP solicited, received, directed, transferred, or spent in connection with a 

8 federal election after becoming financed by Harwell, a federal candidate, were required to be 

federally permissible.53 9 The State Committee and State PAC’s contributions included funds that 

did not comply with the Act’s amount limitations and source prohibitions.54 10 But even assuming 

11 that the State Committee’s and State PAC’s contributions did not violate the Act’s source 

12 prohibitions and amount limitations, the committees did not report any of those funds to the 

Commission. Thus, their contributions did not consist of federal funds.55 13 

14 Accordingly, the Commission finds reason to believe that GOTP violated 52 U.S.C. 

15 § 30125(e)(1)(A) by receiving and spending nonfederal funds in connection with an election for

16 federal office.

51 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

52 See Conciliation Agreement ¶ IV.13, MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (independent expenditure-only 

committee became financed by a federal candidate through an entity that candidate EFMC’d); F&LA at 6-7, MUR 

5367 (Congressman Darrell Issa) (combining Darrell Issa’s direct donations and donations by his company to 

determine that he EFMC’d ballot measure committee). 

53 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

54 See Attachment 1; Attachment 2. 

55 F&LA at 8 n.35, MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko and Re-Elect Debbie Lesko for Senate).

ATTACHMENT 5 

Page 13 of 13

MUR809100093