FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 )

In the Matter of )

) MURs 7772 & 8204

Salvemos a Puerto Rico and Joseph )

Fuentes-Fernandez in his official capacity )

as treasurer, et al. )

)

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN SEAN J. COOKSEY AND 

COMMISSIONERS ALLEN DICKERSON AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

This matter arose from both a Complaint and a referral to the Commission from Puerto 

Rico’s Oficina del Contralor Electoral alleging a wide-ranging conduit-contribution scheme 

related to Puerto Rico’s 2020 gubernatorial election. In short, they alleged that certain individuals

established a federally registered independent expenditure-only political committee (“IEOPC”) 

named Salvemos a Puerto Rico (“Salvemos”), as well as two nonprofit organizations—Foundation 

for Progress, Inc. and Fundación Pro Igualdad, Inc. (the “Foundations”)—through which 

contributions to the IEOPC could be made in order to avoid disclosing certain individual 

contributors.

1 This was done in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as 

amended (the “Act”).2

The U.S. Department of Justice criminally prosecuted Salvemos and its treasurer, Joseph 

Fuentes-Fernandez, for the scheme, and they pleaded guilty. Fuentes-Fernandez was sentenced to 

fourteen months in prison with three years of supervised release; Salvemos a Puerto Rico was 

sentenced to three years of supervised probation, ordered to pay a $150,000 fine, and required to 

file amended reports with the Commission.3 Following those successful prosecutions, the Office 

of General Counsel (“OGC”) made a host of recommendations about whether or how the 

Commission should proceed with civil enforcement against the relevant parties. We agreed with 

all but one of those recommendations, and this statement explains the basis for that disagreement.

1 First General Counsel’s Report at 5–9 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et al.).

2 See 52 U.S.C. § 30122; First General Counsel’s Report at 9–15 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 

(Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et al.).

3 First General Counsel’s Report at 9–10 n.37–38 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto 

Rico, et al.). 
2

First, we agreed with OGC’s analysis and recommendations to dismiss with admonishment

allegations against Salvemos and its treasurer in light of the criminal prosecution.4 The Department 

of Justice’s efforts against Fuentes-Fernandez and the IEOPC sufficiently vindicate the 

Commission’s interests in the enforcement of federal campaign-finance laws, and further civil 

enforcement would therefore be duplicative. The Commission has consistently dismissed matters 

in similar circumstances.5

Second, we agreed with OGC’s judgment that the Commission should dismiss allegations 

against the original contributors.6 The available information does not indicate that these 

individuals sufficiently understood or intended that they were making contributions to a federally 

registered IEOPC. Moreover, this lack of understanding raises thorny legal questions. The 

contributors generally believed their funds would be used in support of a candidate for governor 

in Puerto Rico.

7 It is therefore far from certain that the contributors provided the funds “for the 

purpose of influencing any election for Federal office,” such that they qualify as contributions 

under the Act.8

Finally, we broke with OGC with respect to the Foundations. OGC recommended that the 

Commission find reason to believe the Foundations violated 52 U.S.C. § 30122 by knowingly and 

willfully permitting their names to be used to effect contributions in the name of another.9

4 First General Counsel’s Report at 21–23 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et 

al.); Certification (Jan. 25, 2024), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et al.).

5 See, e.g., MUR 6865 (Jose Susumo Azano Matsura) (declining to further pursue Azano’s 52 U.S.C. §§ 30121 

and 30122 knowing and willful violations after criminal prosecution for same activity, and sentence of three years’ 

incarceration, assessment of $3,700, and additional restitution of $560,995); MUR 6761 (Kenneth A. Barfield) 

(declining to further pursue Barfield’s knowing and willful violation of 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102(b), 30102(c), 30114, 

30116, 30122, and 30125(e), after he pleaded guilty to three criminal counts, including “Embezzlement of Funds 

Contributed to a Federal Candidate,” was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison, and was ordered to pay $2,940,821 

in restitution); Factual & Legal Analysis at 1–2 (Jan. 4, 2017), MUR 7072 (Babulal Bera) (declining to pursue further 

action against perpetrator of conduit scheme “among the largest [ever] considered” after Bera pleaded guilty to one 

criminal count each under 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122 and was sentenced to a prison term of one year 

and one day, supervised release for a term of 36 months, and a criminal fine of $100,000, while also noting statute of 

limitations concerns and respondent’s advanced age); Factual & Legal Analysis at 2, 5 (Nov. 17, 2009), MUR 6231 

(Glenn Marshall) (declining to further pursue action against Marshall, who had pleaded guilty to five criminal counts 

for knowing and willful violations of provisions now codified at 52 U.S.C. §§ 30118 and 30122 and was sentenced to 

41 months in federal prison and ordered to pay restitution of $467,612.62); Factual & Legal Analysis at 1 (Nov. 17, 

2009), MUR 6232 (Gladwin Gill) (declining to further pursue action against Gill who had pleaded guilty to one 

criminal count of making contributions in the name of another in violation of the provision now codified at 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30122 and was sentenced to one year and one day in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, 

and was fined $200,100).

6 First General Counsel’s Report at 23–24 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et 

al.); Certification (Jan. 25, 2024), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et al.).

7 First General Counsel’s Report at 23–24 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et 

al.) (“There is comparatively less information indicating that the contributors understood that the ultimate recipient 

of their money was a federal political committee.”).

8 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A).

9 First General Counsel’s Report at 24–29 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et 

al.).
3

According to OGC, there was little doubt that agents of the Foundations knowingly violated the 

statute because the evidence showed that agents of the Foundations established those organizations 

for the express purpose of acting as a conduit for individual contributors to the IEOPC.

Our disagreement, however, is anchored in practical and prudential concerns. In the 

exercise of prosecutorial discretion, the Commission must consider how to allocate its limited 

resources to best serve its interests in civil enforcement.

10 Several factors in this matter counseled 

against the use of those resources here. First, as discussed above, the Commission’s interests have 

been significantly vindicated already by virtue of the criminal prosecutions of other parties. The 

principal individual actor pleaded guilty and will serve time in prison, and the IEOPC will pay a 

penalty, be subject to supervision, and will make the public record accurate and complete. This 

substantial enforcement effort not only ameliorates the violations’ harm, but provides significant 

deterrence to others. In similar matters with successful criminal prosecutions, the Commission has 

declined to move forward with overlapping civil enforcement—especially against organizational 

entities—even in matters where the Commission might pursue some additional penalties or pursue 

additional individuals.

11

In addition, the Foundations appear defunct, and this further counsels in favor of 

discretionary dismissal because it portends a fruitless enforcement effort. The available evidence 

indicates that the Foundations are not going concerns, have few if any assets, and would be unable 

to pay a meaningful penalty. In reports covering the year 2022, Foundation for Progress reported 

$7,752 in assets, and Fundación Pro Igualdad reported just $1,134 in assets.12 Available 

information suggests they have no physical offices, officers, or employees, and we are aware of 

no ongoing activity through the Foundations.13 As such, we believe that civil enforcement against 

the Foundations alone would not result in a substantive penalty or impact the Foundations’ future 

behavior, and that Commission resources would therefore be better allocated toward other 

enforcement matters.14

10 Statement of Reasons of Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Mason, and Commissioners Sandstrom, 

Smith, Thomas, and Wold (May 7, 2001), Pre-MUR 385 (Phillip R. Davis) (“Because the violations at issue have 

been addressed by the Justice Department in a criminal prosecution and a further expenditure of resources is not 

warranted relative to other matters pending before the Commission, we exercised our prosecutorial discretion by not 

taking further action.”).

11 See, e.g., Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Dickerson and Commissioners Cooksey and Trainor at 2 (April 

6, 2021), MUR 7479 (KAIRC PAC) (providing reasons for the Commission’s 4-2 vote in favor of dismissal against 

an unregistered political committee after the individual associated with the committee pleaded guilty to criminal 

offenses). The Commission is unable to pursue enforcement against other individuals involved in the scheme for 

secondary liability because it lacks the legal authority to do so. FEC v. Swallow, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1115–16 (D. 

Utah 2018) (holding that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating a regulation imposing 

secondary liability for aiding and abetting contributions in the name of another).

12 First General Counsel’s Report at 6 (Dec. 19, 2023), MURs 7772 & 8204 (Salvemos a Puerto Rico, et al.).

13 Id.

14 See, e.g., Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Petersen and Commissioners Hunter and Goodman at 4–5 & 

n.17 (Nov. 6, 2015), MURs 6391 & 6471 (Commission on Hope, Growth & Opportunity) (noting the defunct nature 

of the organization as a reason for dismissal and citing previous matters); Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair 

Dickerson and Commissioners Cooksey and Trainor at 4–6 (Oct. 29, 2021), MUR 7502 (Utah Love PAC) (declining 

enforcement, in part, because the committee was defunct and unable to pay any penalty).
4

As we have noted in other matters, “we do not serve the public’s interests by duplicating 

other agencies’ work or pursuing pyrrhic victories.”15 So too here. Accordingly, for the reasons 

given above, we voted to dismiss allegations against the Foundations in this matter under Heckler 

v. Chaney.

16

________________________________ February 26, 2024

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Chairman

_________________________________ February 26, 2024

Allen J. Dickerson Date

Commissioner 

_________________________________ February 26, 2024

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III Date

Commissioner 

15 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Dickerson and Commissioners Cooksey and Trainor at 2 (April 6, 2021), 

MUR 7479 (KAIRC PAC).

16 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985).