FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

MEMORANDUM September 10, 2021 

Lorenzo Holloway 

Assistant General Counsel 

Compliance Advice 

FROM: Neven F. Stipanovic 

Associate General Counsel 

Policy Division 

TO: Patricia C. Orrock 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Danita Alberico 

Attorney 

SUBJECT: Draft Final Audit Report on Mike Braun for Indiana (LRA 1096) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the draft Interim Audit Report 

(“Report”) on Mike Braun for Indiana (“Committee”). The Report contains seven findings: (1) 

Misstatement of Financial Activity; (2) Failure to File 48-Hour Notices; (3) Disclosure of 

Occupation and/or Name of Employer; (4) Receipt of Apparent Prohibited Contributions — 

Loans; (5) Receipt of Contributions in Excess of the Limit; (6) Disclosure of Memo Entries and 

Candidate Loans; and (7) Prohibited Candidate Personal Loan Repayments. We comment on 

Finding 4 and otherwise concur with the findings. If you have any questions, please contact 

Danita Alberico, the attorney assigned to this audit. 
 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Draft Final Audit Report 

Mike Braun for Indiana (LRA 1096) 

Page 2 

II. RECEIPT OF APPARENT PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTIONS — LOANS 

(Finding 4 – Corporate Contributions Reported as Candidate Loans) 

The Audit Division identified two checks received by the Committee totaling $1,500,000 

that appear to be from a corporation. The checks were from Meyer Distributing, but the 

Committee reported them as loans from the Candidate’s personal funds. The Committee never 

repaid the $1,500,000. In the Interim Audit Report, the Audit Division recommended that the 

Committee demonstrate that these funds were the personal funds of the Candidate. In response, 

the Committee contended that the funds were the Candidate’s personal funds because Meyer 

Distributing paid the Candidate $1,500,000 to purchase his stock. The Committee stated that the 

Candidate paid personal income taxes on these funds. In support of its contentions, the 

Committee submitted a letter from Gary Brick, certified public accountant, to show that the two 

checks totaling $1,500,000 were from permissible sources. The Audit Division asks whether the 

letter from Mr. Brick is sufficient to conclude that the funds were permissible. We do not 

believe that it is. However, we recommend that the auditors raise the issue for the Commission’s 

consideration. 

Personal funds of a candidate include income received during the current election cycle, 

including income from the candidate’s stocks or other investments including interest, dividends, 

or proceeds from the sale or liquidation of such stocks or investments. 11 C.F.R. § 100.33(b)(2). 

The letter from Mr. Brick does not establish that the two checks totaling $1,500,000 were the 

proceeds from the sale of the Candidate’s stock, as the Committee contends. Mr. Brick’s letter 

does not contain any assertions of personal knowledge regarding the source of the funds for the 

Candidate’s loan to the Committee. Instead, the letter is Mr. Brick’s analysis of information and 

documents that Mr. Brick appears to have reviewed. For the Audit Division to verify whether 

the funds at issue were the Candidate’s personal funds, however, they must review the actual 

documents which effectuated the purported stock sale. See 11 C.F.R. § 104.14(b)(1) (Political 

committees must maintain records which provide in sufficient detail the necessary information 

and data from which filed reports and statements may be verified). A record such as a stock 

purchase agreement between the Candidate and Meyers Distributing, or the financial documents 

that Mr. Brick reviewed, may aid the auditors in verifying whether the two checks were the 

Candidate’s personal funds. The Commission, however, has the discretion to accept or reject 

Mr. Brick’s conclusions. We, therefore, recommend that the Audit Division raise this issue in 

the cover memorandum to the Commission that will accompany this audit report.