FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION        WASHINGTON,D.C.

 

March 1, 2024 

VIA ELECTRONIC AND CERTIFIED MAIL 

Michael Glackin 

Friends of Mike Glackin 

Hazlet, NJ 07730 

 RE: MUR 8051 

Kiley for Congress 

Dear Mr. Glackin: 

On August 16, 2022, the Federal Election Commission notified Friends of Mike Glackin 

(the “Committee”) and you, as treasurer, of a complaint alleging violations of certain sections of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (“the Act.”) A copy of the complaint 

was forwarded to you at that time. 

Upon further review of the allegations contained in the complaint, and information 

supplied by you, the Commission, on February 14, 2024, voted to dismiss this matter. The 

General Counsel’s Report, which more fully explains the Commission’s decision, is enclosed for 

your information. 

Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See 

Disclosure of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702 

(Aug. 2, 2016). 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Lisa J. Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

BY: Wanda D. Brown 

 Assistant General Counsel 

Enclosure 

 General Counsel’s Report 

MUR805100069
1 BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

2 

3 ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY SYSTEM 

4 DISMISSAL REPORT 

5 

6 MUR: 8051 Respondents: Kiley for Congress and Ronald 

7 Gravino in his official capacity as 

8 Treasurer 

9 Anita Greenberg-Belli for Council 

10 Friends of Cole for Council 

11 Friends of Mike Glackin 

12 Friends of Ross Licitra 

13 Friends of Sue Kiley for 

14 Commissioner 

15 Koch for Council 

16 O’Scanlon for Senate 

17 Owen Henry for Mayor 

18 Scharfenberger for Assembly 

19 Senator Kyrillos Committee

 20 

21 Complaint Receipt Date: August 11, 2022 

22 Last Response Date: October 31, 2022 

23 

24 

25 Alleged Statutory/ 

26 Regulatory Violations: 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) 

27 52 U.S.C. § 30125(e)(1) 

28 11 C.F.R. § 110.3(d) 

29 11 C.F.R. § 300.61 

30 The Complaint alleges that Kiley for Congress and Ronald Gravino in his official capacity 

31 as treasurer (the “Federal Committee”), the principle campaign committee of Susan Kiley, a 2022 

32 candidate in New Jersey’s 6th Congressional District, received a prohibited contribution in the 

33 amount of $1,000 from Friends of Sue Kiley (the “State Committee”), Kiley’s state committee for 

34 her campaign for county commissioner in Monmouth County, New Jersey, in violation of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”).1 35 The Federal Committee 

1

 Compl. at 1 (Aug. 11, 2022). 

MUR805100070
MUR 8051 (Kiley for Congress) 

EPS Dismissal Report 

Page 2 of 4 

disclosed the $1,000 contribution from the State Committee on its 2022 April Quarterly Report.2 1 

2 The Complaint attaches a Request for Additional Information (“RFAI”) that the Reports Analysis 

3 Division (“RAD”) sent to the Federal Committee regarding the apparent impermissible contribution 

from the State Committee to the Federal Committee.3 4 The RFAI also lists possible prohibited 

5 contributions that the Federal Committee received from nine other state committees — Anita 

6 Greenberg-Belli for Council ($500), Friends of Cole for Council ($100), Friends of Mike Glackin 

7 ($1,000), Friends of Ross Licitra for Commissioner ($500), Koch for Council ($100), O’Scanlon for 

8 Senate ($1,000), Owen Henry for Mayor ($300), Scharfenberger for Assembly ($1,000), and 

Senator Kyrillos Committee ($500).4 9 These additional contributions were also reported on the 

Federal Committee’s 2022 April Quarterly Report.5 10 

11 In response, the Federal Committee states that it is “now aware” of the prohibition against a 

12 candidate’s state committee from contributing to the candidate’s federal committee, and upon 

receiving notification of the Complaint made a refund of the prohibited contribution.6 13 The State 

14 Committee also states that it is also “now aware” of the prohibition against such a contribution, and 

confirms that it received a refund of the prohibited contribution.7 15 The Federal Committee disclosed 

making a refund of a contribution to the State Committee on its 2022 October Quarterly Report,8 16 

2

 Kiley for Congress, 2022 April Quarterly Report at 40 (Apr. 13, 2022), https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/

612/202204139496090612/202204139496090612.pdf. 

3

 Kiley for Congress, RFAI at 1 (May 31, 2022), https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/432/202205310300144432/

202205310300144432.pdf. 

4

 Id., Attach. 1. 

5

 Kiley for Congress, 2022 April Quarterly Report at 38-41 (Apr. 13, 2022). 

6

 Kiley for Congress Resp. at 1 (Aug. 29, 2022). 

7

 Friends of Sue Kiley Resp. at 1 (Sept. 20, 2022). 

8

 Kiley for Congress, 2022 October Quarterly Report at 83 (Oct. 21, 2022), https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/

162/202210219541476162/202210219541476162.pdf. 

MUR805100071
MUR 8051 (Kiley for Congress) 

EPS Dismissal Report 

Page 3 of 4 

1 and the State Committee disclosed receiving the refund from the Federal Committee on its 2022 

October Quarterly Report.9 2 The Response also attaches a copy of the refund check to the State 

Committee.10 3 Regarding the eight additional contributions from various other state committees, the 

4 Federal Committee states that it obtained affidavits from the committees to confirm that each has 

5 received sufficient funds subject to the limitations and prohibitions of the Act in order to make the 

contribution.11 6 The Federal Committee includes eight affidavits in its Response (from each state 

committee other than O’Scanlon for Senate).12 7 Five of the state committees, including Anita 

8 Greenberg-Belli for Council, O’Scanlon for Senate, Owen Henry for Mayor, Scharfenberger for 

9 Assembly, and Senator Kyrillos Committee submitted Responses stating that their contribution to 

the Federal Committee consisted of funds subject to the limitations and prohibitions of the Act.13 10 

11 Friends of Cole and Koch for Council submitted Responses but do not directly address whether they 

12 employed a reasonable accounting method to ensure that funds subject to the limitations and 

prohibitions of the Act were used to make the contributions to the Federal Committee.14 13 Friends of 

14 Mike Glackin and Friends of Ross Licitra did not submit responses. 

15 Based on its experience and expertise, the Commission has established an Enforcement 

16 Priority System using formal, pre-determined scoring criteria to allocate agency resources and 

9

 NEW JERSEY ELECTION LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION, Friends of Sue Kiley for Commissioner, 2022 

October Quarterly Report at 4 (Oct. 6, 2022), https://www.njelecefilesearch.com/SearchCandidateReports (linking 

directly to the report is not possible; search for “Kiley, Susan M.,” click on the linked name which appears in the row 

for “Primary 2024,” and click the PDF icon in the row for “10/06/2022, RQ-2022”). 

10 Kiley for Congress Resp., Attach. 9. 

11 Kiley for Congress Resp. at 1. 

12 Id., Attach. 1-8. 

13 Anita Greenberg-Belli for Council Resp. at 1 (Oct. 31, 2022); O’Scanlon for Senate Resp. at 1 (Aug. 30, 

2022); Owen Henry for Mayor Resp. at 1 (Aug. 31, 2022); Scharfenberger for Assembly Resp. at 1 (Aug. 31, 2022); 

Senator Kyrillos Committee Resp. at 1 (Aug. 31, 2022). 

14 Friends of Cole Resp. at 1 (Aug. 25, 2022); Koch for Council Resp. at 1 (Aug. 19, 2022). 

MUR805100072
MUR 8051 (Kiley for Congress) 

EPS Dismissal Report 

Page 4 of 4 

1 assess whether particular matters warrant further administrative enforcement proceedings. These 

2 criteria include (1) the gravity of the alleged violation, taking into account both the type of activity 

3 and the amount in violation; (2) the apparent impact the alleged violation may have had on the 

4 electoral process; (3) the complexity of the legal issues raised in the matter; and (4) recent trends in 

5 potential violations and other developments in the law. This matter is rated as low priority for 

6 Commission action after application of these pre-established criteria. Given that low rating and 

7 apparent low dollar amount at issue we recommend that the Commission dismiss the Complaint, 

8 consistent with the Commission’s prosecutorial discretion to determine the proper ordering of its 

priorities and use of agency resources.15 9 We also recommend that the Commission close the file 

10 and send the appropriate letters. 

11 

12 Lisa J. Stevenson 

13 Acting General Counsel 

14 

15 

16 

17 Charles Kitcher 

18 Associate General Counsel 

19 

20 

21 ___________________ BY: ___________________ 

22 Date Claudio J. Pavia 

23 Deputy Associate General Counsel 

24 

25 

26 ___________________ 

27 Wanda D. Brown 

28 Assistant General Counsel 

29 

30 

31 ____________________ 

32 Gordon King

33 Attorney 

15 Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32 (1985). 

February 2, 2024

Wanda Brown

MUR805100073