•

MEMORANDUM

TO:

PROM:

SUBJECT:

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, 0 C 204&3

June 27, 1986

FRED EILAND

CHIEP, PRESS OFFICE

ROBERT J. COSTA ./

ASSISTANT STAFF DIRE~~ AUDIT DIVISION

PUBLIC ISSUANCE OF FINAL AUDIT REPORT - AMERICANS WITH BART, INC.

•

During the Open Session of June 26, 1986, the Commission

approved the subject audit report (Agenda Document '86-60) •

The attached copy of this report may be released to the

pUblic.

Attachment as stated '"

cc: FEe Library RAD

':r OGC

vPublic Record

•
• 'J ".•..,~Q:.~8.(..·.." - J • . .

.... ~, ' . \'- I • • ,

;'{ .

~, . .

:Inti

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINCTON. 0 C 204&3

REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION

ON

AMERICANS WITH BART, INC.

•

~.

'4#.

•

I. Background

A. Overview

This report is based on an audit of Americans With

Hart, Inc. ("the Committee"), to determine whether there has been

compliance with the provisions of the Pederal Blection Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act") and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. The audit was conducted pursuant

to 26 U.S.C•• 9038(a) which states that "after each matching

payment period, the Commission shall conduct a thorough examination and audit of the qualified campaign expenses of every candidate and his authorized committees who received payments under section 9037."

In addition, 26 U.S.C•• 9039(b) and 11 C.P.R. 5

9038.l(a) (2) state that the Commission may conduct other

examinations and audits from time to time as it deems necessary

to carry out the provisions of this subchapter. It is

anticipated that under 11 C.P.R. S 9038.1(b) (3) and <e) (4) additional fieldwork may be conducted and addenda to this report issued as necessary.

The Committee registered with the Pederal Election

Commission as the principal c,mpaign committee for Senator Gary

W. Hart on January 10, 1983. 1 The Committee maintains its

headquarters in Denver, Colorado.

!/ The Committee registered as the Friends of Gary Bart, Inc.,

on January 10, 1983. On April 15, 1983, the Committee

changed its name to Americans With Bart, Inc •
2

C. Scope

The audit included such tests as verification of total

reported receipts and disbursements and individual transactions,

review of required supporting documentation; analysis of

Committee debts and obligations, review of contribution and

expenditure limitations; and such other audit procedures as

deemed necessary under the circumstances.

The audit covered the period from the Committee's

inception, April 26, 1982 1/ through July 31, 1984, the final

coverage date of the last report filed at the time of the audit.

In addition, certain financial activity was reviewed through October 31, 1984. The Committee reported a beginning cash

balance of $-0-, total receipts for the period of $22,226,334.53,

total disbursements for the period of $22,074,699.05 and a

closing cash balance on July 31, 1984 of $151,635848.

This report Is based upon documents and work papers which support each of the factual statements. They form part of

the record upon which the Commission based its decisions on the

matters in the report and were available to Commissioners and

appropriate staff for review.

B. Key Personnel

.~ The principal officer of the Committee during the

period audited was Mr. Michael R. Moore, Treasurer.

•

II. Findings Related to Title 2 of the united States Code

A. Allocation of Expenditures to States

Sections 44la(b) (1) CA) and 441a(c) of Title 2, United

States Code provide, in part, that no candidate for the office of

President of the United States who is eligible under section 9033

of Title 26 to receive payments from the Secretary of the

Treasury may make expenditures in anyone State aggregating in

excess of the greater of 16 cents multiplied by the voting age population of the State, or $200,000, as adjusted by the Consumer

Price Index.

•

The Committee filed its first disclosure report on April 15,

1983. The report covered the period April 26, 1982 through March 31, 1983, and included receipts and disbursements

which were subject to the -testing the waters· provisions of

11 C.P.R. § 9034.4(a) (2). These receipts and disbursements

became subject to the requirements of the Act upon receipt of Senator Hart's statement of candidacy which was filed on

January 10, 1983. (See 11 C.P.R. S 100.8(b) (1».
•

•

•

3

The Commission's Regulations at 11 C.P.R. S 106.2(8)(1) apply to Presidential primary candidates receiving or expecting

to receive Federal matching funds. Except for expenditures exempted under 11 C.P.R. S 106.2(c), expenditures incurred by a

candidate's authorized committee for the purpose of influencing the nomination of that candidate for the office of President with

respect to a particular State shall be allocated to that State.

An expenditure shall not necessarily be allocated to the State in

which the expenditure is incurred or paid.

Section l06.2(b) (1) of Title 11, Code of Federal

Regulations states that an expenditure incurred by a candidate's

authorized committee for the purpose of influencing the

nomination of that candidate in more than one State shall be

allocated to each State on a reasonable and uniformly applied basis.

The Committee disclosed on FEC Form 3P, page 3,

$397,932.90 allocable to the $404,000.00 New Hampshire expenditure limitation through October 31, 1984. These amounts

were supported by internal worksheets of the Committee which were

reviewed by the Audit staff.

During the review of the Committee's expenditures, additional amounts allocable to the New Hampshire limit were

identified by the Audit staff which had a net effect of

increasing the amount of expenditures allocable to New Hampshire

to $424,416.76 or $20,416.76 in excess of the limitation.

The Committee utilized a system in which most

expenditures allocable to a particular state were paid from an

account maintained in that State's field office. The exceptions

to this were media purchases, travel of national staff and

certain printing costs. These costs were paid from the national

accounts and were examined individually to determine the

appropriate allocation.

The Committee maintained an accrual accounting system for expenditures. Each expenditure was recorded as an account

payable at the time the obligation was incurred. The allocation

to the appropriate state was made at the time the payable was

posted to the general ledger. This system permitted the

Committee to disclose the total of allocable expenses paid as

well as obligated on FEC Form 3P, page 3, "Allocation of Primary Expenditures by State for a Presidential Candidate."

Presented below are categories of costs (amounts paid and payable) which the Audit staff added to the Committee's

reported amounts allocable to New Hampshire at October 31, 1984 •
• 1)

4

Polling Expenditures

2)

•

Section 106.2(b) (2) (vi) of Title 11, Code of

Federal Regulations states, in part, that expenditures incurred

for the taking of a public opinion poll covering only one State

shall be allocated to that State.

The Audit staff increased the amount allocable to

the Committee's New Hampshire expenditure limit by $6,000 for two

expenditures involving the same vendor for polling which appear

to be allocable to New Hampshire. The documentation for one of

the expenditures ($4,000) specifically referred to a survey in

New Hampshire. The other expenditure ($2,000) was not supported by documentation which positively identified it as New Hampshire re1ated~ however, the payment was made on February 8, 1984, 20

days prior to the date of the New Hampshire primary. In

addition, $17,001.84 in expenditures to a firm for voter contact

services and phone tapes applicable to New Hampshire have been

added to the New Hampshire limit.

Overhead Expenditures of State Office

and Miscellaneous Adjustments

Section l06.2(b) (2) (iv) (A) of Title 11, Code of

Federal Regulations requires that overhead expenditures of

offices located in a particular State shall be allocated to that

State.

During the review of expenditures, the Audit staff

noted additional overhead and miscellaneous expenditures and

adjustments (i.e., printing, Committee input errors, void checks,

etc.) which increased the amount allocable to New Hampshire by $10,191.30. In addition, a $2,171.10 invoice for printing was

allocated twice to the New Hampshire limit resulting in a net

adjustment of $8,020.20.

3) Allocativn of Compliance Costs and

Fundraising Expenditures

Section 106.2(c) (5) of Title 11, Code of Federal

Regulations states, in part, that an amount equal to 10% of

campaign workers' salaries and overhead expenditures in a

particular State may be excluded from allocation to that State as

an exempt compliance cost. An additional amount equal to 101 of

such salaries and overhead expenditures in a particular State may be excluded from allocation to that State as exempt fundraising expenditures, but this exemption shall not apply within 28

calendar days of the primary election as specified in 11 CPR

110.8 (c) (2) •
•

•

5

In calculating total expenditures subject to the

New Hampshire limit, the Committee did not take advantage of the

exclusions provided for in 11 C.P.R. § 106.2(c) (5). The

Committee did however exclude $2,574.97 in direct fundraising

costs.

4) Media Expenditures

Section 106.2(b) (2) (i) (B) of Title 11, Code of

Federal Regulations requires that expenditures for radio,

television and similar types of advertisements purchased in a

particular media market that covers more than one State shall be

allocated to each State in proportion to the estimated audience.

This allocation of expenditures, including any commission charged for the purchase of broadcast media, shall be made using industry

market data.

Further, 11 C.F.R. § 106.2(c) (2) states that

expenditures incurred for production of media whether or not that

advertising is used in more than one State, need not be allocated

to any State.

The Audit staff determined that two disbursements

totaling $4,538.18 were incorrectly allocated by the Committee to

New Hampshire. One of the expenditures ($3,247.93) represented a

duplicate allocation of a media invoice on the Committee's

ledger, while the other expenditure ($1,290.25) represented

production cost for print media which were unnecessarily allocated to New Hampshire by the Committee (see 11 C.F.R. §

106.2(c) (2». As a result, the Audit staff deducted $4,538.18

from the amount allocated to New Hampshire by the Committee.

The Committee based their expenditure allocations

for TV/radio buys on statements prepared by their media buyers.

These statements provide the allocable amounts for each state

affected by the media buys1 however, the Committee did not have

documentation during the fieldwork which adequately explained the

media buyer's method of allocating the media expenditures to the

states.

In addition, the Audit staff reviewed payments

made by the Committee to a media consultant (which purchased the

Committee's radio and TV spots through a media buyer) as well as

the activity between the consultant and the media buyer.

The Audit staff obtained from the consultant

worksheets showing receipts from the Committee and the eventual

disposition of the funds (i.e., amounts retained by the

consultant for commissions, production, travel and/or overhead
•

6

costs, or expended by the consultant to the media buyer for

placements and/or commissions). In addition, the Audit staff

obtained a worksheet from the media buyer showing receipts from

the consultant relating to media buys for the Committee. At the

close of the fieldwork the Audit staff was unable to reconcile a

difference of $55,109.69 which existed between the amount shown'"

being forwarded by the consultant to the media buyer for

Committee media spots ($3,861,584.33) and the amount shown being

spent by the media buyer ($3,916,694.02). In order to verify that all funds expended by the Committee with the intent of

purchasing media spots, especially in New Hampshire, were in

fact, used for such purposes, additional documentation was

required from the media buyer.

Requests were made by the Audit staff to the media

buyer for detailed information regarding the method used to

allocate the portion of these media buys to New Hampshire, however, at the time of the issuance of the interim audit report that information had not been received. Without this information

the Audit staff was unable to verify that the total amount of

media buys allocated by the Committee to New Hampshire is

correct.

23,001.84

8,020.20

4,538.18)

$424,416.76

$397,932.90

Adjustments:

1) Polling Expenditures 2) Overhead and Miscellaneous

Expenditures

3) Media Expenditures

Recap of Expenditures Allocable to New Hampshire

Expenditures reported by the

Committee as allocable to N.H.

N.H. Expenditure Limitation

per 2 u.s.c. 5 441a as adjusted

Total Expenditures Incurred in

Excess of Limitation

404,000.00)

$ 20,416.76

•
3)

•

o

•

7

The interim report recommended that the Committee

present to the Audit staff information and/or documentation

relating to any adjustment of the expenditures allocated to New

Hampshire and adjust its accounting records and, where necessary, file amendments to its disclosure reports to reflect the

expenditures allocable to New Hampshire.

In addition, the report recommended that the

Committee obtain for Audit staff review, records from the media

firm which detail total payments received by the media firm to

purchase television and radio buys and the media firm's

methodology used to allocate these buys to the states. The

records requested included but were not limited to bank

statements, canceled checks, journals and ledgers, written

procedures, and any other workpapers related to media buy allocations.

Further, if the Committee reduced the amount

charged to the expenditure limitation in accordance with 11

C.F.R. § l06.2(c)(5), the Audit staff recommended that the

Committee provide for the Audit staff's review any workpapers and

documentation used in the calculation(s).

On September 4, 1985, the Committee submitted a

response to the interim report which makes adjustments to the

expenditures allocated to New Hampshire as follows:

1 and 2) Polling Expenditures and Overhead Expenditures and

Miscellaneous Adjustments

The Committee did not take issue with the Audit staff's

addition of $23,001.84 in expenditures for polling or $8,020.20

in overhead expenditures of state offices and miscellaneous

adjustments.

Allocation of Compliance Costs and Fundraising Expenditures

In its response the Committee elects to take advantage of the 10% exclusion provided for in 11 C.F.R. § 106.2(c) (5). Based on calculations performed during the initial fieldwork, the

Committee may exclude the $14,928.60 cited in its response from

the New Hampshire expenditure limit for exempt compliance and

fundraising ~osts•
• 4) Media Expenditures

8

•

•

It its response, the Committee reduced its original allocation of media expenses to New Hampshire from $53,199.50 to

$34,261.68. This total was arrived at by using the Audit staff's

calculation which was based on applying industry data to the summary billings provided by the Committee's media firm. The station

invoices and affidavits supporting the summary billings were not

maintained in a manner which allowed the Audit staff to verify the accuracy of the billings during the fieldwork.

The Committee also supplied with its response a

reconciliation of payments between the Committee's media

consultant and its media buyer. The Audit staff's review of the

reconciliation disclosed $71,100.00 in payments made to the media

consultant which did not previously appear in the records of the

Committee or the media consultant.

In summary, the Committee's response included a

reduction of the expenses allocable to New Hampshire from

$424,416.76 to $390,550.341 however, the Committee had not

provided sufficient documentation (i.e., station invoices,

reconciliation of media buys) to verify the base total of media

expenditures from which the expenses allocable to New Hampshire

were determined. Although the Committee's response, as stated,

clearly indicated that the New-Hampshire limit had not been

exceeded, the Audit staff was unable to verify the Committee's

statement with respect to the media allocation reduction of

$18,937.82. In addition, the Committee had yet to demonstrate

that no difference(s) exist between funds received/expended with

respect to both the media consultant and media buyer.

In a letter dated May 6, 1986, the Commission formally requested that the Committee supply to the Audit staff 1)

documentation which supported the $71,100.00 in payments noted

above and, 2) the media invoices and affidavits supporting the

media firm's summary billings.

In response to that letter the Committee supplied a

canceled check and debit memos which adequately support the

$71,100.00 in payments noted on the Committee's reconciliation.

In addition, the Committee supplied copies of media invoices and

affidavits which materially support the media firm's summary billings. Based on this additional information provided by the

Committee, it is the opinion of the Audit staff that the

Committee has adequately documented its reduction of expenditures allocable to New Hampshire from $424,416.76 to $390,550.34 •
•

9

Recommendation

The Audit staff recommends no further action on this matter.

B. Matters Referred to the Office of General Counsel

Certain matters noted during the audit have been

referred to the Office of General Counsel.

III. Pindings and Recommendations Related to Title 26

of the United States Code

a:

A. Apparent Non-Qualified Campaign Expenses

Section 9038(b) (2) (A) of Title 26, United States Code

states that if the Commission determines that any amount of any

payment made to a candidate from the matching payment account was

used for any purpose other than to defray the qualified campaign

expenses with respect to which such payment was made, it shall

notify such candidate of the amount so used, and the candidate

shall pay to the Secretary an amount equal to such amount.

The Commission, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1984, set forth a

pro rata formula which would base repayments for non-qualified campaign expenses on the proportion of federal funds to total

funds received by the Candidate.

The text of the regulation along with the Explanation and Justification were published in the Federal Register on

August 22, 1984, and transmitted to Congress. On March 5, 1985,

the revised regulations were resubmitted for pUblication. The

proposed regulations were before the Congress for 30 legislative days as of May 20, 1985, and approved by the Commission for

publication in final form on June 11, 1985.

The formula and the appropriate calculation with

respect to the Committee's receipt activity is as follows:

Numerator plus Private Contributions

Total Matchin

$ 4,474,808.38 .359527

12,446,368.88

Thus, the repayment ratio for non-qualified campaign

expenses is 35.9527%.

• 1/ Pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 9032.6(a), the date of ineligibility

for Senator Hart was July 18, 1984, the date on which the

Democratic Party nominated its candidate.
• 1.

10

Disbursements Not Adequately Documented

•

Section 9033.11(b) of Title 11, Code of Pederal

Regulations, in part, requires that for disbursements in excess

of $200, the Committee retain a receipted bill from the payee which shows the purpose of the disbursement or a cancelled check

negotiated by the payee and a bill, invoice, v~ucher, or

contemporaneous memorandum which states the purpose of the

disbursement, or a cancelled check negotiated by the payee which

shows the purpose of the disbursement. For all other

disbursements (those of $200 or less) required documentation at

the minimum, must include, a cancelled check negotiated by the

payee which shows the identification of the payee, and the

amount, date and purpose of the disbursement.

Our review of disbursements indicated that 66

disbursements totaling $18,851.02, made from four state accounts,

were not adequately documented. This amount represents 36.16' of

the total dollar value of disbursements made from the four (4)

state accounts.

The Committee Treasurer explained that these state

offices did not follow the written procedures set forth in a

booklet prepared by the Treasurer entitled "Treasurer's

Guidelines for State Organizations" which explained in detail the

specific procedures to be followed by the state offices to

achieve compliance with the Act.

The Treasurer stated that the coordinators in each

of the states where documentation was inadequate would be

contacted in order to obtain the documentation.

In the interim report the Audit staff recommended

that, absent a showing to the contrary, the Commission approve

the preliminary calculation that the amount ($18,851.02) of

undocumented disbursements be viewed as non-qualified campaign

expenses and the pro rata portion ($6,777.45) be repaid to the

U.S. Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b) (2).

The Committee's response to the interim report included documentation which materially supported the

disbursements noted above.

Recommendation

No further action is recommended with respect to this

matter •
• 2.

11

Bank Charges for Committee Overdrafts

•

•

A review of the Committee's disbursement activity revealed that the Committee was charged $4,862.00 in service

charges for checks drawn on accounts with insufficient funds.

Most of the charges ($3,727) were in the Committee's state

accounts (see 26 U.S.C. S 9038(b) (2) (A».

The interim audit report recommended that, absent a

showing to the contrary, the Commission approve the preliminary calculation that the amount $4,862.00 be viewed as non-qualified campaign expenses and the pro rata portion ($1,748.02) be repaid

to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C•• 9038(b) (2).

On September 4, 1985, the Committee responded that:

-26 U.S.C. 5 9038(b) (2) (A) authorizes the Commission to

require repayment of matching payments used for purposes other than 'to defray the qualified campaign expenses with

respect to which such payment was made.' The term

'qualified campaign expenses' is defined by the statute as

including any payment 'incurred by a candidate, or his

authorized committee, in connection with his campaign for

nomination••• neither the incurring nor payment of which

constitutes a violation of any law of the United States or

of the state in which the expense is incurred or paid.' 26

U.S.C. 5 9032(9)."

The Committee contends that under the statutory definition the bank charges are qualified campaign expenses since

they were incurred in connection with the campaign and neither

the incurrence nor payment violated any law of the United States.

The Committee's response acknowledges the fact that the

Commission has required one other Presidential candidate to repay

to the Treasury amounts expended for bank overdraft charges, but

attempts to differentiate between the circumstances involving the

Committee's overdrafts and those of the other candidate. With

respect to the other committee's overdrafts, the response states

that "the Commission found 'circumstances suggesting either

knowledge that the checks were unsupported or at least disregard for whether there would be sufficient funds to cover the

checks.' ••• By contrast, the overdrafts at issue here were

primarily from state and local operating accounts ••• , suggesting non-systematic, inadvertent overdrafts caused by inattention to

the balance of the accounts by various local campaign personnel,

or delays in wire transfers from the Committee's principal depository to state and local accounts."
•

'"

•

12

In the response the Committee continues its attempt to

differentiate the two sets of circumstances by adding that Wthe

Hart Committee issued far fewer returned checks over a far

greater period of time relative to far larger overall

expenditures" than did the other committee.

The response concludes its argument regarding the

repayment of the overdraft charges by addressing several

consequential questions should the repayment recommendation of

the Audit staff be approved by the Commission. For example, the

response poses several questions including ••• "Could not also

other bank charges be deemed non-qualified expenses, such as

penalties for late payments on loans? ••• r such as payments for

failure to maintain a minimum balance? ••• r What of interest

charged to a credit card account -- a 'penalty' for failure to

promptly pay the balance in full? ••• Each is in the nature of a

penalty. Each is precisely like the overdraft charges in this

case. Yet it seems clear these expenditures have always been

treated, and should be treated, as qualified campaign expenses. So too the bank charges at issue here."

In response to the Committee's argument that the

overdrafts were non-systematic and inadvertent and primarily occurred in state 'and local accounts, a review of the overdraft

charges reveals that the majority of the charges were in fact

from the Committee's headquarters operating account and two state

accounts. The operating account accounted for 59 charges totaling $1,075.00. The Pennsylvania state account and the Maine

state accounts accounted for 76 and 66 charges totaling $1,900.00

and $792.00 respectively.!/ The majority of the overdrafts (66)

on the Pennsylvania account occurred during the period March 30,

1984 through April 3, 1984, just prior to the Pennsylvania primary which took place on April 3, 1984. The Maine account was

charged for 59 overdrafts during March, 1984. The Maine caucus

was held on March 4, 1984. Therefore, it appears that the

overdrafts in these two state accounts occurred at a crucial time

period in the campaign in those states when an adequate cash flow

was most important.

The remaining 80 charges totaling $1,095.00 were

dispersed throughout 19 other state accounts. It is the opinion

of the Audit staff that the Committee presents a persuasive

argument for not considering these remaining 80 charges as nonqualified campaign expenses based on the fact that they appear to

be inadvertent and isolated instances•

•

.4./ On April 11, 1984, the M~ine bank reversed $163.61 in

charges in order to close the account.
•

13

As noted above, the Commission has previously encountered one other instance which involved issuance of

insufficient fund checks on a large scale by a pUblicly funded

candidate. In that case the Commission acknowledged that it had

accorded wide discretion to candidates on how to conduct their

publicly funded campaigns and therefore in what costs are

qualified campaign expenses. The Commission has, however, also

found in specific cases that certain expenses are not legitimate

ones to be paid with public funds. In contrast to legitimate finance charges and other charges mentioned by the Committee, the

overdraft charges result from behavior which is not the type of

activity Congress intended to finance with public funds in

enacting the Matching Payment Account Act.

Based on the Committee's response to the interim audit

report it is the opinion of the Audit staff that the amount of

bank overdraft charges viewed as non-qualified campaign expenses be reduced to $3,603.39 ($4,862.00 - $163.61 - $1,095.00).

Conclusion

On June 26, 1986, the Commission made an initial

determination that the amount ($3,603.39) of bank overdraft

charges be viewed as non-qualified campaign expenses and the pro

rata portion of $1,295.52 be repaid to the U.S. Treasury within

90 calendar days of receipt of this report in accordance with 11

C.F.R. § 9038.2(d).

,

Section 9034.5(a) of Title 11, Code of Federal

Regulations requires that the candidate submit a Statement of Net

Outstanding Campaign Obligations which contains, among other

items, the total of all outstanding obligations for qualified campaign expenses and an estimate of necessary winding down costs

within 15 days of the candidate's date of ineligibility.

In addition, 11 C.F.R. S 9034.l(b) states, in part, that if on the date of ineligibility a candidate has net

outstanding campaign obligations as defined under 11 CFR 9034.5,

that candidate may continue to receive matching payments provided that on the date of payment there are remaining net outstanding campaign obligations•

Determination of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations

•

B.

Repayment Amount: $1,295.52
•

......

•

•

14

Senator Bart's date of ineligibility was July 18, 1984.

The Committee filed a Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations (NOCO) on August 2, 1984, which reflected the

Committee's estimated NOCO as of August 2, 1984. Por purposes of

determining Senator Hart's remaining entitlement, the August 2,

1984 NOCO statement was audited. This audit was limited to the

verification of cash on hand, secured bank loans payable, Candidate loan payable, and certain of the larger accounts

payable. The bank loans and verified accounts payable represent in excess of 2.9 million dollars of the Committee's total

obligations. Should the Committee's financial position change substantially, additional fieldwork may be required to assess the

impact of the change on the NOCO deficit and to verify additional

components of the NOCO statement. The NOCO as prepared by the

Audit staff appears below•
•

15

Americans with Bart, Inc.

Audit Analysis of NOCO Statement

As of August 2, 1984 !/

Assets

$361,374.12

245,593.85

152,693.43

92,029.79

""".

•

Cash on Rand

Accounts Receivable

Capital Assets

Total Assets

Obligations

Bank Loans

Candidate Loan

Accounts Payable

Estimated Winding Down

Costs (8/2/84 to

3/31/85)

Personal Services

Fundraising Costs

Interest Expense Other Expenses

Total Estimated

Winding Down

Costs

Total Obligations

Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations, Deficit as of

August 2, 1984 ~/

$ 54,018.30

106,006.50

45,000.00

$1,423,169.82

45,000.00

3,295,833.16

$ 851,691.19

$ 205,024.80

$5,615,694.17

$5,410,669.37

•

AI The Committee Treasurer inadvertently filed the initial NOCO

statement as of 8/2/84 rather than the Committee's date of

ineligibility which is 7/18/84.

B/ Since certain estimates were used in computing this amount,

the Audit staff will review the Committee's reports and

records to compare the actual figures with the estimates and

prepare adjustments, as necessary•
•

•

•

16

The Committee Treasurer has agreed with all components of the audited NOCO statement, and has further agreed to use the

audited NOCO statement as the basis for all subsequent NOCO

statements submitted. In addition, our review of the Committee's

reports and contribution records indicated that for the period August 3, 1984 through October 31, 1984, the Committee received

$239,249.14 in individual contributions and matching funds.

Conclusion

In view of the Committee's verified deficit of at least $2.6

million, ($2.9 million verified payables - $205,000 total assets) the Committee has not received matching fund payments in excess

of its entitlement•
• FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, 0 C. 20463

August 27, 1986

MEMORANDUM

o

'"

o

TO: Kent Cooper Assistant Staff

Public Disclos

THROUGH: John C. Sure

Staff Direc

Charles N. S eel~~~~ General Coun el

FROM: Daniel J. BleSSington~ Attorney-Advisor

SUBJECT: Public Disclosure of Final Commission Action

for Americans With Hart, Inc.

Please find attached copies of documents relating to the

final determination made by the Commission relating to the

Americans With Hart, Inc. Committee. We suggest that these

materials be placed on the pUblic record. We note that the final

audit report is already on file.

Attachments

Certification

Notification/Final Determination

letter to Senator Hart

•
r

•

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINelON, D,C. 20461

•

•

AUau8t 27, 1986

MBMORANDUM

TO: Kent Cooper Assistant Staff Director

Public Disclo8ure Division

THROUGH: John C. Surin.

Staff Director

Charles N. Steel~~~ General Counsel

PROM: Daniel J. BleSSington~ Attorney-Advisor

SUBJECT: Public Disclosure of Pinal Commission Action

for Americans With Bart, Inc •

Please find attached copies of documents relating to the

final determination made by the Commission relating to the

Americans With Rart, Inc. Committee. We sU9gest that these

materials be placed on the public record. We note that the final

audit report is already on file.

Attachments

Certification

Notification/Final Determination

letter to Senator Bart
·0 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. 0 C. 2Ot6J AUCJust 22, 1986

Donald J. Si.on, Isquire Sonosky, Chaabers , Sachse

1050 31s~ Street, H.W• ••shington, D.C. 20007

Dear Mr. Si.on,

The Co.-i••ion acknowledges receipt of A8ericans With aart's

repayment of $1,295.52 to the Secretary of the Trea.ury a8 the

portion of non-qualified campaign expenses paid with public funds. Inasmuch as the Committee has made rep.,..nt without

dispute within the prescribed response period, pursuant to 11

C.P.R. S9038.2(c) (1), the Co.-ission's initial determination has

become final.

Additional audit fieldwork may be conducted and additional

repayment determinations may be issued as necessary, pursuant to

11 C.P.R. 559038.1(e) (4) and 9038.2(f).

Sincerely,

r~~

Joan D. Aikens

Chairman

cc: Senator Gary Bart

Americans With Rart, Inc.

Michael R. Moore, Treasurer

•
_1.:.-....

•

fEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. DC 2MJ Auguat 22, 1986

Micb.el R. Moore, Tr.asurer

Aaericans .i~h Sart, Inc.

c/o Arthur Young Co.

707 16th Stre.t

Suite 3800

Denver, Colorado 80202

D.ar Mr. Moore,

The Ca..ission acknowledges receipt of Aaerican8 With Bart's

repayment of 81,295.52 to the Secretary of the Tre••ury as the

portion of non-qualified campaign expen••• paid with public funds. Inanuch as the Co_itt.e ha•••de repa,.ent without

dispute within the prescribed response period, pursuant to 11

C.P.R. S9038.2(c)(1), tbe Ca.ai••ion'. initial deter.ination has

become final.

Additional audit fieldwork may be conducted and additional

repayment determinations .ay be issued as necessary, pursuant to

11 C.F.R. 5S9038.1(e)(4) and 9038.2(f). .

Sincerely,

rh.GJu,.J

Joan D. Aikens

Chair.an

•

cc: Senator Gary Bart

Donald J. Simon, Esq.

Sonosky, Chambers' Sachse
e· FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. DC lCM6J AUfjuSt: 22, 1986

The lonorable Gary Bart

Ra•••ll Senate Office Building .a.hington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Sart,

The Cem.is.ion acknowledges receipt of Aaericans With aart'.

repayment of $1,295.52 to the Secretary of the Trea.ury a. the

portion of non-qualified campaign e.pen.es paid with pUblic funds. InaSBuch as the Committee has .ade repayaent without

dispute within the prescribed response period, pursuant to 11

C.P.R. 59038.2(c)(1), the Commission's initial determination has

becOile final.

Additional audit fieldwork may be conducted and additional

repayment determinations .ay be issued as necessary, pursuant to

11 C.P.R. 559038.1(e) (4) and 9038.2(f).

Sincerely,

r~·Q.L-J

Joan D. Aikens

Chairman

cc: Donald J. Simon, Esq. Sonosky, Chambers' Sachse

Americans With Rart, Inc.

Michael R. Moore, Treasurer

•
•

'n

SBrORB THB FBDBRAL BLBCTION COMMISSION

In t.he Mat.t.er of )

)

Final ..paymen~ Det.ermination )

for Americans With Hart )

CERTIFICATION

I, Marjorie W. Emmons, Secretary of the Pederal

Election Commission, do hereby certify that on August 21,

1986, the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve

the Final Repayment. Dete~inat.ion for American With Bart

Committee and to send to the Committee and senator Bart

the letters recommended under staff memorandum dated

August 18, 1986.

Commissioners Aikens, Elliott, Harris, Josefiak,

McDonald, and McGarry voted affi~atively for this

dec1sion.

Attest:

•

Date

'l/l.ft'~4c' '7//'~'IU- /

Marjorie W. Emmons

Secretary of the Commission
•

~--- ----------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. 0 C. 2MJ

.n

-Y'.

•

Donald J. Su-on, ••quire Sonoaky, Cbaabera I Sachs.

1050 31.t Street, •••• • a.hin9ton, D.C. 20007

Dear Itt. S iaon ,

Tbe Ca.alssion aeknowledges receipt of ABerleane With lart'.

repayaent of 81,295.52 to tbe Secretary of tbe Tre.eury a. the

portion of non-qualified c••paign eKPen.e. paid with public funds. In...uch •• the Co..itt•• ba•••de repa~ent without

dispute within the prescribed respon•• period, pursuant to 11

C.P.R. 19038.2(c)(1), the Co..ission's initial deter.in.tion bas

becOile final.

Additional audit fieldwork may be conducted and additional

repayMent determinations .ay be is.ued as necessary, pursuant to

11 C.P.R. 559038.l(e) (4) and 9038.2(f).

Sincerely,

r~~

30an D. Aikens

Chair.an

cc: Senator Gary Bart ~ericans Witb Rart, Inc.

Michael R. Moore, Treasurer

•
,"'. r

,!':\\}~~~I • j t lFEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINeTON. DC. 1M3 AUCJ1lat: 22, 19.'

Mlcb••l R. Mooee, ~ce••uc.c ~.rlcan. With .aEt, Inc.

c/o AEtbuc Yount Co.

107 lltb SteHt

Salte 3800

Denvec, Colorado 80202

Dear Mr. Moore,

~. Cc..i••ion acknowled,e. recelpt of "erlcana With Bar~·.

repa,.ent of $1,295.52 to tbe Secretary of the ~rea.ury •• the

portion of non-qualified c••pal,n espeft.e. paid witb public

"funds. lna.ucb a. tbe C~it~ee b•••ad. repa,.ent witbout

dispute witbin ~b. pr••cribed cespon•• perlod, pur.uant to 11

C.P.R. S9038.2(c)(1), the Ca.ai••ion'. initial deter.ination ba.

beeo.. final.

e Additional audit fieldwork .ay be conducted and additional pa~.nt deter.ination. aay be i ••ued .s nec••••ry, pursuant to

C.P.R. '19038.1(.)(4) and 9038.2(f).

Sincerely,

r-~. ClJo-J

Joan D. Aikens

Chair.an

cc: Senator Gary Bart

Donald J. 81lIOII, Esq. Sono.ky, Cha.bers , Sachs•

•
•

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. 0 C a-J AUCJu.t 22, 19"

,...

!be lonorable Gary Bart

Ru••ell Senate Office 8uildln9 •••blntton, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Bart,

Th. Ca..ls.lon acknowled9.S receipt of ~ertcan. With ••Et'.

repa,..nt of $1,295.52 to the Secretary of the Trea.ury a. tbe

portion of non-qualified ca.pai9n eapen.e. paid with public fund.. Ina.uch a. the Cc..itte. ba•••de repa,.ent without

dispute within the prescribed r••pons. period, pursuant to 11

C.P.R. S9038.2(c)(1), the Co.-ission's initial deter.ination ba.

beec.e final.

Additional audit fieldwork .ay be conducted and additional

repayment determinations .ay be issued as neces.ary, pursuant to

11 C.P.R. 559038.1(e) (4) and 9038.2(f).

Sincerely,

r~'~ Joan D. Aikens

Chairman

cc: Donald J. Siaon, Bsq. Sonosky, Chambers' Sachse

Americana With Bart, Inc.

Michael R. Moore, Treasurer

•
• BBFORE TBB FEDERAL ZLlCTIOH COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

)

Pinal Repayment Determination )

for Americana With Hart )

CERTIFICATI~

I, Marjorie W. Emmons, Secretary of the Federal

Election Commission, do hereby certify that on Auqust 21,

1986, the Commission decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve

the Final Repayment D~~ermination for American With Bart

Committee and to send to the Committee and senator Bart

the letters recommended under staff memorandum dated

Auqust 18, 1986.

Co~issioners Aikens, Elliott, Barris, Josefiak,

McDonald, and McGarry voted affirmatively for this

decision.

Attest:

•

allsa S£

Date

7t?1t- 4 ,;" 'U/~'I(A./ Marjorie W. Emmons

Secretary of the Commission
......'t.-04lV"'-~.....-.~

0° °0 (> 0 0 0

'0

o cI

0 0

" (JC 0"

0 0

,......--~--~''""'"'v--~.........-w-..-..~_~_~ __"' 00

o 0 Q()

o 0

o

,,'/:, 0

,-...--~-~-....,._~

:&1

o 0

> 0'

°0

0

0

0 0

0 0

0

0

"0

"'0 0Q 0

00

o '6

'"" 0

0

~EC

l) DOCUMENT

SEPARATOR

o 0

0 0

o 0

o G'

O~j./ 0 0

o 0°

o