Final Audit Report of the 

Commission on the Mississippi 

Republican Party 

(January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2016) 

Why the Audit 

Was Done

Federal law permits the 

Commission to conduct 

audits and field 

investigations of any 

political committee that 

is required to file 

reports under the 

Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the 

Act). The Commission 

generally conducts such 

audits when a 

committee appears not 

to have met the 

threshold requirements 

for substantial 

compliance with the 

Act.1 The audit 

determines whether the 

committee complied 

with the limitations, 

prohibitions and 

disclosure requirements 

of the Act.

Future Action

The Commission may 

initiate an enforcement 

action, at a later time, 

with respect to any of 

the matters discussed in 

this report.

About the Committee (p. 2)

The Mississippi Republican Party is a state party committee 

headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi. For more information, see 

the chart on the Committee Organization, p. 2. 

Financial Activity (p. 3)

• Receipts

o Contributions from Individuals $ 740,807 

o Contributions from Political Party

Committees and Other Political 

Committees 55,950 

o Transfers from Affiliated/Other 

Party Committees 1,647,080 

o Offsets to Operating Expenditures 2,686 

o Other Federal Receipts 98,202 

o Transfers from Non-Federal 

Account 172,635 

Total Receipts $ 2,717,360 

• Disbursements

o Operating Expenditures $ 328,494 

o Allocated Federal/Non-Federal 

Expenditures 492,538 

o Transfers to Affiliated Committees 1,587,842 

o Federal Election Activity 296,857 

Total Disbursements $ 2,705,731 

Commission Findings (p. 4) 

• Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding 1) 

• Reporting of Debts and Obligations (Finding 2) 

Additional Issue (p. 4)

• Reporting of Apparent Independent Expenditures 

 

1

 52 U.S.C. §30111(b).
Final Audit Report of the 

Commission on the 

Mississippi Republican Party 

(January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2016) 
Table of Contents 

Page

Part I. Background

 Authority for Audit 1 

 Scope of Audit 1 

Audit Hearing 1 

Part II. Overview of Committee 

Committee Organization 2 

Overview of Financial Activity 3 

Part III. Summaries 

Commission Findings 4 

Additional Issue 4 

Part IV. Commission Findings

Finding 1. Misstatement of Financial Activity 7

Finding 2. Reporting of Debts and Obligations 9

Part V. Additional Issue

Reporting of Apparent Independent Expenditures 11 
1

Part I

Background

Authority for Audit

This report is based on an audit of the Mississippi Republican Party (MRP), undertaken 

by the Audit Division of the Federal Election Commission (the Commission) in 

accordance with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act). The 

Audit Division conducted the audit pursuant to 52 U.S.C. §30111(b), which permits the 

Commission to conduct audits and field investigations of any political committee that is 

required to file a report under 52 U.S.C. §30104. Prior to conducting any audit under this 

subsection, the Commission must perform an internal review of reports filed by selected 

committees to determine if the reports filed by a particular committee meet the threshold 

requirements for substantial compliance with the Act. 52 U.S.C. §30111(b). 

Scope of Audit

Following Commission-approved procedures, the Audit staff evaluated various risk 

factors and as a result, this audit examined:

1. the receipt of excessive contributions; 

2. the receipt of contributions from prohibited sources; 

3. the disclosure of contributions received; 

4. the disclosure of individual contributors’ occupation and name of employer; 

5. the disclosure of disbursements, debts and obligations; 

6. the disclosure of expenses allocated between federal and non-federal accounts;

7. the consistency between reported figures and bank records; 

8. the completeness of records; 

9. the disclosure of independent expenditures; and 

10. other committee operations necessary to the review.

Audit Hearing 

MRP requested an audit hearing before the Commission. At that time, the Commission 

lacked a quorum and two Commissioners did not agree to grant the request for an oral 

hearing. MRP was advised that it may submit a new hearing request once the 

Commission regained a quorum. MRP was also advised the submission of a new hearing 

request did not guarantee the newly established Commission would grant the hearing 

request. On January 8, 2021, MRP declined to submit a second request for an audit 

hearing. 
2 

Part II

Overview of Committee 

Committee Organization 

Important Dates

• Date of Registration January 9, 1978 

• Audit Coverage January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2016 

Headquarters Jackson, Mississippi

Bank Information 

• Bank Depositories Two

• Bank Accounts Three Federal; Three Non-Federal

Treasurer

• Treasurer When Audit Was Conducted Paul V. Breazeale (1/31/2018 - present)

Lucien Smith (1/26/2018 - 1/30/2018) 

• Treasurer During Period Covered by Audit Lucien Smith (7/20/2016 - 12/31/2016) 

Paul V. Breazeale (8/21/2012 - 7/19/16) 

Management Information 

• Attended FEC Campaign Finance Seminar Yes

• Who Handled Accounting and Recordkeeping 

Tasks

Paid Staff
3 

Overview of Financial Activity 

(Audited Amounts)

Cash on hand @ January 1, 2015 $ 42,307

Receipts

o Contributions from Individuals 740,807

o Contributions from Political Party and Other 

Committees

55,950

o Transfers from Affiliated and Other Political 

Committees

1,647,080

o Offsets to Operating Expenditures 2,686

o Other Federal Receipts 98,202

o Transfers from Non-Federal Account 172,635

Total Receipts $ 2,717,360

Disbursements

o Operating Expenditures 328,494

o Allocated Federal/Non-Federal Expenditures 492,538

o Transfers to Affiliated Committees 1,587,842

o Federal Election Activity 296,857

Total Disbursements $ 2,705,731

Cash on hand @ December 31, 2016 $ 53,936
4

Part III

Summaries

Commission Findings 

 

Finding 1. Misstatement of Financial Activity

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of MRP’s reported financial activity with its bank 

records revealed a misstatement of receipts and disbursements in calendar year 2015. 

Specifically, MRP understated its receipts and disbursements by $10,606 and $14,808, 

respectively. In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP filed a 

Form 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission) on June 21, 2019, which corrected the 

misstatements for the 2015 calendar year. MRP also stated that the cash balance was

correct as of its 2019 May Monthly disclosure report. In response to the Draft Final 

Audit Report, MRP reiterated that any incorrect reporting of receipts and disbursements 

was an “inadvertent administrative oversight, and without any intention to circumvent 

reporting requirements.” 

The Commission approved a finding that MRP misstated its receipts and disbursements 

by $10,606 and $14,808, respectively, for calendar year 2015. (For more detail, see p. 7.) 

Finding 2. Reporting of Debts and Obligations

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff noted that MRP failed to disclose debts and 

obligations owed to 10 vendors totaling $152,931. In response to the Interim Audit 

Report recommendation, MRP filed a Form 99 on both June 21, 2019 and June 22, 2019, 

properly disclosing the debts and obligations and correcting the public record. In 

response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP reiterated that it hired a compliance 

professional who worked with Commission staff to properly disclose the debts and 

obligations to correct the public record. 

The Commission approved a finding that MRP failed to disclose debts and obligations to 

vendors totaling $152,931. (For more detail, see p. 9.) 

Additional Issue 

Reporting of Apparent Independent Expenditures

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed expenditures totaling $43,9672, that 

MRP disclosed on Schedule B, Line 21(b) (Other Federal Operating Expenditures) and 

Schedule H4 (Disbursements for Allocated Federal /Non-Federal Activity). These 

expenditures appeared to be independent expenditures that contained express advocacy 

 

2

 The amount cited in the Interim Audit Report was $38,940. An additional $5,027 was added following 

the submission of an invoice and an estimated shipping cost in response to the Interim Audit Report.
5

which should have been disclosed on Schedule E, Line 24 (Itemized Independent 

Expenditures). 

Additionally, of the $43,967, MRP did not provide sufficient documentation, pertaining 

to dissemination dates, to allow the Audit staff to verify whether 24/48-hour reports were 

required to be filed for the apparent independent expenditures totaling $36,969. 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP stated that the 

expenditures were reported correctly as operating expenses or fundraising expenses. 

MRP also stated the primary purpose of these mailings was to solicit donors for 

contributions and to explain the potential uses of the donated funds, and that any mention 

of federal candidates was “incidental” to the purpose of the mailings. However, MRP 

stated it would file amendments, based on the Commission vote, with respect to the Audit 

staff’s recommendation on this finding. 

Additionally, based on clarification MRP provided in response to the Interim Audit 

Report which explained the “ship date” noted on some invoices, expenditures totaling 

$3,926 required a 24-hour report and expenditures totaling $12,382 required a 48-hour 

report. For the remaining expenditures, totaling $20,661, without associated 

dissemination dates, 24/48-hour reports could still have been required. MRP did not 

comply with the recommendation to correct the disclosure for these nine independent 

expenditures. 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP reiterated its position that the payments 

represented “routine political party solicitation expenses.” MRP also presented a new 

legal argument involving the allocation of costs pertaining to express advocacy. MRP 

stated that it should have been permitted to allocate the total cost of each mailer between 

the express advocacy content and other content that did not contain express advocacy. 

MRP agreed, however, to amend its reports and properly disclose these expenditures 

should the Commission reject or modify this finding. Finally, MRP requested an audit 

hearing before the Commission.3

 The Draft Final Audit Report maintained that MRP did 

not comply with the recommendation to correct the disclosure for the remaining nine 

independent expenditures. 

The Office of General Counsel considered MRP’s response to the Draft Final Audit 

Report and subsequently provided an additional legal analysis. According to the analysis, 

one mailer, totaling $6,518, was no longer considered an independent expenditure as it 

did not contain express advocacy. As a result, in the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, the Audit staff removed this mailer from the finding and recalculated the 

total amount of improperly disclosed independent expenditures to equal $37,449.4

The Commission did not approve, by the required four votes, the Audit staff’s 

recommendation that MRP failed to properly disclose apparent independent expenditures 

totaling $37,449. In addition, the Commission did not approve, by the required four 

 

3

 See Part I, Audit Hearing, p. 1. 4

 $43,967 (nine mailers) - $6,518 (one removed mailer) = $37,449 (eight mailers).
6

votes, the Audit staff’s recommendation that MRP did not file 24/48-hour reports for 

apparent independent expenditures totaling $36,969. Pursuant to Commission Directive 

70,5 this matter is discussed in the “Additional Issue” section of this report. (For more 

detail, see p. 11.) 

5

 Available at https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/directive_70.pdf

 
7

Part IV

Commission Findings

Finding 1. Misstatement of Financial Activity 

Summary 

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of MRP’s reported financial activity with its bank 

records revealed a misstatement of receipts and disbursements for calendar year 2015. 

Specifically, MRP understated its receipts and disbursements by $10,606 and $14,808, 

respectively. In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP filed a 

Form 99 (Miscellaneous Electronic Submission) on June 21, 2019, which corrected the 

misstatements for the 2015 calendar year. MRP also stated that the cash balance was

correct as of its 2019 May Monthly disclosure report. In response to the Draft Final 

Audit Report, MRP reiterated that any incorrect reporting of receipts and disbursements 

was an “inadvertent administrative oversight, and without any intention to circumvent 

reporting requirements.” 

The Commission approved a finding that MRP misstated its receipts and disbursements 

by $10,606 and $14,808, respectively, for calendar year 2015. 

Legal Standard 

Contents of Federal Reports. Each report must disclose: 

• The amount of cash on hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period; 

• The total amount of receipts for the reporting period and for the calendar year; 

• The total amount of disbursements for the reporting period and for the calendar 

year; and

• Certain transactions that require itemization on Schedule A (Itemized Receipts) or 

Schedule B (Itemized Disbursements). 52 U.S.C. §30104(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), and 

(5).

Facts and Analysis 

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reconciled MRP’s reported financial activity with 

its bank records for calendar years 2015 and 2016. The reconciliation identified that 

MRP misstated receipts and disbursements for 2015. The following chart details the 

discrepancies between MRP’s disclosure reports and bank activity. The succeeding 

paragraphs explain why the discrepancies occurred. 
8

2015 Committee Activity

Reported Bank Records Discrepancy

Beginning Cash on hand

@ January 1, 2015

$50,087 $42,307 $7,780

Overstated

Receipts $394,175 $404,781 $10,606

Understated

Disbursements $403,626 $418,434 $14,808

Understated

Ending Cash on hand

@ December 31, 2015

$28,6246 $28,654 $30

Understated

The reported 2015 beginning cash on hand was over reported by $7,780 likely resulting 

from prior period discrepancies. 

The understatement of receipts resulted from the following: 

• Transfer from a Non-federal account not reported $7,830 

• In-kind contribution not reported as a receipt 2,868 

• Unexplained differences (92) 

 Net Understatement of Receipts $10,606 

The understatement of disbursements resulted from the following: 

• Disbursements not reported $11,932 

• In-kind contribution not reported as a disbursement 2,868 

• Unexplained differences 8 

 Understatement of Disbursements $14,808 

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter with MRP representatives during the exit 

conference and provided schedules detailing the misstatements. MRP representatives did 

not provide any comments.

The Interim Audit Report recommended that MRP amend its disclosure reports or file a 

Form 997 to correct the misstatements noted above. It was further recommended that 

MRP reconcile the cash on hand in its most recently filed report to include these 

adjustments and correct any subsequent discrepancies.

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP explained that it believed 

that the “minor apparent misstatements” were “inadvertent administrative oversights.” 

MRP filed a Form 99, on June 21, 2019, which corrected the misstatements for the 2015 

calendar year. MRP also stated that the cash balance reflected on its 2019 May Monthly 

disclosure report was correct. 

 

6

 The reported ending cash on hand did not equal reported beginning cash on hand plus reported receipts 

minus reported disbursements likely due to the mathematical discrepancy. 7

 MRP was advised by the Audit staff that if it chose to file a Form 99, instead of amending its disclosure 

reports, the form must contain all pertinent information that is required on each schedule.
9

D. Draft Final Audit Report

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged that MRP filed a Form 99 on June 21, 2019, 

which corrected the misstatements for the 2015 calendar year and also stated that the cash 

balance reflected on MRP’s 2019 May Monthly disclosure report, was correct.

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP reiterated that any incorrect reporting 

of receipts and disbursements was an “inadvertent administrative oversight, and without 

any intention to circumvent reporting requirements.” 

Commission Conclusion 

On January 28, 2021, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that, in 

calendar year 2015, MRP understated its receipts and disbursements by $10,606 and 

$14,808, respectively. 

The Commission approved the Audit staff’s recommendation. 

Finding 2. Reporting of Debts and Obligations 

Summary 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff noted that MRP failed to disclose debts and 

obligations owed to 10 vendors totaling $152,931. In response to the Interim Audit 

Report recommendation, MRP filed a Form 99 on both June 21, 2019 and June 22, 2019, 

properly disclosing the debts and obligations and correcting the public record. In 

response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP reiterated that it hired a compliance 

professional who worked with Commission staff to properly disclose the debts and 

obligations to correct the public record. 

The Commission approved a finding that MRP failed to disclose debts and obligations to 

vendors totaling $152,931. 

Legal Standard 

A. Continuous Reporting Required. A political committee must disclose the amount 

and nature of outstanding debts and obligations until those debts are extinguished. 

52 U.S.C §30104(b)(8) and 11 CFR §§104.3(d) and 104.11(a). 

B. Separate Schedules. A political committee must file separate schedules for debts 

owed by the committee and debts owed to the committee, together with a statement 

explaining the circumstances and conditions under which each debt and obligation 

was incurred or extinguished. 11 CFR §104.11(a). 

C. Itemizing Debts and Obligations.

• A debt of $500 or less must be reported once it has been outstanding 60 days from 

the date incurred (the date of the transaction); the committee reports it on the next 

regularly scheduled report. 
10

• A debt exceeding $500 must be disclosed in the report that covers the date on 

which the debt was incurred. 11 CFR §104.11(b). 

Facts and Analysis 

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed MRP’s disbursements records and 

disclosure reports for proper reporting of debts and obligations. This review identified 

debts owed to 10 vendors totaling $152,9318

 that MRP failed to report on Schedule D 

(Debts and Obligations) during the audit period. Based on a review of the records, these 

vendors provided MRP with signs, stickers, printed membership/fundraising letters and 

cards, audio and video equipment, food and venue for events, financial services, national 

convention materials, transportation, compliance services, postage, and flower 

arrangements. MRP reported debt totaling $134,142 on Schedule D during the audit 

cycle. The Audit staff calculated the debts owed to the vendors based on the invoice date 

and the subsequent payment date. Debts were outstanding for periods ranging from 13 to 

1,047 days.

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff discussed this matter at the exit conference and provided MRP 

representatives schedules detailing the transactions requiring disclosure on Schedule D. 

MRP representatives inquired about the definition of debts and whether monthly 

recurring expenses would be considered debt if not paid within a specific timeframe or 

crossing reporting periods. The Audit staff noted that none of the errors were recurring 

expenses. In response to the exit conference, MRP provided no further comments. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that MRP provide additional documents such as, 

invoices, billings statements, cancelled checks, etc., demonstrating that these transactions 

were not obligations which required reporting on Schedule D. Absent such 

documentation, the Interim Audit Report further recommended that MRP amend its 

reports or file a Form 99 to disclose these debts and obligations on Schedule D. 

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP filed a Form 99 on both 

June 21, 2019 and June 22, 2019, properly disclosing the debts and obligations and 

correcting the public record. 

D. Draft Final Audit Report

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged MRP filed a Form 99 on June 21 and 22, 

2019, properly disclosing the debts and obligations and correcting the public record.

E. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP reiterated that it hired a compliance 

professional who worked with Commission staff to properly disclose the debts and 

obligations to correct the public record.

 

8

 Each debt in this amount was counted once, even if it required disclosure over multiple periods. 
11

Commission Conclusion

On January 28, 2021, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that MRP 

failed to disclose debts and obligations to vendors totaling $152,931. 

The Commission approved the Audit’s staff’s recommendation. 

Part V

Additional Issue

Reporting of Apparent Independent Expenditures 

Summary

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed expenditures totaling $43,9679

, that 

MRP disclosed on Schedule B, Line 21(b) (Other Federal Operating Expenditures) and 

Schedule H4 (Disbursements for Allocated Federal /Non-Federal Activity). These 

expenditures appeared to be independent expenditures that contained express advocacy 

which should have been disclosed on Schedule E, Line 24 (Itemized Independent 

Expenditures). 

Additionally, of the $43,967, MRP did not provide sufficient documentation, pertaining 

to dissemination dates, to allow the Audit staff to verify whether 24/48-hour reports were 

required to be filed for the apparent independent expenditures totaling $36,969. 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP stated that the 

expenditures were reported correctly as operating expenses or fundraising expenses. 

MRP also stated the primary purpose of these mailings was to solicit donors for 

contributions and to explain the potential uses of the donated funds, and that any mention 

of federal candidates was “incidental” to the purpose of the mailings. However, MRP 

stated it would file amendments, based on the Commission vote, with respect to the Audit 

staff’s recommendation on this finding. 

Additionally, based on clarification MRP provided in response to the Interim Audit 

Report which explained the “ship date” noted on some invoices, expenditures totaling 

$3,926 required a 24-hour report and expenditures totaling $12,382 required a 48-hour 

report. For the remaining expenditures totaling $20,661, without associated 

dissemination dates, 24/48-hour reports could still have been required. MRP did not 

comply with the recommendation to correct the disclosure for these nine independent 

expenditures. 

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP reiterated its position that the payments 

represented “routine political party solicitation expenses.” MRP also presented a new 

 

9

 See footnote 2. 
12

legal argument involving the allocation of costs pertaining to express advocacy. MRP 

stated that it should have been permitted to allocate the total cost of each mailer between 

the express advocacy content and other content that did not contain express advocacy. 

MRP agreed, however, to amend its reports and properly disclose these expenditures 

should the Commission reject or modify this finding. Finally, MRP requested an audit 

hearing before the Commission.10 The Draft Final Audit Report maintained that MRP 

did not comply with the recommendation to correct the disclosure for the remaining nine 

independent expenditures. 

The Office of General Counsel considered MRP’s response to the Draft Final Audit 

Report and subsequently provided an additional legal analysis. According to the analysis, 

one mailer, totaling $6,518, was no longer considered an independent expenditure as it 

did not contain express advocacy. As a result, in the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, the Audit staff removed this mailer from the finding and recalculated the 

total amount of improperly disclosed independent expenditures to equal $37,449.11

The Commission did not approve, by the required four votes, the Audit staff’s 

recommendation that MRP failed to properly disclose apparent independent expenditures 

totaling $37,449. In addition, the Commission did not approve, by the required four 

votes, the Audit staff’s recommendation that MRP failed to file 24/48-hour reports for 

apparent independent expenditures totaling $36,969. Pursuant to Commission Directive 

70,12 this matter is discussed in the “Additional Issue” section of this report.

Legal Standard 

A. Definition of Independent Expenditures. An independent expenditure is an 

expenditure made for a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of 

a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert 

with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized 

committee, or their agents, or a political party or its agents.

A clearly identified candidate is one whose name, nickname, photograph or drawing 

appears, or whose identity is apparent through unambiguous reference, such as “your 

Congressman,” or through an unambiguous reference to his or her status as a 

candidate, such as “the Democratic presidential nominee” or “Republican candidate 

for Senate in this state.”

Expressly advocating means any communication that: 

• Uses phrases such as “vote for the President” or “re-elect your Congressman” or 

communications of campaign slogan(s) or individual word(s), which in context 

can have no other reasonable meaning than to urge election or defeat of one or 

more clearly identified candidates; or 

• When taken as a whole and with limited references to external events, such as 

proximity to the election, could be interpreted by a reasonable person only as 

 

10 See footnote 3. 11 See footnote 4. 12 See footnote 5. 
13

advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidates. 

11 CFR §§100.16(a), 100.17 and 100.22. 

B. Disclosure Requirements – General Guidelines. An independent expenditure shall 

be reported on Schedule E, if, when added to other independent expenditures made to 

the same payee during the same calendar year, it exceeds $200. Independent 

expenditures made (i.e., publicly disseminated) prior to payment should be disclosed 

as memo entries on Schedule E and as a debt on Schedule D. Independent 

expenditures of $200 or less need not be itemized, though the committee must report 

the total of those expenditures on line (b) on Schedule E. 11 CFR §§104.3(b)(3)(vii), 

104.4(a) and 104.11. 

C. Last-Minute Independent Expenditure Reports (24-Hour Reports). Any 

independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more, with respect to any given 

election, and made after the 20th day but more than 24 hours before the day of an 

election, must be reported and the report must be received by the Commission within 

24 hours after the expenditure is made. A 24-hour report is required each time 

additional independent expenditures aggregate $1,000 or more. The 24-hour report 

must be filed on a Schedule E. The date that a communication is publicly disseminated 

serves as the date that the committee must use to determine whether the total amount of 

independent expenditures has, in the aggregate, reached or exceeded the threshold 

reporting amount of $1,000. 11 CFR §§104.4(f) and 104.5(g)(2). 

D. Independent Expenditure Reports (48-Hour Reports). Any independent 

expenditures aggregating $10,000 or more with respect to any given election, at any 

time during a calendar year, up to and including the 20th day before an election, must 

be disclosed within 48 hours each time the expenditures aggregate $10,000 or more. 

The 48-hour report must be filed on a Schedule E. The date that a communication is 

publicly disseminated serves as the date that the committee must use to determine 

whether the total amount of independent expenditures has, in the aggregate, reached 

or exceeded the threshold reporting amount of $10,000. The reports must be filed 

with the Commission within 48 hours after the expenditure is made. 

11 CFR §§104.4(f) and 104.5(g)(1). 

E. Formal Requirements Regarding Reports and Statements. Each political 

committee shall maintain records with respect to the matters required to be reported 

which shall provide in sufficient detail the necessary information and data from which 

the filed reports may be verified, explained, clarified, and checked for accuracy and 

completeness. 11 CFR §104.14(b)(1). 

Facts and Analysis 

A. Reporting of Apparent Independent Expenditures

1. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed disbursements to ensure proper 

reporting. The Audit staff noted that MRP did not disclose any independent 
14

expenditures on Schedule E, however, it made expenditures totaling $43,96713

disclosed on Schedule B, Line 21(b), and Schedule H4. These expenditures were 

for nine fundraising mailers, which contained express advocacy. A breakdown 

analysis for these expenditures is as follows: 

a. Apparent Independent Expenditures Reported as Disbursements for 

Allocated Federal /Non-federal Activity (Associated Mailer and Invoice 

Provided under 11 CFR §100.22(a)) 

MRP made 12 disbursements for five14 apparent independent expenditures 

totaling $26,638 for which it provided copies of the mailers with associated 

invoices and cancelled checks. These communications contained language 

expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, as 

defined under 11 CFR §100.22(a): 

LRA 1077, p. 4, Mailer #1

“We must elect a Republican as the 45th President of the United States”

LRA 1077, p. 4, Mailer #2

“If we unite to support Donald Trump, we still have a chance to save our 

country for the future” 

LRA 1077, p. 4, Mailer #3

“Stop Hillary!”; “STOP HILLARY from becoming President of the United 

States” and “support Donald Trump” 

LRA 1077, p. 4, Mailer #4

“... you can make a difference to support Donald Trump and stop Hillary 

Clinton from moving back into the White House” 

LRA 1077, p. 6, Mailer #815

“We must elect a Republican President in 2016” 

b. Apparent Independent Expenditures Reported as Operating 

Expenditures and Disbursements for Allocated Federal /Non-federal 

Activity (Associated Mailer and Invoice Provided under 11 CFR 

§100.22(b)) 

MRP made 9 disbursements for four apparent independent expenditures 

totaling $17,329, for which it provided copies of the mailers with associated 

invoices and cancelled checks.

Based on the definition of express advocacy under 11 CFR §100.22(b), the 

Audit staff believes the following mailers could only be interpreted by a 

 

13 See footnote 2. 14 Mailer #1, previously considered under §100.22(a), has been reclassified under §100.22(b), per the 

Office of General Counsel’s legal analysis, LRA 1077 Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum 

page #2. 15 The Office of General Counsel would recommend in LRA 1077 Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum, that Mailer #8 be removed from Finding 3.
15

reasonable person as advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified 

candidate:

LRA 1077, p. 5, Mailer #5

 “Donald Trump ...will nominate Supreme Court Justices who will protect the 

Constitution.... I’m asking you to please stand up in defense of our 

Constitution by making a contribution today...”; “The Mississippi Republican 

Party has been hard at work not only to ensure that Donald Trump wins 

Mississippi by a wide margin, but also that he wins swing states such as 

Florida and Ohio”; and “Your generous contribution today will help keep 

Trump from losing the presidency...” 

LRA 1077, p. 5, Mailer #6

 “I am asking you to please contribute $100 to make sure that Donald Trump’s 

message of Making America Great Again can be delivered untainted by the 

media to undecided voters here in Mississippi and in key battleground states” 

LRA 1077, p. 5, Mailer #7

 “The Mississippi Republican Party is working hard to make sure Republicans 

in Mississippi turn out to vote and send Donald Trump to a landslide victory 

here. And the Party is doing the same thing in the critical battleground state 

of Florida... Will you please contribute $50, $75, $100 or more to enable our 

Party to do everything it can in these last days to turn out Republican voters in 

Mississippi and Florida?” 

LRA 1077, p. 6, Mailer #9

“Recent polls suggest the presidential election is dead even and that’s good 

news for Donald Trump and Mike Pence as they build momentum to win the 

White House... NOW is the time for a final surge in the momentum. Will you 

help make sure that happens?”

2. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

At the exit conference, the Audit staff presented MRP with a schedule detailing 

these expenditures. MRP representatives did not have any comments. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that MRP provide documentation 

showing that the apparent independent expenditures, totaling $38,94016, did not 

require reporting as independent expenditures. Absent such documentation, the 

Interim Audit Report recommended that MRP amend its reports to disclose these 

disbursements as independent expenditures on Schedule E and submit procedures 

for reporting independent expenditures. 

3. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP disagreed that any 

of its mailers constituted independent expenditures. MRP stated that expenditures 

 

16 See footnote 2.
16

totaling $38,94017 were reported on the appropriate schedule as “operating 

expenses or fundraising expenses”18 and that these mailings “constitute 

solicitations for MRP.” MRP further stated that the Commission should reject 

the assertion that these mailings contain express advocacy because the “call to 

action” was not “electoral” or an “explicit directive to vote for or against any 

clearly identified Federal candidate,” but rather, “a solicitation of a contribution.” 

Lastly, MRP stated that it and other “similarly situated parties lack notice that the 

Commission has taken the view that incidental issue or political advocacy 

language can transform typical party expenses such as these into independent 

expenditures.” 

4. Draft Final Audit Report

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged MRP’s assertion that the 

expenditures in question were reported as operating or fundraising expenses and 

that mailers were used to solicit contributions. However, the Draft Final Audit 

Report pointed out that the Commission has concluded that if mailers contained 

express advocacy as defined in 11 CFR §100.22, they were considered 

independent expenditures, irrespective of the solicitations’ intended purpose to 

raise funds.19

5. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP reiterated that the primary 

purpose of the mailers was to solicit donors for contributions and any mention of 

federal candidates was “incidental” to the purpose of the mailings. MRP 

disagreed with the cited regulations and stated that “political parties are 

distinguishable from the non-connected political committees.” MRP further 

stated that only a “very small portion of the amount the Audit Division found at 

issue would fall into [the independent expenditures] category due to allocation 

principles when communications include independent advocacy and party 

advocacy.” MRP agreed, however, to amend its reports and properly disclose 

these expenditures should the Commission reject or modify this finding. Finally, 

MRP requested an audit hearing before the Commission.20 The Draft Final Audit 

Report maintained that MRP did not comply with the recommendation to correct 

the disclosure for the remaining nine independent expenditures totaling $43,967. 

The Office of General Counsel considered MRP’s response to the Draft Final 

Audit Report and subsequently provided an additional legal analysis. According 

to the analysis, one mailer, totaling $6,518, was no longer considered an 

independent expenditure as it did not contain express advocacy. As a result, in 

the Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum, the Audit staff removed this 

 

17 See footnote 2. 18 Expenditures totaling $36,969 referenced a Federal candidate and were therefore incorrectly reported on 

Schedule H4. 11 CFR §300.32(a).

19 Final Audit Report on National Campaign Fund; Final Audit Report on Legacy Committee Political 

Action Committee; Final Audit Report on Freedom’s Defense Fund; and Final Audit Report on 

Conservative Majority Fund. 20 See footnote 3. 
17

mailer from the finding and recalculated the total amount of improperly disclosed 

independent expenditures to equal $37,449.21

Commission Conclusion 

On January 28, 2021, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that MRP 

failed to properly disclose apparent independent expenditures totaling $37,449. 

The Commission did not approve, by the required four votes, the Audit staff’s 

recommendation. Some Commissioners voted to approve the Audit staff’s 

recommendation, except that they voted to include Mailer #8 as an additional undisclosed 

independent expenditure. Other Commissioners did not approve the Audit staff’s 

recommendation, stating that that they did not consider a solicitation to be an independent 

expenditure, given the nature of how state parties fundraise and solicit funds. 

Pursuant to Commission Directive 70, this matter is presented as an “Additional Issue.” 

B. Failure to File 24/48-Hour Reports for Apparent Independent Expenditures

1. Facts

In addition to not reporting any independent expenditures during the audit period, 

MRP did not file any 24 or 48-hour reports. Therefore, the apparent independent 

expenditures identified above, may also have required such filings. 

2. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

At the exit conference, the Audit staff discussed with the MRP representatives the 

requirements for filing 24/48-hour reports. MRP representatives did not provide 

any comments. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that, absent documentation that the 

apparent independent expenditures, totaling $38,940, did not require reporting as 

independent expenditures, MRP provide documentation to support the date of 

public dissemination for each mailer to determine whether a 24/48-hour report 

was required.

3. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, MRP provided 

documentation and stated that the term “ship date,” as detailed on four of the nine 

invoices, reflected “the day that they took the mailers to the post office.” 

Accordingly, the Audit staff used the ship date as the date of dissemination for 

these invoices and determined that MRP failed to file one 48-hour report for 

expenditures totaling $12,382 and one 24-hour report for expenditures totaling 

$3,926. 

 

21 See footnote 4.
18

Thus, four of the remaining five mailers22 with no dissemination date might have 

still required the filing of 24/48-hour reports. Absent evidence that the 

expenditures totaling $36,969 did not require reporting as independent 

expenditures, the Audit staff considered these independent expenditures which 

might have required filing of 24/48-hour reports. The Interim Audit Report 

further recommended that MRP provide the dates of dissemination for the mailers 

discussed above. 

4. Draft Final Audit Report

The Draft Final Audit Report acknowledged MRP provided clarification of the 

“ship date” noted on some invoices. Based on that clarification, expenditures 

totaling $3,926 required a 24-hour report and expenditures totaling $12,382 

required a 48-hour report. For the remaining expenditures totaling $20,661 

without associated dissemination dates, 24/48-hour reports might still be required. 

As such, the Draft Final Audit Report concluded that MRP did not comply with 

the recommendation to correct the disclosure of these apparent independent 

expenditures. 

5. Committee Response to the Draft Final Audit Report

In response to the Draft Final Audit Report, MRP did not address the 24/48-hour 

reports.

Commission Conclusion 

On January 28, 2021, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum in which the Audit staff recommended that the Commission find that MRP 

did not file 24/48-hour reports for apparent independent expenditures totaling $36,969. 

The Commission did not approve, by the required four votes, the Audit staff’s 

recommendation. 

Pursuant to Commission Directive 70, this matter is presented as an “Additional Issue.” 

 

22 The cost for the 2015 activity totaling $6,998, did not require any 24/48-hour reports.