GOODMAN ACKER 

Profeisional Corporation 

Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk March 4,2014 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Re: Request for Early Commission Consideration of a Legal Question as to the Definition of a 

"Fundraising Event" Arising in the Audit of the Oakland County Democratic Party 

Dear Conunissioners: 

This is a request for early consideration of the above referenced legal question. 

I. Introduction 

In 2011, the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") adopted a program providing a means 

by which entities may have a legal question considered by the FEC earlier in the audit 

process.' This is to request that the FEC consider a novel legal question that has arisen 

during the Audit Division's ongoing audit of the Oakland County Democratic Party (OCDP). 

The FEC voted to audit the OCDP on November 30,2012 pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Section 

438(h). OCDP has cooperated fully in the audit and provided the Audit Division with copies 

of bank statements, computerized financial data and other material at the Audit Division's 

request. The Audit Division conducted fieldwork from July 9,2013 to July 26,2013. An 

exit conference was held on July 26,2013. 

At the exit conference, the Audit Division raised the issue of whether the separate 

charitable gaming events held by OCDP during the same evening at the same location 

constituted a single "fundraising event" for recordkeeping purposes. On January 30,2014 

the OCDP was notified of a finding to that effect and was advised of its option to Request 

Early Commission Consideration of a Legal Question with a March 7 j 2014 deadline to 

submit such a request. 

* FEC, Policy Statement Regarding a Program for Requesting Consideration of Legal Questions by the Commission, 

76 Fed. Reg. 45798 (August 1, 2011). A new policy Identical in material respects was adopted effective October 23, 

2013. 78 Fed. Reg. 63203 (Oct. 23, 2013). 
GOODMAN ACKER 

Pro/essionai Corporation 

OCDP now timely requests that the FEC determine that the finding is incorrect. 

II. The Question of Law Meets the Standards for Earlv Consideration 

The FEC has established three (3) alternative standards to decide whether a question of 

law qualifies for early consideration: 

"(1) The legal issue is novel, coinplex, or pertains to an unsettled question 

of law; (2) there has been intervening legislation, rulemaking, or litigation since 

the Commission last considered the issue; or (3) the request to take corrective 

action is contrary to or otherwise inconsistent with prior Commission matters 

dealing with the same issue." 

76 Fed. Reg. at 45799. 

This request meets these standards because, as detailed below, the legal issue is 

novel and the proposed definition of "fundraising event" is inconsistent with prior 

Commission matters, including AO 2001-19 and AO 1981-48. 

III. Facts 

A. Gaming Fundraising in Michigan 

As permitted by the Michigan Constitution and Michigan statute,^ for forty (40) years 

a wide variety of organizations, including political parties, have conducted several types 

of gaming events for fundraising purposes, including bingo, raffles, millionaire parties, 

charity game tickets and so forth. 

This fundraising is heavily regulated by state law, see M.C.L. Sectioris 432.101 et 

sea, and administrative regulations, see Rules 432.21301-.21366 and 432.21601-.21624. 

There is a state agency, the Bureau of State Lottery, a significant part of whose 

responsibilities is the licensing and regulation of these events. Once licensed, operation 

of these games requires frequent extensive reporting. There are at least annual on-site 

inspections by Bureau personnel and the Bureau itself can and does conduct in-depth 

audits and investigations. 

State law specifically dictates that each occasion of a bingo, charity game, etc. 

constitutes a separate fundraising "event": 

' Michigan Constitution Articie 4, Section 41; M.C.L. Section 432.101 et seq. 

2 
GOOmiANAa^ 

Pro/esiional Corporacion •« <B» 

"Event" means each occasion of a bingo, millionaire party, raffle, charity game or 

numeral game licensed under this act. 

M.C.L. Section 432.103(a)(2). State law does not aggregate bingo and charity 

gaming events into I event, even if they are held concurrently at the same location. 

Pursuant to this state law mandate, each of these "events" is subject to separate 

extensive licensing, regulation, recordkeeping and reporting requirements by the state. 

See, e.g.. Rules 432.21301 et seq. (bingo rules). Rules 432.21601 (charity game ticket 

rules). 

B. OCDP Gamine Fundraisine Events 

Under the state regulatory scheme, OCDP currently conducts three separate gaming 

events to raise funds - regular bingo, progressive bingo and charity game tickets. Each 

event is held twice a week every week of the year during the evening. The events are 

held concurrently at the same location. 

IV. Legal Argument 

A. The PEG Should Defer.To The State Law Definition Of "Event" 

The FECA, its regulations and Commission advisory opinions are silent on the 

definition of a "fimdraising event" in the gaming context. As such, the Commission can 

and should defer to the State of Michigan's definition for several reasons. 

First, by regulation and practice, the Commission has deferred to state law, including 

on gaming questions. See, e.g.. 11 CFR 114.5(b)(2) (deferring to state law determination 

on whether SSF's can fundraise through gaming); 11 CFR 100.33(a) (deferring to state 

law to determine "personal funds"); 11 CFR 114.7(d) (deferring to state law on 

question of corporate status). 

Deferral to state law is particularly appropriate in the field of gaming regulation in 

Michigan. In AO 2001-19, the Commission recognized that "the control of gaming 

activity is a central feature of a State's regulatory authority, one that has been accorded 

explicit recognition.. .in the Commission's regulations." At 4. In deference to that 

authority, the Commission declined to preempt Michigan law as to the eligibility of 

the OCDP for a bingo license. 
GOODMAN ACKER 

Pro/ciilonai Corporalion 

Second, the FEC has often recognized the need for practicality in the application of 

FECA and its regulations, especially in the area of bingo and similar small-donor 

fundraising. See. e.g.. AO 1981-48 (FEC recognizes impracticality of collecting names 

and addresses of all bingo card purchasers and allows aggregation of purchases under 

$50); AO 1980-99 (FEC recognizes impracticality of collecting names and address of $5-

25 contributors at large events; allows aggregation of amounts imder $50); AO 1980-147 

(FEC considers impracticality in analyzing disposition of candidate funds); AO 2004-10 

(FEC consider impracticality in application of disclaimer requirement). 

Based on practicality, the Commission has not only deferred to Michigan gaming law 

but has also accommodated its regulations to Michigan gaming. Sro AO 1981-48 

(accommodating the EEC's accounting regulations to the unique circumstances of 

Michigan bingo). 

Finally, the proposed definition aggregating these separate events also ignores the 

reality of how these events are conducted. Persons playing bingo are not obligated to 

purchase charity gaming tickets and, once admitted to the bingo hall, charity gaming 

ticket players are not obligated to play bingo. People can choose to do one or the other, 

or both - they are separate events in practice as well as state law. 

The definition of what constitutes an "event" goes to the very heart of Michigan's 

gaming regulations, regulations to which the EEC has repeatedly and appropriately 

deferred and accommodated. See, e.g.. 11 CER 114.5(b)(2); AO 2001-19; AO 1981-48. 

The EEC should do the same here - defer to the state law definition of "event," and not 

use a definition contrary to 40 years of Michigan law and practice. 

B. Aggregating Separate Eundraisine Events Into A Single Event Does Not Serve 

FECA's Purposes 

The prize payouts which would be aggregated are not made to vendors, campaign 

workers or anyone else for election campaign purposes - they are simply the payment of 

very small prizes (virtually all $1 or $2) won by individual players of bingo or purchasers 

of charitable gaming tickets. 

The purposes of FEC's recordkeeping and disclosure requirements are to educate 

voters, deter corruption and gather data to detect violations of contribution limits. See 

Bucklev V. Valeo. 424 U.S. 1,76-81 (per curiam! 
GCX)DMAN ACKER 

Profesiional Corporation 

None of these purposes are served by aggregating separate fundraising events: which 

have very small prize payouts, 95% of which are $2 or less. 

C. Conclusion and Relief Sought 

For all these reasons, OCDP respectfully requests that the FEC defer to thestaite law 

definition of "event" and not aggregate for recordkeeping puqsoses what have been 

separate events for 46 years in Michigan law and practice. 

Very truly yours, 

Goodman Acker P.C. 

Mark Brewer 

CC: Frank Houston, Chair 

Oakland County Democratic Party