FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 WASHINGTON, D.C.

 

 

April 11, 2024 

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL 

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Saurav Ghosh 

Campaign Legal Center 

1101 14th Street, NW, Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20005 

sghosh@campaignlegalcenter.org 

 RE: MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.) 

Dear Mr. Ghosh: 

This is in reference to the complaint you filed with the Federal Election Commission (the 

“Commission”) on November 15, 2022, concerning alleged violations of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) by Beth Harwell, Beth Harwell (House 18), 

Tennesseans for Good State Government (collectively, the “Harwell Respondents”), and 

Government of the People and Debra Y. Maggart, in her official capacity as treasurer. On 

November 16, 2023, the Commission found that there was reason to believe the Harwell 

Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A), a provision of the Act. The Commission was 

equally divided on whether there was reason to believe Government of the People and Debra Y. 

Maggart, in her official capacity as treasurer violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). On March 12, 

2024, the Commission accepted a conciliation agreement signed on behalf of the Harwell

Respondents. Accordingly, the Commission voted to close the file in this matter effective today. 

Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record today. See Disclosure 

of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702 (Aug. 2, 2016). A 

copy of the conciliation agreements is enclosed for your information. Any applicable Factual and 

Legal Analyses or Statements of Reasons available at the time of this letter’s transmittal are 

enclosed. 

MUR809100119
The Federal Election Campaign Act allows a complainant to seek judicial review of the 

Commission’s dismissal of this action with respect to Government of the People and Debra Y. 

Maggart, in her official capacity as treasurer within 60 days of the dismissal, which became 

effective today. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8). If you have any questions, please contact 

Christopher S. Curran, the attorney assigned to this matter, at (202) 694-1362. 

Sincerely,

Mark Allen

Assistant General Counsel

MUR809100120
 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the matter of ) 

 ) 

 Beth Harwell ) MUR 8091 

Beth Harwell (House 18) ) 

Tennesseans for Good State ) 

Government ) 

CONCILIATION AGREEMENT 

The Commission found reason to believe that Beth Harwell, Beth Harwell (House 18) 

(the “State Committee”), and Tennesseans for Good State Government (the “State PAC”) 

(collectively “Respondents”), violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by transferring funds that 

were not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”) in connection with an election to 

Federal office. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission and the Respondents, having participated in 

informal methods of conciliation, prior to a finding of probable cause to believe, do hereby agree 

as follows: 

I. The Commission has jurisdiction over the Respondents and the subject matter of 

this proceeding, and this agreement has the effect of an agreement entered pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(4)(A)(i). 

II. Respondents have had a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that no action 

should be taken in this matter. 

III. Respondents enter voluntarily into this agreement with the Commission. 

IV. The pertinent facts in this matter are as follows: 

1. Beth Harwell is a former member of the Tennessee House of Representatives. 

   	
	

MUR809100121
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.) 

Conciliation Agreement 

Page 2 of 5 

2. Harwell established the State Committee in January 2017 and Harwell 

maintains the authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the State 

Committee and has the authority to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control the officers of the 

State Committee. 

3. Harwell established the State PAC in September 2006 and Harwell maintains 

the authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the State Committee and has 

the authority to hire, appoint, demote, or otherwise control the officers of the State Committee. 

4. The State Committee and State PAC received contributions that were not 

subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act. 

5. On February 24, 2022, Beth Harwell filed a Statement of Candidacy to run for 

Tennessee’s newly-drawn 5th Congressional District and became a federal candidate. 

6. On July 22, 2022, the State Committee contributed $35,000 to the independent 

expenditure-only political committee Government of the People. 

7. On July 22, 2022, the State PAC contributed $12,000 to Government of the 

People. 

8. On July 28, 2022, Government of the People spent $90,084 on independent 

expenditures either supporting Harwell or opposing her Republican primary election opponent 

Andy Ogles. 

9. On August 2, 2022 and August 4, 2022, Government of the People made 

additional independent expenditures of $19,475 and $3,580, again in support of Harwell or 

opposing Ogles. Government of the People did not make any more independent expenditures 

that election cycle. 

   	
	

MUR809100122
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.) 

Conciliation Agreement 

Page 3 of 5 

10. The State Committee’s and State PAC’s combined contributions amounted to 

60.8% of Government of the People’s receipts at the time they were made. 

11. The State Committee’s and State PAC’s combined contributions represent 

Government of the People’s largest contributions. 

12. The Act prohibits federal candidates and officeholders, their agents and 

entities directly or indirectly established, financed, maintained or controlled by or acting on 

behalf of one or more candidates or individuals holding office from receiving or spending funds 

in connection with an election for Federal office unless the funds are subject to the limitations, 

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act. 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

13. To determine whether a sponsor directly or indirectly established, finances, 

maintains, or controls an entity, the factors described in 11 C.F.R. § 300(c)(2)(i) through (x) are 

examined in the context of the overall relationship between the sponsor and the entity. 11 C.F.R. 

§ 300.2(c)(2). 

14. The State Committee and State PAC were entities established, financed, 

maintained, or controlled by Harwell, a federal candidate, and acted on her behalf. 

15. Respondents contend that Harwell was not personally involved in the decision 

by the State Committee and the State PAC to contribute to Government of the People. 

 V. Respondents violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by transferring a total of 

$47,000 to Government of the People in connection with an election for Federal office that were 

not subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act. 

 VI. Respondents will take the following actions: 

 1. Respondents will pay a combined civil penalty to the Commission in the 

amount of Sixteen Thousand ($16,000), pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(5)(A). 

   	
	

MUR809100123
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.) 

Conciliation Agreement 

Page 4 of 5 

2. Respondents will cease and desist from committing violations of 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30125(e)(1)(A). 

 VII. The Commission, on request of anyone filing a complaint under 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30109(a)(1) concerning the matters at issue herein or on its own motion, may review 

compliance with this agreement. If the Commission believes that this agreement or any 

requirement thereof has been violated, it may institute a civil action for relief in the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia. 

 VIII. This agreement shall become effective as of the date that all parties hereto have 

executed the same and the Commission has approved the entire agreement. 

 IX. Respondents shall have no more than 30 days from the date this agreement 

becomes effective to comply with and implement the requirements contained in this agreement 

and to so notify the Commission. 

 X. This Conciliation Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties 

on the matters raised herein, and no other statement, promise, or agreement, either written or 

 

   	
	

MUR809100124
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.) 

Conciliation Agreement 

Page 5 of 5 

oral, made by either party or by agents of either party, that is not contained within this written 

agreement shall be enforceable. 

FOR THE COMMISSION: 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

BY: __________________________ _____________ 

 Charles Kitcher Date 

 Associate General Counsel 

 for Enforcement 

FOR THE RESPONDENT: 

 _ __________ _____________ 

 (Name) Date 

 (Position) 

   	
	




	



	  


Charles 

Kitcher

Digitally signed by 

Charles Kitcher 

Date: 2024.03.14 

14:02:30 -04'00'

MUR809100125
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).

MUR809100126
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 2 of 14

 

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 

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

2006.6

 Harwell serves as President of the State PAC.7 14 

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

Tennessee’s newly-drawn 5th Congressional District.8 16 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

 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

 Harwell Resp. at 2. 

7

 Id. 

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. 

MUR809100127
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 3 of 14

 

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

Ogles.15 8 GOTP reported additional independent expenditures of $19,475 on August 2, 2022, and 

9 $3,580 on August 4, 2022, again in support of Harwell or opposing Ogles, and did not make any 

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, 

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). 

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 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/. 

MUR809100128
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 4 of 14

 

more independent expenditures that election cycle.16 1 For the 2022 election cycle, GOTP 

2 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 

opponent between July 27, 2022 and August 1, 2022.21 13 As a result, the Complaint alleges that 

14 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.22 15 

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 Sept. 26, 2023). 

18 Id. 

19 Compl. at 5. 

20 Id. at 5-6. 

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

22 Id. 

MUR809100129
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 5 of 14

 

1 B. The Response 

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

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

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

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

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

regulatory definition of EFMC.23 7 Second, the Harwell Response argues that the State PAC’s 

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

contributions included “some” federal funds.24 9 Third, the Harwell Response cites MUR 7114 

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

11 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.”25 12 Fourth, the Harwell Response argues that 

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

14 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.26 15 

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

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

24 Id. at 4-5. 

25 Id. at 5. 

26 Id. at 5. 

MUR809100130
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 6 of 14

 

1 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 

2 

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

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

5 1. Legal Standard 

 6 

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

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

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

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

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

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

prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.”27 13 

This prohibition reinforces 52 U.S.C § 30125(a)28 14 by preventing federal candidates and 

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

16 circumventing the prohibitions applying to national committees by controlling ostensibly 

separate entities that could accept and spend nonfederal funds.29 17 

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

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

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

27 52 U.S.C § 30125(e)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 300.61. 

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

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

29 See id. at 121, 133. 

MUR809100131
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 7 of 14

 

1 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.”30 2 The ten factors are: 

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

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

5 “formal or informal;” 

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

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

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

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

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

11 officers, or employees of an entity; 

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

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

14 administrative, fundraising, or other costs; 

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

16 ongoing basis” to be provided to an entity; 

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

(x) Similar patterns of receipts or disbursements with an entity.31 18 

19 2. The State Committee and the State PAC Are Entities EFMC’d by or 

20 Acting on Behalf of a Federal Candidate that Spent Nonfederal Funds in 

21 Connection with a Federal Election 

22 

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

24 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.32 25 

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

30 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). 

31 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). 

32 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). 

MUR809100132
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 8 of 14

 

undertakings as the leader of her party’s state house caucus.”33 1 Therefore, the State Committee 

2 should be considered EFMC’d by Harwell as a matter of law. 

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

in January 2017.34 4 And while the Commission provides for the possibility that the relationship 

5 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.35 6 Harwell’s 

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

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

the officers’ of [the State Committee].”36 9 Thus, the record shows that the relationship between 

10 Harwell and the State Committee has not been severed. 

11 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.37 12 And like 

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

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

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

33 Harwell Resp. at 2. 

34 Id. at 1. 

35 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). 

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

37 Id. at 2. 

MUR809100133
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 9 of 14

 

and the State PAC has not been severed.38 1 Indeed, Harwell remains President of the State PAC, 

a position that ordinarily indicates the ability to control an organization.39 2 

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

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

5 § 30125(e)(1). These arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First, the Harwell 

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

the entity while the person is a federal candidate or officeholder.”40 7 But that interpretation 

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

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

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

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

long before their federal candidacy.41 12 In short, the State PAC and State Committee may still be 

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

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

15 11 C.F.R. § 300.2(c), the Commission’s regulation defining EFMC, were satisfied to establish 

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

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

38 Id. at 4. 

39 Id. 

40 Id. at 3 (emphasis in original) (quoting Statement of Commissioner Lee E. Goodman on the “Established, 

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

41 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). 

MUR809100134
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 10 of 14

 

1 300.2(c): she has authority or ability to direct or participate in the governance of the State 

2 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.42 3 But the Harwell Response 

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

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

are absent.43 6 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).44 7 By doing so, 

8 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.45 9 

10 Such an interpretation is consistent with the plain text of the Act, because its inclusion of the 

word “or” indicates that only one type of specified relationship is necessary.46 11 Here, Harwell’s 

42 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. 

43 Id. 

44 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). 

45 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.”). 

46 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).

MUR809100135
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 11 of 14

 

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

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

3 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).47 4 

5 b. The State Committee and State PAC Spent Nonfederal Funds in 

6 Connection with a Federal Election 

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

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

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

reporting provisions.48 10 

11 The State Committee and State PAC’s disclosure reports (Attachments 1 and 2) reveal 

12 that they accepted nonfederal funds. Since its establishment in 2017, the State Committee 

13 received $63,100 in contributions from the following sources: $54,200 from corporate PACs, 

14 $8,000 directly from corporations, $500 from the committee of former Nashville mayor Megan 

Barry, and $400 from two individuals.49 The State PAC last received contributions in 2018.50 15 

47 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). 

48 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A). 

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

receipts). 

50 Resp. at 2. 

MUR809100136
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 12 of 14

 

1 The State PAC’s individual contributions received in 2018 total $98,000, of which $64,700 

(66%) exceeded the Act’s amount limitations.51 2 

3 The Harwell Response acknowledges that the Committee’s contributions to GOTP 

included nonfederal funds.52 4 However, the Harwell Response cites to advisory opinions where 

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

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

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

8 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.53 9 The 

10 Harwell Response argues that the Committee can show, using the “last in, first transferred” 

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

Committee contributed to the State PAC included nonfederal funds.54 12 But even assuming that 

13 the advisory opinions cited in the Harwell Response extend to a candidate’s state committee’s 

14 contributions to independent expenditure-only political committees, and assuming that the 

15 Committee did, in fact, utilize a last in, first transferred account method at the time, the Harwell 

16 Response’s assertion does not appear to be correct. According to the State PAC’s disclosure 

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

52 Harwell Resp. at 4-5. 

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

(Casey)). 

54 Id. at 4-5. 

MUR809100137
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 13 of 14

 

1 reports, the last $12,000 received included a $7,500 individual contribution, which exceeded the 

Act’s amount limits by $4,600.55 2 

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

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

transferred accounting method is used.56 5 Again, assuming that the advisory opinions cited in the 

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

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

8 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.57 9 This 

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

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

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

from individuals without limit and from corporations.58 13 

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

violation is “modest.”59 15 But the cases cited—MUR 7114 and MUR 7337—do not support 

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

55 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). 

56 Harwell Resp. at 4-5. 

57 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.)). 

58 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”). 

59 Harwell Resp. at 5. 

MUR809100138
MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.)

Factual and Legal Analysis 

Page 14 of 14

 

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

nonfederal funds after his federal candidacy and spent $1,849.60 2 In MUR 7337, far from the 

3 $50,000 amount in violation being considered too modest, the Commission found reason to 

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

Arizona.61 5 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).62 6 Finally, in both MUR 

7 7114 and 7337, unlike in the instant matter, the relevant state law prohibited state PACs from 

accepting corporate contributions.63 8 

9 * * * 

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

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

12 Commission finds reason to believe that Harwell, the State Committee, and the State PAC 

13 violated 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1)(A) by transferring nonfederal funds in connection with an 

14 election for federal office. 

60 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.). 

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

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

63 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.). 

MUR809100139
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

MUR809100140
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

MUR809100141
CONTRIBUTIONS RE&(,9(' 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

MUR809100142
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

MUR809100143
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

 WASHINGTON, D.C.

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

) MUR 8091

Beth Harwell, et al. )

)

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN SEAN J. COOKSEY

The Complaint in this matter alleged that former member of the Tennessee House of 

Representatives and one-time congressional candidate Beth Harwell, through two of her state-level 

political committees—the Beth Harwell Committee and the Harwell PAC (“State Committees”)—

violated the soft-money provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended 

(the “Act”), by using non-federal funds to support her bid for federal office.1 The Commission

voted to find reason to believe that such a violation did occur and conciliated with those parties.

2

For the reasons set forth below, however, I did not agree with the Office of General Counsel’s 

(“OGC”) recommendations to further pursue enforcement against the independent expenditureonly political committee to which Harwell’s committees contributed—Government of the People

(“GOTP”).3

First, I disagreed with OGC’s decision to name and include GOTP as a party in this matter 

in the first instance. While the Complaint asserts detailed allegations against Harwell and the State 

Committees, it does not name GOTP as a respondent nor allege that it committed any violation of 

the Act.4 Nevertheless, OGC saw fit to add GOTP to the matter without Commission approval and 

to recommend enforcement based on its own review of GOTP’s reports and an independently 

derived theory that Harwell controlled GOTP by virtue of the State Committees’ contributions. As 

commissioners have raised in many previous matters, OGC’s exercise of unilateral discretion to 

add respondents is unmoored from any set of Commission-approved procedures or limiting 

principles, and it likely lacks legal justification.

5

1 Complaint at 1–2 (Nov. 15, 2022), MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.).

2 See 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e); Certification (Nov. 16, 2023), (Beth Harwell, et al.); Certification (March 12, 

2024), (Beth Harwell, et al.).

3 See First General Counsel’s Report at 18–22 (Oct. 17, 2023), MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.).

4 See generally Complaint (Nov. 15, 2022), MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.).

5 See Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Donald McGahn at 6–8 (Sept. 16, 2013), MUR 6576 (Wright 

McLeod for Congress, et al.). See also Statement of Reasons of Vice Chairman Sean J. Cooksey, and Commissioners 

Allen Dickerson and James E. “Trey” Trainor, III at 5 (Jan. 20, 2023), MUR 7889 (SIG SAUER, Inc.); Statement of 

Reasons of Vice Chairman Allen Dickerson, and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and James E. “Trey” Trainor, III at 

5 n.30 (Aug. 27, 2021), MUR 7507 (Aftab for Ohio, et al.).

MUR809100151
2

Second, even if GOTP had been properly included as a respondent, I disagreed with OGC’s 

legal analysis concluding that Harwell controlled GOTP, and that GOTP therefore violated the 

Act’s soft-money provisions by receiving non-federal funds. OGC maintains that Harwell assumed 

control by “financing” GOTP—that is, the State Committees’ contributions to GOTP made up 

such a large proportion of its overall receipts as to functionally give Harwell control over it.6In its 

analysis, OGC determined that the $47,000 in total given by the State Committees constituted 

60.8% of GOTP’s receipts at the time of the contributions, and in light of various Commission 

precedents, this constituted an amount sufficient enough to establish control.7

OGC’s methodology is flawed, however, because it fails to consider the entirety of GOTP’s 

receipts. Instead, it uses the arbitrary cutoff of considering GOTP’s receipts only up to the date of 

the State Committees’ contributions—not all receipts in the relevant time period. During its active 

period, GOTP received only fifteen contributions—totaling $123,250—all over a single two-week 

span from July 20 to August 3, 2022.8 The State Committees made their contributions on July 22, 

2022.9 Given that the entirety of GOTP’s funds were raised over the course of 15 days, it is 

misleading, in my view, to calculate the proportion of the State Committee’s contributions as part 

of GOTP’s overall receipts based on the monies received in the first three days of fundraising, but 

not the following twelve.10 By OGC’s logic, every committee would also be controlled by its first 

contributor, who by definition provides 100 percent of the committee’s funds up to that point. This 

is plainly wrong. 

Properly considered then, as a total of all contributions to GOTP, the State Committees’ 

contributions constituted only 38 percent of overall contributions—not 60.8 percent. That brings 

the level of financing in this matter far below others in which the Commission has found control 

based on the proportion of funding provided by a single contributor.11 Absent other circumstances, 

I do not believe that providing 38 percent of an entity’s funding is sufficient to establish control 

over it. OGC’s sole citation in support of the opposite conclusion is an enforcement matter from 

1982 applying the Commission’s affiliation regulations, which I find unpersuasive.12

Consequently, I concluded that there was no basis to find that Harwell controlled GOTP, and as a 

result, GOTP did not violate the Act’s soft-money provisions by receiving non-federal funds. 

* * *

6 First General Counsel’s Report at 18–22 (Oct. 17, 2023), MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.).

7

Id. at 20–21.

8 Government of the People, Amended 2022 October Quarterly Report (Jan. 8, 2024).

9

Id.

10 Id.

11 See, e.g., Factual & Legal Analysis at 10–11 (May 19, 2022), MUR 7853 (Stand for Truth, Inc.) (finding 

control based on contributions constituting 95.5 percent of a committee’s funding in the relevant time period); Factual 

& Legal Analysis at 6–8 (Aug. 13, 2019), MUR 7337 (Debbie Lesko et al.) (finding control based on a single 

contribution constituting 99 percent of a committee’s funding); Factual & Legal Analysis at 6 (Feb. 20, 2004), MUR 

5367 (Darrell Issa) (finding control based on a federal candidate providing 60 percent of a committee’s funding). 

12 First General Counsel’s Report at 20 n.88 (Oct. 17, 2023), MUR 8091 (Beth Harwell, et al.).

MUR809100152
3

For the foregoing reasons, I did not find reason to believe that Government of the People 

committed a violation in this matter.

________________________________ April 9, 2024

Sean J. Cooksey Date

Chairman

MUR809100153