Final Audit Report of the 

Commission on Spike Maynard 

for Congress 

(February 17, 2010 - December 31, 2010) 

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.' The audit 

determines whether the 

committee complied with 

the limitations, 

prohibitions and 

disclosure requirements 

of the Act. 

About the Campaign (p. 2) 

Spike Maynard for Congress is the principal campaign committee for 

Elliott Edward Maynard, Republican candidate for the House of 

Representatives from the state of West Virginia, 3"* District, 

headquartered in Williamson, West Virginia. For more information, 

see the chart on the Campaign Organization, p. 2. 

Financial Activity (p. 2) 

• Receipts 

o Contributions from Individuals 

o Contributions from Political 

Committees and Other Receipts 

Total Receipts 

• Disbursements 

o Operating Expenditures 

o Refunds to Individuals 

Total Disbursements 

Commission Finding (p. 3) 

• Disclosure of Disbursements 

$ 954,961 

76,253 

$ 1,031,214 

$ 967,005 

60,000 

$ 1,027,005 

Future Action 

The Commission may 

initiate an enforcement 

action, at a later time, 

with respect to the matter 

discussed in this report. 

2 U.S.C. §438(b). 
Final Audit Report of the 

Commission on 

Spike Maynard for Congress 

(February 17, 2010 - December 31, 2010) 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Part I. Background 

Authority for Audit 1 

Scope of Audit 1 

Audit Hearing 1 

Part II. Overview of Campaign 

Campaign Organization 2 

Overview of Financial Activity 2 

Part III. Summary 

Commission Finding 3 

Part IV. Commission Finding 

Disclosure of Disbursements 4 
Part I 

Background 

Authority for Audit 

This report is based on an audit of Spike Maynard for Congress (SMFC), 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 2 U.S.C. §438(b), which permits the Commission to conduct audits and 

field investigations of any political committee that is required to file a report under 2 U.S.C. 

§434. 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. \ 

U.S.C. §438(b). 

Scope of Audit 

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

as a result, this audit examined: 

1. the disclosure of individual contributors* occupation and name of employer; 

2. the disclosure of disbursements, debts and obligations; 

3. the consistency between reported figures and bank records; 

4. the completeness of records; and 

5. other committee operations necessary to the review. 

Audit Hearing 

Spike Maynard for Congress declined the opportunity for a hearing before the Commission on 

the matter presented in this report. 
Part II 

Overview of Campaign 

Campaign Organization 

Important Dates 

• Date of Registration February 26,2010 

• Audit Coverage February 17,2010 - December 31,2010 

Headquarters Williamson, West Virginia 

Bank Information 

• Bank Depositories One 

• Bank Accounts Two checking 

Treasurer 

• Treasurer When Audit Was Conducted Robert Ryan 

• Treasurer During Period Covered by Audit Robert Ryan 

Management Information 

• Attended FEC Campaign Finance Seminar No 

• Who Handled Accounting and 

Recordkeeping Tasks 

Paid Staff 

Overview of Financial Activity 

(Audited Amounts) 

Cash-on-hand @ February 17,2010 $ 0 

Receipts 

o Contributions from Individuals 954,961 

o Contributions from Political Committees and 

Other Receipts 

76,253 

Total Receipts $ 1,031,214 

Disbursements 

o Operating Expenditures 967,005 

o Refunds to Individuals 60,000 

Total Disbursements $ 1,027,005 

Cash-on-hand @ December 31,2010 $ 4,209 
Part III 

Summary 

Commission Finding 

Disclosure of Disbursements 

The Audit staff identified 84 disbursements, totaling $261,999, with missing or 

inadequately disclosed purposes. Subsequent to the exit conference, SMFC filed 

amended reports that materially corrected the disclosure of these disbursements. In its 

response to the Interim Audit Report, SMFC stated it had satisfactorily amended the 

affected reports and offered no additional comments on this matter. 

The Commission approved a finding that SMFC did not disclose or inadequately 

disclosed purposes for disbursements. 

(For more detail, see p. 4) 
Part IV 

Commission Finding 

I Disclosure of Disbursements 

Summary 

The Audit staff identified 84 disbursements, totaling $261,999, with missing or 

inadequately disclosed purposes. Subsequent to the exit conference, SMFC filed 

amended reports that materially corrected the disclosure of these disbursements. In its 

response to the Interim Audit Report, SMFC stated it had satisfactorily amended the 

affected reports and offered no additional comments on this matter. 

The Commission approved a finding that SMFC did not disclose or inadequately 

disclosed purposes for disbursements. 

Legal Standard 

A. Reporting Operating Expenditures. When operating expenditures to the same 

person exceed $200 in an election cycle, the committee must report the: 

• Amount; 

• Date when the expenditures were made; 

• Name and address of the payee; and 

• Purpose (a brief description of why the disbursement was made—see below). 

• 11 CFR§104.3(b)(4)(i). 

B. Examples of Purpose. 

• Adequate Descriptions. Examples of adequate descriptions of "purpose" include 

the following: dinner expenses, media, salary, polling, travel, party fees, phone 

banks, travel expenses, travel expense reimbursement, catering costs, loan 

repayment, or contribution refund. 11 CFR §104.3 (b)(4)(i)(A). 

• Inadequate Descriptions. The following descriptions do not meet the requirement 

for reporting "purpose": advance, election-day expenses, other expenses, expense 

reimbursement, miscellaneous, outside services, get-out-the-vote and voter 

registration. 11 CFR §104.3 (b)(4)(i)(A). 

Facts and Analysis 

A. Facts 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified 84 disbursements for salary payments 

and payments to media vendors for television ads totaling $261,999 with either missing 

or inadequately disclosed purposes. SMFC disclosed 55 of these disbursements totaling 

$213,696 without purposes in its reports filed with the Commission. SMFC reported the 

remainder of these disbursements using inadequate purposes such as "reimbursement" or 

"collateral." When the Audit staff presented this matter during fieldwork, SMFC 
representatives responded that they had attempted to amend their reports prior to 

fieldwork, but were unable to do so due to technical difficulties. 

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation 

During the exit conference held at the conclusion of fieldwork, the Audit staff provided 

SMFC representatives with a schedule detailing items reported with inadequate or 

undisclosed purposes. The Audit staff recommended that SMFC file amended Schedules 

B (Itemized Disbursements) to correct the disclosure of these transactions. SMFC 

representatives agreed that amended reports should be filed to fully disclose the purposes 

of the disbursements in question. 

Subsequent to the exit conference, SMFC filed amended reports that materially corrected 

the disclosure of the disbursements noted above. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that SMFC provide any additional comments it 

felt were relevant to this matter. 

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report 

In its response to the Interim Audit Report, SMFC noted that the report stated it had 

satisfactorily amended the affected reports and offered no additional comments on this 

matter. 

D. Draft Final Audit Report 

In the Draft Final Audit Report, the Audit staff acknowledged that SMFC had filed 

corrective amendments. SMFC did not offer any additional comments in its response to 

the Draft Final Audit Report. 

Commission Conclusion 

On January 12, 2012, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation 

Memorandum in which the Audit Division recommended that the Commission adopt a 

finding that SMFC did not disclose or inadequately disclosed purposes for disbursements. 

The Commission approved the Audit staffs recommendation.