FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20463 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Antone for Congress and Dennis Melton ) MUR 7774

 as treasurer ) 

Antone Melton-Meaux ) 

West Coast Public Affairs ) 

North Superior Consulting LLC ) 

Canal Partners Media, LLC ) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF 

CHAIRMAN ALLEN DICKERSON AND VICE CHAIR DARA LINDENBAUM

The retirement of former Commissioner Steven Walther created an unusual procedural 

posture in this matter. As set forth in more detail below, the Commission voted to find reason to 

believe that Antone for Congress and Dennis Melton in his official capacity as treasurer (the 

“Committee”)1 misreported a payee in its disclosure reports, approved a Factual and Legal 

Analysis (“F&LA”), authorized pre-probable cause conciliation, and directed the Office of 

General Counsel (“OGC”) to redraft the proposed conciliation agreement to conform to the 

F&LA. By the time OGC circulated the revised proposed conciliation agreement, Commissioner 

Walther had retired, leaving only three commissioners who had supported the reason-to-believe 

finding, yet the conciliation agreement required the approval of four commissioners. For the 

reasons set forth below, we did not believe that further pursuit of this matter warranted 

expenditure of the Commission’s limited resources and, therefore, we voted to dismiss the sole 

remaining allegation as a matter of prosecutorial discretion.2

 The Complaint alleged that the Committee failed to itemize approximately $3.5 million 

in disbursements for campaign services and misreported the payees and purposes of the 

disbursements. OGC recommended that the Commission find reason to believe that the 

Committee misidentified the payee for $3.3 million in disbursements to West Coast Public 

1

 The Committee was the authorized campaign committee of Antone Melton-Meaux, an unsuccessful 

candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary election for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District.

2 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985); Certification at 1 (Aug. 11, 2022).

MUR777400150
MUR 7774 (Antone for Congress, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 3 

Affairs (“West Coast”) by disclosing the payee as “WCPA” instead of its full name, and that the 

Committee misidentified the purpose and payee of disbursements to two other vendors.3

 

 After considering OGC’s recommendations, four Commissioners voted to find reason to 

believe that the Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(5)(A) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4) by 

misreporting the payee of disbursements to West Coast, approved an F&LA, and authorized preprobable cause conciliation.4

 The F&LA reasoned that the Committee violated the “plain 

language” of 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4), which requires the Committee to “report the full name and 

address” of each “person to whom an expenditure in an aggregate amount or value in excess of 

$200 within the election cycle is made by the reporting authorized committee to meet the 

authorized committee’s operating expenses.”5 The Commission, however, did not approve a 

proposed conciliation agreement at that time, instead directing OGC to “draft a proposed 

conciliation agreement consistent with the Factual & Legal Analysis and circulate that draft 

agreement for Commission approval.”6

 By the time OGC circulated the proposed conciliation 

agreement, Commissioner Walther had retired, reducing the number of Commissioners who had 

supported the reason-to-believe finding to three. Because the revised proposed conciliation 

agreement required the approval of four commissioners, the matter could not proceed without the 

vote of a commissioner who had not supported the reason-to-believe finding. 

 Neither of us voted to approve the reason-to-believe finding – Chairman Dickerson 

abstained, noting his support for a dismissal pursuant to the Commission’s prosecutorial 

discretion, and Vice Chair Lindenbaum had not yet taken the oath of office.7

 Disclosing an 

acronym instead of a payee’s full name is, technically, a reporting violation; however, neither the 

F&LA nor the FGCR cite a prior matter in which the Commission has pursued an enforcement 

matter on such a theory. Instead, they discuss matters where the Commission pursued a payee

reporting violation because a committee used an intermediary as a conduit with the intent to 

conceal the true provider of services.8 Implicit in such enforcement theories is that the payee in 

the disclosure report is incorrect. 

3

 First Gen. Counsel’s Rpt. (“FGCR”) at 1-2, 23. OGC also recommended that the Commission dismiss the 

allegation that the Committee misreported the purpose of disbursements to West Coast and that the Commission find 

no reason to believe that the vendors had liability because they did not have reporting obligations under the Act. Id.

at 21, 23.

4

 Commissioners Broussard, Cooksey, Walther, and Weintraub voted for the reason-to-believe finding. 

Certification at 2 (July 12, 2022). The Commission split on OGC’s remaining reason-to-believe recommendations

regarding the other vendors and approved OGC’s recommendations to dismiss the allegation that the Committee 

misreported the purpose of disbursements to West Coast and find no reason to believe that the vendors violated the 

Act. Id. at 1-3. This Statement of Reasons does not address the Commission’s split vote.

5

 F&LA at 7 (Antone for Congress) (quoting 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(b)(4)).

6

 Certification at 3 (July 12, 2022).

7

 Id. at 2; Press Release, Dara Lindenbaum Sworn in as Commissioner (Aug. 2, 2022), 

https://www.fec.gov/updates/dara-lindenbaum-sworn-in-as-commissioner/#:~:text=August%202%2C%20

2022%20WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Dara%20Lindenbaum%20was,by%20the%20U.S.%20Senate%20

on%20May%2024%2C%202022. 

8

 See FGCR at 8-12 (reciting the precedent). 

MUR777400151
MUR 7774 (Antone for Congress, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 3 of 3 

By contrast, here, the Committee disclosed the correct payee, albeit in a way that 

provided little information to the public. The Commission did not find that the Committee 

intentionally concealed the true payee by disclosing a conduit.9

 The Commission thus based the 

violation on the form of how the Committee disclosed the correct payee – “WCPA” instead of 

“West Coast Public Affairs.” 

 When faced with technical reporting errors, Respondents are often afforded the 

opportunity to timely resolve them through a Reports Analysis Division’s (“RAD”) Request for 

Additional Information (“RFAI”) without penalty.10 Instead, OGC drafted a proposed 

conciliation agreement with a civil penalty which we viewed as disproportionate to the severity 

of the violation. Obtaining this penalty from an unsuccessful primary candidate with few

remaining campaign funds would have been an exercise in futility. While we are sympathetic 

that the disclosure of the acronym WCPA, as opposed to the entity’s full name, prevented the 

public from identifying the company, we believe this type of reporting violation is more 

appropriately handled outside of the enforcement context. 

Our view of this matter may have been different under other circumstances, including if 

the Commission had made a finding that the Committee disclosed the acronym to intentionally 

conceal the identity of the payee from the public or if acronyms were used for multiple vendors. 

However, given the unique procedural posture of this matter, the technical nature of the reporting 

violation, the outsized and uncollectible proposed penalty, and the lack of a Commission finding 

on the intent of the Committee, we believed the better course was to conserve the Commission’s 

resources for other matters. 

 Accordingly, we voted to dismiss the sole remaining allegation as a matter of 

prosecutorial discretion. 

__________________ ___________________ 

Date Allen Dickerson 

 Chairman

__________________ ___________________ 

Date Dara Lindenbaum 

 Vice Chair 

9

 While the Complaint alleged that the Committee intended to conceal payments to vendors by using conduit 

LLCs, including WCPA, to avoid a party’s “blacklist” of vendors aiding challengers to incumbents, the F&LA 

instead found that WCPA was an acronym for the correct vendor, West Coast, not a conduit used to intentionally 

conceal the identity to an unidentified vendor. See Compl. at ¶¶ 12-13; F&LA at 7 (Antone for Congress).

10 RAD did not issue an RFAI to the Committee for disclosing the acronym WCPA. 

9/23/2022

9/23/2022

MUR777400152