FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of ) 

 ) 

Service Tire Truck Centers, Inc. ) MUR 7890

Senate Leadership Fund ) 

 and Caleb Crosby in his official capacity as treasurer ) 

 ) 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIRMAN ALLEN J. DICKERSON AND 

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

This Matter involves allegations that Service Tire Truck Centers, Inc. (“STTC”), a 

regional chain of truck maintenance and repair shops, violated the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”)’s federal government contractor contribution 

ban by contributing to a super PAC during the four-day period that a U.S. General Services 

Administration truck was having its tires replaced at STTC’s Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

location.1 The Complaint also intimates that the recipient super PAC, Senate Leadership 

Fund (“SLF”), may have violated the Act by knowingly soliciting a prohibited contribution 

from a federal government contractor.2 Both STTC and SLC deny the allegations, arguing 

that STTC was not a federal contractor within the meaning of the Act.3 SLC also argues that 

the Complaint fails to provide evidence that SLC knowingly solicited the contribution.4

Our Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended that the Commission dismiss 

the allegation as to STTC pursuant to our prosecutorial discretion under Heckler v. Chaney5

and find no reason to believe a violation had occurred as to SLF,6 and we did so unanimously.7 

We agree with OGC that the unique circumstances of this matter merited dismissal

as to STTC, but we note that the theory put forth by the Complainant, while drafted as a 

seemingly innocuous invocation of the federal government contractor contribution ban, 

contains a poison pill that would unduly chill constitutionally protected activity. If 

Complainant’s theory were to hold, a wide variety of corporate entities that provide goods 

and services directly to the public—from auto repair garages that fix trucks, to sandwich 

shops that cater lunches, to companies that provide on-demand printing services—would be 

1 Compl. at 1, MUR 7890.

2 Id. at 3.

3 SLF Resp. at 2, MUR 7890; STTC Resp. at 1–2, MUR 7890. 4 SLF Resp. at 1.

5 470 U.S. 821 (1985).

6 First Gen. Counsel’s Report at 2, MUR 7890.

7 Certification, MUR 7890 (Jan. 11, 2022).

MUR789000067
MUR 7890 (Service Tire Truck Centers, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 2 of 5 

2 

obliged to verify that every transaction was not paid for by a person using a federal 

government credit card or reimbursed with federal government funds if it sought to make 

otherwise permitted contributions. For many companies, especially small businesses or sole 

proprietorships, this compliance burden could be costly and burdensome enough that the

company would simply avoid political giving altogether. 

In short, the Complaint’s theory would impose onerous and likely insurmountable 

compliance obstacles to the exercise of a constitutional right.8 We declined the invitation to 

proceed in this manner and write separately to explain why future complaints premised on 

the same theory are unlikely to prevail before the Commission or to survive constitutional 

scrutiny in the courts.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

STTC is a tire and automotive service company headquartered in Bethlehem, 

Pennsylvania.9 According to its website, STTC operates 49 service center locations in eight 

states and has more than 850 employees.10 The Complaint alleges, based on information 

publicly available at USASpending.gov, that STTC was a party to contracts with the GSA, a 

federal government agency. Specifically, the Complaint references three contracts with the 

GSA: (1) one performed between November 17-19, 2020, for $3,609; (2) one performed 

between November 19-23, 2020, for $3,646; and (3) one performed between November 27,

2020-December 2, 2020, for $3,609.11 

STTC does not dispute that, on November 20, 2020, it made a $50,000 contribution to 

SLF, but it denies that its transactions with the federal government make it a federal 

contractor for the purposes of 52 U.S.C. § 30119.12 STTC states that it is “unaware of 

participating in any federal procurement process,”13 and that “[i]n reviewing the timeframe 

within the complaint, it appears that a representative or employee from the General Services 

Administration [] pulled into a retail store and purchased tires and/or servicing for their 

vehicles, as a result of either getting a flat tire, or having low tread.”14 Attached to the STTC 

Response are copies of the relevant invoices and credit card receipts showing what appear to 

8 Citizens United v. Fed Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 319, 357 (2010) (“The Government may regulate 

corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress 

that speech altogether.”).

9 About, SERVICE TIRE TRUCK CENTERS INC., https://www.sttc.com/about-sttc/ (last visited Feb. 8, 

2022).

10 Id. 11 Compl. at 2–3 (citing USAspending.gov, Contract Summary, Award ID 47QMCC21PE025,

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_47QMCC21PE025_4732_-NONE-_-NONE-; 

USAspending.gov, Contract Summary, Award ID 47QMCC21PE028,

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_47QMCC21PE028_4732_-NONE-_-NONE-; 

USAspending.gov, Contract Summary, Award ID 47QMCC21PE035

https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_47QMCC21PE025_4732_-NONE-_-NONE-). 12 Senate Leadership Fund, 2020 Post-General Election Report, FEC Form 3X at 191 (amended Jan. 

14, 2021), 

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/244/202101149404569244/202101149404569244.pdf#navpanes=0 (last 

visited Feb 8, 2022); STTC Resp. at 1.

13 STTC Resp. at 1. 14 Id.

MUR789000068
MUR 7890 (Service Tire Truck Centers, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 3 of 5 

3 

be point of sale purchases for routine truck maintenance expenses, including truck tire 

replacement and associated labor costs, tire disposal costs, and roadside towing services and 

mileage.15

SLF states that there is no information in the record that suggests it knowingly 

solicited prohibited contributions from STTC and asserts that the form its contributors fill 

out and return with their contribution includes three separate notices that contributions from 

federal government contractors are prohibited.16

II. APPLICABLE LAW

A “contribution” is defined as “any gift ... of money or anything of value made by any 

person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.”17 Under the Act, a 

federal contractor may not make contributions to political committees.18 Specifically, the Act 

prohibits “any person ... [w]ho enters into any contract with the United States ... for the 

rendition of personal services or furnishing any material, supplies, or equipment to the 

United States or any department or agency thereof” from making a contribution “if payment 

for the performance of such contract ... is to be made in whole or in part from funds 

appropriated by the Congress.”19 

These prohibitions commence at the beginning of negotiations or when proposal 

requests are sent out, whichever occurs first, and conclude upon the completion of 

performance of the contract or the termination of negotiations, whichever occurs last.20 They 

apply to any federal contractor who makes contributions to any political party, political 

committee, federal candidate, or “any person for any political purpose or use.”21 Commission 

regulations define “contract” to include: (1) a sole source, negotiated, or advertised 

procurement conducted by the United States or any of its agencies; (2) a written (except as 

otherwise authorized) contract, between any person and the United States or any of its 

departments or agencies, for the furnishing of personal property, real property, or personal 

services; and (3) any modification of a contract.22 

III. ANALYSIS

We voted to dismiss these allegations for prudential reasons, considering the nature 

and size of the purchases and the preservation of Commission resources. 

Each of STTC’s “contracts” cited by the Complaint—which are more accurately 

characterized as purchase orders for discrete transactions, rather than formalized business

relationships between STTC and GSA—lasted only for a few days, which is consistent with 

the length of time it would take to complete the tire-replacement services listed on each 

15 Id. at Ex. A.

16 SLC Resp. at 1 and Ex. A.

17 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i).

18 Id. § 30119(a); 11 C.F.R. § 115.2.

19 52 U.S.C. § 30119(a)(1); see also 11 C.F.R. part 115.

20 52 U.S.C. § 30119(a)(1); 11 C.F.R. § 115.1(b). 21 52 U.S.C. § 30119(a)(1); 11 C.F.R. § 115.2. 22 11 C.F.R. § 115.1(c).

MUR789000069
MUR 7890 (Service Tire Truck Centers, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 4 of 5 

4 

invoice.23 Each transaction was for no more than a few thousand dollars, which is consistent 

with ordinary retail transactions at an establishment providing truck-tire repair and 

replacement services.24 

These distinct, relatively small transactions are distinguishable from GSA’s normal 

process for soliciting and negotiating contracts, which the agency itself notes is “a challenging 

process for a company of any size.”25 Vendors who wish to get on the GSA schedule must 

navigate a labyrinth of regulatory requirements and agency-specific restrictions, including 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the General Services Administration Acquisition 

Manual.26 The Complaint does not allege, and the available information does not indicate, 

that STTC was subject to any of these requirements. Instead, it simply appears that, in 

advance of the winter months, several conscientious GSA employees noticed that the tire 

treads on their government vehicles were low and brought them to one of STTC’s shops for 

maintenance. 

Although the invoices provided by STTC and paid at the termination of its services 

note that the payor was “GSA-Fleet Management,”27 it is not clear whether the GSA employee

who initiated the services prior to invoicing notified STTC that the payor would be the federal 

government. Moreover, the nature of the transactions indicates that they could arise with 

little or no notice—indeed, one of the invoices, from November 19th, 2020, noted that roadside 

service and towing was required for one of the GSA vehicles at issue.28 Consequently, the 

STTC employee who accepted the vehicles for repair may not have been aware that the payor 

would be the federal government, and the STTC personnel making political contribution 

decisions may not have had sufficient information about those transactions at the time of the 

contribution. 

If the Commission had acceded to the Complaint’s request that we find reason to 

believe a violation had occurred in this Matter, one wouldn’t need a weathervane to see which 

way the wind would blow with respect to future applications of the government contractor 

contribution ban. Although the instant fact pattern is unique in the Commission’s experience 

to date, it is easily analogized to other, similarly-situated businesses that provide goods and 

services to retail customers—for example, the sandwich shop that accepts a catering order

for an agency’s Christmas lunch, or the printing and stationery store that is asked to run off 

a sheaf of professionally bound documents at an agency’s request. While such transactions 

qualify as “contracts” in the sense that they involve a binding agreement for one party to pay 

for goods or services that the other party provides, they are typically not long-term or highdollar arrangements that require compliance and reporting on the vendor’s part. Requiring 

that the sandwich or print shop either (1) verify that every customer that walks in the door 

23 Compl. at 2–3 (the cited contracts are listed as having a period of performance between, 

respectively, November 17 and 19, 2020; November 19 and 23, 2020; and November 27 and 

December 2, 2020). 

24 Compl. at 2–3; STTC Resp., Ex. A. 

25 How to Get on Schedule, U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN., https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/events-andtraining/gsa-training-programs/training-for-vendors/how-to-get-on-schedule. 26 About GSA Schedule, U.S. GEN. SERVS. ADMIN., https://www.gsa.gov/buying-selling/purchasingprograms/gsa-schedule/about-gsa-schedule. 27 STTC Resp., Ex. A. 

28 Id.

MUR789000070
MUR 7890 (Service Tire Truck Centers, Inc., et al.) 

Statement of Reasons

Page 5 of 5 

5 

is not paying with a government credit card or being reimbursed by the government, or (2) 

refrain entirely from engaging in otherwise permitted political speech, would function in 

practice as a ban on a wide swath of political contributions. In our view, this is not a 

worthwhile or constitutionally sound endeavor, and we decline to open the door to the flood 

of picayune complaints that would result from a finding of reason to believe in this Matter.

Finally, we note, as we have in the past,29 the “substantial doubt about the 

constitutionality of any limits on Super PAC contributions” in the wake of the Citizens United

and SpeechNow.org decisions.30 We are skeptical of the Commission’s ability to identify a 

sufficient anticorruption interest in limiting government contractor contributions made to 

fund independent expenditures, and suspect that future litigation will test that skepticism.

For the foregoing reasons, we voted to dismiss the Complaint’s allegations as to STTC 

pursuant to our discretion under Heckler v. Chaney, and to find no reason to believe with 

respect to SLF.

February 15, 2022 

Date

___________________________ 

Allen J. Dickerson 

Chairman

February 15, 2022

Date

___________________________ 

Sean J. Cooksey

Commissioner 

February 15, 2022

Date

___________________________ 

James E. “Trey” Trainor, III

Commissioner 

29 Statement of Reasons of Vice Chair Allen Dickerson and Comm’rs Sean J. Cooksey and James E.” 

Trey” Trainor, III at 6, MUR 7180 (GEO Corrections Holdings, Inc.).

30 Wagner v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 901 F. Supp. 2d 101, 107 (D.D.C. 2012), vacated, 717 F.3d 1007 

(D.C. Cir. 2013); see Citizens United v. Fed Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 357 (“Limits on 

independent expenditures, such as §441b, have a chilling effect extending well beyond the 

Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not 

sufficient to displace the speech here in question.”); SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686, 695 (D.C. 

Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“In light of the Court's holding as a matter of law that independent 

expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, contributions to 

groups that make only independent expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of 

corruption.”).

MUR789000071