:" 

Li 

I .i 

.i . ... 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: The Commissioners 

Staff Director 

Deputy Staff Director 

Office of the Commission Secret 

General Counsel 

FROM: 

DATE: December 21,2000 

SUBJECT: Statement of Reasons for MUR 4960 

Attached is a copy of the Statement of Reasons for MUR 4960 signed 

by Commissioner David M. Mason, Commissioner Karl J. Sanldstrom, 

Commissioner Bradley A. Smith, and Commissioner Scott E. 'Thomas. 

This was received in the Commission Secretary's Ofice on 

Wednesdav, December 20.2000 at 5:IO p.m. 

cc: Vincent J. Convery, Jr. 

Press Office! 

Public Information 

Public Disclosure 

Attachment 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

BEI’ORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1 

1 

1 

In re Hillary Rodham Clinton for 

US Senate Exploratoiry Committee, et al. ) MUR 4960 

STATEMENT OF REASONS 

On October 10,2000, the Commission rejected the General Counsel’s recommendation 

that MUR 4960 be dismissed as not warranting further action relative to other cases pending 

before the Commission. Instead, the Commission voted 4-2’ to find no reason to believe that 

Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Hillary Rodham Clinton for US Senate Exploratory Committee 

(Respondents) received excessive contributions in violation of 2 USC 5 441a(a)(l)(A) of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). 

Standard for Summary Dismissals 

Any person who believes a violation ofthe FECA has occurred may file a complaint with 

the Commission. 2 USC § 437g(a)(l). The FECA anticipates that the Commission may 

summarily dismiss ths complaint before the expiration of the I5 days afforded to alleged 

violators to set forth their reasons why no action should be taken against them. Id. After the 

response period closes, the Commission has the power to investigate alleged FECA violations 

only where there is “ri:ason to believe” that a violation has been, or is about to be, committed. 2 

USC 4 437g(a)(2). 

The Commission may find “reason to believe” only if a complaint sets forth sufficient 

specific facts, which, if proven true, would constitute a violation of the FECA. Complaints not 

based upon personal knowledge must identify a source of information that reasonably gives rise 

to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented. See 11 CFR 11 1.4(d)(2); MUR 4545 

(ClintodGore ’96 Primary Comm./Amtrak) (“While the available evidence is inadequate to 

determine whether the costs of the Train Trip were properly paid, the complainant’s allegations 

are not sufficient to siipport a finding of reason to believe . . . .”); MLTR 3534 (Bibleway Church 

of Atlas Road) (“[Tlhere was a lack of evidence indicating the literature was distributed on 

behalf of the [Respondent] or at its expense.”). 

’ Commissioners McDondd and Wold dissented. 
i 

Unwarranted legal conclusions from asserted facts, see SOR in MUR 4869 (American Postal 

Workers Union), or mere speculation, see SOR of Chairman Wold and Commissioners Mason and 

Thomas in MUR 4850 (Fossella), will not be accepted as true. In addition, while credibility will not 

be weighed in favor of the complainant or the respondent, a cornplaint may be dismissed if it 

consists of factual allegations that are rehted with sufficiently compelling evidence provided in the 

response to the complaint, see MUR 4852 (Wiebe), or available from public sources such as the 

Commission’s reports database. 

Complaint and Response 

The Complaint alleges that the cost of President and Mrs. Clintons’ move from the White 

House to Chappaqua, New York was “financed by third parties, in violation of applicable campaign 

finance requirements.” Compl. at 2. The Complainant attests that “[plublic and private monies 

and/or other benefits and preferences” that “appear to be derived from questionable sources” are 

being bestowed on Mrs. Clinton and her campaign committee. Id. 

complainant’s factual assertions rest on two bases: Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer failed to respond 

to a letter from the Complainant inquiring as to who would be paying for the decorating, furnishing 

and renovation of the Clinton’s New York home, id. at 2-3; and media reports indicate that “old 

fiends” are decorating the Clinton’s home, and federal government employees, i.e., Secret Service 

personnel, are assisting with the move. Id. at 3. One of the media reports cited attributes Mrs. 

Clinton’s spokeswoman with a statement that the Clintons were paying their moving bill 

themselves. Compl. Exh. 3. 

The response asserts that the Complaint is both without factual basis and implicates conduct 

outside the FECA’s coverage. 

Analysis 

Two threshold dleficiencies are conspicuous in the Complaint. First, it does not provide 

evidence that the costs of the Clintons’ move to New York are in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s 

Senate election. While it is true that Mrs. Clinton needed to establish residency in New York in 

order to run for the Senate there, she could have done so by securing a smaller and less costly 

residence or possibly without acquiring a permanent residence at all. Thus, the cost of moving into 

the home the Clintons purchased was not shown to be a campaign expense. 

Second, no adverse inference, let alone an admission, may necessarily be found in a person 

choosing not to respond to correspondence. This is especially true of public figures who receive a 

large amount of correspondence from persons or groups with whom they are not personally 

acquainted. While no one would question that “silence when one would be expected to speak is a 

powerful persuader,”libutti v. United States, 178 F.3d 1 14, 120 (2d Cir. 1999) (emphasis added), 

no such expectations should have arisen in this case. Correspondence posed to a First Lady’s 

lawyer by a watch dog organization does not raise an expectancy that a response was in order. 

2 
I ,.. 

While the complaint generally alleges that the move was “financed by third parties,” the only 

specific allegations involved assistance by “old friends,’’ i.e., volunteers, which would not constitute 

contributions or expenditures under the Act, see 2 USC 5 43 1(8)(B)(i), and Secret Service 

personnel, i.e., federal government funds, which are likewise exempt from the Act. See 2 USC 5 

431(11). Moreover, one of the media reports attached to the Complaint specifically states that the 

Clintons “were paying the moving bill themselves.” Thus, the only evidence cited by the 

Complainant directly contradicts his speculation (e.g., “financial assistance appareii fly provided” 

(enzphusis added)) that the move may have been financed by gifts from private sources. Such purely 

speculative charges, especially when accompanied by a direct refutation, do not form an adequate 

basis to find reason to believe that a violation of the FECA has occurred. See MUR 4850. 

To meet the threshold for “reason to believe,” the complainant should have provided some 

evidence upon wrhich one could reasonably conclude that third parties actually paid for the move (as 

opposed to merely speculating that someone must have). Absent personal knowledge, the 

Complainant, at a minimum, should have made a sufficiently specific allegation (Le., as to who 

supposedly made payments, along with some reasonable basis for the belief), so as to warrant a 

focused investigation that can prove or disprove the charge. 

Finally, even ifthe complaint had shown that sources other than the Federal government and 

the Clintons themselves had paid for the move, there would have to be some indication the payment 

would not have been macle “irrespective of the candidacy.” 11 CFR I1 3.1 (g)(6). The complaint 

failed completely to address, much less provide any evidence regarding, this essential element of the 

violation it alleged. 

For these reasons, the Commission found no reason to believe that Respondents did not 

receive excessive contributions in violation of 2 USC § 441(a)(l)(A). 

* 

- , --’ / ,‘ ///E= <l+l. ’L , 

c, /+- 

/ 

/ 

-Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner 

,*%dtZy A. %? ;&- /(/& 

Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner 

LDecember 2 1.2000 

ccott E. Thomas, Commissioner 

3