1 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 FIRST STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

) MUR 7535

Leah for Senate, et al. ) 

) 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN DICKERSON

AND COMMISSIONER JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

In this Matter, our Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended that we 

dismiss allegations that Leah Vukmir, her campaign committee, and others had 

violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA” or the “Act”) by conspiring to 

raise, give, and spend illegal funds to further Ms. Vukmir’s campaign for the U.S. 

Senate in 2018.1 The Commission ultimately adopted that recommendation.2 

We would have gone further and found no reason to believe that any of the 

respondents had violated FECA. 

I. Factual Background

In mid-August 2018, after winning the Republican primary for one of 

Wisconsin’s seats in the United States Senate, Ms. Vukmir appeared on a podcast 

and a public access television program. On both shows, Ms. Vukmir was asked to 

evaluate whether financial supporters of her primary opponent would ultimately 

back her general election bid.3 Ms. Vukmir gave a series of relatively bland responses, 

1 First Gen’l Counsel’s Report (“FGCR”) at 2, 18, MUR 7535 (Leah for Senate), Mar. 9, 2020.

2 Certification at 2, MUR 7535 (Leah for Senate), Nov. 9, 2021, Certification at 1, MUR 7535 (Leah for 

Senate), Dec. 1, 2021. 

3 FGCR at 3-4 (“Do you have any information as to whether or not they’re going to come around and 

back you, so you can unify the party not just the two of you candidates, but get the kind of money that’s 

necessary to beat [incumbent Senator Tammy] Baldwin?”); (“I have to ask you, you said $11 million 

was spent against you. It was spent largely by one person, Richard Uihlein, who is a prominent 

MUR753500097
2 

noting that there would be an upcoming “unity dinner” for Wisconsin Republicans 

where she anticipated seeing her erstwhile adversary and his financial supporters 

and that, ultimately, both candidates agreed that the most important thing was 

ousting the incumbent.4

 The complaint in this matter suggested that these innocuous statements 

violated federal law. Specifically, the complaint argued that Ms. Vukmir’s public 

statements “suggest that she...illegally solicited soft money for Restoration PAC and 

Americas PAC” from Richard Uihlein, in the hope that these funds would be used to 

support her candidacy.5 It is uncontested that Mr. Uihlein donated nearly $3 million 

to those PACs, which, in turn, went on to spend $736,000 on ads that advocated 

against Ms. Vukmir’s general election opponent.

Our solicitation regulations are hardly a model of clarity. They require a “clear 

message,” but one which may be “made...indirectly.”6 They do “not turn on the 

subjective interpretations of the speaker or the recipients”7 but “hinge[] on whether 

the recipient should have reasonably understood that a solicitation was made.”8 OGC, 

however, gave more credence to our amorphous guidance than it should have when it 

stated that “[t]here is some force to the Complaint’s contention that Vukmir’s 

Republican, conservative donor. Do you anticipate he will ultimately support your campaign, 

ultimately spend money on your behalf?”)

4 Id. at 4 (“Well we are already reaching out to Dick Uihlein and I hope that he will want to continue 

with his commitment, let’s face it, he wants to defeat Tammy Baldwin, and so I look forward to having 

that conversation with him. We have a unity dinner on Friday, with Dick Uihlein and Diane 

Hendricks, Kevin and I, and we will be bringing people together there, and Kevin’s commitment to 

help as well is very important. I have already received several phone calls from US Senators who have 

offered to come to the state and we’ll be talking and continuing those discussions”); (“Well that is 

ultimately what we want. We signed a unity pledge. There was a unity dinner recently and we are 

looking forward to working together. Kevin was gracious in calling me the night of the election, offered 

to help and I think that’s ultimately what’s so important here, is Kevin and I both got into this race 

because we wanted to defeat Tammy Baldwin. We believe that she’s not right for Wisconsin and now 

we need to unify and ultimately finish the work that we started”).

5 Complaint at 2-4.

6 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(m).

7 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chairman Petersen and Comm’r Hunter at 8, MUR 6798 (Vitter), Aug. 

30, 2019.

 

8 Definitions of “Solicit” and “Direct,” 71 Fed. Reg. 13926, 13928, Mar. 20, 2006. 

MUR753500098
3 

statements amounted to a solicitation”9 even as it counseled us that “there are also 

reasons to conclude that the statements did not contain the requisite clear message 

of solicitation.”10 While ultimately recommending dismissal, OGC clearly struggled 

with our less-than-clear regulatory scheme. 

While we cannot fault the complainant for its creative reading of these facts, 

we could not agree that this matter presents anything remotely approaching a legal 

violation. In both of her appearances, Ms. Vukmir was not speaking directly to any 

contributor. On The Mark Belling Show, she stated that her campaign was “reaching 

out” to Uihlein. Presumably, any solicitation would have occurred upon successfully 

“reaching out” to Uihlein—not through the uncertain medium of a press interview.11

On UpFront with Mike Gousha. she answered a question about whether Uihlein 

might support her by replying that “ultimately” she would want a former political 

opponent’s support.12 Only the most strained reading would yield the conclusion that 

Ms. Vukmir was using these unremarkable statements during general media 

interviews to ask a particular individual to contribute to outside spenders.13 

Moreover, we have conclusive evidence that no specific solicitation was ever 

made. Ms. Vukmir and Mr. Uihlein both provided the Commission with categorical, 

sworn denials that they ever spoke to one another, let alone that Ms. Vukmir solicited 

Mr. Uihlein to make contributions to the respondent independent-expenditure-only 

committees. And “[a]t the RTB stage,” when speculation that is “not premised on 

whistleblower testimony or any other sworn statement from someone with direct, 

personal knowledge” is “pitched against a contradictory sworn statement from 

someone with personal knowledge of the matter at hand, we must credit the sworn 

statement.”14 

9 FGCR at 11.

10 Id. at 12.

11 Id. at 4.

12 Id. 

13 Such a rule would also reach an enormous number of routine press statements. The Commission 

would risk being swamped with complaints and would be put in the difficult, and lawfully suspect, 

position of acting only on such statements as drew the attention of complainants – which may, or may 

not, reflect partisan or ideological bias that might skew the practical effects of our enforcement efforts.

14 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Dickerson and Comm’rs Cooksey and Trainor at 9, MURs 

7370/7496 (New Republican PAC, et al.), July 21, 2021 (emphasis omitted); id. at 9, n.45. 

MUR753500099
4 

CONCLUSION

This matter involved a specious theory of solicitation and speculation directly 

refuted by sworn statements. Such a combination merited a finding of no reason-tobelieve, rather than a simple dismissal.15 We voted accordingly.

_________________________________ _________________________ 

Allen Dickerson Date

Chairman

_________________________________ _________________________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner 

15 Certification at 2, MUR 7535 (Leah for Senate), Nov. 9, 2021; Certification at 1, MUR 7535 (Leah 

for Senate), Dec. 1, 2021. 

March 28, 2022

March 28, 2022

MUR753500100