I. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON. 0 C 2046.3 

MEMORANDUM ' 

TO: '.The Commissioners 

... . Deputy Staff Director . 

. Staff Directok 

' Acting General Counsel 

FROM: Office of the Commission Secret 

. DATE: August 28,2001 

' SUBJECT: Statement of Reasons. for MUR 4944 

Y. -- 

Attached is a copy of the State,ment of Reasons for . 

MUR 4944 signed by Chairman Danny L. McDonald, 

Vice-chairman .David M. Mason, Co.mmissioner Karl J. 

Sandstrom, Commissioner Bradley A. Smith, and . 

Commissioner Scott E. Thomas. -c- 

.. 

This was received in the Commission Secretary's Office on .. 

Tuesdav. Auqust 28.2001 at 11:40 a.m. 

cc: Vincent J. Convery, Jr. 

. Information Division 

Press Office 

Public Disclosure ' 

Attachment 

a .. 

. -. . . ._____ 
1 

'I . 

8 

B 

R 

Irl 

es 

f 

3 

f 

0 

3 

.ab 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

Washington,- DC 20463 

-c - - .C 

L 

In the Matter of 

Hillary Rodham Clinton . 

MUR 4944 

Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. 1. 

1 

) ' 

- PNC Mortgage Bank NIA. 1 

and William J. Cunningham, III, as treasurer 

Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc., .as the successor to 

' STATEMENT OF REAsONS 

CHAIRMAN DANNY L. McDONALD ' 

VICE CHAIRMAN DAVID M. MASON 

COMMISSIONER KARL J. SANDSTROM . 

COMMISSIONER BRADLEY A. SMITH ' 

COMMISSIONER SCOTT E. THOMAS 

. 

At issue in the above matter was a mortgage loan agreement entered into by fonner 

President William J. Clinton and now. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton with PNC 

Mortgage to pukhase a home in Chappaqua, New York. The Clintons' home was 

purchased for $1.7 million, with a down payment 'of $340,000, or 20% of the purchase 

price. The remaining $1.36 million of the purchase'price will be paid under the t- of a 

30-year mortgage loan, due November 1 ; 2029. The loan was structured as interest-only for 

the,'first three years, with no origination or add-on fees. The interest rate on the loan is a 

fixed kite of 7.5% for the first three -,'and an adjustable rate determined by the oneyear Treasury Index rate plus 2,75% for the remaining years. 

. I._ . 

.. 

.. 

On July 24,2001, the Commission found no reason to believe that Hillary Rodham 

Clinton or Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc., as successor to PNC Mortgage Bank, 

N.A. ("PNC"), violated 2.U.S.C. §.441b(a), or that Hillary Rodhbn Clinton for U.S. Senate 

..Committee, Inc. or William J. Cunningham, 111, as treasurer, violated 2 U.S.C. gg 44 I b(a). 

or 434(b). We write this statement to explain our reasons for reaching these conclusions . 
. .. 

.I 

.a 

- !WJR 4944 Statement of Reasons, p. 2 

and rejecting the General Counsel’s recommendations‘ in the First General Counsel’s ’ 

Report, dated July 9,2001. (“GCR”). 

I. 

We first address the allegation that Senator Clinton’s committee yiolated 2 U.S.C. 8 .. .-., -. 

434(b). 2. U.S.C. 5 432(e)(2) states, “Any cbdidate . . . who receives a contribution, or any 

loan for use in connection with the campaign of such cqndidate for election, or makes a 

disbursement in connection with such campaign, shall be considered, for purposes of this 

Act, ’ as having received the contribution or loan, or as having made the disbursement, as 

the case may be, as an agent ofthe authorizedco~ittee or comkittees of such candidate.” . 

See also’ll ‘C.F.R. 101.2 and 102.7(d). Skh a loan must be reported by the candidate’s 

committee pursuant to 2. U.S;C. § 434(b)(2) and (3). Thus, in order for Senator Clinton to 

have acted as 

section 434(b), she would have had to have received the loan hm’PNC “for use in. 

4 

0 

b 

M 

u. 

a 

. 

agent for her committee, thereby triggering a reporting requirement under ’ 

: 

9. 

9. 

m . connection with [her] campaign.” . 

fll We conclude that in order for a loan that is made directly to a candidate to be 

rl considered “for tpe in connection with the [candidate’s] campaign,” there must be a greater . 

nexus between the loan and the campaign than what the facts have presented here. It is 

undisputed that the money that PNC lent to the Clintok was used solely for the purkhase 

of their new home. There is no indication that this loan “ked up” hds then used by Me. 

Clinton for campaign expens&. Compare Re: Advisory Opinion Request 1976i84, Fed. - 

Elec. Ckp. Fin. Guide (CCH), 9 6032. The mere fact that a &didate decides to move to a 

particular location at a particular time for campaign-related re&ns does not transform a 

loah the candidate receives for be in connection with the new home into a loan for use in 

. 

. . 

. connection with a campaign.’ . 

.. ’ The Federal Election Campaign Act of.1971, as amended (the “Act”). 

Given the number of candidates who move to new locations after reapportionment and redistricting changes. 

FEC intrusion into such matters could prove unwieldy, at best. Moreover, there are a number of issues arising 

from a candidate’s personal situation (divorce, whether children attend public or private schools, business . . disputes, criminal actions against family members) that may become campaign issues, but the Commission 

will not necessarily therefore deem expenses arising from such controversies to be campaign expenses. See 

Advisory Opinions 1998- I, 1997-12. end 1996-24. Fed. Elec. Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH). 

(certain expenses deemed personal such that campaign firnds.may not be used). Thus, thc fact that Mn. 

Clinton’s residence was an issue discussed in the early stages of the campaign does not transform her 

purchase of a personal residence into B campaign expenditure. See Commissioners David M. Mason. Karl J. 

6258,. 6240.6207 

. . . -. . .- . 
ip) 

\.: . 

MUR 4944 Statement of Reasons, p. 3 

.. 

The Commission's regulations provide fhxther support for concluding the loan at 

issue is not for use in connection with a campaign.) 1 1 C.F.R.. 1 13 distinguishes between 

uses of excess campaign hnds that aie permissible and uses ,that are'personal and therefore 

prohibited. Mortgage payments are an example of a personal use. 1 1 C.F.R. 

113.l(g)(l)(i)(E). It is reasonable to infer that if the repaymit of money Senato&nton 

had borrowed for the pychase of the home would constitute a personal use - as the 

- ..- -9. .- . 

mortgage payments on her Chappaqua home unquestionably would - then the iatial 

making of the loan for that particular&pose would be an obligation entered into for her 

peqmal, not campaign-related, use as. well. bans for which a candidate's home serves as 

' 

collated, but which are'used for.purposes other than paying f0r.a new home, are not 

, ' relevant to the analysis here, Incontrast, a lok the proceeds of which wcrc used for direct 

campaign expenses would'be subject .to the Act, regardless of ,whether the loan was secured 

by a mortgage on a personal residence. 

While the Commission's regulations at 11 C.F.R. 1 13. 1(g)(6)4 treat some payments 

to a candidate for personal living expenses as a "contribution,".we $0 not think that .result 

applies in the circumstances at hand. Payments made "kqkctive of the candidacy" are 

not to be treated as 8 "contribution." In this regard, the analysis is similar to that above 

.. 

.. 

(i.e., whether the loan,is "in connection with the campaign'). We believe the facts suggest 

PNC would have made this loan irrespective of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy. From.the bank's 

perspective, there was a good business opportunity. Although the timing of the loan, and 

Sandstrom, Bradley A. Smith, Scott E. &mas, Statement of Reasons in MUR 4960 (In rc Hillary Rodham 

Clinton for U.S. Senate Exploratory Committee, et al.) dated Dec. 21,2000 ("while it is true that Mrs. 

Clinton needed to establish residency ii~ New York . . . she.could have done so by securing a smiiller and less 

costly residence or possibly without acquiring a per~onal residence at all. Thus. the cost of moving into the 

h~me the clintons purchascc~ was At shown to tx a campaign expcnsi."). ' We briefly note that the General Counsel's Report states that "[tlhe mortgage loan proceeds at issue do not 

fall under the definition of 'personal hnds' in 11 C.F.R. 110.10(b)." (p. 35) That definition is tied to two safe 

harbors for candidates: (1) a candidate may make unlimited expenditures from personal funds under 1 1 

C.F.R. 1 10. lqa), and (2) payments by a candidate from his or her personal firnds for the candidate's routine 

living expenses which would have been incurred without candidacy, including the cost of food and residence. 

arc not expenditures under I I C.F.R. 100.8(b)(22). Since we find no basis for including the Clintons' 

purchase of a new home within the Act's definition of expenditure to begin with, whether or not the Clintons' 

mortgage loan proceeds fall within the definition of "personal funds" does not affect our analysis. 

personal use under this section. payment of that expense by any person other than the candidate or'the 

campaign committee shall be a contribution under 11 C.F.R. 100.7 to the candidate unless the prymcnt would 

have been made iircspcctive of the candidacy." 

1 1 C.F.R. I 13.l(g)(6) states, 'Notwithstanding that the use of hnds for a particular expense would be a I 
.. 

M 

8 

h 

M 

a 

MuR 4944 ShkIXllt Of haSQnS, Q. 4 

.. .. 

therefore the market interest rates relevant to the loan, would most likely have been 

different had Senator Clinton not been a candidate, there is no indication that the fonner 

President and First Lady would have been any less successfill in negotiating a mortgage 

loan agreement with PNC had Senator Clinton not been a Candidate. me-likely guccess or - . .. .- 

failure of Senator Clinton’s candidacy was immaterial to the PNC loan officer’s assessment 

of the Clintons” fiture financial resources, which were &timated to be quite substantial. 

See GCR at Attachment 2, p. 32 and Attachment 4, pp. 7-8. From the Clintons’ 

perspective, there was a reasonable basis for acquiring a private home in anticipation of 

leaving the White House, and the evidence shows the loan did not serve to “fke up” funds 

A 

.. 

for MIS. Clinton to put into her campaign. 

conclusion here. In Advisory Opinion 1982-64, Fed. Elec. Camp.’Fin. Guide (CCH), 

1 5705; the Commission addressed a situation where a former &didate who had received 

a bank loan to pay personal living expenses wished to have his campaign committee 

assume’the debt to the bank and raise fhds to repay the loan. The Commission stated that 

The Commission’s prior applications of the statute and regulations support our . 

.. 

had the candidate pursued his original plan to repay the bank loan hm personal hds, 

‘‘the fact that .[the candidate] obtained the loan to dehy personal living expenses during 

[the] campaign would not have any.consequences under the Act.” Zd. at, 10,954. This 

construction stemmed from the Commission’s regulation at 11 C.F.R. 100.8(b)(22), which 

provides tiat. living expenses paid by a candidate hm pemnal finds are not 

“expenditures” fbr,purposes of the Act. By contrast, where a third party other’thh a bank 

would be making a loan to a candidate to pay for personal living expenses arising during an 

effort to seek election, the Commission considered the’loan io be a “contribution.” See 

Advisory Opinion 1978-40, Fed. Elec. Camp. Fin. Guide (CCH), 1 5341 (loans hm ten ’ 

individuals to pay “personal and family living expenses” deemed ‘%ontributions”). 

The distinction in these advisory opinions between a bank loan and a loan fiom 

some other third party, for purposes of the Act’s application, is supported by the fact that 

bank loans made in the ordinary course of business (even if for the purpose of influencing’ 

an election) are exempted from the definition of ‘kontribution” (2 U.S.C. Q 431(8)(B)(vii)), 

whereas other loans are not (2 U.S.C. 6 43 1(8)(A)(i)). This statutory contrast reflects a 

. .. .. ..... .. . ..- -. 
:+ .- 

MUR 4944 statrment of-=, p. 5 

/--\ 

8. / .... .. 

* 

a 

R 

M 

c 

I 

f 

0 

E 

.. 

!a .- 

common sense judgmkt that standard bank lo- do not raise the concerns that underlie a 

the campaign finance re&latory regime. Treating such lo& for a candidate’s home . 

purchase or other personal living expenses as not “in connec$on with the campaign” and as 

.made “irrespective of the candidacy” is well founded, ,in ow view. 

- - -.- - .i 

, II. L 

Even ifthe loan at issue were made in coimection with an election (which, as stated 

above, we do not conclude it was), it would be exempt &om 2 U.S.C. 6 441b(a) so long as 

it was made in &ordance with applicable banking laws and regulations and in the ordinary 

course of businks? P-t to 11 C.F.R. 100.7(b)(ll), a loan will be deemed to be made 

in the ordinary ‘course of business if it: “Bears the usual and customary interest rate of the 

lending institution.for the category of loan involved; is made on a basis’which assun+ . 

repayment; .. is evidenced by a written instrument; and is subject to a due date or 

amortization schedule.” See a&u 2 U.S.C. g 43 1(8)(B)(vii). 

’ 

. 

We find no reasdn to believe the mortgage loan was either‘ in violation of applicable 

banking laws and regulations or outside the ordinary course of businws for PNC. As 

explained below, the loan at issue satisfies each of 1 1 C.F.R. 1OO.7@)( 1 1)’s &tors for 

determining whether a loan will be deemed to be made in the ordinary course of business. 

Moreover, the exceptions granted to the Clintons that are not directly addressed by the 

factors set forth in 1 1 C.F.R lOO.7(b)(ll) provide no beis for conclpding that the loan 

was outside the ordinary code of business fix PNC. -_ . PNC has provided sufficiently detailed information for us to.conclude that this ’ 

loan’s interest rate “[blears the usual. and customary interest rate of the lending institution 

for the category of loan involved.” On the date that the Clintons and PNC agreed to a rate 

of 7.5% for the first three years with no ongination’or add-on. fees, with an adjustable rate 

thereafter, PNC offered interest rates for adjustable rate mortgages ranging from 6% to 

2 U.S.C. 8 44 1 b(a) states, *%,is unlawful for any national bank . . . to make a contribution or expenditure in 

connection with any [federal] election . . . or for any candidate . . . knowingly to accept or receive any 

contribution prohibited by this section . . . .” ‘For purposes of 2 U.S.C. 0 441b(a), “the term ‘contribution or 

expenditure’ shall include any. . . loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, .or any services, or anything of 

value (except a loan of &my by a national or State bank made in accordance with the applicable banking 

laws and regulations and in the ordinary course of business) to any candidate . . .- in connection with any 

election. . . .” 2 U.S.C. 8 441b(b)(2). 
!?. 

c) -- 

MUR 4944 Statement of kasom, p. 6 . 

7.75%. GCR at Atta;chment 4, p. 6. Fees waived for the Clintons totaled .625%. As 

explained in the Smith ~epors~ 

.. 

Instead of a three year mortgage rate of 7.125%, the Clintons elected to pay a &e of 

7.5% in exchange for dosing fees which were .75% lower. Loan fees included 'an 

origination fee of 1% and a large loan add-on fee of 375% for a total of-1.375%. 

The loan officer waived .625% of the total, which covered all of the add& fee and 

.25% of the origination fee. This left origination fees of .75%, which were covered 

. by the Clintons' rate buy-up. 

As noted in the ad am^' Report: &11 or partial fee waivers were granted in 22 out 

of 53 cases by [the loan officer] during that 60 day period [between August 26, 

1999 and October 25,19991. Of the 22,12 borrowers, including the Clintons, also 

opted to accept a higher interest rate for lower fees. Four of the 12 were loans in 

excess of $1 million with addm fee& and all four rekeived fee waivers, one for 

.25% hd three, including the Clintons, for .625%. 

- , . .- -- 

GCR at Attachment 4, p. 14.. The General Counsel's Report nota that '!Mr. Smith may ' 

have based his conclusions on information not presently available to this Office" (see 

GCR, p. 21, n. 15), but we find no reason to doubt the'accuracy of the data that' Mr. Smith 

presented in his report, id find it is unnecessary to prolong this investigation to obtain 

more detailed information. 

' . 

We conclude thck is ample evidence that the loan was made on a basis which 

assures repayment, which is relevant not only for the purposes of 1 1 C.F.R. .. lOO.7(b)( 1 I), 

but also. for assessing whether theni was adequate assurance of repayment to wmt the ' . 

exception granted to the Clintons for a 20% douin payment, or 80% loan-to-value (LLLW) 

ratio? Not only w& the loan well secured by collateral that exceeded the amount of the 

loan by $340,000 at the time the'loan was made, but the loan officer estimated that the 

In'response to this investigation. PNC submitted a report entitled "Review of Mortgage Undenvriting 

Standards and Credit Standards and Credit Process at PNC Mortgage Corporation for Loan Number 

710009695," written by Marc 6. Smith (the "Smith Report"). Mr. Smith is managing pamrcr of Smith ' 

Partners, Inc., a management consultant firm, and a former president and CEO of Crcstar Mortgage Corp. The 

Smith Report was submitted to the Board of Directors of PNC Bank Corp. (he "PNC Board') in January 

2000. See GCR at Attachment 4. ' In connection witha threatened shareholder's derivative action, former Third Circuit Judge Arlin M. Adam 

prepared a report on the Clintons' loan for the PNC Board on October 28. 1999. SeeGCR at Attachment 2. 

* PNC policy for loans exceeding SI fillion nopally kquircs an LTV ratio of TO%.. GCR at Attachnient 2; 

p. 9. 

.- . 
MUR 4944 Statement of Reasons, p. 7 

Clintons' re&mes would equal $1.1 million af€er closing. GCR at Attachment 2, p. 32.9 In 

addition, taking into 8ccount a conservative estimate ofthe Clintons' fim income, which 

did not include Mr. Clinton's income, the loiUi officer estimated the Clintons' monthly 

income would be $23,601.00, an adequate amount to service the lo& under PNC's 

requirements. In noting that this estimate of fhturc income did not include Mr. &tonk 

income, the loan officer stated, "[Alfter [Mr. Clinton] is out of office, his earnings are 

' 

iq 

--.-.- 

. 

.. -..- -9 I . 

expected to be substantial. He will derive income fiom book writing and public speaking. 

Previous presidents have made as much as one million dollars for one speech." GCR at 

Attacheqt 2, p. 32. 

Clintons' ability to repay a S 1 ;36 million loah," as described above, but 'the ii also . 

sufficient evidence that the Clintons' 80% LTV ratio was not unusual. Akrding to the 

Smith Report, betyken April and October 1999, PNC authorized & LTVmtio higher than . 

70% for 59 lo- over $1 million, ranging fiom 71% to 90%. No fees were levied for these 

exceptions., GCR at Attachment 4, pp. 15-16. We thekfore conclude that.the .. Clintoid . 80% 

LTV ratio was well within the ordinary course of business for PNC. 

. Not only was the Clintons' 80% LTV ratio justified by PNC's &seSsment of the . .. . 

' 

' 

There are two other factors for determining if the loan will be deemed in the 

ordinary course: the loan must be evidenced by a written instrument, and subject..to a due 

date or amortization schedule. The Clintons' loan satisfies b.th these criteria; there is a 

written mortgage loan agreemit betwk the Clintons and PNC, andthe loan has a dpe 

date of November 1,2029. 

, ' 

.. .. 

Although not required for purposes of 1 1 C.F.R. lW.7(b)( 1 1), PNC has also 

provided the fbllowing infbnnation about the parameters for the amortization ofthe type of 

' Although the Clintons' legal liabilities qualed $5.1 18,605.00 as of August 1999, it was reasonable for the 

loan offrcer to exclude this debt tiom his assessment of the Clintons' financial strength. since the legal 

expense trust established to pay off this liability paid $5,273,134.00 of the original $10,391,739.00 due ' 

within I8 months of its inception. GCR at Attachment 2. p. 33. See olso GCR at Attachment 2, pp. 50-5 1. 

lo We note the General Counsel's Report questions "whether other individuals could have receivcd.a loan for 

that amount given the same personal fmial condition*' (GCR. p. 47), and cies information on PNC's 

wcbsite as of July 1 1,2000 (approximately 9 mnths aRcr the Clintonsbcked in their mortgage rate), which 

is based on national averages and which includes the following disclaimer: "PNC Mortgage rates vary by 

market and product. This does not constitute a loan commitment or a guarantee of interest rates. 

Requirements will vary for different loan program or down payments." See GCR at Attachment 8. pp. 1-3. 

The infobtion on PNC's wcbsite in July 2000 is tw general (and too untimely) to be relevant to our 

analysis. 

. 

... .- -. .--.--.--I. .. . .. -_-_- 
. 

h 

0 

h 

M 

a 

f 

3= 

0 

‘3 

MUR 4944 Statement of Reasons, p. 8 

loan the Clintons received: “There ‘are no balloon payments. at any time during the 30 years 

arid there ak no prepayment penalties. The’loans can be amortized at any rate that the 

client chooses even during the initial [interest-only] fixed period simply by making the 

corresponding pamknt.” GCR at Attachment 2, p. 20. Therg is nothing about the-way .- in - ..- A 

which PNC permits the Clintons to ‘amortize their loan that raises any question about 

whether the terms of the loan were outside the ordinary course of business, According to . 

the Smith Report, interestonly paymvts’were elected by more than 90 other customers 

prior to the Clintons. There were no fees charged for the exception.to any customer. 

Interest-only payment plans rn no longer an exception at PNC, but. an available option for 

qualified customers. GCR at Attachment 4, p.16. See ufso GCR at Attachment 2, p.10. 

. In addition to the customary exceptions to PNC policy that have already be& 

discussed above, PNC granted the Clintons sberal other exceptions: a Waver of a second . 

appraisal of the Chappaqk.property, and a waiver of the credit ‘report requirement. Both of 

these waivem seem entirely &onable under the ckumsthces, and neither provid& a . 

basis for concluding.th? the Clinton’s loan was outside. the ordinary course ofbusiness. 

As noted in the Smith Report, “A second appraisal was available from an appraisq for ’ ’ 

another institution. . . . mhe appraisal was utilized as ancillary documentation since it was 

available’at no additional cqst to the boxi~wer, and it confirmed the PNC appraised value 

*th more than arms length ind&endence.”.GCR at Attachment 4, p: 10. See ufso GCR at ’ 

Attachment 4, p. 16. With respect to .the waiver of the credit report requirement, the . ’ 

substitution of the President’s annual Public Financial Disclosure Report and the Clintons’ 

‘ 

. 

. ’ 1997 and 1998 tax returns was an appropriate accommodation, since credit reports are not 

available for a sitting President ahd First Lady. See GCR at Attachment 4, p. 15. , 

Having wncluded there is no reason to believe’that PNC’s loan to the Clintons was . 

made outside the ordinaiy course of business, we next addrw several of the General 

Counsel’s concerns about the loan. The,General Counsel’s Report state that “[tlhe Clinton ‘ 

loan arrangement Was apparently different from the.standard PNC Mortgage loan in a 

significant number of respects,” and then lists the following eight factors: 

. (1) the loan officer waived -25% of the origination fee; 

(2) the loan officer waived the .375% add-on fee; 

.. 

- .. .. . ....... - . 
I. .. .. .’ . :. 

MUR 4944 Statement of Reasons, p. 9 

(=’) --.. (3) 

a 

0 

h. 

M 

the apparent effect of these waivers was that the Clintons paid no fees at all at 

a senior executive waived the requirement for the credit report; 

closing; . 

a senior executive waived the requirement of a second PNC-approved 

appraisal; - 

a senior executive waived the requirement of a 30% down paymetit; 

a senior executive allowed the Clintons to make interest-only payments for the 

first three years; and 

certain of PNC Mortgage’s internal, technical requirements, such as a second 

signature for “Market CEO” exceptions, were apparently not followed because 

of the ktremely senior status of the officials handling the loan. 

- .L - .. .IL L .. . 

.. 

c Gcl-4Lpp.43-44.. . ’ ’ 

A= 

0 

M 

!!! .. 

’ . 

short, it appears that except for the credit report exception, each of these deviations fiom 

PNC Mortgage’s standard lending practices is far hm unusual wheri taken individually.” , ’. 

After discussing each of these factors, the General Counsei’s Report stat& that “In ’ . 

I. 

.. 

3 . ’ 

GCR, p. 45. The General Counsel’s Report nonetheless concludes that questions remiin 

about whether the terms of the loan were “in the aggregate” usual and customary, and that 

“[t]hese questions can only be resolved through investigation.” GCR, p. 45. 

loan were “in the aggregke’’ usual and customary is unwkted. We sject the notion that 

.if a bank grants a number of customary exceptions to a bori0wer.that are appropriately . 

tailored to the borrower’s financial circumstances, those exceptions will somehow kecome 

tainted as “outside the ordinary course’’ if it turns out no other customer can match the 

number of exceptions granted to that borrow&. We think it is highly unlikely that there is 

another couple in PNC’s history (I) who could not produce a credit report because their 

positions (in this case, President and First Lady) made it impossible, (2) whose future 

earning power was highly likely to dramatically increase, (3) who had over $1 million in 

assets, (4) whose prospective residence had been appraised by a third party within the last 

120 days, and (5) whose prospective residence was located in a stable and aMuent real 

.estate market such as Westchester County, New York.’We are therefore more intcrestcd in 

We conclude that any fbrth& investigation to determine .whether the tms of the 

. 

. . 

. . .. . . .. - . . . -. - ._ ._ .
MUR 4944 Statement of Reasons, p. 10 

the nature of the exceptions granted to the Clintons, rather than the number. With the 

exception of the waiver of the credit report (for which adequate substitute information was ' 

provided), PNC has presented adequate evidence that each of the types of exceptions 

granted to the Clintons was well within the ordinary course pf business for PNC. - .i - .. .- a 

In sum, after reviewing the facts presented in the report, the complaint, and the 

responses, we conclude that the mortgage loan obtained by the Clintons for use in the , 

purchase'of a home in Chappaqua, New York, was not made "in connection with" Senator 

Clinton's campaign, nor was it made outside the ordinary course of business for PNC. We 

therefore find no reason to believe that Senator Clinton or Washington Mutual Home 

Loans, Inc., as successor to PNC, violated 2 U.S.C. .§ 441b(a), or that.Hillary Rodhm. 

Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee, Inc. or William J. Cunningham, as treasurer, violated 2 

'U.S.C. 60 434(b) or'441b(a). Accordingly, we have directed the Oflice of General Counsel 

to close the file in this matter. 

./..d.f 

Date 

Date 

F/27L! 

Date ' 

Date 

. Danny L. McDonald, Chairman - 

7w' -..- J.. Sandstrom, Commission 3 

I 

Bradley A. Smith, Cohissioner 

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner