SANDLER REIFF 1090 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 750

Washington, DC 20005

www.sandlerreiff.com

T: 202-479-1111

F: 202-479-1115

SANDLER REIFF LAMB

ROSENSTEIN & BIRKENSTOCK, P.C.

October 25, 2021

Ms. Dayna C. Brown

Acting Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Dear Ms. Brown:

The Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (“CDSCC”) is in receipt of the Draft Final 

Audit Report (“DFAR”) of the Federal Election Commission’s Audit Division ("the Audit 

Division") for the period covering the CDSCC’s financial activities for 2017 and 2018. While the

CDSCC does not request a formal hearing it has serious concerns about some of the Audit 

Division’s analysis and conclusions as discussed below.

Finding #2

The Audit Division’s Interim Audit Report’s (“IAR”) second finding involved 

recordkeeping for payroll. The Audit Division has acknowledged that, in response to the Audit 

Division’s inquiries regarding this issue, the CDSCC has instituted procedures to ensure that time 

records are maintained for all employees who are paid in part with non-federal funds. 

However, the DFAR has failed to address the CDSCC’s concern that the finding includes 

amounts for employees who were paid exclusively with non-federal funds.

In previous audits, several Commissioners determined that the recordkeeping requirements 

for payroll paid exclusively with non-federal funds were outside the scope of the Commission’s 

jurisdiction. Thus, in several previous state party audits, a finding related to recordkeeping 

specifically excluded payroll paid exclusively with non-federal funds. See e.g Final Audit Report 

of the Commission on the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (2012 Cycle) at p.p. 13-16; Final Audit 

Report of the Commission on the Kentucky State Democratic Central Executive Committee (2012 

Cycle), p. 9.; Final Audit Report of the Commission on the Utah Republican Party (2012) Cycle, p. 

26-27.

In reliance of these actions, state parties generally do not keep payroll records for

employees that are paid exclusively from the non-federal account. As the Commission can clearly 
2

see from the audit process, the recordkeeping requirement for payroll presents a significant burden 

for state parties and the Commission should carefully consider this issue and make a clear 

pronouncement that provides sufficient notice and guidance to the regulated community regarding 

whether such recordkeeping is required for payroll paid exclusively with non-federal funds.

Finding #4

The IAR’s fourth finding involves the apparent failure to file 24/48 hour reports for 

transactions totaling $140,259.39 that were made in connection with the general election for United 

States Senate in 2018. As a threshold matter, the CDSCC objected to the characterization of these 

expenditures as independent expenditures. These expenditures were properly made as volunteer 

exempt activities and were fully coordinated with the Senate candidate. With respect to the door 

hanger, it is the CDSCC’s understanding that since these activities were not public 

communications, they cannot be considered coordinated communications regardless of whether it 

was distributed by volunteers and no further action would be necessary regarding these 

expenditures.

With respect to the mailing, in response to the IAR, the CDSCC provided a sworn 

declaration from the mail house production manager who personally oversaw production of the 

CDSCC volunteer exempt mail. 

Both the IAR and DFAR acknowledge that there is considerable uncertainty of the amount 

of volunteer involvement required to satisfy the exemption. In prior enforcement actions, the 

Commission has relied upon declarations to determine that there was sufficient volunteer activity 

and should do so in this instance. See MUR 5837 and MUR 6691. Despite no clear guidance in 

Commission regulations, the Audit Division has demurred as to whether the sworn declaration is 

sufficient to determine whether the CDSCC has complied with the volunteer exemption. The 

Commission has generally deferred to respondents in the enforcement process that provide sworn 

affidavits and should do so in the Audit process as well. See “Guidebook for Complainants and 

Respondents on the FEC Enforcement Process”, Federal Election Commission, May 2012, p. 10

Thus, the Commission should determine that the CDSCC complied with the requirements for 

volunteer exempt mail with.

It appears that the Audit Division, for the first time that we can determine, is requiring some 

level of documentation for volunteer exempt canvassing activities. This is unprecedented and 

unnecessary as canvassing activity cannot result in a coordinated expenditure as it is not a public 

communication. See 11 C.F.R. §§ 100.26 & 109.37. Even assuming arguendo that volunteer 

participation is required, the need to create and maintain documentation would be a severe burden 

on state parties as the canvassing process is quite diffuse. To my knowledge and recollection, the

Audit Division has never required a state party in past audits or enforcement actions to demonstrate

through documentation that volunteers were used for exempt canvassing activities nor has the 

Audit Division raised the issue of the requirement of volunteers or its documentation for a state 

party audit. It is unclear why they continue to do so in this instance.
3

Finally, the CDSCC objects to the Audit Division’s continued assertion that these activities 

may be subject to independent expenditure reporting. The CDSCC has consistently acknowledged 

and communicated to the Audit Division that the activity was coordinated with its candidate. To 

file a report with the Commission that these activities were independent would constitute a false 

statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 as Schedule E of the Commission’s disclosure forms require that 

the Treasurer certify, under penalty of perjury, that the activity was not coordinated with any 

candidate. The Audit Division’s approach is confusing and unnecessary.

If you require any further information, or have any other questions, please call me at (202)

479-1111.

Sincerely,

Neil Reiff

Counsel to the Connecticut Democratic State 

Central Committee