FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Singh for Senate ) 

 and Elizabeth Curtis in her official capacity as treasurer ) MUR 7770

Hirsh Singh ) 

Shore News Network ) 

Phil Stilton ) 

Recall Murphy/Conservative NJ ) 

 ) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. DICKERSON AND 

COMMISSIONERS SEAN J. COOKSEY AND JAMES E. “TREY” TRAINOR, III

This Matter concerned allegations that Hirsch Singh, a 2020 candidate for U.S. Senate

in New Jersey, and his authorized committee, Singh for Senate (the “Singh Committee”) paid 

Shore News Network, a for-profit press entity (“SNN”), in exchange for favorable coverage of

Singh’s campaign and negative coverage and criticism of his primary election opponent in 

online articles and on social media, and that the resulting content lacked the proper 

disclaimers required by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”). 

The Complaint also alleged that SNN and a Facebook group operated by SNN named Recall 

Murphy/Conservative NJ were operating as an unregistered political committee. The 

Respondents denied that that SNN was paid to publish content in favor of Singh or that SNN 

coordinated with the Singh Committee, and invoked the Act’s media exemption. 

Our Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended that we dismiss the allegations.1

We agreed with OGC that this Matter should not be pursued further, but we believed that a 

finding of no reason to believe with respect to the alleged violations was more appropriate 

than dismissal. As we explain in this Statement of Reasons, the information in the record 

before us indicated that SNN’s activities fell squarely under the Act’s media exemption. SNN 

was therefore not required to append disclaimers to its content, to register as a political 

committee, or to report in-kind contributions resulting from its favorable coverage of Singh 

or negative coverage of his opponent. Additionally, the Complaint failed to present credible 

evidence that SNN and the Singh Committee impermissibly coordinated on communications 

regulated by the Act.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, we voted to find no reason to believe that 

SNN made in-kind contributions to the Singh Committee and Hirsh Singh, and the Singh 

1 First Gen. Counsel’s Rpt. at 16, MUR 7770.

MUR777000106
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 2 of 10

2 

Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) by failing to report the news articles and video as 

in-kind contributions from SNN and Stilton; that Hirsh Singh and the Singh Committee 

violated 52 U.S.C. § 30120(a)(1) and 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(a) by failing to include disclaimers on 

SNN’s news articles and video; that SNN and Recall Murphy/Conservative NJ violated 52 

U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, and 30104 by failing to register and report as a political committee; 

or that Hirsh Singh and the Singh Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) by failing to 

disclose contributions from SNN and Stilton resulting from coordinated communications.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Hirsh Singh was a 2020 candidate for U.S. Senate in New Jersey, and Singh for Senate 

was his authorized committee.2 SNN is a for-profit news organization founded in 2008 that 

maintains a website, www.shorenewsnetwork.com, as well as several Facebook groups, one 

of which was formerly named Recall Murphy and is now named Conservative NJ.3 SNN was 

founded and is edited by Phil Stilton.4

The Complaint alleged that, between October 2019 and July 2020, SNN posted a 

series of false and libelous articles on its website supporting Singh and criticizing Rikin 

Mehta, his opponent in the 2020 primary election.5 The Complaint also alleged that Singh’s 

campaign committee paid SNN to write and publish these articles, which it stated are 

actually “campaign commercials purporting to be objective news without a disclaimer.”6 In 

support, the Complaint cited $5,000 in payments from the Singh Committee to JTown 

Magazine, which the Complaint alleged is a subsidiary of SNN.7

The Complaint further alleged that the Singh Committee’s paid campaign manager, 

Joseph Rullo, was featured in a video published by SNN in which Rullo promoted Singh and 

criticized Mehta, and that this video lacked the required disclaimer.8 The video is 37 minutes 

2 Hirsh Singh Statement of Candidacy (Apr. 25, 2019); Singh for Senate Amended Statement of Org. 

(Oct. 5, 2019). Singh lost the Republican primary election to Rikin Mehta on July 7, 2020.

3 Stilton and SNN Resp. at 2.

4 The footer section of the SNN website previously contained the text, “Shore News Network, Stilton 

Company.” See https://web.archive.org/web/20190903133438/http://shorenewsnetwork.com/aboutshore-news-network-your-news (last visited Mar. 24, 2021), but was recently revised to reflect “Shore 

News Media & Marketing Ltd,” https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/about-shore-news-network-yournews/ (last visited: Mar. 24, 2021). Stilton is the sole member of both Stilton Company, LLC and Shore 

Media & Marketing LLC. See State of New Jersey, The Stilton Company, LLC Certificate of Formation 

(July 12, 2016); State of New Jersey, Shore Media & Marketing LLC, Certificate of Formation (Oct. 2, 

2020). 

5 Compl. at 2–3, MUR 7770.

6 Id.

7 Id. at 3–4; see also Singh for Senate 2019 October Quarterly Report at 45 (disclosing two $1,000 

disbursements to JTown Magazine on July 5 and September 3, 2019) (Oct. 15, 2019); Singh for Senate 

2019 Year-End Report at 62-63 (Jan. 31, 2020) (disclosing three $1,000 disbursements to JTown 

Magazine on Oct. 22, Nov. 4, and Dec. 12, 2019).

8 Compl. at 3 (citing Straight Talk with Joe Rullo: Rick Mehta, Hid Staffer Who Got Kicked Out of 

College for N-Word Viral Video, SHORE NEWS NETWORK (June 3, 2020), 

MUR777000107
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 3 of 10

3 

long and includes Rullo expressly advocating for Singh and against Mehta without disclosing 

his role with the Singh campaign,9 soliciting contributions for Singh, and asking for campaign 

volunteers.10 Disclosure reports filed with the Commission reflect that the Singh Committee 

reported paying Rullo $11,000 between July 9, 2019 and June 1, 2020 for “strategic 

management services.”11 The Complaint also alleged that by publishing the articles and the 

video, SNN provided a forum for the Singh Committee to criticize Mehta.12

Finally, the Complaint alleged that the Singh Committee coordinated with SNN to 

send messages on social media to SNN followers defaming Mehta.13 As support, the 

Complaint attached social media messages and comments from four separate individuals, all 

of which contained comments critical of Mehta, and one of which includes a link to a SNN 

article.14 Lastly, the Complaint generally alleged that SNN and Recall Murphy/Conservative 

NJ operated as an unregistered political committee.15

Stilton responded on behalf of himself and SNN, stating that the SNN articles the 

Complaint addressed reflected the conservative viewpoint of the SSN newspaper and that all 

of the articles were true and based on legitimate sources.16 Stilton further stated that the 

$5,000 the Singh Committee paid in 2019 was for “web banner advertising on our campaign 

platform in 2019.”17 Stilton asserted that the Singh Committee did not advertise with SNN 

during 2020 and that Singh did not receive “any other compensation or courtesy for his 

advertising other than his banner ad.”18 Stilton acknowledged that SNN created the 

Facebook group Recall Phil Murphy/Conservative NJ, but contended that it was simply “a 

discussion forum for our readers” and that “once the recall committee failed to achieve their 

goal, we put notice on our social page that the ‘recall Phil Murphy news’ page was being 

https://web.archive.org/web/20201125194353

/https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/03/straight-talk-with-joe-rullo-rick-mehta-hid-stafferwho-got-kicked-out-of-college-for-n-word-viral-video (“Rullo Video”) (last visited Mar. 24, 2021). The 

Complaint specifically alleged a disclaimer violation in connection with SNN’s “articles” and lists the 

video among the articles. Id.

9 Id.

10 See Rullo Video.

11 Singh for Senate 2019 October Quarterly Report at 55-56 (Oct. 15, 2019); Singh for Senate 2019 

Year-End Report at 76 (Jan. 31, 2020); Singh for Senate 2020 April Quarterly at 97 (Apr. 15, 2020); 

Singh for Senate 2020 Pre-Primary Report at 297 (June 25, 2020).

12 Compl. at 1, 3.

13 Id. 

14 Compl. Ex. A at unnumbered 1–4.

15 Compl. at 1, 3. 

16 Stilton and SNN Resp. at 4.

17 Id.

18 Id. Committee disclosure reports show two expenditures to “Stilton Co, LLC” for “web advertising” 

on April 13, 2020 and October 6, 2020 for $1,000 each. Singh for Senate 2020 Pre-Primary Report at 

298 (June 25, 2020); Singh for Senate 2020 Post-General Report at 10 (Nov. 24, 2020). 

MUR777000108
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 4 of 10

4 

renamed in order to allow like-minded readers to keep engaging with each other through our 

platform.”19 The Facebook group includes the following description:

This group was initially set up [f]or our Volunteers to receive and share 

information regarding the Recall Petition. Now that the Recall is over, we have 

repurposed this group as a forum for political discussion (Conservative/antiMurphy leaning of course!).20

The Singh Committee and Singh responded that the Complaint should be dismissed 

for three main reasons: (1) it failed to set out a sufficient factual basis for the allegations; (2) 

it failed to identify a specific expenditure or specific public communication that would trigger 

a violation of the coordination regulations; and (3) the media exemption applied.21

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. SNN’s Articles and Video Fell Under the Media Exemption

The Complaint alleged that the Singh Committee was “given a forum on [SNN] to 

perpetrate lies about Mehta,” and appeared to imply that SNN made an in-kind contribution 

to the Singh Committee by posting the articles and videos critical of Mehta.22

The Act defines “contribution” and “expenditure” to include the gift of “anything of 

value” for the purpose of influencing a federal election.23 The term “anything of value” 

includes in-kind contributions such as coordinated expenditures.24 However, the Act 

specifically exempts from the definition of expenditure “any news story, commentary, or 

editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine,

or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political 

party, political committee, or candidate.”25 This exemption is called the “press exemption” or 

19 Stilton and SNN Resp. at 3, MUR 7770.

20 Recall Phil Murphy Petition Volunteers Facebook Group, FACEBOOK, 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/454842615337653 (last visited June 27, 2022).

21 Singh Committee and Singh Resp. at 2, MUR 7770.

22 Compl. at 3.

23 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i), (9)(A)(i).

24 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.52(d)(1), 100.111(e)(1); 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(7)(B)(i) (treating as contributions any 

expenditures made “in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of, a 

candidate,” the candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents); see 11 C.F.R. § 109.20 (defining 

“coordinated”); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 46-47 (1976).

25 52 U.S.C. § 30101(9)(B)(i). Commission regulations further provide that neither a “contribution” nor 

an “expenditure” results from “[a]ny cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary, 

or editorial by any broadcasting station (including a cable television operator, programmer or 

producer), Web site, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, including any Internet, or 

electronic publication” unless the facility is “owned or controlled by any political party, political 

committee, or candidate.” 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.73, 100.132.

MUR777000109
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 5 of 10

5 

the “media exemption.”26 Spending covered by this exemption is also exempt from the Act’s 

disclosure and reporting requirements.27 The Act’s legislative history indicates that Congress 

did not intend to “limit or burden in any way the First Amendment freedoms of the press and 

of association. [The exemption] assures the unfettered right of the newspapers, TV networks, 

and other media to cover and comment on political campaigns.”28

To assess whether the media exemption applies, the Commission has, in the past, 

applied a two-part test. Whether or not Shore News satisfied the first part of this test is not 

at issue in this matter.”29 The second part involves applying the two-part analysis presented 

in Reader’s Digest Association v. FEC: (1) whether the entity is owned or controlled by a 

political party, political committee, or candidate; and (2) whether the entity is acting within 

its “legitimate press function” in conducting the activity.30

With respect to the first prong of the Readers Digest analysis, SNN appears to have 

been owned by Phil Stilton and The Stilton Company, LLC at the time of the activity.31 The 

Complaint does not allege that SNN is owned or controlled by a political party, committee or 

candidate, and the available information does not indicate that it is. 

With respect to the second prong—whether an entity is acting within its “legitimate 

press function”—the Commission has examined whether the entity’s materials are available 

to the general public and whether they are comparable in form to those ordinarily issued by 

the entity.32 There is no question that the materials at issue here meet that test. Accordingly, 

while there is reason to doubt the propriety of a federal agency probing the “legitimacy” of 

press functions, a project involving substantial risk of inconsistent application and 

26 See Advisory Op. 2011-11 at 6 (Colbert) (“AO 2011-11”); Advisory Op. 2008-14 at 3 (Melothé) (“AO 

2008-14”).

27 See AO 2011-11 at 6, 8–10 (discussing costs that are within this exemption and costs that are not).

28 H.R. REP. NO. 93-1239 at 4 (1974).

29 This inquiry in the first part of the test is whether the entity engaging in the activity is, ostensibly,

a “press entity.” See, e.g., Advisory Op. 2005-16 at 4 (Fired Up!) (“AO 2005-16”). Both sitting and prior 

Commissioners have questioned the constitutionality of this inquiry. See, e.g., Statement of Reasons 

of Comm’r Sean J. Cooksey at 1 (Apr. 22, 2022), MUR 7789 (Courier Newsroom, et al.); Statement of 

Reasons of Vice Chairman Bradley A. Smith and Comm’rs Michael E. Toner and David M. Mason at 

3 (Aug. 25, 2003), MUR 5315 (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.); Statement of Reasons of Chairman Matthew S. 

Petersen and Comm’rs Caroline C. Hunter and Lee E. Goodman at 3 (June 28, 2016), MUR 6952 (Fox 

News Network, LLC); Concurring Statement of Reasons of Comm’r Lee E. Goodman at 1–3, MUR 6779 

(Gilbert, et al.). Nonetheless, the parties to this Matter do not dispute that SNN is a press entity for 

purposes of the media exemption. The SNN Response stated that SNN “is an independent for-profit 

news organization that publishes community, police, tourism, food[,] dining, sports and yes, political 

news.” Stilton and SNN Resp. at 2. that publishes community, police, tourism, food[,] dining, sports 

and yes, political news.”29 The Complaint itself similarly describes SNN as a “news service” and as a 

“media organization.” Compl. at 3.

30 See Reader’s Digest Ass’n v. FEC, 509 F. Supp. 1210, 1214-15 (S.D.N.Y. 1981); AO 2011-11 at 6–7. 

31 See n.4 and accompanying text.

32 See Reader’s Digest Ass’n, 509 F. Supp. at 1215; Factual & Legal Analysis at 4, MUR 7231 (CNN); 

Advisory Op. 2016-01 at 3 (Ethiq).

MUR777000110
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 6 of 10

6 

unconstitutional meddling with entities engaged in activity directly protected by the First 

Amendment, we need not address that issue here. After all, the media exemption 

unquestionably extends to a news story, commentary, or editorial that lacks objectivity or 

expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal 

office.33 Here, the record indicates that SNN was available to the general public, and that the 

news stories and videos in question were publicly available on its website. SNN has been in 

existence since 2008, and it appears to regularly feature articles with a specific political 

perspective and journalistic style.34 The articles that SNN published regarding Singh and 

Mehta are consistent with its perspective and journalistic style and are therefore comparable 

in form to those ordinarily issued by SNN. They fall under the media exemption.

The Rullo Video is also covered by the political commentary component of the media 

exemption. In the video, Rullo analyzes in detail the backgrounds and characters of Singh 

and Mehta in connection with the senatorial election. Rullo expressly advocates the election 

of Singh and the defeat of Mehta.35 Rullo was paid by the Singh Committee during the same 

period of time that SNN posted the Rullo Video. However, SNN posted articles and videos by 

Rullo as a regular commentary feature on its website on various political issues unrelated to 

Singh and the Singh Committee.36 In the Rullo Video, Rullo also asks for contributions and 

33 AO 2005-16 at 6; Advisory Op. 1982-44 at 3 (DNC/RNC) (discussing the “commentary” exemption: 

“Although the statute and regulations do not define ‘commentary,’ the Commission is of the view that 

commentary cannot be limited to the broadcaster. The exemption already includes the term ‘editorial’ 

which applies specifically to the broadcaster’s point of view. In the opinion of the Commission, 

‘commentary’ was intended to allow the third person’s access to the media to discuss issues. The statute 

and regulations do not define the issues permitted to be discussed or the format in which they are to 

be presented under the ‘commentary’ exemption nor do they set a time limit as to the length of the 

commentary.”).

34 See, e.g., Murphy’s “Anti-Hunger” Bill Is A Big Fat Nothing Burger That Won’t Feed A Single Person 

In New Jersey During COVID-19, SHORE NEWS NETWORK (May 9, 2020), 

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/05/09/murphys-anti-hunger-bill-is-a-big-fat-nothingburger-that-wont-feed-a-single-person-in-new-jersey-during-covid-19; Cooking the Books? Murphy To 

“Significantly Increase” NJ COVID-19 Deaths On Monday, SHORE NEWS NETWORK (June 20, 2020), 

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/20/cooking-the-books-murphy-to-significantly-increasenj-covid-19-deaths-on-monday; Nobody Shocked After Joe Biden Accused of Sexual Assault by Tara 

Reade, SHORE NEWS NETWORK (Apr. 27, 2020), 

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/04/27/nobody-shocked-after-joe-biden-accused-of-sexualassault-by-tara-reade; Watch As Trump Press Secretary Destroys Fake News Media’s COVID-19 

‘Gotchya’ Question, SHORE NEWS NETWORK (May 7, 2020), https://www.shore

newsnetwork.com/2020/05/07/watch-as-trump-press-secretary-destroys-fake-news-medias-covid-19-

gotchya-question.

35 For example, Rullo states “start instant messaging every single person that you know to vote for 

Hirsh Singh” and “we are sick and tired of Rik ... vote for a real Republican.” See Rullo Video; 11 C.F.R. 

§ 100.22(a) (expressly advocating includes, among other things, phrases such as “vote for the 

President,” “re-elect your Congressman,” “support the Democratic nominee,” “vote against Old 

Hickory”). 

36 See, e.g., Straight Talk with Joe Rullo: Murphy’s Hypocritical Governing Not Just About Restaurants,

SHORE NEWS NETWORK (June 30, 2020), https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/08/18/straight-talkwith-joe-rullo-milwaukee-jane-has-betrayed-the-republican-party-and-america (discussing Governor 

Murphy’s approach to COVID-19 policies); Straight Talk With Joe Rullo: NASCAR Owes Fans an 

MUR777000111
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 7 of 10

7 

for volunteers for Singh. Rullo tells viewers that, “all you have to do is, real simple, is continue 

to share Hirsh’s posts everywhere, start instant messaging every single person that you know 

to vote for Hirsh Singh.”37 Further, Rullo says:

[W]hat you can do, and I said before, is go to hirshsingh.com and donate to 

Hirsh even if it is $5, 10, 20 30, whatever you can afford. In addition, if you 

want to make calls for Hirsh, instant message me, I will put you in the right 

direction. If you want to put a sign on your lawn we have a link you can click. 

If you are interested in, this is what you can do right away, write a letter to 

the editor and endorse Hirsh for the right reasons ....38

In Advisory Opinion 2008-14 (Melothé), the Commission analyzed the proposed 

operation of an Internet TV station covering the campaigns of federal candidates, observing 

that “under the Commission’s previous interpretations of the media exemption nothing 

prohibits ... commentators and guests to make express advocacy endorsements of certain 

candidates to viewers of its Web site content and, concurrently, to suggest that viewers 

support such candidates with their contributions, so long as neither Melothé, Inc. nor its Web 

site is owned or controlled by any candidate, political party, or political committee.”39 In 

explaining its rationale, the Commission relied on an earlier Advisory Opinion that 

concluded, pursuant to the media exemption, that an “‘endorsement of, including a 

contribution solicitation on behalf of [the candidate] in a commentary’ in a subscription 

periodical does not itself result in a contribution under the Act where the ‘commentary . . . 

appears as a regular feature in each issue,’ and where the periodical is not owned or 

controlled by any candidate, political party, or political committee.”40 Consistent with that 

line of analysis, because Rullo’s solicitation was only present in one video and Rullo provided 

political commentary in the form of videos as a regular feature on SNN, this specific video 

fell within the scope of the media exemption. 

Therefore, given the clear applicability of the media exemption to the content at issue, 

we voted to find no reason to believe that Hirsh Singh and the Singh Committee violated 52 

U.S.C. § 30104(b) by failing to disclose in-kind contributions (in the form of SNN’s articles 

and the Rullo Video) from SSN and Stilton.

Apology, SHORE NEWS NETWORK (June 23, 2020), 

https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/06/23/straight-talk-with-joe-rullo-nascar-owes-fans-anapology (discussing an alleged hate crime of a noose that was found in a NASCAR driver’s garage).

37 Rullo Video at 27:00-27:12.

38 Id. at 33:16–33:46.

39 AO 2008-14 at 7. The Commission was unable to render a definitive conclusion in the Advisory 

Opinion because it lacked necessary factual information on the frequency, character, and context of 

such solicitations.

40 Id. (citing Advisory Op. 1980-109 (Ruff Times)).

MUR777000112
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 8 of 10

8 

B. Unpaid Political Content Published by a Press Entity Does Not Require 

a Disclaimer

With respect to the allegation that SNN’s articles and video lacked disclaimers, the 

Complaint alleged that the content in question was effectively “campaign commercials 

purporting to be objective news” that were paid for by the Singh Committee.41 The Act and 

Commission regulations require a disclaimer whenever a political committee makes a 

disbursement for the purpose of financing any public communication through any broadcast, 

cable, satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor-advertising facility, mailing, 

or any other type of general public political advertising.42 If a communication requiring a 

disclaimer is paid for and authorized by a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or 

its agents, the disclaimer must clearly state that the communication was paid for by the 

authorized committee.43

The available information, however, does not indicate that the Singh Committee paid 

for the articles or video that were placed on the SNN website. The record does not contain 

any evidence to substantiate the allegation in the Complaint that the Singh Committee’s 

payments to JTown Magazine were for the publishing of the articles or video and not for 

traditional advertising on the SNN website.44 Nor does the available information indicate 

that Rullo was paid to create and publish this video by either SNN or the Singh Committee. 

The Complaint alleged that Rullo was Singh’s campaign manager at the time the video was 

posted, and disclosure reports show that Rullo was being paid by the Singh Committee for 

“strategic management services.”45 Although Rullo’s affiliation with the Singh Committee 

was not disclosed in the video, Commission regulations do not require that a press entity’s 

political commentary disclose the speaker’s employment affiliations, and the Commission has 

not previously concluded that because a political commentator is also paid by a campaign, 

his or her commentary constitutes an advertisement requiring a disclaimer. Because the

Complaint contained insufficient facts indicating that SNN’s articles and videos were 

actually paid advertisements, we found that these communications did not require

disclaimers.

Accordingly, based on the lack of evidence in the record supporting the allegation that 

Hirsh Singh and the Singh Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30120(a)(1) and 11 C.F.R. § 

110.11(a) by failing to include disclaimers on SNN’s content, we voted to find no reason to 

believe a violation of the Act occurred.

41 Compl. at 1.

42 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101(22), 30120; see also 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.26, 110.11.

43 52 U.S.C. § 30120(a)(1); see also 11 C.F.R. § 110.11(b)(1).

44 The Committee’s payments to Stilton Co, LLC for “web advertising” during 2020 similarly do not 

appear to substantiate the allegation. See n.18 and accompanying text.

45 Singh for Senate 2019 October Quarterly Report at 55-56 (Oct. 15, 2019); Singh for Senate 2019 

Year-End Report at 76 (Jan. 31, 2020); Singh for Senate 2020 April Quarterly Report at 97 (Apr. 15, 

2020); Singh for Senate 2020 Pre-Primary Report at 297 (June 25, 2020).

MUR777000113
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 9 of 10

9 

C. SNN’s Social Media Activities Did Not Satisfy the Statutory Threshold for 

Political Committee Status

The Complaint alleged that SNN and a Facebook group operated by SNN, Recall 

Murphy/Conservative NJ, acted as an unregistered political committee.46 The Act defines a 

political committee as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons” that 

receives aggregate contributions or makes aggregate expenditures in excess of $1,000 during 

a calendar year.47 Notwithstanding the statutory threshold for contributions and 

expenditures, an organization will be considered a political committee only if its “major 

purpose is Federal campaign activity (i.e., the nomination or election of a Federal candidate)” 

or if it is controlled by a federal candidate.48 Political committees are required to register with 

the Commission, meet organizational and recordkeeping requirements, and file periodic 

disclosure reports.49

Because the articles and video SNN published fall within SNN’s legitimate press 

functions for the reasons discussed above, the costs associated with them do not constitute 

contributions or expenditures.50 With regard to the allegation regarding SNN’s creation and 

operation of the Recall Murphy/Conservative NJ Facebook group, the available information 

does not indicate that the Act’s statutory threshold of $1,000 was met or that SNN or the 

Facebook group were controlled by a federal candidate or had the “major purpose” of federal 

campaign activity. Creating a Facebook group like the one at issue does not cost money, and 

the Commission lacks information about any advertisements placed by Recall 

Murphy/Conservative NJ or by SNN itself. Nor does the available information suggest that 

Recall Murphy/Conservative NJ received contributions or had the “major purpose” of 

supporting or opposing a federal candidate. 

Therefore, because the available information does not indicate that Recall 

Murphy/Conservative NJ met the $1,000 statutory threshold or the “major purpose” 

requirement, we voted to find no reason to believe that SNN and Recall Murphy/Conservative 

NJ violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, and 30104 by failing to register and report as a 

political committee.

46 Compl. at 1, 3, MUR 7770.

47 52 U.S.C. § 30101(4)(A).

48 Political Committee Status: Supplemental Explanation and Justification, 72 Fed. Reg. 5595, 5597

(Feb. 7, 2007) (“Suppl. E&J”) (“[D]etermining political committee status under [the Act], as modified 

by the Supreme Court, requires an analysis of both an organization’s specific conduct — whether it 

received $1,000 in contributions or made $1,000 in expenditures — as well as its overall conduct — 

whether its major purpose is Federal campaign activity (i.e., the nomination or election of a Federal 

candidate).”); see Buckley, 424 U.S. at 79; FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, 

262 (1986).

49 See 52 U.S.C. §§ 30102, 30103, 30104.

50 52 U.S.C. § 30101(9)(B)(i); 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.73, 100.132; see also Factual and Legal Analysis at 6, 

MUR 5928 (Kos Media, LLC) (concluding that respondent media entity did not fail to register as a 

political committee because its activity fell squarely within the scope of the media exemption).

MUR777000114
MUR 7770 (Singh for Senate, et al.) 

Statement of Reasons of Chairman Allen J. Dickerson and Commissioners Sean J. Cooksey and 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Page 10 of 10

10

D. Singh Supporters’ Social Media Messages Did Not Qualify as Coordinated 

Communications 

Finally, the Complaint alleged that the Singh Committee coordinated with SNN to 

send messages on social media to SNN followers defaming Mehta.51 Under Commission 

regulations, a communication is “coordinated” with a candidate, authorized committee, 

political party committee, or their agents and is treated as an in-kind contribution if the 

communication meets a three-part test: (1) payment for the communication by a third party; 

(2) satisfaction of one of five content standards of 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(c); and (3) satisfaction 

of one of six conduct standards of 11 C.F.R. § 109.21(d).52 

The available information does not indicate that SNN had any involvement in paying 

for or disseminating the social media messages referenced in the Complaint, or that a third 

party expended any funds in connection with the messages. Moreover, these messages do not 

qualify as electioneering communications or public communications under any of the content 

standards set forth in the regulations.53

Therefore, because the social media message at issue failed to satisfy both the 

payment and content prongs of the Commission’s regulations defining coordinated 

communications, we voted to find no reason to believe that Hirsh Singh and the Singh 

Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b) by failing to disclose contributions from SNN and 

Stilton resulting from alleged coordinated communications. 

July 13, 2022 ___________________________

Date Allen J. Dickerson

 Chairman

 

July 13, 2022 ___________________________

Date Sean J. Cooksey 

 Commissioner

July 13, 2022 ___________________________

Date James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

 Commissioner

51 Compl. at 1, 3, MUR 7770.

52 11 C.F.R. § 109.21.

53 Id.

MUR777000115