FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C 20463

January 29, 1999

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: PUBLIC ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL AUDIT REPORT ON

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT, INC.

TO:

FROM:

RON M. HARRIS

PRESS OFFICER

PRESS OFFICE

ROBERT 1. COSTA h

ASSISTANT STAFF D~J'~ AUDIT DIVISION

Attached please find a copy ofthe final audit report and related documents on

Buchanan For President, Inc. which was approved by the Commission on January 14,

1999.

Informational copies ofthe report have been received by all parties involved and

the report may be released to the pUblic.

Attachment as stated

cc: Office of General Counsel

Office of Public Disclosure

Reports Analysis Division

FEC Library
SUNSHINE ACT NOTICES

AGENCY FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION BILLING CODE 6715-01-M

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE & TIME

WEDNESDAY, lAJ'\i1JARY 12,2000,

1000 AM

ORA.L HEARI:"IG BUCHANAJ"i FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE fNC

THE HEARING HAS BEEN POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE

BUCHANAl' COMMITTEE AND IT WILL BE RESCHEDULED FOR A

LATER DATE.

* * * * * * * *

PERSON TO CO!\TACT FOR INFORMATION Ron Harris, Press Officer

Telephone (202) 694-1220

Signed t;J;~ 2kLk 'MaJY w Q¥Ve

Acting Secretary of the Commission .

Received at the FEDERAL REGISTER

Publication Date

lanum' 11, 2000

lanuarv 13, 2000
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINCTON, DC 20463

SEP Z7 1112 Ali i~j

September 23, 1999

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Commission

O~

i]\ THROUGH: James A. Pehrkon

Ifl StaffDirector

Lawrence M. No e

General Counsel

Kim Bright-Coleman \~ Associate General Counsel

Rhonda J. VOSdingh;q)

Assistant General Counsel

Delanie DeWitt Painter f, n()

Attorney 'v'IV \'

Angela T. Whitehead m2!

Law Clerk iI;rI

FROM:

SUBJECT: Buchanan for President, Inc. Request for Extension ofTime to Respond to Notice

ofRepayment Determination (LRA #512)

On July 15, 1999, the Commission determined that Patrick J. Buchanan and Buchanan for

President, Inc. (collectively, "the Committee") must repay $63,750 to the United States Treasury

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(I) and 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(l)(iii). Under 1I C.F.R.

§ 9038.2(c)(2)(i), a candidate may dispute the Commission's Notice ofRepayment

Determination by filing, within 60 days ofthe Commission's notice, written materials that

legally and factually demonstrate no repayment or less repayment is duel. The Committee's

response to the Commission's Repayment Determination is due September 27, 1999. The

Committee requests that the Commission grant it a IS-day extension, until October 12, 1999, to

make its response. Attachment.

Ifthe Committee does not dispute the Repayment Determination, the repayment to the United States

Treasury is due within 90 days. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(d)(J).
Memorandum to the Commission

Buchanan for President. Inc. - Request for Extension ofTime

(LRA #512)

Page 2

The Commission does not routinely grant extensions oftime to committees to respond to

repayment determinations. II C.F.R. § 9038.4(a). However, the Commission may grant such a

request ifthe candidate submits it at least seven calendar days prior to the expiration ofthe

applicable time period and demonstrates good cause for the extension. 11 C.F.R. §§ 9038.4 (b)

and (c). Any extension of a 60-day response period may not exceed 15 days. II C.F.R.

§ 9038.4(c).

The Office of General Counsel recommends that the Commission grant the Committee's

request for an extension. The Committee's application for extension was submitted on

September 14, 1999, 13 days before the expiration ofits response period, and was therefore

timely. See 11 C.F.R. § 9038.4(c). Further, the Committee explained that the matter is factually

and legally complex and additional time is required to examine the Commission's method and

conclusion. Attachment. The Committee also noted that because it was unable to examine the

Commission's conclusion prior to the Notice ofRepayment Determination, it needed sufficient

opportunity to do so after receiving the Notice. ld.

The Office of General Counsel agrees that this matter requires extensive analysis of

intricate legal and factual information. Therefore, good cause exists to grant the Committee's

request for an extension oftime. II C.F.R. § 9038.4(c). Ifthe Commission approves this

recommendation to grant an extension oftime, the Committee's response will be due by

October 12,1999.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Office ofGeneral Counsel recommends that the Commission:

1. Approve Buchanan for President, Inc.'s request for a IS-day extension oftime to

respond to the Commission's Notice of Repayment Determination; and

2. Approve the appropriate letter to Buchanan for President, Inc. notifying them of

the Commission's decision.

Attachment

Letter from John Duffy to the Federal Election Commission, September 14, 1999
ISTEPTOE &: JOHNSON LLI' i

John J. Dutty

202.429.8020

jdufty([iS1eptoe.com

September 14, 1999

1330 Connecticut Aven.e. NW

Weshinglon, DC 20036·1795

Telephone 202.429.3000

hClilaile 202.429.39ll2

_~_.CDfll

S'.

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Re: Buchanan for President, Inc. - Repayment Determination (LRA # 512)

Dear Commissioners:

We are submitting on behalfofBuchanan for President, Inc. (the "Committee") a

request for an extension oftime to respond to the Commission's Notice ofRepayrnent

Determination. The Committee's response is now due on September 27, 1999, and we request a

IS-day extension oftime up to and including October 12, 1999. The Commission's audit finding

is both factually and legally complex, and additional time is necessary to examine the method by

which the Commission made this determination and the conclusion that it reached. Unlike the

ordinary audit process, the Committee has had no opportunity to examine the Commission's

conclusion prior to the release ofthe Notice ofRepayrnent Determination.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't hesitate to contact

the undersigned.

kITl..CIDJEHT • ?age (r---o-f'-......-~~ --f---

WASHINGTON PHOENIX LOS ANGELES MOSCOW ALMATY
..... ...- "~",,, i. L~.: . _.1

;:EOt-'\Ac !C:'~-:-I;"

CO,.!~·, :...'[l~

August 5, 1999

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C 204bJ

c - ,.

AUG 5 12 11 F'l\ ;~:J

FROM:

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Commission

THROUGH: James A. Pehrkon

StaffDirector

Lawrence M. Noble LJltrJ (;j Cf1J7

General Counsel

t.L '(,(1J;

Kim Bright-Coleman K()L. 1:11)

Associate General Counsel

Lorenzo Holloway 1- /J.

Assistant General Counsel

Jamila Wyatt 4'1", \

Attorney UV~

SUBJECT: Buchanan for President, Inc. Request for Extension ofTime to

Submit Information After Oral Presentation (LRA #466)

On January 14, 1999, the Commission determined that Buchanan for President,

Inc. (the "Committee") must repay $44,791 to the United States Treasury. As part ofthe

Committee's response to the repayment determination, it made an oral presentation

before the Commission on July 21, 1999. In the past, the Commission has allowed

presidential committees five business days to submit additional information after the oral

presentation. Therefore, the Committee's additional documentation was due on July 28,

1999.

By letter dated July 28, 1999, the Committee submitted some ofthe additional

documentation. However, the Committee requests additional time to submit more

documentation. Attachment I. The Committee states that due to "unexpected

circumstances," the Committee's treasurer, Scott Mackenzie was unable to gather all of

the documentation relevant to Ms. Angela Buchanan's expenses before the July 28, 1999

deadline. Attachment 1. The Committee states that Me. Mackenzie will be able to

provide the documentation "on or before Friday, August 6, [1999]." Id. The Committee

also states that it was unable to obtain credit card statements from the account of
Memorandum to the Commission

Extension of Time Request

Buchanan for President, Inc. (LRA #466)

Page 2

Greg Mueller, a fonner Committee employee, however these statements would be

available "within one week." Attachment 1.

In a letter dated August 2, 1999, the Committee submitted infonnation clarifying

its initial extension request, and asking the Commission to allow the Committee until

August 13, 1999 to submit additional documentation. Attachment 2. The Committee

noted that immediately following the oral hearing, Mr. Mueller contacted his credit card

company and requested the relevant statements. However, the credit card company was

unable to provide the documentation before July 28, 1999. Id. In addition, the letter

stated that the Committee's treasurer, Mr. Mackenzie was unable to gather the necessary

documentation due to illness. Attachment 2.

The Office of General Counsel notes that presidential committees may submit

legal and factual materials disputing the initial repayment detennination prior to the oral

presentation. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2). However, the Commission's regulations do not

provide for the submission of additional documentation subsequent to the oral

presentation. Nevertheless, the Commission has pennitted presidential committees five

business days to submit additional documentation related to the issues raised at the oral

presentation.

The Commission does not routinely grant extensions oftime. 11 C.F.R.

§ 9038.4(a). However, the Commission may grant an extension upon a showing of good

cause. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.4(c). The Office ofGeneral Counsel believes that the

Commission should grant the Committee's request for an extension. The Committee

made an effort to submit the infonnation within the five day period after the hearing, and

it has submitted some documentation. The Committee states that Mr. Mueller attempted

to gather the relevant documents from his credit card company, however, the company

was unable to provide the Committee with the documents by July 28, 1999. Attachment

2. The Committee also notes that it was unable to provide all ofthe necessary

documentation because the Committee's treasurer has been suffering from "a severe and

chronic bronchial infection." Id. Mr. Mackenzie attempted to gather all ofthe relevant

materials, however, due to his medical condition, he was unable to submit all ofthe

documents by July 28, 1999. Id. Therefore, good cause exists to grant the Committee's

request for an extension oftime. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.4(c). Thus, the Office of General

Counsel recommends that the Commission grant the Committee 16 days' to submit

The Commission's regulations state that if a candidate seeks an extension ofa 60-day response

period, the Commission may only grant the candidate one extension not to exceed 15 days. II C.F.R.

§ 9038.4(c). In light of the fact that the Committee is seeking an extension ofa five day response period

rather than a 60-day response period, the Office of General Counsel believes that it is appropriate to grant

the Committee a 16 day extension.
Memorandum to the Commission

Extension of Time Request

Buchanan for President, Inc. (LRA #466)

Page 3

additional documentation. 2 Ifthe Commission approves this recommendation, the

documentation will be due by August 13,1999.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Office ofGeneral Counsel recommends that the Commission:

1.

2.

Attachments

1.

Approve Buchanan for President, Inc.'s request for 16 days to

submit additional documentation after the oral presentation; and

Approve the appropriate letter to Buchanan for President, Inc. notifying

it ofthe Commission's decision. .

Letter dated July 28,1999, from John Duffy to the

Office ofGeneral Counsel (without attachments).

2. Letter dated August 2, 1999 from John Duffy to the

Office ofGeneral Counsel clarifying extension request.

A request for an extension oftime is usually required to be submitted seven calendar days before

the expiration period. II C.F.R. § 9038.4(c). However, given that the Committee had only five business

days after the oral hearing to submit the additional information, the Office of General Counsel believes that

an extension is appropriate in this case.
ISTEPTOE &: JOHNSON LLP I

John J. Duffy

202.429.8020

jdufM~steptoe.com

1330 Connecticut Avenue. NW

Washington. DC 20036-1795

Telephone 202.429.3000

Facsimile 202.429.3902

httpV/www.sleploe.com

July 28, 1999

Office ofthe General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Dear Commissioners:

o

-, .~~

-n "l

-C'> " '~~l~" :-:

~~~~ .- ~~

(., '"f ••

~'\71~ -' r'1' '., -

We are submitting on behalf of the Buchanan for President Committee, Inc. (the

"Committee") its response to the information requested by the Commission during the July 21

oral hearing. Our submission consists offour parts.

!':iJ Section I addresses the invoice for $8,212.65 from the West End Travel, which is

attached as Appendix I. The Audit Staff has asked for additional evidence that this invoice was

not paid by the campaign. The Committee now provides in Appendix 2 a statement from Mr.

Buchanan's money market account showing a debit for a check to the West End Travel in the

amount ofthe invoice, and a statement from Mr. Buchanan indicating that he paid for these

tickets personally and that campaign funds were not used to pay for them. The Committee had

previously submitted a statement from West End Travel confirming that the travel referred to by

this invoice was paid for by Mr. Buchanan and was not paid for by the Committee (Appendix 3).

Section 2 addresses reimbursements to Mr. Greg Mueller. The Audit Staff has

declined to treat the payments made by the Committee to Mr. Mueller as qualified campaign

expenses, because, according to the Audit Staff, the Committee has not provided adequate

"documentation" with respect to those expenses. The Committee has submitted, to support a

finding that these expenses were incurred, a contemporaneous memorandum prepared by the

Committee's Treasurer, Scott Mackenzie, attaching (l doc,\lment entitled "Report on Greg

Mueller's Travel Expenses and Reimbursements." The memorandum was prepared to show that

the Committee had reimbursed himfor all of the expenses he had submitted for reimbursement.

The report shows the details of each expenditure for which the Committee reimbursed Mr.

Mueller, including the date incurred, the type of expense. the vendor of the goods or services

received, the location ofthe expenditure, and the method of payment. In response to the requests

of various Commissioners, we have included in Appendix 4 the following:

ATTACHMENT \

Pll€e _1 o:f _2.. _.

WASHINGTON PHOENIX LOS ANGELES MOSCOW ALMAT'i
Oflice of the General ("'LInse I

.Iuly ~8. 199C)

Page 2

1996.

a. The original cover letter to the memorandum, which was dated December 4,

b. A statement from Mr. Mueller indicating that he had received this document

detailing his expenses in early December, 1996.

c. Finally, we are in the process of obtaining the annual statements of activity for

1995 and 1996 from Mr. Mueller's American Express account, which he used during the

campaign and constituted the bulk ofthe expenses for which he was reimbursed. We expect the

f,;ji statements to be available within one week, and we will submit them immediately upon receipt.

We believe this additional documentation demonstrates fully the reliability of this

contemporaneous memorandum as a basis for concluding that the reimbursement of Mr.

Mueller's expenses constituted qualified campaign expenses.

f=:.·,.

Section 3 addresses the issue of the documentation for the "additional" expenses

that the Committee has "offset" against the "duplicative" reimbursements that the Audit Staff

identified as being made to Ms. Angela Buchanan and Mr. and Mrs. Pat Buchanan. Mr.

Mackenzie, the Committee's Treasurer, has supplied documentation for all ofthe expenses of

Mr. and Mrs. Pat Buchanan and has supplied documentation for the majority of expenses for Ms.

Angela Buchanan (Appendix 5). Due to unexpected circumstances, however, Mr. Mackenzie

was unable to gather all ofthe documentation for Ms. Angela Buchanan. Mr. Mackenzie has

indicated that he will be able to provide that documentation on or before Friday, August 6.

Therefore, the Committee respectfully asks for that additional amount oftime to submit that

additional information.

Finally, we have shown for each ofthe categories of alleged non-qualified

campaign expenses identified by the Audit Staffthe amount of non-qualified expenses alleged to

have been expended by the Committee, the amount ofthe repayment that would be associated

with each ofthese amounts in controversy, and the amount ofrepayment that would be required

if the Committee's position were adopted (Appendix 6).

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't hesitate to give me

a call.

/~
AUG-02-99 \4:55 Fram:STEPTOE' JU~~UN

•

',I

I~OE & JOHNSON UP I

Jab~ J. Pully

1112.428.110111

/fIuIlytlllplOUO.

August 2, 1999

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Dear CommiS!oioners:

We are submitting on behalfofthe Buchanan for President Committee, Inc. (the

"Committee") a raquest for an eKtension oftime, up 10 and including August 13, 1999, to submit

the additional material requested by the Commission during the July 21 oral hearing.

Promptly after the oral hearing. Ihe Committee contacted Mr. Mueller, who in

turn, pwmptly contacted American Express; however, American Express could not forward Mr,

Mueller the recorcl8 in time for tMm to 1x: filed on July 28, 1999.

Forsometime now, Mr. Mackenzie, the Committee's Treasurer, has been under a

doctor'5 care for a severe and chronic bronchial infection. Subsequent to the oral hearing bis

symptoms worsened and prevented him from re-assembling the documentation for Ms. Angela

Buchanan. A portion ofthat documentation had, ac<:ording to Mr. Mackenzie, been misplaced

and his physical condition made it impossible for him to conduct a search for these records prior

to July 28.

The Committee has requested an extension until August 13, 1999 in an abWldance

of caution; although it fully expects to have the material before then. It will, ofcourse, file the

material promptly upon receipt.

If you have any questio concerning this matter. please don't hesitate to contact

me.

WASHINGlON PHOENIX lOS ANGELES MOSCOW ALMAlV

ATTACHMENT __L~__ Page _-,--I__ of \ !
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON. 0 C 204601

REC[I','Ff)

FEDERAL E~ ECTie,.. COI-f~1iSS!0Ii

S [C ,I, E":,!.0.' I' "~, T

HAY IZ 10 12 Ali '99

May 12, 1999

r", J'.:

TO: The Commission /'; ,.

I '-'

",I l/ ../~ }-<., '

THROUGH: James A. Pehrkon llv~ .,

Staff Director .

FROM:

BY:

Lawrence M. Noble

General Counsel

Kim Bright-Coleman l~ Associate General Counsel

Lorenzo Holloway I. IQ9- . Assistant General Counsel

Jamila 1. Wyatt

Attorney

., "'-. \'.....

SUBJECT: Patrick Buchanan Request for Oral Hearing (LRA #466)

On January 14, 1999, the Commission determined that Patrick Buchanan and the

Buchanan for President Committee. Inc. (the "Committee") must repay $44,791 to the

United States Treasury. On March 25,1999 the Committee submitted its written

response to the repayment determination and requested the opportunity to address the

Commission in open session in order to demonstrate that a lesser repayment is required.

II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(ii). See Attachment. The Office of General Counsel

recommends that the Commission grant the Committee's request for an oral hearing and

schedule the oral hearing for July 21. 1999.

Publicly-financed presidential committees may respond to a repayment

determination by submitting written legal and factual materials to demonstrate that no

repayment. or a lesser repayment. is required. I I C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(i). The

committee may request an opportunity to address the Commission in open session.

I J C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(ii). The committee should identify in its legal and factual

materials the repayment issues it will address at the oral hearing. ld. The Commission

may grant this request by an affirmative vote of four ofits members and inform the

committee ofthe date and time set for the oral hearing. Jd.
Memorandum to the Commission

Buchanan for President Committee, Inc.

Oral Hearing Request (LRA #466)

Page 2

The basis for the Commission's repayment determination was that the Committee

used public funds to defray nonqualified campaign expenses. In the Committee's legal

and factual materials, the Committee provides documentation and explanations it believes

will show that disbursements made to various entities and individuals were made in

connection with seeking the nomination, and therefore, are qualified campaign expenses.

II C.F.R. § 9032.9(a).

The Office of General Counsel believes that an oral hearing will provide the

Committee with an opportunity to respond to any questions related to the documents

submitted by the Committee in response to the repayment determination. Accordingly,

this Office recommends that the Commission grant the Committee's request for an oral

hearing.

Should the Commission approve our recommendation, the Office of General

Counsel proposes that the same procedures used for previous oral hearings during the

1996 election cycle be followed. Pursuant to these procedures, the Office of General

Counsel will prepare an agenda document containing materials relevant to the

Committee's oral hearing. This document will be provided to the Commission and to the

Committee prior to the date ofthe hearing.

At the presentation, the Chairman will make an opening statement. The

Committee will then be given 30 minutes in which to make a presentation on the issues

raised in the legal and factual materials submitted by the Committee. See generally

II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2Hii). Following the presentation, individual Commissioners, the

General Counsel, and the Audit Division may ask questions. Id. The letter to the

Committee will inform the Committee ofthese procedures and also state that any

additional materials the Committee may wish to have the Commission consider should be

submitted to the Office of General Counsel within five (5) days following the

presentation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The OtTIce of General Counsel recommends that the Commission:

I. Grant the request of Patrick Buchanan and the Buchanan for President

Committee for an oral hearing as provided at II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(ii);

') Schedule the oral hearing for July 21, 1999; and

3. Approve the appropriate kiter.

Attachment

Buchanan for President Committee, Inc. response dated March 25, 1999.
ISTEPTOE &: JOHNSON LLP I

John J. Duffy

202.429.8020

jduffy8"ap,.a.c.m

March 25, 1999

Larry Noble

General Counsel

6th Floor

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street. NW

Washington, DC 20463

Dear Mr. Noble:

l:no Connecticut Avenue. NW

Washington. DC 211I36·1195

Telephone 2lIZ.429.3lJOO

Facsimile 2lIZ.429.39Il2

http~lwww.s1eptoe.com

Enclosure

We submit herewith on behalf ofthe Buchanan for President Committee its

written response to the Report ofthe Audit Division.

We request an opportunit~'lO address the Commission in open session. on the

issues raised in this response. to demonstrate trat alesser repayment is required.

Jery truly rours.

\. 1\ \ :

( j.);'~) D~ \

\\0\

'. \ , .

WASHINGTON PHOENIX LOS ANGELES MOSCOW ALMATY

.'
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

RESPONSE OF THE

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE, INC.

TO THE

REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION

The Buchanan For President Committee, Inc. (Committee) submits the following

response to the Report ofthe Audit Division on Buchanan for President Committee, Inc.,

(Report) and in particular, to Section III B. of the Report.

In response to the Exit Conference Memorandum, The Committee has supplied

the Audit Division with documentation for most ofthe disbursements for campaign expenses that

the Audit Division had concluded were either insufficiently documented or non-campaign

related.

The Committee also submitted with that response information addressing the

Audit Division's contention that duplicate and undocumented expense payments had been

received by Shelly Buchanan and Angela Buchanan. It submits additional such information

today.

Mr. Buchanan and his wife. Shelley incurred numerous expenses on behalf of

Buchanan for President. These expenses were paid by credit card (American Express and

VISA); cash or check. Reimbursement checks for these expenses were issued either to Shelley

Buchanan or directly to American Express.

The Committee has compiled a listing of all documented expenses

l (Appendix A)

and has determined that after eliminating all undocumented and duplicate payments the

candidate and his v.ife are due an additional reimbursement of $648.00.

Similarly, the Committee's submission (Appendix B) shows that, for Angela

Buchanan. total documented expenses submitted for reimbursement were $40,725.94 and total

payments made to Ms. Buchanan or directly to her credit card issuers equaled $41,907.69. Thus.

although in some cases the Committee's records may not have accurately identified the

particular expenses to which particular disbursements should have been attributed, the total

amount of reimbursement received was not significantly in excess ofthe total amount of

qualified campaign expenses submitted for reimbursement, and properly paid by the

Committee.

I Back-up for all expenses listed in this report have been provided to Mr. Gray Hashee of

the FEe Audit Division. Additional copies of the supporting documentation will be made

available upon request.

lTT.1cwwn_.:.-\::=-.=.,..-_

P&,!e Z. ofn
The Committee objects to the failure of the Audit Division to accept the

documentation submitted for the following persons and supplies the following additional

explanations:

Greg Mueller

During the campaign, Mr. Mueller and the Committee differed as to whether

Mr. Mueller had been reimbursed for the full amount of the expenses that he had submitted. To

resolve this dispute Scott Mackenzie reviewed Mr. Mueller's expense reports and the attached

documentation, the Committee's expense authorization requests, and checks drawn to Mr.

Mueller and produced a report which was previously submitted to the Commission. This report

was prepared in December, 1996. Subsequently Mr. Mueller's expense reports and the

associated documentation were lost. The Audit Division has declined to accept the disbursements

made to Mr. Mueller for reimbursements as qualified campaign expenses because no

documentation ofthe expenses has been presented. The Committee believes that Mr.

Mackenzie's report constitutes a contemporaneous memorandum, which adequately documents

the expenses incurred by Mr. Mueller and should be accepted in lieu ofthe lost documentation.

The memorandum was prepared for purposes unconnected with compliance with FEe's

requirements and this independence, in our opinion, gives it particular reliability.

West End Travel

During the campaign the candidate and his wife traveled on personal business to

Europe. Plane tickets for their travel were purchased through West End Travel. By error the

company billed the tickets to the Committee. The Committee never paid for the tickets, and

informed West End Travel that the tickets should be billed to the candidate personally. The

candidate personally paid for these tickets as shown on the statement of account provided

previously to the Commission. The Committee redacted irrelevent materials from that document

to avoid placing personal information about Mr. Buchanan on the public record. The Committee

would be willing to share the original ofthe document 10 the Audit Division if it was deemed

necessary or to obtain a copy ofthe check, again if deemed necessary. A confirming statement

from West End Travel is submitted as Appendix C.

Bob Surrick

Mr. Surrick is an attorney who was hired by the campaign to defend a delegate

pledged to Mr. Buchanan from a law suit challenging her eligibility to serve as a delegate.
K.B. Forbes

Mr. Forbes received a check as a severance payment. It was incorrectly described

as an advance on salary.

John Condit

Mr. Condit received three payments of $825.00 per month for three months for

living expenses in connection with his temporary relocation from Ohio to Northern Virginia. The

payments were in the nature of a monthly stipend to compensate for increased living expenses

i'tJ rather than an advance on reimbursable expenses, and the Committee did not expect to receive

7'{ any documentation ofthose expenses.

Dave Scott

Mr. Scott has refunded a duplicate payment of $29.62, anj-hiJ! name should be

deleted from the duplicate payment list. / I /

March 25. 1999

- 3 - ATTAC.f:lA{ENX \ ')

PageJi-- of 5( '---
•

I

I

,

I

I

•

;

•

•

•

•

•

•

k

b

»•

Ji" .u

fJ

•

•

•

•

»

•

»

• •

»

»

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

t

•

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT

APPENDIX A

f

SHELLEYS.BUCHANAN . .

EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENTS _ .

LISTING OF ALL DOCUMENTED EXPENSES

INCURRED AND SUBMITTED FOR PAYMENT
SUMMARY

. Back.up for all <xpcn<e\ Usl<d 10 tlus repun h..·• hM'U prn\'lded to \Ir Gary H.sh~ of the FEe :\Udll DmSlon. :\ddJuoual

tOPl~ of Ux ~uppomng document-anon u."l1l b(" m.lldr ,n-aJ"bk upoo r~ue5t.

ATTACi:I.lLENT __I~~_

Paee (Q Dt RZ

The committee has compiled a hstmg nf all documented expenses' and has determined that

after ehmmatlng all undocumented and duphcate ra~'ments that the candidate and his Wlft ar~

due an additional reimbursement of 56·H;.

S 7.606,(,8

5(6.957,91)

S 6-18.77

S 9-1,491.5-1

5186,88-1,86)

S 28,976.59

5135.93-1,50)

ACCOI'!'iTING SUMMARY

Net Under-Payment

American Express

Campaign Related Expenses

Committee Relmburs~mcnrs

L'nder-Payment

SheUe)' S, Buchanan

Campalgn Related Expenses

Comrruttee Reimbursement,

O,'er-Paymenr

SHELLEYS. BUCHANAN

EX PEN SEREI 11BURSE 1\1 E NT S

Mr. Buchanan and his wife, Shelley mcurred numerous expenses on behalf of Buchanan /01

President. These expenses were paid by credit card (:\mencan Express and \'IS:\); cash or

check. ReImbursement checks for these expenses were issued either to Shelley Buchanan or

directly to American E"-press,

..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

e

e

e,

€

."l'?t

.~.~ ••

IJ)J!

IlJ.'t;

,

,

."

~~..

•

•

•

t

t

t

t

•

t

t

t

t

t

•

•

•

•

t

•

•

•

D

•

P

•

t
• ~."' uai!:'.'''.5'L';'•

,,,,•,,,,,,,, 4

Pat & Shelley Buchanan Expense Reimbursments

Campaign

Related ~I Expenses

I I

$94,491.54 $28,976.59 I

I

Paid to $ , $ Campaign $ , $ I Paid to

Amex Reimbursements S.Buchanan

(

$86,884.86 $35,934.50

'tl t>-

Il> >'3

N

~IUnder Payment

$7,606.68

I I

1

Over Payment

$6,957.91

I

Net Under Payment

$648.77
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

WJ

f1(!

.~.

lil .;;=:

tJ

••.\

tJ

l'

i~

.~

t

t

t

•

•

»

»

»

»

»

»

•

»

•

•

•

I

•

I

•

•

•

I

I

I

•

Patrick 1. & Shelley S. Buchanan

Expenses Reimbursement Payments

Date Check # Payee Amount Subtotals

0~/06/95 ~~6 American Express $ 10.00000

12/27/95 10518 American Express $ 15.00000

04/05/96 16·fJ American E.xpress $ 50.000.00

05/08/96 2007 American Express $ 11.88U6

$ 86.88~.86

02/08/95 116 Shelley Buchanan $ 321.96

05/10/95 532 Shellcy' Buchanan $ 1.52133

11124/95 10460 Shelley Buchanan $ ~.541.81

12/27/95 10519 Shelley Buchanan $ ~.549AO

07/08/% 2210 Shellcy' Buchanan $ 10.00000

09/03/96 2318 Shellcy' Buchanan $ I5.000 00

$ 35.93·UO

Total PaymenlS for Travel & SubSlSlance $ 122.81936

AT'l'AC~UT_ \

Page .::b--o-:r!...-,Y'""""'2r---
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I ••

!

i

•

•

•

•

=

•

*

•

•

•

•

•

•

i.•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

I

•

Patrick J. Buchanan/Shelley S. Buchanan

Travel & Subsistance Expenses - Submitted

Amount Duplicate or Amount

Reference Submitted Un-Documented Documented

EAR # 0112 $ 321.96 $ $ 32196

EAR # 1060 $ 7100 $ $ 7100

EAR # 1244 $ 1,45033 $ $ 1,450.33

EAR # 1438 $ 24,77801 $ $ 24,77801

EAR # 3704 $ 15,41591 $ 436.97 $ 14,978.94

EAR # 4272 $ 5,03640 $ $ 5,03640

EAR # 5790 $ 52,10684 $ 6,36213 $ 45,744.71

Memo # 951222 $ 4,84029 $ $ 4,840.29

Memo # 960401 $ 5,44760 $ 127.00 $ 5,32060

Memo # 960401 a $ 4,55762 $ $ 4,55762

Memo # 960509 $ 2,22677 $ $ 2,22677

Memo # 960708 $ 3.70506 $ $ 3,705.06

Memo # 960708a $ 4.553 44 $ $ 4.55344

Memo # 960708b $ 140.00 $ $ 140.00

Memo # 960916 $ 9200 $ $ 92 00

Memo # 961114 $ 11600 $ $ 116.00

Memo # 961995 $ 5.535 00 $ $ 5,53500

Totals $ 130,394 23 $ 6,926 10 $ 123,46813

ATl'ACWliT _I , Pag.e Cj at 't L
...••"••••••••••••••••••••••~~..u,,' '-tr.9n

••••...*•.3: .

Patrick J. & Shelley S. Buchanan

Expenses Submitted for Reimbursement by EAR

I Dale ESp!nsc TlP! Amounl Rt'rerTncc Mcrch.nl Cily Paymenl Method I

o1/121'1~ Miscellaneous S J21 % EAR 11<1112 BFP Expenses Mclean American Express

02/131'15 Miscellaneous S no() EAR 1/ ItI(,O BFP Expenses McLean American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S J7 17 EAR 1/124-1 Breakers HOlel Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/301'15 Car Rental S 566 94 EAR 1/ 1244 Ikrtl Palm Beach. FL American Express

IIl/lONS Lodging S 178 42 EAR 1/ 1244 Adam's Mark McLean VISA

OJlJO/'1~ Lodging S 46780 EAR 1/1244 Rill-Carlton McLean American Express

Subtolal S USO JJ

01l11'11'/~ l.od/(lIIg S 2116 7~ EAR 1114111 Hyall Dallas American Express

Olll2'II'I~ l.odglng S 116 .. 1I EAR 1114111 fllllon SIOUX Cily. IA American Express

Ollll'll'/~ I.odglng S 211 111 EAR 1114111 Embasscy- Suites Charlolle. NC American Express

01l/2'11'/~ l.odglllg S 146602 EAR II 14111 EmbasS)' SIllIes Des Moines American Express

Oll/2'1/'15 Lodglllg S 61747 EARIIJ4111 flyall Dallas American Express

Oll/29195 Lodging S 654'1 EAR II 1438 Besl Western Council mfs. IA American Express

08/29/9~ Lodging S 1894 EAR 11'438 fly-all Dallas American Express

08/29195 Lodging S 10763 EAR 11 ... 38 Holiday Inn Independence. OH American Express

08/29fl.l5 Lodging S 17109 EAR 111438 Holiday Inn Mason City. IA American Express

08119/95 Lodging S 68.67 EAR #1438 Holiday Inn Walerloo. IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging S 7728 EAR 111438 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express

081291'15 Lodging S 32J05 EAR 111438 Collins Plaza Cedar Rapids. fA American Express

08129/95 Lodging S 65.25 EAR 111438 Black Hawk Ho)'el Davenport. IA American Express

081291'15 Lodging S JJ9.82 EAR 111438 Meridian Boslon American Express

081291'15 Lodging S '4044 EAR 111·08 Days Inn Ollumwa.IA American Express "dt>

s» 08129/95 Lodging S 27161 EAR 111438 Bedford Village Inn Bedford, NH American Express ....:.'

> 08/29/95 Lodging S 11435 EAR 111438 Holiday Inn Concord. Nil American Express

f1 08129/95 Lodging S 20981 EAR 1114.18 Besl Weslern Des Moines American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 15828 EAR 111438 Fisherman's Bay Ollumwa.IA American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 15202 EAR 111438 M's Restaurant Omaha. NE American Express

a 1- 08129195 Meals S 3600 EARII1438 King Sea Chinese Rest Souix City. IA American Express

081291'15 Meals S 2827 EAR II 1438 Garden Cafe Council mfs. IA American Express

08/29fl.l5 Meals S 6S00 EAR #1,08 Noah's Restaurant Des Moines American Express

PJB T, (elated Expenses . Page - 1 '99
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••:......l••••••~~•••••••••, 4 ••••,

I Date Espense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

08/29195 Meals S 89.0() EAR #1418 Outback Sleakhouse Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

08/29195 Meals S 119.0() EAR #1418 Fisherman's Bay Bosmn American Express

08129195 Meals S 267 ()() EAR #1418 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 28425 EAR #1418 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

08/29/95 Telephone S 515 EAR #1418 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08/29/95 Telephone S 7.73 EAR #1418 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08/29/95 Telephone S HUO EAR #1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08/29195 Telephone S 30.90 EAR #1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08/29/95 Telephone S 545 EAR#1438 AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL American Express

09129/95 Lodging S 122.67 EAR #1438 Hotel Fort Des Moines Des Moines American Express

09129195 Lodging S 4104 EAR #1438 Traveler Motel Berlin. NH American Express

09129/95 Lodging S 113.40 EAR #1438 Hilton Las Vegas American Express

09/29/95 Lodging S 307.14 EAR #1438 Hilton Ocala. FL American Express

09129195 Lodging S 17953 EAR #1418 H~'all Greenville. SC American Express

llW29N5 Lodging S 12808 EAR #1418 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

OW29N5 Lodglllg S 56243 EAR#1418 Hohday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

OW29N5 Lodging S I}(, l() EAR 111418 The Wllco.\ Inn AIken. SC American Express

1l'J/2 11/95 Lodglllg S 12 54 EAR 111418 Laughhn Nev Las Vegas American Express

OW2W95 Lodging S 111414 EAR 111418 Radisson Orlando. FL American Express

09/2'J195 Lodging S 8184 EAR 111418 ResIdence Illn Gainesville. FL American Express

llW29195 Lodging S 1818 EAR #1418 Radisson Orlando. FL American Express

OW29195 Lodging S 19440 EAR#1418 The Highlander Inn Manchester. NH American Express

119129/95 Lodging S (21696) EAR #1438 Balsams Grand Holel Dixville Nch. NH American Express

09129/95 Lodging S lto.OO EAR#1418 Eastgate Motor Inn LiHleton. NH American Express

09129/95 Lodging S 227.69 EAR #1418 Hilton Pittsburgh. PA American Express

09/29195 Meals S 85.64 EAR #1438 Cafe Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

09/29195 Meals S 200.00 EAR #1438 Hennessy's Columbia. SC American Express

09/29195 Meals S 108.51 EAR#/418 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express

09/29195 Meals S 48.00 EAR #1438 Don AleJandros Las Vegas American Express

09129195 Meals S 99.00 EAR #1438 Steak & Ale Gainesville. FL American Express

'tl~ 09129/95 Meals S 175.00 EAR # /438 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express ,...,

po; 09129195 Miscellaneous S 7449 EAR #1438 EMS Manchester. NH American Express

r§

09129195 Telephone S 4120 EAR#1418 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. II. American Express

OW2<J195 Telephone S 592.1 EAR1I14.18 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. II. American Express

119129195 Telephone S 4178 EARII1418 GTE Alrfone Oak Brook. II. American Express

!~- 119/29N5 Telephone S 515 EAR #1418 GTE Alrfonc Oak Brook. II. American Express

llW29195 Telephone S 515 EAR 1114.18 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

0912'1195 Telephone $ 29.72 EAR #14.18 AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL American Express

PJB Travel Related Expenses Page 2 of 18 3/24/99 I
..................................... -=-.~".i ••• :.a~. ".~.:.l' ••,,,•,,,,,,

•••

I Date Espense Tn'! Amount Rtfertnce Merchant City Payment Method I

10/29195 LOOging S J·U 36 EAR /l1~ 18 Embassey Suiles Tampa. FL American Express

10/29/95 Lodging S 26100 EAR/lI~18 Sheralon Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

10/29/95 lodging S 8~ 80 EAR /l1~18 Breakers Holel Spring Lake. NJ American Express

10/29195 lodging S 211161 EAR/lI~38 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

111129/95 lodging S 21886 EAR /l1~311 Besl Weslem Fort Dodge. IA American Express

10129195 lodging S 18181 EAR /l1~38 Martiou Newark. NJ American Express

10129195 lodging S 21548 EAR /l1~J8 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express

10129195 lodging S 21UO EAR /11438 Monleleone Holel New Orleans. LA American Express

10129195 lodging S 213.64 EAR /l1~38 Martiou Newark. NJ American Express

10129195 Lodging S 396.13 EAR /11438 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

10129195 lo<iging S 8863 EAR 111438 Comfort Inn Yokenportsmth.NH American Express

10/29195 lodging S ~J9 03 EAR /l1~J8 Martiou Greenville. SC American Express

10/29195 Lodging S 163.04 EAR /l1~38 Martiou Orlando. FL American Express

1O/29N5 Lodging S H910 EAR/lI438 Hilton Mesa.AZ American Express

1O/2'JN5 lodglllg S .10119 EAR /114311 MarrioU Omaha. NE American Express

11l/2\11'J5 Lodglllg S 31061 EAR 111418 HOIc! Fort Des Moines Des Moines American Express

1O/2'JN5 I.odgmg S 21851 EAR/l1418 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

IO/2'J1'l5 Lodging S 112 (Kl EAR 111418 Marnou Orlando. FL American Express

10/2\1195 Lodging S 711 53 EAR /114.18 Besl Western ClinlOn. fA American Express

1O/2\11'J5 Miscellaneous S 1429 EARIII~18 Presldenls R\'r C1b Davenport. IA American Express

1O/29N5 Meals S 15UllO EAR/l1~38 Cafe Paradiso Tampa. FL American Express

1ll129/95 Meals S JL08 EAR /11438 Garden Cafe Council Blfs. IA American Express

10/29/95 Meals S 10500 EAR /11438 Austins Omaha. NE American Express

10129/95 Meals S 128.llO EAR /l1~38 Chen Yang Li Bedford. NH American Express

10129195 Meals S W540 EAR /l1~38 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express

10/29195 Meals S 68.02 EAR /I f 438 The First Edition Sioux City. IA American Express

11/28195 Airfare S 1.22400 EAR /11438 Della Airlines Fairbanks. AK American Express

11/28195 Airfare S 1.22HlO EAR /11438 Della Airlines Fairbanks. AK American Express

11I28N5 Airfare S 641.00 EAR /11438 United Airlines McLean American Express

Il128N5 Lodging S 219.69 EAR /11438 Weslrnark Baranof Juneau. AK American Express

11128/95 Lodging S 87.69 EAR /l1~38 Westmark Baranof Juneau. AK American Express

>t1>- 11128/95 Lodging S 169.57 EAR 111438 Captain Cook Holel Anchorage. AK American Express i 11128/'15 Lodging S 13.21 EAR 111·08 Shilo Portland Portland. OR American Express

rl 11/28/95 Lodging S 168.37 EAR 111438 Hyall Buffalo. NY American E.xpress

11I281'J5 Lodging S 116.11 EARII14J8 Residence Inn Latham. NY American Express

11128/95 Lodging S 169.45 EAR 111438 Westmark Baranof Juneau. AK American Express

~I- 11128/95 Lodging S 1'19,42 EAR /11·08 Fairbanks Princess Fairbanks. AK American Express

11128195 Lodging S 348.31 EAR#1438 Hilton Chicago American Express

PJ8 Tra la/ed Expenses Page 3·
......................I1.,,'.1:.J:.,,11.'.1 "., , ',-,-,-,-;fJTIJ ,

I Date Elpense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

11/28/95 Lodging $ nO.27 EAR 111438 The Clift Hotel San Francisco American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 1.599.61 EAR 111438 Breakers Hotel Palm Beach. FL American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 484 J7 EAR 111438 Ritz-Carllon New York American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 1299 EAR 111418 Ritz-Carllon New York American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 10989 EAR 111438 Residence Inn Latham, NY American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 18218 EARII/438 Huntington Hotel Melville. NY American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 105.10 EARII1418 Red Lion HOlels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

11128/95 Lodging $ 33.34 EAR 111438 Red Lion Hotels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 309.62 EAR 111438 Best Western Sedona. AZ American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 305.45 EAR II 1438 Woodlands Plaz.3 Hotel Flagstaff. AZ American Express

11128/95 Lodging $ 14160 EAR 111438 Hillon Phoenix. AZ American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 250.00 EAR 111438 Marriou Orlando, FL American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 13172 EAR 111418 Marrioll Denver American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ noo EAR 111418 Hospitality Inn Pensacola. FL American Express

11/28/95 Lodgmg $ 11050 EARIII·1l8 Sheralon Windsor Locks.CT American Express

II/lll/95 Lodglllg $ 15912 EARII14111 Sheralon Windsor Locks.CT American Express

11/211/95 Lodglllg $ 19912 EAR 111418 Marnou Cleveland American Express

11/28/95 I.odgmg $ 25651 EAR 111418 Holiday Inn Manchesler. NH American Express

11/211/95 I.odglllg $ 17191 EAR 1114111 Hanover Inn Hanover, NH American Express

11/211!'J5 Meals $ 10200 EARII14111 Purllan Back Rm Reslr Manchester, NH American Express

11/28/95 Meals S 140 Oil EAR 111418 Angus Sleak Ranch Pensacola. FL American Express

11128/95 Meals $ 18640 EAR II 1418 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

11128/95 Meals $ 16000 EAR II 1418 Charlie's Crab Palm Beach. FL American Express

11/28/95 Miscellaneous S 6999 EAR 111438 HOSI Internalional Anchorage. AK American Express

11/28/95 Meals $ 21100 EARII1438 Cole's Restaurant Buffalo, NY American Express

11/28/95 Telephone $ 5.45 EAR #1418 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

11/28/95 Telephone $ 1120 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

11128/95 Telephone $ 5.45 EAR#1418 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

11128/95 Telephone $ 7H2 EAR #14]8 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

11128/95 Telephone $ 77.29 EAR III·n8 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

>0> 11128/95 Telephone S 7.92 EAR 111418 AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL American Express lD ~: Subtolal $ 24.77801

>

02128/95 Airfare $ 2.010 50 EAR #1704 USAir McLean American Express

02128195 Airfare S 2.020.50 EAR #.1704 USAir McLean American Express

02/28/95 Lodging $ 68294 EAR 11.1704 Holiday Inn Phoenix. AZ American Express

02/28/95 Lodging $ 545.11 EAR #1704 Holiday Inn Manchesler. NH American Express

02/28/95 Lodging S 206.91 EAR #3704 Hillon Boslon American Express

PJS Travel Related Expenses Page 4 of 18 3/24/99
-------------~-----~ - .... ow ow - ..,:::~::!,- H."" I!",,-_ H' 'Pi,,",'

I!"" •.,.

-,~::yl!:~ 'l' lbJ !1.,,, "",I! !to~,,~"''''':i!~!: !! "",\1 i'!"". !;,,,••••••••••••••••

I Date E1pen!le Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

02128195 Meals S ·U OIl EAR #1704 Quigley's Washington DC American Express

02/28/95 Miscellaneous S 10 75 EAR #1704 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

0)1J0/95 Airfare S 2.10800 EAR #.l704 Nonhwest Airlines Detroit. MI American Express

03/30/95 Airfare S 599 00 EAR #1704 Delta Airlines Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30195 Airfare S 9500 EAR #3704 Delta Airlines Columbia. SC American Express

(31)0/95 Airfare S 95tM) EAR #.1704 Delta Airlines Columbia. SC American Express

03/30/95 Airfare S 599 00 EAR #3704 Delta Airlines Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S 3717 EAR #.l704 Breakers Hotel Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S 530.49 EAR #3704 Rill-Carlton Naples. FL American Express

OJlJO/95 Lodging S 14055 EAR #3704 Dobson Ranch Inn Mesa.AZ American Express

031J1l195 Lodging S 11l2.31 EAR #)704 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S 144 J3 EAR #.l704 Embassey Suites Des Moines American Express

03/30195 Lodging S 84 <J() EAR #3704 Black Hawk Hoyel Da\'enpon. IA American Express

OllJO/95 Lodging S 93 50 EAR #.l704 Sheraton Charleston. SC American Express

OllJO/95 Lodglllg S 264 59 EAR #3704 Marrioll Bloominglon. MN American Express

01/loN5 Lodging S 115IHI EAR #3704 M;lfrlOll San DIego American Express

01/l0!'i5 Lodging S 154 25 EAR ~1704 To\\n & Coullt!) Hotel San D,cgo American Express

Ill/l0/'l5 Lodglllg S 21669 EAR ~1704 1'0\\11 & Coulltn Hotel San Diego American Express

09/02N5 Telephone S 202 IK EAR ~3704 Bell Atlalltlc McLean Checking

09114/'15 Telephone S 50 tMI EAR #3704 Motorola Chicago Checking

10102/95 Telephone S 21438 EAR 11.1704 Bell At/anllc McLean Checking

10/07/'15 Telephone S 412) I EAR 113704 Motorola Chicago Checking

10/08/'15 Taxi S IS4.00 EAR 113704 A-I Limo McLean Checking

10/10/'15 Meals S 1700 EAR #3704 Host International San Francisco VISA

10110/'15 Supplies S 25.00 EAR #3704 EMS Manchester. NH VISA

11/24/95 Bar Tab S 426.65 EAR #171l4 MacAn hur Be,'erage McLean Checking

11/24/'15 Telephone S 4002 EAR #3704 Motorola Chicago Checking

11/25/'15 Telephone S 2011 84 EAR #3704 Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

12/02/'15 Telephone S 30838 EAR #3704 Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

11/10/95 Miscellaneous S 110 00 EAR #3704 The Costume Galler)' Manchesler. NH VISA

'tll»

III >-3 I 1110/95 Meals S .17.51 EAR 1137114 Town Clock Inn Dubuque. JA VISA >-"

Ib 11/10/95 Te1cphone S 2269 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

M I 1/10/95 Te1cphone S 57.18 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11/10/95 Telephone S 5.45 EAR #3704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11/10/95 Telephone $ S12 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

~l 11110/'15 Telephone S IUO EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11/10/'15 Telephone S 1120 EAR #3704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11/1 0/95 Telephone S 16.94 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

PJB Tra' ~Ialed Expenses Page 5, 9
.................... .., .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. v ........ -s~.:,:~"~u,.· eii!'!~" .1IRJ~:::'II!~••••••••••••••••

[ Date Espen!e Type Amount Reference Merehant City Payment Method I

11110/95 Telephone S 3993 EAR N370~ GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12120/95 Telephone S 105.16 EAR #370~ Molorola Chicago Checking

12/22/95 Miscellaneous S 538.18 EAR NHO~ Alexandria Florisl Alexandria. VA Checking

12/22/95 Miscellaneous S 977 07 EAR #370~ Classic Tents Alexandria. VA Checking

12131/95 Miscellaneous S 18980 EAR #170~ BFP Expenses Mclean UndoclDuplicate

12/10/95 Telephone S 3862 EAR #170~ GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone S IUO EAR #170~ GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

I2/10/95 Telephone S 34.19 EAR N3704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

Subtotal S 15,415.91

08/10/95 Limo S 186.00 EAR N4272 A-I Limo Mclean Checking

07/29/95 Airfare S 10000 EAR N~272 TranWorld Air SI Louis. MO American Express

07/29195 Airfare S 75.00 EAR #4272 USAir New York American Express

07/29/95 Airfare S 75.00 EAR #U72 USAir New York American Express

07/2'1195 Lodging S 55 74 EAR #4272 ViIIa HOlel San Mateo. CA American Express

07/29195 Lod!!lng S 5 I EAR N4272 Ril7·Carllon Pasadena. CA American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 75 O~ EAR #~272 Holiday Inn Dubuque.IA American Express

07/2'11'15 Lodging S 27078 EAR #4272 Wy ndham Franklin PlaIa Philadelphia American Express

07/29NS Lodglllg S 66~ 82 EAR #4272 RIl/-Carllon Marina Del Ray American Express

07/29N5 lodging S 56 29 EAR NU72 Ritz-Carlton Marina Del Ray American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 12761 EAR NU72 Ritz-Carllon Luguna. CA American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 13 75 EAR N4272 Ritz-Carlton Luguna. CA American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 55~ 10 EAR #4272 Ritz-Carhon San Francisco American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 19788 EAR #4272 Hyall Sacramento. CA American Express

0712'1195 Lodging S 15H7 EAR #4272 Rill-Carhon Pasadena. CA American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 162 I I EAR N4272 Stouffer Denver American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 19.123 EAR N4272 Marrioll SI. Louis. MO American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S I~ 82 EAR #U72 Stouffer Denver American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 49.44 EAR N4272 Hyall San Diego American Express

td 07129/95 Lodging S 3180 EAR #U72 H)'au San Diego American Express

~; 07/29195 Lodging S 18550 EAR #U72 Marrioll Detroit. MI American Express

\;- 07/29195 Lodging S 131.73 EAR #4272 Radisson Omaha. NE American Express

~~ 07/29N5 Lodging S 16689 EAR #U72 Radisson Omaha. NE American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 13161 EAR #4272 Embassey Suites Des Moines American Express

07/2'J1'J5 Lodging S 197.08 EAR #4272 Embassey Suites Des Moines American Express

07129NS Lodging S 1137 EAR #4272 Red Lion Hotels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

07/2'J1'J5 Lodging S 8834 EAR #~272 Counyard Phoenix. AZ American Express

0'129195 Lodging S 59.·n EAR #4272 Holiday' Inn Phoenix. AZ American Express

PJB Travel Related Expenses Page 6 of 18 3/24/99
_._

'!!Ii 'ilJ 19' • .,••..,., ......., •••••••••• ~:!I!::-.,~.''!ei~~ ,"'~~'l.~••••••••••••• " ••

I Date [spense T)pe Amount Rere~nce Merchant City Pa)'ment Method I

07/29/95 Lodging S IO'} 21 EAR Un2 rnllrt~ard Phoenix. AZ American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 181 I~ EAR U272 Red l.Ion 1I0lels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

07/29195 Meals S (,1 11 EAR U272 Noah's Restaurant Des Moines American Express

07/29/95 Meals S llU 2~ EAR IIU72 Br:ld~'s San Diego American Express

07/29195 Meals S 9191 EAR IIU72 Pllnlan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express

07129195 Meals S 78 (HI EAR NU72 1I0st International Detroit. MI American Express

07/29195 Meals S III (HI EAR IIU72 The Dro\'er Omaha. NE American Express

01129/95 Meals S 76 (/0 EAR 1I~272 /rnperial House Des Moines American Express

Sublolal S 5.036-l0

01131/95 Airfare S 164 00 EAR 115790 USAir Mclean American Express

OlIJI195 Airfare S 164 (HI EAR 1t5190 USAir McLean American Express

01/11195 Airfare S 61~ 00 EAR 115790 USAir McLean American Express

o IIJ 1195 Airfare S 61~ 00 EAR 1I~7911 USAir McLean American Express

OlIJIJIl5 AIrfare S 1.871 IHI EAR 1151911 United Airhnes Mclean American Express

Ol/lli'l~ Airfare S 1,87 J (HI EAR 115790 Uniled Airlines Mclean American Express

o IIJ Ii'I I.odglng S 5900 EAR 1I~190 Radisson Balon Rouge American Express

o 1I1I1'I~ Lodgmg S 272 28 EAR 1I~791) 1I0hda~ Inn Manchester. Nil American Express

021281'15 Airfare S 1.89~ 00 EAR 115790 United Airlincs McLean American Express

02l28/'J5 Airfare S Ul<)~ IHl EAR 115790 Unilcd Airhncs McLean American Express

02128/95 Lodging S ~6 8 I EAR 115790 MarTioll Scollsdale. AZ Amcrican Express

()]/28/95 Lodging S 81.80 EAR 115790 Loew's Anatole Dallas American Express

03/29195 Airfare S 79900 EAR 115790 American Airlines McLean American Express

03/29/95 Airfare S 19900 EAR #5790 American Airlines McLean American Express

03/29/95 Lodging S \ 36.00 EAR #5790 Loew's Anatole Dallas American Express

03/31195 Meals S 1831)() EAR #5790 The Palm Washington D.C. American Express

03/31/95 Meals S 138.00 EAR #5790 La Colline Washington D,C. American Express

04/28/95 Lodging S 21141 EAR#5190 Wyndham Hotel Allanta American Express

04/28/95 Lodging S 262.75 EAR #5790 Wyndham Holel Allanta American Express

"tl> 0-ll28/95 Lodging S \8.89 EAR #5790 Dobson Ranch Inn Mesa.AZ American Express

", "'"3 04/28/95 Lodging $ /60 13 EAR #5790 Best Western Rosemont. /L American Express lit '-3 Ql >- 04/28/95 Lodging S 88.48 EAR #5790 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express fI 04/30/95 Airfare S 60.00 EAR #5790 America West Tempe. AZ American Express

04/30/95 Airfare $ 60.00 EAR #5790 America Wesl Tempe. AZ American Express

04130195 Airfare S 60.00 EAR #5790 Amcrica West Tempe. AZ American Express

~I-- 04/30/95 Airfare S 15700 EAR #5790 Della Airlines Huntsville, AL American Express

04IJO/95 Airfare S .15700 EAR #5190 Delta Airlines Huntsville. AL Amcrican Express

O-li30195 Airfare $ 292.00 EAR #5190 USAir Manchester. NH American Express

PJB rrf ~Ialed Expenses Page 7 '9
__ c;;:~~.;<;'~'.;;;:;~ ;;; ';;;;;1 c;;;;;>' l.;7

-- t;> (.;:7 Q W -- - "'ii;:~i:}~·.~1::~~'i;~!! i[!~ :2: l:~ :!:··r":~f;;;;:::~:::;: .... - ., .

I Date Elpen~ Type Amount Reference Merchant City Pay'ment Method I

"tIl>-

&:pi

04/30/95 Airfare

041J0/95 Airfare

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04IJO/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04fJO/95 Meals

04/30/95 Meals

04/30/95 Meals

04/30195 Meals

(WIO/9; Mcals

0411019; Mcals

04/l0/'i; Te1ephonc

0411019; Telephonc

05/l 119S Airfare

05fJ 1/95 Lodgmg

05/3 1/'i5 Lodging

051J 1/95 Lodging

05/31195 Lodging

05fJ 1/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31195 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31195 Lodging

05/31195 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31195 Mcals

05111195 Meals

06/29195 Lodglllg

06/29/95 Lodging

PJB Travel Related Expenses

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

292 00 EAR #5790

(428 (0) EAR #579(1

6913 EAR #579()

263 OS EAR #5790

84 00 EAR #579()

189 13 EAR #5790

216,44 EAR #579()

162,72 EAR #5790

36 13 EAR #5790

14339 EAR #579()

62045 EAR #5790

105 10 EAR #5790

151 00 EAR #5790

9501 EAR #5791)

2584 EAR #5791)

21811 EAR#5790

104 1M) EAR #5790

31 48 EAR #5790

3863 EAR #5790

)0600 EAR #57911

131 64 EAR #5790

5380 EAR #5790

13369 EAR #5790

47,50 EAR #5790

436.46 EAR #5790

14,10 EAR #5791)

102,60 EAR #5790

54171 EAR #5790

16700 EAR #5790

425 EAR #5790

135,10 EAR #5790

25789 EAR #5790

nl8 EAR #5790

10704 EAR #5790

8000 EAR #5790

2700 EAR #5790

46206 EAR #5790

221 51 EAR #5790

USAir

Nor1hwCSI Airlincs

Hampton Inn

HOlcl FOr1 Des Moines

Hyan

Holiday Inn

Marrion

Wyndham Hotel

Marriott

Marriott

Holiday Inn

Puritan Back Rm Restr

Chen Yang Li

The Garden Cafe

Hyal!

Bedford Villagc Inn

Puritan Back Rill Rcslr

GTE Airfone

GTE Alrfone

Dclta Airlines

Hyal!

Hyal!

Hilton

Ramada Inn

Sheraton

Broadwalk PI3l.a

Henlopcn HOlel

Harbor Cour1 Hotel

Harbor Cour1 Hotel

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Radisson

Sheralon

Shcraton

Rusty Ruddcr

Murphy's Slatc Housc

!lolcl FOr1 Des Moincs

Hilton

Page 8 of 18

Manchestcr. NH

Minneapolis

Omaha. NE

Dcs Moines

Dallas

Manchester. NH

Hunlsville. AL

Phoenix. AZ

Denver

Denver

Manchester. NH

Manchester. NH

Bedford. NH

Omaha. NE

Dallas

Bedford. NH

Manchestcr. NH

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Cincinnati

Orlando. FL

Orlando. FL

LaFayette. LA

Metairie. LA

Metairie. LA

Rehoboth. DE

Rehoboth. DE

Baltimore. MD

Baltimore. MD

Manchester. NH

Manchester. NH

Florence. KY

Tampa. FL

Tampa. FL

De\\ey Beach. DE

Concord. NH

Dcs Moincs

Sioux Cit)'. IA

Amcrican Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Amcrican Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Amcrican Express

American Express

Amcrican Express

Amcrican Express

Amcrican Express

Amcrican Express

Amcrican Express

3/24/99
---

="" "" "" ;' "" ;' ;' '=' """ """ '=' "" '"' "" "" "" '=' "" '=' "" "" "" .... .... .. • ::Y':._.... -]....."... ~":~ a

iiil WIL!";-'-l!"ti._... ... - • • • • ... .. .... ... .. .. ... .. • 16", n:-:: t!! ~.... .~I' l!> "I!n:.... ",,~:!l l!! !! ',;1> ;J:;'", it".Ji

I Datc EspcnK T)pc Amount Rcfncncc Mcn:hant City Paymcnt Method I

06/29/95 Lodging S 22067 EAR #57'1\1 lIotel Somerset Somerset. NJ American Express

06/29/95 Lodging S 30 I ll5 EAR 1i5790 L'Aubcrge Del Mar. CA American Express

06/29195 Lodging S 2J 27 EAR #57'1\) L'Aubcrge Del Mar. CA American Express

O6IJ0/95 Lodging S 11294 EAR #5791) Best Western Lavale. MD American Express

06/30/95 Lodging S 2015 H EAR #57'1\1 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

06/30/95 Lodging S 191 75 EAR #5790 H)'all Greenville. SC American Express

061J0/95 Lodging S 01001 58 EAR #5790 1I)'all Greenville. SC American Express

06/30/95 Miscellaneous S (150 17) EAR 1i5790 Counts Western Wear Washington D.C. American Express

06/30/95 Meals S 6I.OIJ EAR 1i57911 Amalgamated Spirit Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

06/31J/95 Meals S 116.00 EAR #5790 Ruth's Chris Steak House Arlington. VA American Express

06/30/95 Miscellaneous S 796.30 EAR #5791) Counts Western Wear Washington D.C. American Express

06/30/95 Telephone S 2.58 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08/31/95 Meals S 27161 EAR 1/57'1\) Bcdford Village Inn Bedford. NH American Express

OlllJ 1195 Meals S 95.00 EAR 1/5791) Hunan Lion Vienna. VA American Express

09/JON5 Meals S 9700 EAR #57'1\1 Ritz Carlton Mclean American Express

(I911IlN~ Mlscellancous S 111450 EAR #57'1\1 Macy's McLean American Express

12111 N~ Airfare S 52 50 EAR #57'1\1 USAlr McLean American Express

12I1I!'1~ Airfare S 5250 EAR #571J1l USAir McLean American Express

1VJlN~ Airfare S 5JIJ tKJ EAR 1/57'1\) American Airlines Shre\'eporl. LA American Express

IV3111J5 Airfare S 511J 0(1 EAR #57'1\) American Airlines Shreveporl. LA American Express

J2/J INS Airfare S 531J.OO EAR #571J0 American Airlines Shreveporl. LA American Express

12/3 1/95 Airfare S 2000 EAR #571J0 Delta Airlines Allanla American Express

1213111JS Lodging S 107.11 EAR #5791J Holiday Inn Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

IV31/95 Lodging S 284.98 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Dubuque.IA American Express

12!31/95 Lodging S 152.63 EAR 1i5790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 21840 EAR #5790 Mamoll Des Moines American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 75.57 EAR #5791J Holiday Inn Mason City. IA American Express

12!31/95 Lodging S 1.233.19 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

12!31/95 Lodging S 126.61 EAR #571J0 EI Conquistador Resorl Tucson. AZ American Express

12/3111J5 Lodging S 84.22 EAR #5790 Black Hawk Hoyel Davenporl. fA American Express

.., ... 12!3119S Lodging S 56.5] EAR #5790 Fairfield Inn Ollumwa.IA American Express

i~ 12131/95 Lodging S 124.88 EAR #5790 Best Western Burlington. IA American Express

f1 12/31/95 Lodging S 126.61 EAR #5790 EI Conquistador Resorl Tucson. AZ American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 50855 EAR #5790 Ritz-Carlton Phoenix. AZ American Express

12/3 IN5 Lodging S 211J 38 EAR #5790 Marriott Des Moines American Express

1213 1/95 Lodging S 28HS EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Roswcll. GA American Exprcss

12/31/95 Lodging S 120.20 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Roswell. GA American Express

12/3 1/95 Lodging S 11711 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Roswell. GA American Express

PJB Tra' -~Ialed Expenses Page 9' 19
19> 5 I!!l !!I 3 • " ~!••••' '.~,J ,'-.A••••••••

, , , , , ,•,

I Date Espense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

12131/95 Lodging S 88.80 EAR #5790 Hilton Baton Rouge American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 11Il.50 EAR #5790 Hilton LaFayelle. LA American Express

12131/95 Lodging S (12661) EAR #5790 EI Conquistador Resor1 Tucson. AZ American Express

1213 1/95 Lodging S 11537 EAR #5790 Marrioll Des Moines American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 62.95 EAR #5790 BCSI Weslern Fon Dodge. IA American Express

1213 1/95 Meals S 39000 EAR #5790 Ritz Carlton McLcan American Express

12/31/95 Meals S 135.59 EAR 115790 furlph & Kacoo's Bossier City. LA American Express

12131/95 Meals S 5HlO EAR #57911 OUlback Steakhouse Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

12131/95 Meals S I04.1lO EAR #5790 Cafe Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

12/31/95 Meals S 136t)() EAR 115790 Puritan Back RIO Restr Manchester. NH American Express

12/31/95 Meals S 52.74 EAR 115790 Fisherman's Bay Ollumwa.IA American Express'

J2/3 1/95 Meals $ 109.20 EAR 115791) Red Lobster Roswell. GA American Express

12131/95 Telephone S 25.56 EAR 115790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

12111/95 Telephone S 545 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

01/29/96 Airfare S 185 27 EAR 115790 Della Airlines Boslon American Express

(J 1/2'11'16 Airfare S 18527 EAR 115790 Del'" Alrlincs Bos'on American Express

01/29/% AIrfare S 185 27 EAR 1/5790 Delta Airlines Boston American Express

01/29/96 Alrfarc S 18527 EARII5790 Delta Airlines Boslon American Express

01/29196 l.odglllg S 15900 EAR 1/5790 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express

o 1/2'J/% Lodging S IW.82 EAR 115790 Comfot1 Inn Memphis. TN American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 146. 10 EAR 1157911 Hilton Anchoragc. AK American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 79.86 EAR #5790 Ramada Inn Shrevepot1. LA American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 92.99 EAR #5790 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

01129196 Lodging S 414.16 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 132.78 EAR 115790 Sheraton Omaha. NE American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 8247 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Dubuque. IA American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 137.64 EAR 1/5790 Holiday Inn Seatlle. WA American Express

01129/96 Lodging S 290.30 EAR #5790 Village Resort Spirit Lake. IA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 1Il0.73 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Monroe. LA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 134.00 EAR 115790 Bedford Village Inn Bedford. NH American Express "'I>- 01/29196 Lodging S 58.00 EAR #5790 Sanstone Inn Fort Dodge. IA American Express i 01129196 Lodging S 301.36 EAR 115790 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

f~ tJ 1/29/96 Lodging S 19440 EAR 115790 The Highlander Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 95.68 EAR #579tJ Hilton Baton Rouge American Express

tJ 1/29196 Lodging S 741.52 EAR #5790 Ritz-Carlton New York American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 31.39 EAR #5790 Ritz-Carlton New York American Express

() 1/29/96 Lodging S 104.56 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01129/96 Lodging $ 71.69 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

~I PJB Travel Relaled Expenses Page 10 of 18 3/24/99
'c:;;I "" "-!;' '''''' "'" "'" e '<» .., • • v "" .., WI lIIl!::~:::~"!il' n'i:~:i:~~ ,~,,~4IIJ':;::~:;;'i'••••••••••••., ..

I Dat~ Espen!e Typ~ Amount Refer~nc~ M~rchant City Payment Method I

Il 1129196 Lodging S 31804 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 465 75 EAR 115790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/291'16 Lodging S 14118 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 2Il1l (HI EAR 115790 Hlllon Balon Rouge American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 24 16 EAR 115790 Hlllon Baton Rouge American Express

o1/29N6 Lodging S 5106 EAR #57911 Omni New Orleans. LA American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 497 40 EAR #5791l Holiday Inn Manchester. Nil American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 202 0/ EAR #5790 Hillon Ncw Orlcans. LA American Express

01129/96 Lodging S 162 1lI EAR #57911 Hillon Chicago American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 7U2 EAR #57911 The Highlander Inn Manchcstcr. Nil American Exprcss

01/29196 Lodging S 29282 EAR #57911 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Exprcss

() 1121J196 Lodging S 51 58 EAR 1157'X) Holiday Inn Manehcslcr. Nil American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 701 78 EAR 1157'X) Mamoll Des Moincs American Express

01/29196 Lodgmg S 719 80 EAR #5790 Marrioll Des Moines American Express

II 11291'16 Meals S 201 00 EAR #5790 Steak & Chop Des Moines Amcrican Exprcss

01/2'11'/6 Mcals S '11 25 EAR #57'10 Cafc Pa\one Manchcster. Nil American Exprcss

0112'11'111 Meals S 1411011 EAR #57'10 Copeland's Baton Rougc American Express

01/2'11'16 Meals S 11500 EAR #57'10 Thc First Edillon SIOUX ClI)'. IA American Express

0112'11'111 Meals S 48 H EAR 1157'JO Pour La France Cafe Denvcr Amcrican Express

01/291'16 Meals S 6711 EAR #5790 TGI Fnday's Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

o 112W96 Meals S 72 59 EAR 115790 Austins Omaha. NE American Express

01/2'1/96 Meals S 4391)() EAR 1157'10 Brcnnans Rcstaurant Ncw Orleans. LA American Express

01/2'1/96 Meals S 99,lHI EAR 115790 Chcn Yang Li Bedford. Nil Amcrican Express

0112 W96 Miscellaneous S 175,97 EAR 11579IJ Timberland Factory North Conway. Nil American Express

01/29196 Miscellancous S 5,99 EAR 115790 Timberland Factol)' North Conway. Nil American Express

o1/2W96 Supplies S 58,90 EAR 115790 Bcnjamin Books Dcnver American Express

01/29196 Telephone S 42,81 EAR 115790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

01/29/96 Telephone S 45,68 EAR #5790 GTE Airfonc Oak Brook. IL American Exprcss

02/29196 Airfare S 403l)() EAR 115790 United Airlincs Chicago American Express

02129/96 Airfare S 40300 EAR #5790 United Airlines Chicago American Express

"""> 02129196 Lodging S 254,85 EAR #5790 MamOll Boston American Express i ;; 02/29/96 Lodging S 9441 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Manchestcr. NH American Express

02/29/96 Lodging S 60,00 EAR #5790 Collins Plaza Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

02/29/96 Lodging S 2123 f EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Davenport. IA American E.xpress

02/29/96 Lodging S 68.25 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Cedar Rapids. IA Amcrican Express

i\- 02/29/96 Lodging S 1.02·U I EAR #5790 Marriott Des Moines American Exprcss

02/29/96 Lodging S 68315 EAR #5790 Hyatt New Orlcans. LA American Express

02129196 Lodging S 142.26 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Lake Charles. LA Amcrican Express

. i I . ........ It· ':!Iated Expenses Page l' 19
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .... ., • ii~~?'~!~J!lt:~'r iLB ii~!!:~ !~l..r:~~l'~;~· • • • - • • • • • • • • • • til

I Date Expense T)'pe Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

02/29196 Lodging S 9812 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Lake Charles. LA American Express

02/29196 Lodging S 17] 13 EAR #5791) Holiday Inn Monroe. LA American Express

02/29196 Lodging S 18879 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Lake Charles. LA American Express

02/29196 Lodging S HO 89 EAR #5791l Holiday Inn Mason Cily. IA American Express

02129196 Lodging S 782.59 EAR #5791) Marriott Des Moines American Express

02/29196 Meals S 78 00 EAR #5190 The First Edition Sioux City. IA American Exprcss

02129196 Meals S 18000 EAR #57911 Purilan Back Rill Reslr Manchester. NH American Express

02129/96 Meals S 21OtlO EAR #5790 Chcn Yang Li Bcdford. NH Amcrican Express

02/29196 Meals S 120.01 EAR 1/5790 Cafc Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

02/29196 Mcals S 176.tlO EAR 1/5790 Purilan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Exprcss

02129196 Misccllaneous $ 299.98 EAR 1/5790 MeCade. Inc. Manchester. NH American Express

02129196 Meals $ 11600 EAR #57911 Black Angus Phoenix. AZ American Express

02129196 Meals S 10200 EAR #5790 Pier D'Orleans Mesa.AZ American Express

02129196 Meals S 15247 EAR #5790 California Dreaming Greenville. SC American Express

02129196 Miscellancous S 6.162.13 EAR #5791) BFP E.~penscs McLean UndoclDuplicate

Sublotal S 52.10684

12122195 FIR Evcnt S 97707 Memo951222 Classic Tcnts McLean Checking

OJfl9I95 FIR E\'enl S 1.54941 Memo 951222 MacArthur Bcvcrage MeLcan Checking

10106195 FIR Event S 688.96 Memo 951222 MacArthur Bcveragc McLean Checking

12108195 FIR Event S 1.62485 Memo 951222 MacArthur Bcvcragc MeLcan Checking

Subtotal $ 4.84029

05110195 Gas S 11Hl7 Memo 9604111 Chevron Del Ray Beach.FL VISA

05110195 Gas S 2315 Memo 96040 I Mobil Newcumbcr. PA VISA

05110195 Lodging S 156 29 Memo 96040 I Comfort Inn York. PA VISA

051l 0/95 Taxi $ 45(){) Memo 960401 Yellow Cab Dcnver VISA

05/10195 Telephone S 46]5 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone S 18.0] Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S 38.63 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

0511 0/95 Telephone S 5. 15 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

"'I>- 05/10195 Telephone S 25.75 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA " 0-3 Illl 0-3 (Il I>- 05110195 Telephone S 30.90 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

r~ 05/10/95 Telcphone S 5 J50 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL .VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S 1348 Memo 960401 GTE Airfonc Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone S 7.73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05110/95 Tclephonc S 5.15 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S 7.73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

PJB Travel Related Expenses Page 12 of 18 3/24/99
-- -- -

e e e e €I lW l!I !!l e l!!I @II e ., ..... e .,••' .g:"~~,,~!'~. e! ~~ !n"r:~.::'~::h....... .., ., .... ., e I!i5' e @!j @I W

I Date E1pen!e Type AmlMlnt Rden:nce Merchant City Payment Method I

0511 0/9.5 Telephone S 111 10 Memo 'J(~140 I GTE Alrfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05110/95 Telephone S 10 10 Memo 'J(~14(11 GTE Alrfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S 7 73 Memo %040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone S II 48 Memo \}(~140 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S 21 18 Memo %040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone S 12 88 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

08/10/95 Lodging S 21.1 92 Memo '/{,040 I Park Pla;.a BOSlon VISA

08110/95 Lodging S 175 19 Memo 96040 I Manioll Kansas City. 11.10 VISA

08/10/95 Lodging S 555.05 Memo 960401 Embassey Suiles Coraopolis. PA VISA

08/10/95 Lodging S 304.94 Memo 96040 I Thcos La"10n.IA VISA

08/10/95 Meals S 291).J Memo %0401 WH Smilh Boslon VISA

08110/95 Meals S 100llO Memo 960401 Legal Sea Foods Boslon VISA

08/10195 Meals S 132(lO Memo 960401 Hannah Ja\'a Ta\'ern Merrimack. NH VISA

08/10195 Meals S 207(}() Memo 96040 I Greenhouse Cafe Amherst. NH VISA

OS/I0195 Meals S 60 71 Memo 96040 I Nouvelle Omaha. NE VISA

011/10195 Meals S 97 IKI Melllo 96040 I Wild Bills Red BlulT. CA VISA

01l1l0N5 Meals S 5642 Memo 960401 Rill. Carllon San Francisco VISA

011/1 ON5 Telephone S JO 'KI Memo l}6040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

08110N5 Telephone S 5 15 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

08/10/95 Telephone S 10 40 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

09/10/95 Lodging S 134 40 Memo 96040 I Kenmore Inn Fredricksburg.VA VISA

10/10/95 Meals S 17.00 Memo 96040 I Hosl Inlernational San Francisco VISA

1011 0/95 Miscellaneous S 49.99 Memo 960401 EMS Manchester. NH VISA

10/10/95 Miscellaneous S 152 50 Memo 96040 I Wallachs Manchester. NH VISA

11/10/95 Lodging S 17.51 Memo 960401 Town Clock Inn Dubuque.IA VISA

11110/95 Miscellaneous S 11000 Memo 960401 The Costume Gallery Derry. NH VISA

11/10/95 Telephone S 22.69 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11/10/95 Telephone S 57.18 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11110/95 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 96040 1 GTE Airfone Oak-Brook.IL VISA

11110/95 Telephone S 832 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11/10/95 Telephone S 11.20 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA "tl~ 11/10/95 Telephone S 11.20 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA .r:

(J) l0- 11110/95 Telephone $ 16 94 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA r! 11/10/95 Telephone S 39 93 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12/10/'15 Meals S 51.20 Memo 96040 I Edward Palm Beach. FL VISA

12110/95 Telephone S I I 20 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone S 34 19 Memo 96lWlI GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

,,- 01 12/10/'15 Telephone S .1862 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

PJB Tr ~elated Expenses Page 1:' 'S ·'99
.. ';' = .. =' .. 't;' '=' "=" t=' '=' '=' C" "=" '==' 'c;,:I' '=' 'W' 0' G" '=' .... ,;;;0 '"::f""-:T ''''n'''"''~'p- f:u ''!:il - iLi-,Jt.,.....;!J?"""'.. - - - ______ - - - - - - _ JI,..._.. U'..", !t! ."..s ffl " Ih= ..,__ K! I......."jl ..::5> .",n.~

I Date El.pense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

01/10/96 Lodging S 17.15 Memo 960401 Hilton Balon Rouge VISA

01110/96 Lodging S 127.19 Memo '160401 Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

01/10/96 Lodging S 35.78 Memo %040 I Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

01/10/96 Lodging S 2966 Memo 96040 I Younkers Sioux Cily. IA VISA

01/10/96 Lodging S 23 85 Memo 96040 I Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

01110/96 Telephone S 5 45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone S 5 45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 96().lOI GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfane Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110196 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 8 32 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

OlllO/96 Telephone S 8 12 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

011101'16 Telephone $ 14 07 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

OI/IO/<J6 Telephone S 5 45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

o IIIO/<J6 Telephone S 5 45 Memo 1}6040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

0111 O/9£> Telephone S 14 07 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone $ 5 56 Memo 96040 I AT&T AiJOne Jacksonville. FL VISA

0111 0/96 Telephone S 8.35 Memo 960401 AT&T AiJOne Jacksonville. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 5.4 5 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone $ 7.73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 7.73 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 7 73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

>til» 01110/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

i OJ/IO/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

OUI0/96 Meals $ 269.98 Memo 96040 I The CUlling Co Des Moines VISA

I~I 02/10196 Meals S 72 60 Memo 96040 I Monroe's Rest & Bar Mason City. IA VISA

02/10N6 Meals S 72.75 Memo 960401 The CUlling Co Des Moines VISA

02/1 ON6 Supplies S 101 18 Memo 960401 Walgreen Des Moines VISA

~I- ml1o/96 Supplies S 15987 Memo '}(,O401 Walgreen Des Moines VISA

PJB Travel Related Expenses Page 14 of 18 3/24/99
- - - - - - - - - - - -;:;r2.·..ljl~~~, n;,~~:': ~Ltr:~~~~·········· .

I Dale [lpenJe T)'pe Amounl Reference Merchanl Cily Payment Method I

U2110/96 Telephone S I 07 Memo %O~O I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

021'0/96 Telephone S 16 29 Memo 960~0 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

112/H1/96 Telephone S I Memo YfJO~O I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

0211 0196 Telephone S 15 ~5 Memo960~01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

0211 0/96 Telephone S I 55 Memo %O~O I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/W/% Telephone S I 55 Memo 9lill~0 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

11211 O/91i Telephone S 5 ~5 Memo 96lJ~0 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5 ~5 Memo %1l~0 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/% Telephone S 5.~5 Memo 960~01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S S45 Memo 960~1l I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 5 ~5 Memo 960~1l I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone $ 5 ~5 Memo 960~01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5 ~5 Memo 9611~0 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110196 Telephone $ 8 J2 Memo 96040 ( GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10196 Telephone S JUO Memo 9604lJI GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110196 Telephone S ~8 55 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 11 116 Memo 9611~O I AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL VISA

02110!% Telephone S /06 87 Memo 9(,040 I AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 5 ~5 Memo 9('lJ~O I GTE Airfolle Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 5 ~S Memo 9('0~1l1 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 5 ~5 Memo 960~1l I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 62 92 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 7~ ~2 Memo 960~ol GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 8.12 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 31.31 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

0211 0/96 Telephone S 7442 Memo 960411 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 832 Memo 960~01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 68.67 Memo 960~01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10196 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 1545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

'd ~. Subtotal S 5.447.60

:i :-~ P- O1/25/95 Telephone S l·nA2 Memo 96040la Bell Allamic McLean Checking f1 02125/95 Telephone S /90.00 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

03/15/95 Telephone S 21U4 Memo 960401a Bell Allanlic McLean Checking

I

" 03/15/95 Telephone S 182.00 Memo 96040la Motorola McLean Checking

())/20/95 Telephone S 12000 Memo 960401a Motorola McLean . Checking

04/14/95 Telephone S /42.17 Memo 960411 /a Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

PJB Travp' ...."'Ialed Expenses Page 15 r' 3
- - - ----~~~~~:~~~~~~~~..............•.

I Date Expen!e Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

05/20/95 Telephone S 25.11 Memo '.16040 Ia Motorola McLean Checking

06/01/95 Telephone S 537.00 Memo '.I6lJ411la Bell Allanlie Mclean Checking

06/15/95 Telephone S 235.16 Memo 96040la Bell Allanlic Mclean Checking

06/15/95 Telephone S 22.()O Memo 96040la MOlorola Mclean Checking

07/26/95 Telephone S 19.1.05 Memo '.I60401a Bell Allanlic McLean Checking

07/26/95 Telephone S 257.21 Memo 96040la MOlorola Mclean Checking

08/11/95 Telephone S 22.()() Memo 96040la Motorola Mclean Checking

08/22195 Telephone S 20.1.76 Memo 96040la Bell Atlanlic McLean Checking

09/15195 Telephone S 28.00 Memo 96040la Motorola Mclean Checking

10/10/95 Telephone S 30100 Memo 96040 Ia Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

11/11/95 Telephone S 600 ()() Memo 96040 Ia Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

11/21/95 Telephone S 58L.lO Memo 96040la Bell Atlanlie McLean Checking

11/24/95 Telephone S 4 IJ.00 Memo 96040 Ia Motorola McLean Checking

11/25195 Telephone S 40.()() Memo 96040 Ia Motorola McLean Checking

12/20/95 Telephone S 106 t)() Memo 960Wla Motorola McLean Checking

SublOlal S 4.55762

(llf1(Jf'/6 Meals S 41 (I (10 Memo %05(1'.1 Hamplon Sireel Columbia. SC American Express

01130196 Meals S 97.00 Memo %0509 Boslon Sleak House Greenville. SC American Express

03130/96 Meals S 95 (I(l Memo 960509 Outback Steakhouse Columbus. GA American Express

03130196 Meals S 280 00 Memo 960509 Ruth's Chris Steak House Memphis. TN American Express

OJ!3lJ/96 Meals S )7()O() Memo 96lJ509 Old San Fran Steak House Dallas American Express

())1J0/96 Meals S 192.09 Memo 960509 Brennans Restaurant Houston. TX American Express

03130/96 Meals S 92.00 Memo 960509 Marriott Chicago American Express

0)/30/96 Meals S 112.0) Memo 960509 BeechTree Flint. MI American Express

O]1J0/96 Meals S 54.00 Memo 960509 Marriott Chicago American Express

0)/30/96 Meals S 275.00 Memo 960S09 Chicago Road Sleak House Dearborn. MI American Express

0)/)0/96 Meals S 88.00 Memo 960509 Hunan Lion Vienna. VA American Express

03130/96 Meals S 89.65 Memo 960S09 Hunan Lion Vienna. VA American Express

03/30/96 Meals S 272.00 Memo 960S09 Ritz Carllon McLean American Express >cI~ Sublolal S 2.226.77 ,c.

0-;

<l> ;>

~E 03/29/96 FIR Evenl S 688.00 Memo 960708 Miguel Yanos McLean Checking

0.1128196 FIR Evenl S 645.06 Memo <)60708 MacArthur Beverage McLean Checking

H tWIO/96 FIR Evenl S 1.675.00 Memo 960708 Che,'}' Chase Calcrers McLean Checking I 05/10/96 FIR hent S 697.00 Memo 960708 Alexandria Florisl McLean Checking

Subtotal S n05.06

PJS Travel Related Expenses Page 16 of 18 3/24/99
.. - - - - - ":;;'""ji 1["'""",1'- ,r;,,,'5 c. - H"';:-":;;:-::,:"ji, ",:-' 11,.,,, u::" III .J1 .•1- m Ibn w,.,..,,, ,~:A.!~ If "'''~ '=~ 11 __ ",_",~"''''''''''''''.f''''''

Date ElpenJr Type Amount Reference Merchant

U51J1l/'}6 lodging S 12511.1 Memo %0701la Sheraton Charlollc, NC American Express

USIJ0196 lodging S 9968 Memo %0701la Ihlton Sioux City. IA American Express

OS/30196 lodging S 96 III Memo %0701la Red Lion Hotels & Inns Boise.ID American Express

US/JO/'}6 lodging S 1116 93 Memo I)(,0708a Red Lion Hotels & Inns Boise.ID American Express

OSIJIl/96 Lodging S 227 40 Memo lJ(,07Ulla The Westbank Inn Idaho Falls. ID American Express

OS/JIl/96 lodging S J7 45 Merna lJ60701la Best Western Pocatello. ID American Express

OS/30/96 lodging S 228 97 Memo 960708a Radisson Raleigh. NC American E.~press

OS/JO/96 Meals S 127.70 Memo 960701la Irregardless Raleigh. NC American Express

OS131l/96 Meals S 93 79 Memo 960708a Carvers Charlotte. NC American Express

OS/30/96 Meals S 14800 Memo 960708a The Chart House Boise. ID American Express

OS/30196 Meals S 118 Oil Memo 960708a Jakes Idaho Falls. ID American Express

O(,f29/96 Lodging S 238 37 Memo 960701la Marriott San Anlonio. TX American Express

O(,f2W96 Lodging S 69 07 Memo 960701la Besl Western Bozeman. MT American Express

O(,f2'l/<J{, LodglOg S 19109 Memo %07011a Crown Sterling Birmingham. AL American Express

06/2'11'/6 LodgIng S 11772 Memo %07011a Crown Sterling Binllinghalll. AL American Express

01>/1 '1/'11, Lodglllg S '17 70 Memo <)607011a Sheraton Billings. MT American Express

0(,/2'1/'11. Lodglllg S 101l'l() Memo %07011a Embasscy Sulles MOnlgomery. AL American Express

0(011'11'11, Lodglllg S 4'4 II Memo %07011a Red Lion Hotels & Inns Seallie. WA . American Express

06/2'1/% LodglOg S 4l'1l11 Memo 9607011a Red Lion Hotels & Inns Seattle. WA American Express

O(,f29N6 Lodglllg S 164 59 Melllo 9607011a Adam's Mark Mobile. AL American Express

06/29/96 Lodging S \J01l9 Memo 9607011a Adam's Mark Mobile. AL American Express

06/29/96 Meals S llJ.14 Memo 960701la Anthony's Des Moines American Express

06129196 Meals S J2l00 Memo 960701la RUlh's Chris Steak House Mobile. AL American Express

06/29/96 Meals S 23S 00 Memo <J60701la Ella's Seafood Seattle. WA American Express

06/29/96 Meals S IS320 Memo 960701la Hunan Lion Vienna. VA American Express

06129196 Meals S 23200 Memo 960701la Morton's San Anlonio. TX American Express

06/29196 Meals S 12S.00 Memo 960701la Juliano's Billings. MT American Express

Subtotal S 4,5S3.44

'"dt> 06/10196 Meals S I·moo Memo 960701lb O'Brian's Bozeman.MT VISA i 0-;

t>

~~ 09/07196 Limo S 92.00 Memo 960916 A-I Limo McLean Checking

0511 0/96 Telephone S 116.00 Memo 961114 Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

0

HlI_ Olnll95 Per Diem S 45.00 Memo 961995 OJ days 'a' SI5/day McLean Cash

02128/95 Per Diem S I3S.00 Memo 961995 09 days ilil SIS/day McLean Cash

PJB Tra' 'qlaled Expenses Page 17' ? 9
•.. __ ..._._.-._---_.•••••• ~~~~,!~~~~~~"~•••••••••••••••.

I Date ExpenM! Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

03/31/95 Per Diem S 45000 Memo 961995 )0 lL,ys @ S15/day Mclean Cash

04130/95 Per Dicm S 360.00 Memo 961995 24 days (ij, S15/day Mclean Cash

05/31/95 Per Diem S 405.00 Mcmo 961995 27 days (d' S15/day McLean Cash

06/30/95 Per Diem S 435.00 Mcmo 961995 29 days ,a'S15/day Mclean Cash

0713 1195 Pcr Dicm S J9000 Memo 961995 26 days la, s15/day McLean Cash

08131/95 Per Dicm S 255{)() Memo 961995 17 days lal S15/day Mclean Cash

09130/95 Per Diem S 3J5 ()() Memo 96 J995 21 days ,ij' SJ5/day Mclean Cash

10/31/95 Per Diem S 360.00 Memo 961995 24 days @ S15/day Mclean Cash

11130195 Per Diem S 390.00 Memo 961995 26 days @ S15/day Mclean Cash

1213 1/95 Per Diem S 405.00 Memo 961995 27 days@ Sl5/day Mclean Cash

01131/96 Per Diem S 435.00 Memo961995 29 days @ S15/day McLean Cash

02129/96 Per Diem S 435{)() Memo 961995 29 days @ S15/day Mclean Cash

0)13 1196 Per Diem S 405{)() Mcmo 961995 27 days @ Sl5/day McLcan Cash

(W30/96 Pcr Diem S 60 (ll) Memo 961995 04 days (ijl S15/day McLcan Cash

050 1/96 Per Dicm S 165()() Mcmo 961995 II days iii'S IS/day Mclean Cash

0600196 Pcr Dlcm S 90 00 Memo 961995 0(, days (n' S15/day McLcan Cash

Sublolal S 5,5J5()()

ttl ...

i

?t.

r PJS Travel Related Expenses Page 18 of 18 3/24/99
2 i2 I!! 0 ~7 1M [& 2 51 It! H..ft.. :~~~ ~~ 6 -----......•...

Patrick J. & Shelley S. Buchanan

Expenses Sublllillcd for Reimbursement

I Date ESp!n~ Typ! Amount Rererenu Merchant City Payment Method I

01/12195 Miscellaneous S nl96 EAR Iml12 BFP Expenses Mclean American Express

01/25/95 Telephone S IH"2 Memo Wl(l~(lla Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

01/31/95 Per Diem S ~5(lO Memo9/l1'N5 III da)·s ,(II SJ5Ida}' McLean Cash

01/31/95 Lodging $ 272.28 EAR #57'Jl1 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01131/95 Lodging $ 59 00 EAR 1/5790 Radisson Baton Rouge American Express

Ol/) 1195 Airfare $ 1.8711)() EAR #57'1l1 United Airlines McLean American Express

01/31/95 Airfare $ 1.87100 EAR #57'1lJ United Airlines McLean American Express

ofIll/95 Airfare S 61400 EAR #57'1l1 USAir McLean American Express

o fIll/95 Airfare S 61" 00 EAR 115790 USAir McLean American Express

01/JlN5 Airfare S 764 00 EAR 115790 USAir McLean American Express

01/11/95 Airfare S 7(,41Hl EAR #579H lJSAIf McLean American Express

0)1/ 11'15 MIscellaneous S 7100 EAR 1111160 BFP Expenscs McLean American Express

01115N5 Telephone S 19lJ IH) Memo '!h1l41l Ia Bell At/anile McLean Checking

1lll1HI95 Per DIem S 1151Hl Memo %1995 11 11 days a SI51day McLean Cash

1l111H/95 L.odglng S 111(, 91 EAR 111704 HIlton Boston American Express

llll2HN5 Mlscellancous S III 75 EAR 11.1704 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

ll2ll8195 Lodglllg S 545 13 EAR 11.1704 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

02/28/95 Lodglllg S 682.94 EAR 113704 Holiday Inn Phoenix. AZ American Express

02/28195 Lodging S 46.81 EAR 115790 Marrioll Scollsdale. AZ American Express

02/28195 Meals S 44()() EAR /13704 Quigley's Washington D.C. American Express

02/28/95 Airfare S 1.894()() EAR 115790 United Airlines McLean American Express

02128/95 Airfare S 1.894()() EAR 115790 Uniled Airlines Mclean American Express

02128/95 Airfare S 2.01050 EAR /13704 USAir Mclean American Express

02/28195 Airfare S 2.01050 EAR 113704 USAir McLean American Express

0311 0195 Lodging S 378.42 EAR 111244 Adam's Mark McLean VISA

U3115195 Telephone S 211.24 Memo 96040 Ia Bell Allantic McLean Checking

i t3 03/15195 Telephone S 182.00 Memo 960401 a Motorola McLean Checking

03119195 FIR Event S 1.54941 Memo 951222 MacArthur Beverage McLean Checking

0.1/20195 Telephone S 120.00 Memo 96040la MOlorola McLean Checking

OJ/28/95 Lodging S 81.80 EAR 115790 Locw's Analole Dallas American Express

0312'1195 Airfare S 79'J 00 EAR #5790 American AIrlines McLean American Express

03/29195 Airfare S 79900 EAR 115790 American Airlines McLean American Express

- 0312'1195 Lodging S 136.00 EAR 11579U Locw's Anatole Dallas American Express

~PJB T..", R••,,,, E,,,,,",,,, Page 1 of 17 3r.
- - - ;'::;""':'J' ~h:", lh",- !!.,lr'"!,~Il.1f "i' -Itt """;lL,n,Ii :;::.'Il'n::.":" ll.,." ...:1. l!l",,!,""1.'1~:;;c~'~1' ".,,,,Ii =":Jl _,I - .. - ...... • • • • • • • • ••

I Date Ellpen.se Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

03/30/95 Lodging S 8UO EAR 113704 Black Hawk Hoyel Davenport. IA American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S 37" EAR 111244 Breakers Holel Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S (3717) EAR 11]704 Breakers Hotel Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/]0/95 Lodging S 37 " EAR 113704 Breakers Holel Palm Beach. FL American Express

01lJ0195 Airfare S 95 (Xl EAR 113704 Delta Airlines Columbia. SC American Express

OJ130/95 Airfare S 9500 EAR 11]704 Delta Airlines Columbia. SC American Express

03/30/95 Airfare S 599.00 EAR 113704 Delta Airlines Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Airfare S 599.tlO EAR 1I.l704 Della Airlines Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S 140.55 EAR 113704 Dobson Ranch Inn Mesa.AZ American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S 144.33 EAR IIJ704 Embassey Suites Des Moines American Express

03/JO/95 Car Rental S 566.94 EAR 111244 Hertz Palm Beach. FL American Express

03130/95 Lodging S 102.31 EAR 11]704 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

03/JO/95 Lodging S 13500 EAR 113704 Mamoll San Diego American Express

03/JO/95 Lodging S 26459 EAR 1Il704 Mamoll Bloomington. MN American Express

01ll0/95 Airfare S 2.10800 EAR 11]704 Northwest Airlines Detroil. MI American Express

(11)0195 Lodglllg S 4117 llO EAR 111244 Ril/·Carlton McLean American Express

111ll019~ Lodglllg S ~)O 4'1 EAR 1Il704 RII/·Carlton Naples. FL American Express

1111l0/'l Lodgmg S '11 50 EAR 1Il704 Sheraton Charleston. SC American Express

113/]1l/'l5 Lodglllg S 15425 EAR 1137114 TO\\II & COUIII!) Hotel San Diego American Express

113110/95 Lodgmg S 21669 EAR 113704 Town & Countl)' Hotel San Diego American Express

OJ/31/95 Pcr Diem S 450()() Memo '161995 30 da)'s (a'S 15/day McLean Cash

03/31195 Mcals S 13lll)() EAR 1157911 La Colline Washington D.C. American Express

OJ/JII95 Meals S 18300 EAR 115790 The Palm Washington D.C. American Express

04/14/95 Telephone S 142.37 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

04/28/95 Lodging S 160.13 EAR 115790 Best Western Rosemont. IL American Express

04/28/95 Lodging S 18.89 EAR 115790 Dobson Ranch Inn Mesa.AZ American Express

04/28/95 Lodging S 88.48 EAR 115790 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express

0-1/28/95 Lodging S 211.41 EAR #5190 Wyndham Hotel Atlanta American Express

04/28/95 Lodging S 262.75 EAR 115190 Wyndham Hotel Allanta American Express

04/30/95 Pcr Diem S 360.00 Memo 961995 24 days {(jJ S15/day McLean Cash

't1~ 0-1130195 Airfare S 60.00 EAR #5190 America Wesl Tempe. AZ American Express i 0-3 (W30/95 Airfare S 6000 EAR #5790 America West Tempe. AZ American Express pi ""'",, Ai",,, S 6000 EAR 115790 America West Tempe. AZ American Express

04/30195 Meals S 218 II EAR #5190 Bedford Village Inn Bedford. NH American Express

'~ O-i/J0/95 Meals S 151.UO EAR 115790 Chen Yang Li Bedford. NH American Express

0'''0'''' Ai"," S 151.00 EAR 115190 Delta Airlines Huntsville. AL American Express r. _ 04130/95 Airfare S 151.00 EAR 115790 Delta Airlines Huntsville. AL American Express

04/30195 Telephone S H48 EAR #5190 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

PJB T",,'R.,,,,,,, E,po""" Page 2 of 17 3/24/99
~J1 &'::11 r'h".oo:f> - n~ti ..u~:-tt:'~ 1i Wu~, ·'11 :El' - - - - - - - ... - - ... - .. OW ... ... n:,,, ;r,:= ~; L .,l~ !!! _... !r~~~ ,,,,:t II! 'ir'..:'!il =-::,; I,:.J;

I Dal~ Elpen..r T,pe Amllunl Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

04/)0/95 Telephone S 1R 63 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

0-1/)0195 Lodging S 69 13 EAR #57\)1) Ilamplon Inn Omaha. NE American Express

04/)0195 Lodging S IR911 EAR #5790 Ilollday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

04/)0195 Lodgmg S 620 -15 EAR #57\)1) Ilollday Inn Manch~51er. NH American Express

0-1/]0195 Lodging S 26305 EAR #57\)1) Holel Fon Des Moines Des Moines American Express

04/)0195 Meals S 25 R.t EAR #57\)1) Ilyal! Dallas American Express

0-1/30/95 Lodging S R400 EAR #5790 Ilyal! Dallas American Express

<W30/95 Lodging S 36 JJ EAR 1157<)() Marriol! Denver American Express

04130/95 Lodging S 143 J9 EAR 1157\)1) Marriol! Den\'er American Express

tW30195 Lodging S 216 HEAR #5790 Marriol! Huntsville. AL American Express

0.j130195 Airfare S (428 ()(JI EAR 115790 Northwesl Airlines Minneapolis American Express

04/30195 Meals S 10400 EAR #5790 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express

04/)0195 Meals S (0510 EAR #5790 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express

04110195 Meals S 9501 EAR 115790 The Garden Cafe Omaha. NE American Express

04110195 AIrfare S 292 1M) EAR #5790 USAir Manchester. NH American Express

U.j/1U195 Airfare S 292 1M) EAR #57<)() USAir Manchester. NH American Express

U41lU/95 Lodgmg S 16272 EAR 1157\)1) Wyndham flolel Phoenix. AZ American Express

o51l0J<)5 Gas S IR07 Memo 96U4U I Che\'Ton Del Ray Beach.FL VISA

U5/1ON5 LocIgmg S 156 29 Memo '!6040 I (omfort Inn York. PA VISA

05/1ON5 Telephone S 5 15 Memo l}6040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

051 10195 Telephone S 5 15 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone S 7.73 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone S 7.73 Memo 960.jO I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05110/95 Telephone S 7.73 Memo 960.j1JI GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05110195 Telephone S 10.30 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ HUO Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

051WI95 Telephone S 12.88 Memo 96O.tOI GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 18 03 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

t'd~ 05/10/95 Telephone $ 23. 18 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

i~ 051 1tl/95 Telephone $ 25.75 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05110/95 Telephone $ 30.90 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 3348 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05110/95 Telephone S J3,48 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone S 38.63 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

N- 05/10195 Telephone S 46 35 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05110195 Telephone S 5150 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. lL VISA

05/10195 Gas S 23 15 Memo 96040 I Mobil Newcumbcr. PA VISA

05110/95 Taxi S 4500 Memo 96040 I Yellow Cab Denver VISA

PJB Trr '.elated Expenses Page 3 . ., <)9
.., 'iI!I <3!1' 'ill' " .. • v .... ., ., .. ,. .. • .... .., ,. ,. • .. • •• ~':;~,e, !~ii:~~,~f~,~'ti••••!II••••••••••III

I Date [spense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

>0 f>-

I" >-3

il>< >-3 .1;

i(}¥

:-~>-3

."

...,

05120/95 Telephone

0513 1/95 Per Diem

0513 1/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Airfare

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05131195 Lodging

05131/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

05131/95 Meals

05/31/95 Lodging

05131195 Lodging

05131/95 Meals

(51) 1/95 Lodging

05/31/95 Lodging

0513 1195 Lodging

U6/0 1/95 Telephone

06//5/95 Telephone

06/15/95 Telephone

06129/95 Lodging

06129/95 Lodging

06129/95 Lodging

06/29/95 Lodging

06129/95 Lodging

06/30/95 Per Diem

06/30/95 Meals

06/30/95 Lodging

06130/95 Miscellaneous

06/30/95 Miscellaneous

061)0/95 Telephone

06130/95 Lodging

06/30/95 Lodging

061)0/95 Meals

06/30/95 Lodging

07/26/95 Telephone

PJB Travel Related Expenses

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

S

$

$

S

$

$

$

S

$

$

S

S

S

S

S

S

25.11 Memo 96040 Ia Motorola

405.00 Memo 961995 27 days@$15/day

34.10 EAR #5790 Broadwalk Pla7.3

30600 EAR #5790 Delta Airlines

167.00 EAR #5790 Harbor Court Hotel

541.71 EAR #5790 HarborCoun Hotel

102.60 EAR fi5790 Henlopen Hotel

13369 EAR #5790 Hilton

425 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn

135 10 EAR fi5790 Holiday Inn

53.80 EAR #5790 Hyall

131.64 EAR #5790 Hyall

2700 EAR #5790 Murphy's Stale House

257.89 EAR #5790 Radisson

47.50 EAR #5790 Ramada Inn

8000 EAR #5790 Rusty Rudder

3J 18 EAR #5790 Sheraton

10704 EAR #5790 Sheraton

43646 EAR #5790 Sheraton

537.00 Memo 96040 Ia Bell Atlantic

235.16 Memo 96040la Bell Allamic

22.00 Memo 96040la Motorola

221.5 I EAR #5790 Hilton

462.06 EAR #5790 Hotel Fan Des Moines

220.67 EAR #5790 Hotel Somerset

23.27 EAR #5790 L'Auberge

301.85 EAR #5790 L'Auberge

435.00 Memo 961995 29 days @ SIS/day

61.00 EAR fi5790 Amalgamated Spirit

112.94 EAR #5790 Best Western

(\ 50.17) EAR #5790 Counts Western Wear

796.]0 EAR #5790 Counts Western Wear

2.58 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone

191.75 EAR #5790 Hyall

404.58 EAR #5790 H}'au

116.00 EAR #5790 Ruth's Chris Steak House

245.44 EAR fi5790 Sheraton

19305 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic

Page 4 of 17

McLean

Mclean

Rehoboth, DE

Cincinnati

Baltimore, MD

Baltimore. MD

Rehoboth, DE

LaFayelle, LA

Manchester, NH

Manchester. NH

Orlando. FL

Orlando, FL

Concord. NH

Florence. KY

Metairie, LA

Dewey Beach, DE

Tampa. FL

Tampa, FL

Metairie. LA

Mclean

Mclean

Mclean

Sioux City. IA

Des Moines

Somerset, NJ

Del Mar. CA

Del Mar, CA

McLean

Cedar Rapids, fA

Lavale. MD

Washington D.C.

Washington D.C.

Oak Brook. IL

Greenville. SC

Greenville. SC

Arlington. VA

Cedar Rapids. lA

McLean

Checking

Cash

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Checking

Checking

Checking

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Cash

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Checking

3/24/99
22- 07' ,:,"rli-Jr.·''''' i[..'~'t:n .. ~l,- - - ........... - .......... ., -.,. ... If! ..1 t,1 lbfl ;t;'6,;::!1 !o/! Ir ... 11.)1

I Date ESp!DK Typ! Amount Rde~nce MenblUlt City Payment Method I

07/26/95 Telephone $ 25721 Memo 960401a Motorola McLean Checking

07/29/95 Meals $ 80.25 EAR 114272 Brad}"s San Diego American Express

07/29195 Lodging $ 88 34 EAR 114272 Courtyard Phoenix. AZ American Express

07/29195 Lodging $ 109.21 EAR 114272 Courtyard Phoenix. AZ American Express

07129195 Lodging $ IJ161 EAR II·U72 Embassey Suites Des Moines American Express

07129195 Lodging $ 197.118 EAR 114272 Embassey Suites Des Moines American Express

07/29/95 Lodging $ 5943 EAR 114272 Holiday Inn Phoenix. AZ American Express

07129195 Lodging $ 75.114 EAR 114272 Holiday Inn Dubuque.IA American Express

07/29/95 Meals $ 7800 EAR 114272 Host International Detroit. MI American Express

07129/95 Lodging $ 3180 EAR 114272 Hyall San Diego American Express

07129195 Lodging $ 49.44 EAR 114272 Hyall San Diego American Express

07129195 Lodging S 197.8!! EAR 114272 Hyall Sacramento. CA American Express

07/29/95 Meals S 76.00 EAR 114272 Imperial House Des Moines American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 18550 EAR 114272 Martioll Detroit. MI American Express

07/29195 Lodging $ 19323 EAR 114272 Martioll SI. Louis. MO American Express

07129195 Meals S 67 IJ EAR 114272 Noah's Restaurant Des Moines American Express

117/29195 Meals $ 93 93 EAR 114272 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester, NH American Express

07/29195' lodging $ IJ I 7J EAR 114272 Radisson Omaha, NE American Express

07/29195 lodging S 166 89 EAR 114272 Radisson Omaha. NE American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 1137 EAR 114272 Red Lion Hotels & Inns Glendale, CA American Express

07129195 Lodging S 183 14 EAR 114272 Red Lion Hotels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

07/29/95 Lodging $ 541 EAR 114272 Ritz-Carhon Pasadena. CA American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 13.75 EAR 114272 Rilz-Carhon Luguna. CA American Express

07129/95 Lodging S 56.29 EAR 114272 Ritz-Carhon Marina Del Ray American Express

07129/95 Lodging $ 154.97 EAR 114272 Ritz-Carhon Pasadena. CA American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 327.61 EAR 114272 Ritz-Carllon Luguna. CA American Express

07/29195 Lodging S 55410 EAR 114272 Ritz-Carhon San Francisco American Express

07129195 Lodging $ 664.82 EAR 114272 Ritz-Carhon Marina Del Ray American Express

07129/95 Lodging $ 14.82 EAR 114272 Stouffer Denver American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 162.11 EAR 114272 Stouffer Denver American Express

r~ 07129/95 Meals S 113.00 EAR 114272 The Drover Omaha, NE American Express

07129/95 Airfare S 100.00 EAR 114272 TranWorld Air 51. Louis. MO American Express

07/29/95 Airfare S 75.00 EAR 114272 USAir New York American Express

07/29/95 Airfare $ 75.00 EAR 114272 USAir New York American Express

07129195 Lodging $ 55.74 EAR 114272 Villa Hotel San Mateo. CA American Express

07129195 Lodging S 270.78 EAR #4272 Wyndham Franklin Plaza Philadelphia American Express

07131/95 Per Diem S 390.00 Memo 961995 26 days 'ii! Sl5/day' McLean Cash

08110/95 Limo $ 18600 EAR 114272 A-I Limo McLean Checking

PJB Tra' . ~elaled Expenses Page 5,.'·7 "99
- - - ~"'~.,' !l!n!~.. ,!Il,~~"j\.'!..,••••••••••••••••

I Date ExpenR Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

08/10/95 Lodging S 555.05 Memo 960401 Embassey Suites Coraopolis. PA VISA

08/10/95 Meals S 207.00 Memo 960401 Greenhouse Cafe Amherst. NH VISA

08/10/95 Telephone S 5.15 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

08/10/95 Telephone S 30.40 Memo 96040 J GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

08/10/95 Telephone S 30.90 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

08/10/95 Meals S 132.00 Memo 960401 Hannah Java Tavern Merrimack. NH VISA

08/10/95 Meals S 300.00 Memo 960401 Legal Sea Foods Boston VISA

08110/95 Lodging S 175.19 Memo 960401 Mamoll Kansas City. MO VISA

08/10/95 Meals S 60.71 Memo 96040 I Nouvelle Omaha. NE VISA

08110/95 Lodging S 213.92 Memo 960401 Park Plaza Boston VISA

08110/95 Meals S 56.42 Memo 96040 I Ritz Carlton San Francisco VISA

08/10/95 Lodging S 304.94 Memo 96040 I Theos Lawton. IA VISA

08/10/95 Meals S 29,04 Memo 960401 WH Smith Boston VISA

08/10/95 Meals S 97.00 Memo 960401 Wild Bills Red Bluff. CA VISA

08/11/95 Telephone S 2200 Memo 96040la Motorola Mclean Checking

08122195 Telephone S 203 76 Memo 960401a Bell Allanlic Mclean Checking

08/29195 Telephone S 5.45 EAR #1438 AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL American Express

08/29195 Lodging S 271.61 EAR #1438 Bedford Village Inn Bedford. NH American Express

08/29195 Lodging S 65.49 EAR #1438 Best Western Council Blfs. IA American Express

08/29195 Lodging S 209,81 EAR /11438 Besl Wcslcrn Des Moines American Express

08/29195 Lodging S 65.25 EAR #1438 Black Hawk Hoyel Davenport. IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging S 323.05 EAR /11438 Collins Pla7.3 Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

08129195 Lodging S 140.44 EAR /11438 Days Inn Ottumwa.IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging S 233:38 EAR /11438 Embassey Suites Charlolle. NC American Express

08129/95 Lodging S 1,466.02 EAR /11438 Embassy Suites Des Moines American Express

08129/95 Meals S 119.00 EAR #1438 Fisherman's Bay Boston American Express

08129/95 Meals S 158.28 EAR /11438 Fisherman's Bay Ottumwa,lA American Express

08129/95 Meals S 28.27 EAR #1438 Garden Cafe Council Blfs. IA American Express

08129/95 Telephone S 5.15 EAR#1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

IS 08/29/95 Telephone S 7.73 EAR /11438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08129/95 Telephone S 10.30 EAR #1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

g I> 08/29195 Telephone S 30.90 EAR /11438 GTE AirfaRe Oak Brook, IL American Express

~e 08/29/95 Lodging S 77.28 EAR #1438 Hilton Sioux City, IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging S 116.48 EAR #1438 Hilton Sioux City, IA American Express .-.j 08129195 Lodging S 68.67 EAR #1438 Holiday Inn Watcrloo, IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging S 10763 EAR /11438 Holiday Inn Independence. OH American Express

08/29/95 Lodging S 114.35 EAR #1438 Holiday Inn Concord. NH Amcrican Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 171.09 EAR #1438 Holiday Inn Mason City. IA American Express

PJS Travel Related Expenses Page 6 of 17 3/24199
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ~:~:~~,. ~IL,.~"'".il-~:"'"!! - - ••••••••••••• 4

I Date [spease Type Amount Refereac:e Mercbant City Payment Metbod I

08/29/95 Lodging $ 1894 EAR'1438 Jlyall Dallas American Express

08/29195 Lodging $ 28675 EAR '\438 Jlyall Dallas American Express

08129/95 Lodging S 637 41 EAR "438 H)'att Dallas American Express

08/29195 Meals S 360() EAR" 438 King Sea Chinese Rest Souix City, IA American Express

()8/29/95 Lodging S 339 82 EAR n08 Meridian Boston American Express

0812 9/95 Meals $ 1S202 EAR' 1438 M's Restaurant Omaha, NE American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 6500 EAR '1438 Noah's Restaurant Des Moines American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 89.00 EAR "438 Outback Steakhouse Cedar Rapids, IA American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 267.00 EAR 11438 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 284.25 EAR '14]8 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

08/31195 Per Diem $ 25100 Memo 961995 17 days@Sl5lday McLean Cash

OS/31/95 Meals S 271.61 EAR '5790 Bedford Village Inn Bedford, NH American Express

08/31/95 Meals $ 95.00 EAR #5790 Hunan Lion Vienna. VA American Express

09/02/95 Telephone S 202.IS EAR #3704 Bell Atlantic McLean Checking

09/10/95 Lodging $ 1J4.40 Memo 96040 I Kenmore Inn Fredricksburg.VA VISA

09/14/95 Telephone $ 50 ()() EAR 13704 Motorola Chicago Checking

09/15/95 Telephone $ 28 O(} Memo 96040 Ia Motorola McLean Checking

09/29/95 Lodging $ 1280S EAR #1438 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

09129195 Telephone $ 2972 EAR #1438 AT&T AirOne jacksonville. FL American Express

09/29195 Lodging $ (21696) EAR #\4]8 Balsams Grand Hotel Dixville Nch. NH American Express

09/29/95 Meals S 85.64 EAR 1/1438 Cafe Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

09/29/95 Meals $ 48.00 EAR 1/14]8 Don AleJandros Las Vegas American Express

09129195 Lodging $ \10.00 EAR 1/1438 Eastgale Motor Inn Littleton, NH American Express

09129/95 Miscellaneous $ 74.49 EAR 1/1438 EMS Manchester, NH American Express

09/29/95 Telephone $ 5.15 EAR 1/1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

09/29/95 Telephone $ 5.1S EAR 1/1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

09/29/95 Telephone $ 4120 EAR 1114]8 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

09129195 Telephone $ 43.78 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

09129/95 Telephone $ 59.23 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

09129/95 Meals S 200.00 EAR 111438 Hennessy's Columbia, SC American Express

r~ 09129195 Lodging S 113.40 EAR II 1438 Hilton Las Vegas American Express

09/29/95 Lodging $ 227.69 EAR 111438 Hilton Pittsburgh. PA American Express

09129/95 Lodging $ 307.14 EARII1438 Hilton Ocala, FL American Express

09129/95 Lodging S 562.43 EAR #1438 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

09/29/95 Lodging $ 122.67 EAR 111438 Hotel Fan Des Moines Des Moines American Express

09/29/95 Lodging $ 179.53 EAR II 1438 Hyatt Greenville. SC American Express

~I- 09/29195 Lodging S 32.54 EAR 111438 Laughlin Nev Las Vegas American Express

09/29/95 Meals $ 108.5 I EAR II 1438 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express

PJB Tra' ~elated Expenses Page 7' 9
------ _______ •• w ••••••••••~~~~~.~~,~_••••••••••••••••4

I Date Espeo5e Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

09/29/95 Meals S 175.00 EAR 111438 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester, NH American Express

09129/95 Lodging $ 18.18 EAR #/438 Radisson Orlando, FL American Express

09/29/95 Lodging S 104.34 EAR 111438 Radisson Orlando, FL American Express

09129/95 Lodging $ 83.84 EAR 111438 Rcsidence Inn Gaincsville, FL American Express

09129/95 Meals $ 99.00 EAR II /438 Steak & Ale Gainesville, FL American Express

09129/95 Lodging S 19440 EAR #1438 The Highlander Inn Manchester, NH American Express

09/29/95 Lodging S 9630 EAR 111438 The Wilcox Inn Aiken, SC American Express

09/29/95 Lodging S 4104 EAR 111438 Travelcr Motel Berlin, NH American Express

09/30/95 Pcr Diem $ 315.00 Memo 961995 21 days@$15/day Mclean Cash

09/30/95 Miscellaneous S 104.50 EAR 115790 Macy's Mclean American Express

09130/95 Meals S 97.00 EAR 115790 Ritz Carlton Mclean American Express

10/02/95 Telephone $ 214.38 EAR 113704 Bell Atlantic Mclean Checking

10/06/95 FIR Event S 688.96 Memo 951222 MacArthur Beverage Mclean Checking

10/07/95 Telephone $ 41231 EAR 113704 Motorola Chicago Checking

10/08/95 Taxi S 18400 EAR 113704 A-I Limo Mclean Checking

10/1 0/95 Telephone $ 30 I 00 Memo 96040 Ia Bell Allamic McLean Checking

1011 0/95 Supplics S 25 00 EAR 113704 EMS Manchester, NH VISA

10/10195 Miscellaneous $ 49.99 Memo 960401 EMS Manchesler. NH VISA

1011 0195 Meals $ 17.00 EAR 113704 Host International San Francisco VISA

10/10/95 Meals $ (17001 Memo 960401 Host International San Francisco VISA

10/10/95 Meals $ 17.00 Memo 960401 Host International San Francisco VISA

10//0/95 Miscellaneous $ 152.50 Memo 960401 Wallachs Manchester. NH VISA

10/29/95 Meals S 105.00 EAR 111438 Austins Omaha, NE American Express

10/29/95 Lodging $ 70.53 EAR 111438 Besl Western Clinton,IA American Express

10/29/95 Lodging $ 218.86 EAR 111438 Best Western Fort Dodge, IA American Express

10/29/95 Lodging S 84.80 EAR 111438 Breakers Hotel Spring Lake, NJ American Express

10/29/95 Meals $ 150.00 EAR 111438 Cafe Paradiso Tampa, FL American Express

10/29/95 Meals S 128.00 EAR 111438 Chen Yang Li Bedford, NH American Express

10/29/95 Lodging S 88.63 EAR 111438 Comfort Inn YOkenportsmth,NH American Express

I~ 10/29/95 Lodging S 345.36 EAR 111438 Embassey Suiles Tampa, FL American Express

10/29/95 Meals S 31.08 EARII1438 Garden Cafe Council Blfs, IA American Express

~~.~ 10129/95 Lodging $ 249.10 EAR 111438 Hillon Mesa,AZ American Express

10/29/95 Lodging S 275.48 EAR 111438 Hillan Sioux City, IA American Exprcss ~3 10/29/95 Lodging S 207.67 EAR 111438 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

? 1_ 10/19/95 Lodging $ .196.73 EAR 111438 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

10/29195 Lodging S ))063 EAR 111438 Hotel Fort Des Moines Des Moines American Express

10/29/95 Lodging $ 13200 EAR 111438 Marriott Orlando. FL American Express

10129/95 Lodging S 163.04 EAR #1438 Marriott Orlando, FL American Express

PJ8 Travel Rela/ed Expenses Page 8 of 17 3/24/99
...................................... - - tt:!I[!-.,l!!I"',! eii!!:!' ~~~.fl"·· ·

I Date ExpenR Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

r~i.~::

~.:.:

A~J.T"

10/29195 Lodging $

10/29/95 Lodging $

10/29/95 Lodging $

10/29/95 Lodging $

10129195 Lodging $

10/29/95 Miscellaneous $

10/29195 Meals $

10/29/95 Lodging $

10/29/95 Lodging $

10/29/95 Meals $

Ion 1/95 Per Diem $

11110/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11110/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11110/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

11/10/95 Telephone $

I 1/10/95 Telephone $

11110/95 Telephone $

11/10195 Telephone $

II/10195 Miscellaneous $

11/10/95 Miscellaneous S

11/10195 Miscellaneous S

11/10/95 Meals $

11/10/95 Lodging S

11/11195 Telephone S

11/21/95 Telephone $

11/24/95 Bar Tab S

11/24195 Telephone S

11124/95 Telephone S

11/25/95 Telephone S

laled Expenses

18187 EAR 111·08 Marriott

213.64 EAR 111·08 Marriott

307.79 EAR 111438 Marriott

439.03 EAR 111438 Marriott

27150 EAR #1438 Monleleone Holel

34.29 EAR 111438 Presidenl5 Rvr Clb

105.40 EAR 111438 Puritan Back Rm Reslr

218.53 EAR #1438 Sheraton

26\.00 EAR 111438 Sheraton

68.02 EAR 111438 The First Edition

360.00 Memo961995 24days@$15Iday

5.45 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

8.32 EAR #3704 GTE Airfone

832 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

II 20 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

II 20 EAR IIJ704 GTE Airfone

1120 Memo 9604UI GTE Airfone

1120 Memo 96040 ( GTE Airfone

16.94 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

16.94 Memo 9604UI GTE Airfone

22.69 EAR #3704 GTE Airfone

22.69 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

39.93 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

39.93 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

57.18 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

57.18 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

110.00 EAR 113704 The Coslume Gallery

(\ 10.00) Memo 960401 The Costume Gallery

110.00 Memo 96040 I The Costume Gallery

37.51 EAR 113704 Town Clock Inn

37.51 Memo 960401 Town Clock Inn

600.00 Memo 960401a Bell Atlantic

581.30 Memo 96040 Ia Bell Atlantic

426.65 EAR #3704 MacArthur Beverage

40.02 EAR #3704 Motorola

413.00 Memo 96040la Motorola

200.84 EAR 113704 Bell Atlantic

Page 9 r

Newark,NJ

Newark, NJ

Omaha. NE

Greenville. SC

New Orleans, LA

Davenport. IA

Manchester, NH

Cedar Rapids, IA

Cedar Rapids. IA

Sioux City. IA

Mclean

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook, IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook, IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Manchesler. NH

Derry, NH

Derry. NH

Dubuque.IA

Dubuque.IA

Mclean

Mclean

Mclean

Chicago

Mclean

Mclean

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Cash

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

Checking

Checking

Checking

Checking

Checking

Checking

)
--------~--

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T:::!:,!:!:"": r.lI Y ~ltY[-~m~~"'I·!!;· • • .... • .. • .. • .. • • • • •

I Vate E.lpenJe Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

11/25/95 Telephone S 40.00 Memo 96040la Molorola Mclean Checking

11/28/95 Meals S 140.00 EAR 111438 Angus Sleak Ranch Pensacola, FL American Express

11/28/95 Telephone S 7.92 EAR 111438 AT&T AilOne Jacksonville, FL . American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 309.62 EAR 111438 Best Weslern Sedona, AZ American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 1,599.61 EAR 111438 Breakers Holel Palm Beach. FL American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 169.57 EAR 111438 Caplain Cook Holel Anchorage, AI( American Express

11/28/95 Meals S 160.00 EAR 111438 Charlie's Crab Palm Beach, FL American Express

11/28/95 Meals S 211.00 EARII1438 Cole's Restaurant Buffalo, NY American Express

11/28/95 Airfare S 1.224.00 EAR 111438 Delta Airlines Fairbanks, AI( American Express

11128/95 Airfare $ 1,224.00 EAR #1438 Delta Airlines Fairbanks, AI( American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 199.42 EAR #1438 Fairbanks Princess Fairbanks, AI( American Express

11/28/95 Telephone $ 5.45 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

11/28/95 Telephone $ 5.45 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

11/28/95 Telephone $ 1120 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

11/28/95 Telephone S 7442 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

11/28/95 Telephone S 77 29 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 111.93 EAR 111438 Hanover Inn Hanover. NH American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 141.60 EAR 111438 Hillon Phoenix. AZ American Express

J1/28/9.5 Lodgmg S 348.31 EAR 111438 Hillon Chicago American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 2.56.51 EAR 111438 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 3300 EAR 111438 Hospitalily Inn Pensacola, FL American Express

11/28/9.5 Miscellaneous S 69.99 EAR 111438 Hosl International Anchorage, AI( American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 18218 EARII1438 Huntington Hotel Melville. NY American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 168.37 EAR 111438 Hyatt Buffalo, NY American Express

I 1/28/9.5 Lodging S 131.72 EARII1438 Mamoll Denver American Express

11/28/9.5 Lodging S 19932 EAR 111438 Mamoll Cleveland American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 250.00 EAR 111438 Mamoll Orlando, FL American Express

11/28/95 Meals S 10200 EAR 111438 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester. NH American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 33.34 EAR 111438 Red Lion HOlels & Inns Glendale, CA American Express

11/28/9.5 Lodging S 30.5.10 EAR 111438 Red Lion HOlels & Inns Glendale, CA American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 109.89 EAR 111438 Residence Inn Lalham, NY American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 11611 EAR 111438 Residence Inn Lalham. NY American Express

11/28/9.5 Lodging S 12.99 EAR 111438 Ritz-Carllon New York American Express

11/28/9.5 Lodging S 484.37 EAR 111438 Rilz-Carllon New York American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 110.50 EAR 111438 Sheraton Windsor Locks.CT American Express

11/28/9.5 Lodging $ 159.32 EAR IIJ438 Sheralon Windsor Locks.CT American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 13.21 EAR 111438 Shilo Ponland Ponland, OR American Express

11/28/95 Meals S 186.40 EAR #1438 Sleak& Chop Des Moines American Express

PJB Travel Relaled Expenses Page 10 of 17 3/24/99
------~~~~~~~~~~~~~..............••

I Date Espease Type Amouat Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

11/28/95 Lodging $ 2202'7 EAR 11'1·08 The CIiR Hotel San Francisco American Express

I 1/28/95 Airfare $ MI.OO EAR 11'1438 United Airlines Mclean American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 8769 EAR 11'1418 Weslmark Baranor Juneau, AK American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 16945 EAR 111438 Westmark Baranor Juneau, AK American Express

11/28/95 Lodging $ 21969 EAR 11'1418 Westmark Baranof Juneau, AK American Express

11128/95 Lodging $ 30545 EAR 11'1438 Woodlands Plaza Hotel Flagstaff, AZ American Express

11/30/95 Per Diem $ 390.00 Memo 961995 26 days (jj) SI5/day Mclean Cash

12/02/95 Telephone S 30838 EAR 113704 Bell Atlantic Mclean Checking

12/08/95 FIR Event S 1,624.85 Memo 951222 MacArthur Be\'erage Mclean Checking

12/10/95 Meals $ 51.20 Memo 96040 J Edward Palm Beach, FL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone $ 1120 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

12/I0/95 Telephone S I 1.20 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone S 34.19 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone S 34.19 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

J2/10/95 Telephone S 38.62 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone S 1862 Memo %0401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

12/20/95 Telephone S 10516 EAR 111704 Motorola Chicago Checking

12120/95 Telephone S 106 OIl Memo 9604() Ia Motorola McLean Checking

12/22/95 Miscellaneous S 53818 EAR 113704 Ale.~andria Florisl Alexandria. VA Checking

12/22/95 Miscellaneous S 97707 EAR 113704 Classic Tents Alexandria, VA Checking

12/22/95 FIR Evenl $ 977.07 Memo 951222 Classic Tents Mclean Checking

12/31/95 Per Diem S 405.00 Memo 961995 27 days @ S15/day Mclean Cash

12/31/95 Airfare S 539.00 EAR 11'5790 American Airlines Shreveport, LA American Express

12/31/95 Airfare S 539.00 EAR 115790 American Airlines Shreveport, LA American Express

12/31/95 Airfare $ 539.00 EAR #5790 American Airlines Shreveport, LA American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 62.95 EAR #5790 Best Western Fort Dodge, 1A American Express

12/31/95 Lodging $ 124.88 EAR #5790 Best Western Burlington, IA American Express

J2/3 1/95 Miscellaneous S 389.80 EAR 113704 BFP Expenses Mclean UndoclDuplicale

12/31/95 Miscellaneous S (389.80) EAR 113704 BFP Expenses Mclean UndoclDuplicate Ie; 12/31/95 Lodging S 84.22 EAR #5790 Black Hawk Hoyel Davenport, IA American Express

12/31/95 Meals S 104.00 EAR #5790 Cafe Pavone Manchester, NH American Express

M I2/31/95 Airfare S 20.00 EAR #5790 Delta Airlines Atlanta American Express

12/3 1/95 Lodging S (126.61) EAR #5790 EI Conquistador Resort Tucson, AZ American Express

.~ 12/31/95 Lodging S 126.61 EAR #5790 EI Conquistador Resort Tucson, AZ American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 126.61 EAR #5790 EI Conquistador Resort Tucson, AZ American Express "I 12/3 1/95 Lodging S 56.53 EAR #5790 Fairfield Inn Ollumwa,lA American Express 't\::,d- 12/J 1/95 Meals S 52.74 EAR #5790 Fisherman's Bay Ottumwa,IA American Express I , 12/31/95 Telephone S 5.45 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

:~ PJBTral 'Ialed Expenses Page 11' 1
••••••••••••••••••••••••••erJE."l.'" •••••~."I 1IIIII"'JlJ111l

I Dale EIpt:nJe Type Amount Reference Men:haot City Payment Method I

3/24/99

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

Oak Brook, IL

Baton Rouge

lafayette, LA

Mason City, IA

Cedar Rapids, IA

Roswell, GA

Roswell, GA

Manchester, NH

Roswell, GA

Dubuque,IA

Manchester, NH

Des Moines

Des Moines

Des Moines

Cedar Rapids, IA

Manchester, NH

Bossier City, LA

Roswell, GA

Mclean

Phoenix, AZ

Mclean

Mclean

Jacksonville, fI..

Jacksonville, fI..

Palm Beach, fI..

Palm Beach, fI..

Palm Beach, fI..

Palm Beach. fI..

Palm Beach, FL

Palm Beach, fI..

Palm Beach, fI..

Palm Beach, fI..

Palm Beach. fI..

Palm Beach. fI..

Palm Beach, FL

Palm Beach, FL

Palm Beach, FL

Palm Beach, FL

GTE Airfone

Hilton

Hilton

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Marriott

Marriott

Marriott

Outback Steakhouse

Puritan Back Rm Restr

Ralph & Kacoo's

Red Lobster

Ritz Carlton

Ritz-Carlton

USAir

USAir

AT&T AirOne

AT&T AirOne

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

Page 12 of 17

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR 1/5790

Memo '}60401

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

Memo 96040 I

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

Memo 96040 I

Memo 960401

Memo 96040 I

Memo 960401

Memo 960401

25.56

88.80

110.50

75.57

107.11

11711

120.20

152.63

284.85

284.98

1.233.19

11537

218.40

219)8

54.00

1)600

135.59

10920

) '}O.00

508.55

5UO

52.50

5.56

835

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

5.45

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

12/31195 Telephone

12/31/95 Lodging

12131/95 Lodging

12131/95 Lodging

12131/95 Lodging

12/31/95 Lodging

12/31/95 Lodging

12131/95 Lodging

12131/95 Lodging

12/31/95 Lodging

12131/95 Lodging

12/31/95 Lodging

12/31/95 Lodging

12/31/95 Lodging

12/) 1/95 Meals

1213 1/95 Meals

12/31/95 Meals

121) 1/95 Meals

12131/95 Meals

)21) 1/95 Lodging

J 2131195 Airfare

12131/95 Airfare

01110/96 Telephone

01110/96 Telephone

01110/96 Telephone

01110/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

01110/96 Telephone

01/1 0/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

01110/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

01110/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

01/10/96 Telephone

~JI ';

I I g,

H~JB Tm"r "".." E,,,,,",,.
-_. -- 

- ------- --

• ....• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .~"'."~,- ... _J,,-':'''r..1e ••••••, , , • , , , , 4

I Date ESp!n~Typ! Amount Reference Men:bant City Payment Metbod I

01/10/% Telephone $ 7 7J Memo Y6()4111 Gff Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

o1/10/% Telephone S 7.73 Memo Y6()40' Gff Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/% Telephone S 7.73 Memo Y6()40' Gff AirfollC Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110/% Telephone S 8 J2 Memo %Q40 I GffAirfollC Palm Beach. fL VISA

01/10/% Telephone S 8 J2 Memo Y6()401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. fL VISA

01/10/% Telephone S 14 07 Memo Y6()40 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach, fL VISA

01/10/% Telephone S 14.07 Memo %0401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01/10/% Telephone S IHS Memo %0401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/10/% Telephone S IS.4S Memo %0401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/10/% Telephone $ IS.4S Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

o1/I0/% Telephone $ IHS Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. [L VISA

o I/1 0/% Telephone S IHS Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. [L VISA

o1/10/96 Lodging $ 171S Memo 960401 Hillon Balon Rouge VISA

01/10/96 Lodging $ 2385 Memo 960401 Younkers Sioux Cil}'. IA VISA

o1/10/96 Lodging $ 2966 Memo 960401 Younkers Siou.~ City, IA VISA

OlllONf, LodgIRg $ JS 78 Memo 96(40) Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

o 1/ION6 LodgIRg $ 127 19 Memo 960401 Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

o1/291W, LodgIRg $ 71 69 EAR 1#5790 Adam's Mark Columbia, SC American Express

01/29/96 LodgIRg $ 104 S6 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29196 LodgIRg $ 143 38 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia, SC American Express

01/29196 Lodging $ 31804 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29196 Lodging $ 465.75 EAR #5790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01129/96 Meals $ 72.59 EAR #5790 Austins Omaha. NE American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ [34.00 EAR #5790 Bedford Village Inn Bedford, NH American Express

01/29/96 Supplies $ 58.90 EAR #5790 Benjamin Books Denver American Express

01/29/96 Meals S 439.00 EAR #5790 Brennans Restaurant New Orleans, LA American Express

01/29196 Meals $ 93.25 EAR #5790 Cafe Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

o1129196 Meals S 99.00 EAR #5790 Chen Yang Li Bedford, NH American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 80.82 EAR #5790 Comfort Inn Memphis. TN American Express

!'!jib 01/29/96 Meals $ 140.00 EAR #5790 Copeland's Baton Rouge American Express i 01/29196 Airfare $ 185.27 EAR #5790 Delta Airlines Boston American Express

01/29/96 Airfare $ 185.27 EAR #5790 Delta Airlines Boston American Express

01/29/96 Airfare $ 185.27 EAR #5790 Delta Airlines Boston American Express

".:. 01129196 Airfare S 18527 EAR #5790 Della Airlines Boston American Express

~I 01/29/96 Telephone $ 42.81 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

01/29/96 Telephone $ 4568 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

() 1/29/96 Lodging S 24.16 EAR #5790 Hillon Baton Rouge American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 95.68 EAR #5790 Hilton Balon Rouge American Express

PJB Trz llated Expenses Page 13 }
~~~~~§~~6.ee •••••• IIIIIIII~.'1

I Date Elpense Type Amount Reference Mercbant City Payment Method I

01/29196 Lodging $ 146.10 EAR #5790 Hillon Anchorage. AI< American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 159.oo EAR #5790 Hillon Sioux City. IA American Express

01/29196 Lodging $ 16201 EAR #5790 Hilton Chicago American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 200.00 EAR #5790 Hilton Baton Rouge American Express

01/29196 Lodging $ 20201 EAR #5790 Hillon New Orleans, LA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 292.82 EAR #5790 Hillon Sioux City. IA American Express

01/29/% Lodging $ 52.58 EAR li5790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01/29/% Lodging $ 8247 EAR li5790 Holiday Inn Dubuque.IA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging .$ loo.73 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Monroe. LA American Express

01129/96 Lodging .$ 137.64 EAR li5790 Holiday Inn Seallle. WA American Express

01129/96 Lodging .$ 414.76 EAR li5790 Holiday Inn Manchesler. NH American Express

OJ/29196 Lodging $ 497.40 EAR li5790 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

01129/96 Lodging $ 70 I. 78 EAR li5790 Marrioll Des Moines American Express

01/29196 Lodging $ 71980 EAR #5790 Marrioll Des Moines American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 5306 EAR li5790 Omni New Orleans. LA American Express

01/29/96 Meals $ 48 75 EAR #5790 Pour La France Cafe Denver American Express

01/29/96 Lodgmg $ 7986 EAR #5790 Ramada Inn Shreveport. LA American Express

o 1/29/<J6 Lodgmg $ 31.39 EAR #5790 Rilz-Carllon New York American Express

01129/96 Lodging $ 741 52 EAR li5790 RiI7.-Carllon New York American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 58.00 EAR li5790 Sanstone Inn Fort Dodge. IA American Express

01129/96 Lodging .$ 92.99 EAR li5790 Sheralon Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

01129/96 Lodging .$ 132.78 EAR li5790 Sheraron Omaha. NE American Express

01129/96 Lodging $ )0136 EAR 115790 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

01/29196 Meals $ 20l.oo EAR #5790 Sleak & Chop Des Moines American Express

01/29/96 Meals $ 67.33 EAR 115790 TGI Friday's Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

01129196 Meals $ 115.oo EAR #5790 The First Edilion Sioux City. IA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 74.52 EAR 115790 The Highlander Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01/29/96 Lodging $ 19440 EAR 115790 The Highlander Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01/29/96 Miscellaneous $ 5.99 EAR 115790 Timberland Factory North Conway. NH American Express

01129/96 Miscellaneous $ 175.97 EAR 115790 Timberland Factory North Conway, NH American Express

f~ 01129/96 Lodging $ 29030 EAR #5790 Village Resort Spirit Lake. IA American Express

01/3 1/96 Per Diem $ 435.oo Memo 961995 29 days @ $15/day McLean Cash

02/10/96 Telephone $ 31.06 Memo 96040 I AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone $ 106.87 Memo 960401 AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL VISA

, . 02/10/96 Telephone $ 1.55 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

o I 02/10196 Telephone $ 1.55 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

H, '_ 02/10/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

H 02/10/96 Telephone $ 5,45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

PJB Travel Related Expenses Page 14 of 17 3/24/99
...... lIP •••••••u •••••••••••••• U:A,'!.lliiI~.,I..ti]II" I'" '.'....1

I Date Es"!nwTyp! Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

02110/96 Telephone S S45 Memo 96O~01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5 45 Memo 9604(11 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. lL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 8.32 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 8.32 Memo 96O~01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 8.32 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook.IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 11.20 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 1407 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 1545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 15 45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/1()/96 Telephone S 1545 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 9604ll f GTE Airfone Oak Brook. fL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 1619 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01//0/96 Telephone S ) I .11 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02//U/96 Telephone S 48.55 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 62.92 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 68.67 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 7442 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 74.42 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

0211 0/96 Meals S 72.60 Memo 960401 Monroe's Rest & Bar Mason Cily, IA VISA

0211 0/96 Meals S 72. 75 Memo 96040 I The CUlling Co Des Moines VISA

0211 0/96 Meals S 269.98 Memo 960401 The CUlling Co Des Moines VISA

02/10/96 Supplies S 101.18 Memo 960401 Walgreen Des Moines VISA

02110/96 Supplies S 159.87 Memo 960401 Walgreen Des Moines VISA

~~ 02/29196 Per Diem S 435.00 Memo 961995 29 days @ S15/day Mclean Cash

5~ 02129/96 Miscellaneous S (6.362.13) EAR 1/5790 BFP Expenses Mclean UndoclDuplicale

02129196 Miscellaneous $ 6.362.13 EAR 1/5790 BFP Expenses McLean UndoclDuplicale

02/29/96 Meals S 116.00 EAR 1/5790 Black Angus Phoeni.x. AZ American Express

8 02/29/96 Meals $ 120.01 EAR 1/5790 Cafe Pavone Manchester, NH American Express

~I 02129196 Meals S 152.47 EAR 115790 California Dreaming Greenville. SC American Express

02/29196 Meals S 21000 EAR 115790 Chen Yang Li Bedford. NH American Express

02129/96 Lodging S 60.00 EAR 1/5790 Collins Plaza Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

02129/96 Lodging S 68.25 EAR 1/5790 Holiday Inn Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

PJB Tra- sted Expenses Psge 15 3. J _./
................I I I 1.,1111111f:J:t"·1M1'"'."••',,1111

I Date Expense: Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

Page 16 of 17

02/29/96 Lodging

02/29/96 Lodging

02/29/96 Lodging

02/29/96 Lodging

02129/96 Lodging

02129/96 Lodging

02/29/96 Lodging

02/29/96 Lodging

02/29/96 Lodging

02/29/96 Lodging

02129/96 Lodging

02129/96 Miscellaneous

02/29/96 Meals

02129/96 Meals

02/29/96 Meals

02129196 Meals

02129/96 AIrfare

02129/96 Airfare

03/28196 FIR Event

03/29/96 FIR Event

03/30/96 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

03130/96 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

03130/96 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

i

I>- 03/30/96 Meals

::§ 03130196 Meals

t=; 03130/96 Meals

t1 03130/96 Meals

0313 1/96 Per Diem

04/10/96 FIR Event

c I 04/30/96 Per Diem

r? 05/10196 FIR Event M 05/10/96 Telephone 11 PJB Travel Related Expenses

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

94.41

98.12

142.26

173.13

188.19

212.31

240.89

683.25

254.85

782.59

1.024.31

299.98

102.00

116.00

18ll ()()

noo

40300

40300

645.t>6

688.00

11203

97.00

192.09

275.00

410.00

88.00

89.65

54.00

92.00

110.00

95.00

212.00

280.00

405.00

1,675.00

60.00

697.00

116.00

EAR #5790

EAR #5790

EAR #5790

EAR #5190

EAR #5790

EAR 1/5790

EAR /15790

EAR #5790

EAR #5190

EAR /15790

EAR /l57'X)

EAR #5790

EAR #5190

EAR #5790

EAR #5790

EAR #5790

EAR /15790

EAR #5790

Memo 960108

Memo 960708

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 960509

Memo 961995

Memo 960708

Memo 961995

Memo 960708

Memo 961114

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Hyan

Marrion

Marrion

Marrion

McCade. Inc.

Pier D'Orleans

Purilan Back Rm Restr

Puritan Back Rm Rcstr

The First Edition

Uniled Airlines

United Airlines

MacArthur Beverage

Miguel Yanos

BeechTree

Boston Steak House

Brennans Restaurant

Chicago Road Steak House

Hampton Street

Hunan Lion

Hunan Lion

Marrioll

Marriott

Old San Fran Steak House

Outback Steakhouse

Ritz Carlton

Ruth's Chris Steak House

21 days ({iJ S15/day

Chevy Chase Caterers

04 days (ii! S15/day

Alexandria Florist

Bell Atlantic

Manchester, NH

Lake Charles, LA

Lake Charles, LA

Monroe. LA

Lake Charles, LA

Davenport. IA

Mason City. lA

New Orleans, LA

Boston

Des Moines

Des Moines

Manchester, NH

Mesa.AZ

Manchester, NH

Manchester. NH

Sioux City. IA

Chicago

Chicago

Mclean

Mclean

Flint, MI

Greenville. SC

Houston. TX

Dearborn. MI

Columbia. SC

Vienna, VA

Vienna. VA

Chicago

Chicago

Dallas

Columbus. GA

McLean

Memphis. TN

McLean

McLean

McLean

McLean

McLean

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Checking

Checking

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

Cash

Checking

Cash

Checking

Checking

3/24/99
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -::n-',,- P.- -("l!'-"-- "~''''''-n'' U::"', lb,,, M' IL~ /' '" ~J1 !I! '1' ....,!l il:'...

I Date ElpcnKType Amount Reference Men:hant City Payment Method I

OS/30/96 Lodging S 37.4S Mcmo 96070Sa Best Western Pocatello. [0 American Express

OS/30/96 Meals S 93 79 Mcmo 960708a Carvers Charlotte. NC American Express

OS/30/96 Lodging S 99.68 Memo 960708a Hillon Sioux Cily. IA American Express

05/30/96 Meals S 127 70 Mcmo 960708a Irregardless Raleigh. NC American Express

05/30196 Meals S 11800 Memo 960708a Jakes Idaho Falls. ID American Express

05/30/96 Lodging S 228 97 Memo 96070Sa Radisson Raleigh. NC American Express

oS/3 0/96 Lodging S 9610 Memo 96070Sa Red Lion Hotels & Inns Boise.1D American Express

OS130/96 Lodging S 10693 Memo 960708a Red Lion Hotels & Inns Boise.1D American Express

OS130/96 Lodging S 125.83 Memo 960708a Sheraton Charlolle. NC American Express

05130/96 Meals S 14800 Memo 960708a The Chart House Boise.1D American Express

05130/96 Lodging S 227.40 Memo 960708a The Westbank Inn Idaho Falls, JD American Express

0513 1/96 Per Diem S 16S.00 Memo 961995 II days @ S151day Mclean Cash

06/10/96 Meals S 140.t)() Memo 960708b O'Brian's Bozeman. MT VISA

06/29/96 Lodging S 130.89 Memo 960708a Adam's Mark Mobile, AL American Express

06/29/96 Lodging S 164.59 Memo 960708a Adam's Mark Mobile, AL American Express

06129196 Meals S S314 Memo 960708a Anthony's Des Moines American Express

06129196 Lodgmg S 6907 Memo 960708a Best Western BOlcman. MT American Express

06/29/% Lodgmg S 117 72 Memo 960708a Crown Sterling Bimlingham. AL American Express

06/29196 Lodgmg S 191 09 Memo 960708a Crown Sterling Birmingham. AL American Express

06/29196 Lod8108 S lOS 90 Memo 960708a Embasscy Suites Montgomery. AL American Express

06/29/96 Meals S 2JS.OO Memo 960708a Ella's Seafood Seallle, WA American Express

06/29/96 Meals S IS320 Memo 960708a Hunan Lion Vienna, VA American Express

06129/96 Meals S 12S00 Memo 960708a Juliano's Billings, MT American Express

06/29/96 Lodging S 238.37 Memo 960708a Mamoll San Antonio, TX American Express

06/29/96 Meals S 232.00 Memo 960708a Morton's San Anlonio, TX American Express

06129/96 Lodging S 434.11 Memo 960708a Red Lion Hotels & Inns Seallle, WA American Express

06129/96 Lodging S 439.SI Memo 960708a Red Lion Hotels & Inns Seallle, WA American Express

06129/96 Meals S 323.00 Memo 960708a Ruth's Chris Steak House Mobile, AL American Express

06129/96 Lodging $ 97.70 Memo 960708a Sheraton Billings, MT American Express

06/30/96 Per Diem S 90.00 Memo 961995 06 days @ S15/day McLean Cash

.'" />

09/07/96 Limo S 92.00 Memo 960916 A-I Limo Mclean Checking

5 Total S 123,468.13 dI '-3

C'

l·~ .

-'

PJB Trp . ~elaled Expenses Page 17 "7 , "99

-.
..... Q '=' '=' '=' - "'" - "'" "'" ., ~~;3·"tJ."'!. en!~ ..~:.~~. - • • - • • WI -- -- ..

Patrick J. & Shelley S. Buchanan

American Express Expenses

I Date Expcn~Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

01/12/95 Miscellaneous S 32196 EARIIOl12 BF? Expenses McLean American Express

01131/95 Lodging S 27228 EAR 1157<JO Holiday Inn Manchesler. NH American Express

01/31/95 Lodging S 59.00 EAR 1157<JO Radisson Balon Rouge American Express

01131/95 Airfare S 1.871.00 EAR 1157<JO United Airlines Mclean American Express

01/31/95 Airfare S 1.87100 EAR 115790 United Airlines Mclean American Express

01/31/95 Airfare S 61400 EAR 115790 USAir Mclean American Express

01/31/95 Airfare S 614,00 EAR 115790 USAir Mclean American Express

01/31/95 Airfare S 764.00 EAR 115790 USAir Mclean American Express

01/31/95 Airfare S 76400 EAR 115790 USAir Mclean American Express

02113/95 Miscellaneous S 71.00 EARll] 060 BFP Expenses Mclean American Express

02/28/95 Lodging S 20691 EAR 113704 Hillon Boston American Express

02128/95 MIscellaneous S 1075 EAR 11)704 Holiday Inn Mancllester. NH American Express

02128/95 Lodgmg S 545 13 EAR 113704 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

02128/95 Lodgmg S 682.94 EAR 113704 Holiday Inn Phoenix. AZ American Express

02128/95 Lodging S 4681 EAR #5790 Marrioll Scollsdale. AZ American Express

02/28/95 Meals S 4400 EAR 11)704 Quigley's Washington D.C. American Express

02/28195 Airfare S 1.1\9400 EAR #5790 United Airlines McLean American Express

02128/95 Airfare S 1.894.00 EAR 115790 United Airlines McLean American Express

02128/95 Air/arc S 2.010.50 EAR 113704 USAir McLean American Express

02/28/95 Air/arc S 2.01050 EAR 113704 USAir McLean American Express

03/28/95 Lodging S 8180 EAR 115790 Loew's Analole Dallas American Express

03/29/95 Air/are S 799.00 EAR #5790 American Airlines Mclean American Express

03/29195 Air/are S 799.00 EAR 115790 American Airlines McLean American Express

03/29/95 Lodging S 136.00 EAR 115790 Loew's Anatole Dallas American Express

03/30/95 Lodging S 84.90 EAR 113704 Black Hawk Hoyel Davenpon. IA American Express

f~ 03/30/95 Lodging S 37.17 EAR 111244 Breakers Hotel Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Lodging $ (37.17) EAR 113704 Breakers HOlel Palm Beach. FL American Express

nI 03/30/95 Lodging $ 37.17 EAR 113704 Breakers Hole] Palm Beach. FL American Express

03130/95 Airfare S 95.00 EAR 113704 Della Airlines Columbia. SC American Express

03/30/95 Air/are S 95.00 EAR 113704 Della Airlines Columbia. SC American Express

03/30/95 Air/are S 599.00 EAR 113704 Della Airlines Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Airfare S 599.00 EAR 113704 Della Airlines Palm Beach. FL American Express

03/30/95 Lodging $ 140.55 EAR 11)704 Dobson Ranch Inn Mesa.AZ American Express

PJB American Express Expenses Page 1 of 12 3/24199
• QD flt liD ., • @J " •••••••••••••••~~.~~ • ••1(......n••&I·II. , , • , , , , ","

I Date Expcnlle Type Amounf Referrnce Men:hant CUy Payment Melhod I

"til"-

i a

~I~,-

MPJB ArT

03/30/95 Lodging

03/30/95 Car Rental

03130/95 Lodging

03/30/95 Lodging

03/30/95 Lodging

03/30/95 Airfare

03/30/95 Lodging

03/30m Lodging

03/30/95 Lodging

03/30/95 Lodging

03130/95 Lodging

03/31195 Meals

03/31/95 MClls

04/28/95 Lodging

04/28/95 Lodging

04/28195 Lodging

(141281'15 lodging

04/281'15 lodging

04/30195 AIrfare

04/30/95 Airfare

04/30/95 Airfare

04/30/95 Meals

04/30/95 Meals

04/30/95 Airfare

04/30/95 Airfare

04/30/95 Telephone

04/30/95 Telephone

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Meals

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04/30/95 Lodging

04130/95 Airfare

04/30/95 Meals

, Express Expenses

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

144 3J EAR N1704

566 94 EAR NI H4

10211 EARN1704

13500 EAR N37114

264 59 EAR #3704

2.10800 EAR N3704

46780 EAR NI244

530.49 EAR N3704

93.50 EAR N3704

154.25 EAR N3704

216.69 EAR #3704

1.l800 EAR #5790

J8300 EAR N5790

160.lJ EAR N5790

18 89 EAR #5790

8848 EAR #57lJ()

211 41 EAR #57lJ(J

262 75 EAR #5790

6000 EAR #5790

6000 EAR #57lJ()

60.00 EAR #5790

218.11 EAR #5790

151.00 EAR #5790

157.00 EAR #5790

151.00 EAR #5790

33.48 EAR #5790

38.63 EAR #5790

69.13 EAR#5790

189.13 EAR#5790

620.45 EAR #5790

263.05 EAR #5790

25.84 EAR #5790

84.00 EAR #5790

3613 EAR #5790

143.39 EAR #5790

216.44 EAR #5790

(428.00) EAR #5790

104.00 EAR #5790

Embassey Suites

Henz

Holiday Inn

Marriott

Marriott

Northwest Airlines

Rilz-Carlton

Ritz-Carlton

Sheraton

Town & Country Hotel

Town & Country Holel

La Colline

The Palm

Best Western

Dobson Ranch Inn

Ihlton

Wyndham Hotel

Wyndham Holel

America West

America West

America West

Bedford Village Inn

Chen Yang Li

Delta Airlines

Della Airlines

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

Hampton Inn

Holiday Inn

Holiday Inn

Hotel Fort Des Moines

Hyatt

Hyatt

Marriott

Marriott

Marriott

Northwest Airlines

Puritan Back Rm Reslr

Page 2

Des Moines

Palm Beach. FL

Manchesler. NH

San Diego

Bloomington. MN

Detroit. MI

Mclean

Naples. FL

Charleston. SC

San Diego

San Diego

Washington D.C.

Washington D.C.

Rosemonl. IL

Mesa.AZ

Sioux City. IA

Allanta

Allanla

Tempe. AZ

Tempe. AZ

Tempe. AZ

Bedford. NH

Bedford. NH

Huntsville, AL

Huntsville. AL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook, IL

Omaha, NE

Manchester. NH

Manchester. NH

Des Moines

Dallas

Dallas

Denver

Denver

Huntsville. AL

Minneapolis

Manchester, NH

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

,9
eo e eo '!!!I '!!!I '!l' eo e eo eo e e e e e ••• t1E~~",.].'i!!II~!!Y~lI!:;.""""••••••••••

I Date ElpeDK Type Amount Refen:nce Merchant City Payment Method I

04/30/95 Meals $ 105 10 EAR 115790 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester, NH American Express

04/30/95 Meals $ 95.01 EAR 115790 Thc Garden Cafe Omaha, NE American Express

04/30/95 Airfare S 292.00 EAR 115790 USAir Manchester, NH American Express

04/30/95 Airfare $ 292.00 EAR 1157911 USAir Manchester, NH American Express

04/30/95 Lodging S 162.12 EAR 1#57911 Wyndham Hotel Phoenix. AZ American Express

051J 1195 Lodging $ 34.10 EAR 1#57911 Broadwalk Plal.a Rehobolh, DE American Express

05/31/95 Airfare $ 306.00 EAR 1#57911 Della Airlines Cincinnati American Express

05/31/95 Lodging $ 167.00 EAR 1#57911 Harbor Court Hotel Ballimore, MD American Express

05/31/95 Lodging $ 541.71 EAR 1#57911 Harbor Court Hotel Baltimore, MD American Express

05/31/95 Lodging $ 102.60 EAR #57911 Henlopen Holel Rehoboth. DE American Express

05/31/95 Lodging $ 133.69 EAR #57911 Hillon laFayette, LA American Express

05/31/95 Lodging $ 4.25 EAR #57911 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

05/31/95 Lodging $ 135.10 EAR 1157911 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

05131/95 Lodging $ 53.80 EAR #57911 Hyatt Orlando. FL American Express

051J 1195 Lodging S 131.64 EAR 1157911 Hyatt Orlando. FL American Express

0513 1/95 Meals S 27.00 EAR 1157911 Murphy's State House Concord. NH American Express

0513 1/95 Lodging $ 257.89 EAR 1157911 Radisson Florence. KY American Express

05f31/95 Lodging S 47.50 EAR 1#5790 Ramada Inn Metairie. LA American Express

05131f95 Meals S 80.00 EAR 1/57911 RUSt}' Rudder Dewey Beach, DE Ameriean Express

05131/95 Lodging S 33.18 EAR 1#57911 Sheraton Tampa, FL American Express

05/31/95 Lodging S 107.04 EAR 1#57911 Sheraton Tampa. FL American Express

05131/95 Lodging S 436.46 EAR 1#57911 Sheraton Metairie, LA American Express

06/29195 Lodging S 221.51 EAR 1/57911 Hilton Sioux City, lA American Express

06/29/95 Lodging S 462.06 EAR 1157911 Hotel Fort Des Moines Des Moines American Express

06/29/95 Lodging S 220.67 EAR 1#57911 Hotel Somerset Somerset, NJ American Express

06/29/95 Lodging $ 23.27 EAR 115790 L'Auberge Del Mar, CA American Express

06/29/95 Lodging S 301.85 EAR #57911 L'Auberge Del Mar, CA American Express

06/30/95 Meals S 61.00 EAR #57911 Amalgamaled Spirit Cedar Rapids, fA American Express

06/30/95 Lodging $ 112.94 EAR 1#57911 Best Western Lavale, MD American Express

r

»- 06/30/95 Miscellaneous S (150.17) EAR #5790 Counts Western Wear Washington D.C. American Express

06/30/95 Miscellaneous S 796.30 EAR #5790 Counts Western Wear Washington D.C. American Express

t:; 06/30/95 Telephone S 2.58 EAR #5790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. lL American Express

06/30/95 Lodging S 191.75 EAR 115790 Hyan Greenville. SC American Express

.. 06/30/95 Lodging S 404.58 EAR 1#5790 Hyan Greenville. SC American Express

~' 06/30/95 Meals S 116.00 EAR 1/5790 Ruth's Chris Steak House Arlington. VA American Express

o i 06f30f95 Lodging S 245.44 EAR 1#5790 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

MH, i 07/29/95 Meals S 80.25 EAR #4272 Brad)"s San Diego American Express07/29/95 Lodging $ 88.34 EAR 1/4272 Courtyard Phoenix, AZ American Express

I~l PJS American Express Expenses Page 3 of 12 3/24/99
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !i;:~:b~:':-tIl Il'l': l1~~5 !l-;1L.I}~~~1!:i;'l-1:- - ,.. ... - - .................... 'W ...-.

I Date [spenle Type Amount Rde~nce Merchant City Payment Method I

07129/95 Lodging $ 10921 EAR 1/4272 Courtyard Phoenix, AZ American Express

07129/95 Lodging S 13161 EAR #4272 Embassc:y Suites Des Moines American Express

07/29/9'5 Lodging S 19708 EAR #4272 Embassey Suites Des Moines American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 59.43 EAR 1/4272 Holiday Inn Phoenix, AZ American Express

07129195 Lodging S 7504 EAR 114272 Holiday Inn DubuQue,lA American Express

07/29195 Meals S 78.00 EAR #4272 HoS1 International Detroit, MI American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 3180 EAR #4272 Hyatt San Diego American Express

01129/95 Lodging S 4944 EAR #4272 Hyatt San Diego American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 197.88 EAR 114272 Hyatt Sacramenlo, CA American Express

07/29195 Meals S 76.00 EAR #4272 Imperial House Des Moines American Express

07129/95 Lodging $ 185'50 EAR 114272 Marriott Detroit, MI American Express

07129/95 Lodging $ 193.23 EAR #4272 Marriott SI. Louis, MO American Express

07/29/95 Meals S 67 13 EAR 114272 Noah's Restaurant Des Moines American Express

07/29/95 Meals $ 93.93 EAR #4272 Puritan Back Rm Reslr Manchesler, NH American Express

07129/95 Lodging S 13173 EAR #4272 Radisson Omaha, NE American Express

07l29/'J5 Lodging S 16689 EAR #·U72 Radisson Omaha, NE American Express

07129/9'5 LodglRg S II 37 EAR #4272 Red Lion Hotels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

07/29/9'5 Lodging S 183 14 EAR 1/4272 Red Lion Hotels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

07/29/9'5 Lodging S '541 EAR 1/4272 Rilz-Carllon Pasadena, CA American Express

0712'1195 Lodging S 13 75 EAR 1/4272 Ritz-Carlton Luguna, CA American Express

01129/95 Lodging $ 5629 EAR 1/4272 Ritz-Carlton Marina Del Ray American Express

07129/95 Lodging $ 154.97 EAR #4272 Ritz-Carlton Pasadena, CA American Express

07/29/95 Lodging S 327.61 EAR #4272 Ritz-Carlton Luguna, CA American Express

07129195 Lodging S 55410 EAR #4272 Rilz-Carllon San Francisco American Express

07129/95 Lodging S 664.82 EAR #4272 Ritz-Carlton Marina Del Ray American Express

07/29/95 Lodging $ 14.82 EAR #4272 Stouffer Denver American Express

07129/95 Lodging $ 162.11 EAR #4272 Stouffer Denver American Express

01129195 Meals $ 113.00 EAR 114272 The Drover Omaha, NE American Express

07/29195 Airfare $ 100.00 EAR 114272 TranWorld Air SI. Louis, MO American Express

~rz.. 07129195 Airfare $ 7500 EAR #4272 USAir New York American Express

i 07/29/95 Airfare $ 75.00 EAR #4272 USAir New York American Express

07/29/95 Lodging $ 55.74 EAR #4272 Villa Hotel San Mateo, CA American Express

07129195 Lodging $ 270.78 EAR 114272 Wyndham Franklin Plaza Philadelphia American Express I ,.'1 08/29195 Telephone $ 5.45 EAR 111·08 AT&T AilDne Jacksonville, FL American Express

~- 08129195 Lodging $ 271.61 EAR 111438 Bedford Village Inn Bedford. NH American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 65.49 EAR 111438 Best Western Council Blfs, IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 209.81 EAR 111438 Best Western Des Moines American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 65.25 EAR 111438 Black Hawk Hoyel Davenport, lA American Express

If1 PJB Arr 'n Express Expenses Page 4" .~ . "99
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - •• "!:::~~~~ e~ ~il.'!llIii::~""."fi~"'!i;9'••••••••••••" •••

I Date Expense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

08129/95 Lodging $ 323.05 EAR II 1438 Collins Plaza Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 140.44 EAR 111438 Days Inn Ottumwa.IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 233.38 EAR 111438 Embassey Suites Charlolte. NC American Express

08129/95 Lodging $ 1.466.02 EAR 111438 Embassy Suites Des Moines American Express

08129/95 Meals $ 119.00 EARII1438 Fisherman's Bay Boston American Express

08/29/95 Meals $ 158.28 EAR 111438 Fisherman's Bay Ottumwa.IA American Express

08129/95 Meals $ 28.21 EAR 111438 Garden Cafe Council Blfs. IA American Express

08129195 Telephone $ 5.15 EARII1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

08129/95 Telephone $ 7.73 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

08129/95 Telephone $ 10.30 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08129/95 Telephone $ 30.90 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

08129/95 Lodging $ 77.28 EAR 111438 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 116.48 EARII1438 Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 68.67 EAR 111438 Holiday Inn Waterloo. fA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 101 63 EAR n08 Holiday Inn Independence. OH American Express

OS/29195 Lodging $ 11415 EAR 11141S Holiday Inn Concord. NH American Express

OS/2W95 Lodging $ 17109 EAR 11141S Holiday Inn Mason City. IA American Express

OS/29195 Lodging $ IS 94 EAR 111418 Hyall Dallas American Express

0812W95 Lodging $ 28675 EAR 111438 H)'all Dallas American Express

OS/2W95 Lodging $ 63747 EAR III·OS Hyall Dallas American Express

08129/95 Meals $ 3600 EAR 111438 King Sea Chinese Rest Souix City. IA American Express

08/29/95 Lodging $ 33982 EAR 111438 Meridian Boston American Express

08/29195 Meals $ 15202 EAR 111438 M's Restaurant Omaha. NE American Express

08/29/95 Meals S 65.00 EAR 111438 Noah's Restaurant Des Moines American Express

08/29/95 Meals $ 89.00 EAR 111438 Outback Steakhouse Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

08/29/95 Meals $ 267.00 EAR 111438 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

08129195 Meals S 284.25 EAR 111438 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

08/31/95 Meals S 271.61 EAR 115790 Bedford Village Inn Bedford, NH American Express

08/31/95 Meals $ 95.00 EAR 115190 Hunan Lion Vienna. VA American Express

r~ 09/29/95 Lodging $ 128.08 EAR 111438 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

09129/95 Telephone $ 29.72 EAR 111438 AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL American Express

09129/95 Lodging $ (216.96) EAR 111438 Balsams Grand Hotel Dixville Nch. NH American Express

09129195 Meals S 85.64 EAR 111438 Cafe Pa\'one Manchester. NH American Express

;:: 09/29/95 Meals S 48.00 EAR 111438 Don AleJandros Las Vegas American Express

09/29/95 Lodging S 1lO00 EAR 111438 Eastgate Motor Inn Lillieton. NH American Express

09/29/95 Miscellaneous S 74.49 EAR 111438 EMS Manchester. NH American Express

09129195 Telephone $ 5.15 EAR 111438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

09129/95 Telephone $ 5.15 EAR#1438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

PJB American Express Expenses Page 5 of 12 3/24/99
';...;,I' '.;;.J '-/ '-;:)' -.:.;;;I '<:::I "<U' "CIJ' '\:II' 'll:j)' 'CI' .., .... .., ... 'CV '0' .., ., ""~"'~fJl'rl"il~ irIIi!!~,,~ l~fq~,:"r!.';~~......V.,.., w ••• W ...W ..

I Date Elpenlle Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

09129/95 Telephone S 4120 EAR NI438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

09129/95 Telephone S 4378 EARNI418 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

09129/95 Telephone S 5923 EAR NI438 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

09/29195 Meals S 200.00 EAR 111418 Hennessy's Columbia. SC American Express

09/29195 Lodging S 11140 EARI/I418 Hillon Las Vegas American Express

09129/95 lOOging S 227 69 EAR 1/1418 Hilton Pittsburgh, PA American Express

09129/95 lOOging S 30714 EARI/I438 Hilton Ocala. FL American Express

09129/95 lOOging S 56243 EAR 1/1438 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

09129/95 lOOging S 122.67 EAR #1418 Holel Fort Des Moines Des Moines American Express

09/29/95 lOOging S 17953 EAR 1/1438 Hyall Greenville, SC American Express

09129195 lOOging S 3254 EARI/1438 Laughlin Nev Las Vegas American Express

09/29195 Meals S 10851 EAR 111438 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester, NH American Express

09/29/95 Meals S 17500 EAR#1438 Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester, NH American Express

09129195 lOOging S 18 18 EAR 1/1438 Radisson Orlando. FL American Express

09129/95 lOOging S 104 H EAR #1418 Radisson Orlando. FL American Express

0'1129195 LodglDg S 8184 EAR 111418 Residence Inn Gainesville. FL American Express

09129195 Meals S 99 tl(l EAR 111418 Steak & Ale GaineS\·ille. FL American Express

09/29195 lOOglDg S 19440 EAR 111418 The Highlander Inn Manchester. NH American Express

09129/95 Lodgrng S 9630 EAR 1114311 The Wilcox Inn Aiken. SC American Express

09129/95 lOOglDg S 41 04 EAR 1114311 Traveler Motel Berlin, NH American Express

09130/95 Miscellaneous S 104.50 EAR 115790 Macy's Mclean American Express

09130/95 Meals S 97.00 EAR #5790 Ritz Carllon Mclean American Express

10/29195 Meals S 105.00 EAR #1438 Auslins Omaha. NE American Express

10/29/95 lOOging S 70.53 EAR #1438 Best Western Clinton,lA American Express

10/29/95 lOOging S 218.86 EAR #1438 Best Western Fort Dodge, IA American Express

10/29/95 lOOging S 8480 EAR #1438 Breakers Hotel Spring Lake. NJ American Express

10/29195 Meals S 150.00 EAR #1·08 Cafe Paradiso Tampa, FL American Express

10/29/95 Meals S 128.00 EAR #1438 Chen Yang Li Bedford, NH American Express

10/29195 Lodging S 88.63 EAR 111438 Comfort Inn Yokenportsmth,NH American Express

10/29/95 lOOging S 345.36 EAR 111438 Embassey Suites Tampa, FL American Express

10129/95 Meals S 31.08 EAR 111438 Garden Cafe Council Blfs, IA American Express

10/29/95 Lodging S 249.10 EAR 111438 Hillon Mesa,AZ American Express

10/29195 Lodging S 275.48 EAR 111438 Hilton Sioux City, IA American Express

10/29/95 Lodging S 207.67 EAR #1438 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

10129/95 Lodging S 39673 EAR #1438 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

10/29/95 Lodging S 330.63 EAR 111438 Hotel Fort Des Moines Des Moines American Express

----- 10/29/95 Lodging S 132.00 EAR #1418 Marriott Orlando. FL American Express

10129/95 Lodging S 16304 EAR #14311 Marriott Orlando, FL American Express

PJBAr In Express Expenses Page 6 • '2 '-4/99
••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,~,l'II.na:....nRIIII Date Expense Typ! Amount Refennce Merchant City Payment Method I

10129195 Lodging

10129195 Lodging

)0129195 Lodging

10129195 Lodging

10129195 Lodging

10129195 Miscellaneous

10/29195 Meals

10129195 Lodging

10/29195 Lodging

10/29195 Meals

11128/95 Meals

11/28/95 Telephone

11/28/95 Lodging

11128/95 Lodging

11128195 Lodging

11/281'J5 Meals

11/28/95 Meals

11/281'J5 Airfare

11/28/95 Airfare

11/28/95 Lodging

11/28195 Telephone

11/28/95 Telephone

11/28/95 Telephone

11/28/95 Telephone

I 1/28/95 Telephone

11128/95 Lodging

11/28/95 Lodging

11/28/95 Lodging

11/28/95 Lodging

I 1/28/95 Lodging i

lJo' . 11/28/95 Miscellaneous

11/28/95 Lodging

11/28/95 Lodging

~:: 11/28195 Lodging r' 11/28/95 Lodging

rr

11/28/95 Lodging

H> 11/28/95 Meals

11/28/95 Lodging

PJB American Express Expenses

s

s

s

s

s

S

$

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

181.87 EAR #1438

213.64 EAR #1438

307.79 EAR #1438

439.03 EAR #1438

27150 EAR #1438

34.29 EAR 111438

105.40 EAR #1438

21853 EAR #1438

261.00 EAR #1438

68.02 EAR #1438

140.00 EAR 11/438

7.92 EAR #1438

309.62 EAR #1438

1.599.61 EAR 111438

169.57 EAR #1438

IW.()(} EAR 111438

211()(l EAR 111438

1.22400 EAR 111438

1.22400 EAR #14311

19942 EAR 111438

5.45 EAR #H38

545 EAR #H38

11.20 EAR #1438

74.42 EAR #1438

77.29 EAR 11/438

17193 EARII1438

141.60 EAR 111438

348.31 EAR 111438

256.51 EAR#1438

33.110 EAR #1438

69.99 EAR #1438

182.18 EAR#1438

168.37 EAR #1438

13 J.72 EAR #f.OII

199.32 EAR 111438

250.00 EAR #1438

102.00 EAR 111438

33.34 EAR 111438

Marrioll

Marrioll

Marrioll

Marrioll

Monteleone Hotel

Presidents Rvr Clb

Puritan Back Rm ReSlr

Sheraron

Sheralon

The First Edition

Angus Steak Ranch

AT&T AirOne

Best Western

Breakers Hotel

Captain Cook HOlel

Charlie's Crab

Cole's Restaurant

Della Airlines

Della Airlines

Fairbanks Princess

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

GTE Airfone

Hanover Inn

Hillon

Hilton

Holiday Inn

Hospitality Inn

Hosl International

Huntington Hotel

Hyatt

Marrioll

Marrioll

Marrioll

Puritan Back Rm Restr

Red Lion Hotels & Inns

Page 7 of 12

Newark. NJ

Newark. NJ

Omaha. NE

Greenville. SC

New Orleans. LA

Davenport. IA

Manchester. NH

Cedar Rapids. IA

Cedar Rapids. IA

Sioux City. IA

Pensacola. FL

Jacksonville. FL

Sedona. AZ

Palm Beach. FL

Anchorage. AK

Palm Beach. FL

Buffalo. NY

Fairbanks. AK

Fairbanks. AK

Fairbanks. AK

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Hanover. NH

Phoenix. AZ

Chicago

Manchester. NH

Pensacola. FL

Anchorage. AK

Melville. NY

Buffalo. NY

Denver

Cleveland

Orlando. FL

Manchester. NH

Glendale. CA

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

3/24/99
.,..............,...........

·............···..·•~~~·w ~" '!'1~i!J:::J' W'lI~~,,'Ji.................

I Date [spease Type Amouat Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

11128195 Lodging S J05 J() EAR 'l~lg Red Lion Hotels & Inns Glendale. CA American Express

11128195 Lodging S 10989 EAR '1~18 Residence Inn Latham. NY American Express

J1/28/95 Lodging S 116 II EAR .1418 Residence 1nn Latham. NY American Express

\1128195 Lodging S 1299 EAR III~J8 Ritz-Carlton New York American Express

11/28195 Lodging S ~84 37 EAR 1I1~18 Ritz-Carllon New York American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 110 50 EAR 1I1~18 Sheraton Windsor Locks.CT American Express

11/28195 Lodging S /59 J2 EAR II J 38 Sheraton Windsor Locks.CT American Express

11128/95 Lodging S 1321 EAR 1I1~38 Shilo Portland Portland. OR American Express

I 1/28195 Meals S 186.~0 EAR /l1~38 Steak & Chop Des Moines American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 220.27 EAR /11438 The Clift Hotel San Francisco American Express

11/28195 Airfare S 6~100 EAR/lI~38 United Airlines Mclean American Express

/1128/95 Lodging S 8769 EAR /l1~38 Westrnark Baranof Juneau. AI< American Express

I 1128/95 Lodging S /69 ~5 EAR 111438 Westmark Baranof Juneau. AI< American Express

11/28/95 Lodging S 21969 EAR /l1~38 Westmark Baranor Juneau. AI< American Express

11/28195 Lodgmg S J0545 EAR /11438 Woodlands PI3I.a Hotel Flagstaff. AZ American Express

\2131/95 Airfare S 53900 EAR /15791) American Airlines Shrevepon. LA American Express

12131/95 Airfare S 519 (KJ EAR 1157911 American Airlines Shrevepon. LA Amcrican Express

121J 1/'15 AIrfare S Sll/ 00 EAR /lS790 American Airlines Shrcvepon. LA American Express

121.1 11'1S Lodglllg S 62 95 EAR /15791) Best Western Fon Dodge. IA American Express

12/3 1/95 Lodgmg S 12488 EAR /15790 Best Western Burlington. IA American Express

12131/95 Lodging S 8412 EAR /15790 Black Hawk Hoyel Davenpon. (A American Express

\213 1/95 Meals S 104.00 EAR #5790 Cafe Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

/2/31/95 Airfare S 20.00 EAR /15790 Delta Airlines Atlanta American Express

/2/31/95 Lodging S (12661) EAR /15790 EI Conquistador Resort Tucson. AZ American Express

12/31195 Lodging S /26.61 EAR /15790 EI Conquistador Resort Tucson. AZ American Express

1213 1/95 Lodging S 12661 EAR /15790 EI Conquistador Resort Tucson. AZ American Express

12131/95 Lodging S 56.53 EAR #5790 Fairfield Inn Ollumwa. lA American Express

12131/95 Meals S 52.74 EAR /15790 Fisherman's Bay Ollumwa, IA American Express

12131/95 Telephone S 5.45 EAR /15790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

",p. 12/31/95 Telephone S 25.56 EAR /15790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL American Express

5 12/31/95 Lodging S 88.80 EAR /15790 Hillon Baton Rouge American Express

~n 12131/95 Lodging S 110.50 EAR #5790 Hilton LaFayelle. LA American Express .~ 12/3 1/95 Lodging S 75.57 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Mason City. IA American Express

~~ 12131195 Lodging S 107.11 EAR /15790 Holiday Inn Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

1211 1/95 Lodging S 11711 EAR /15790 Holiday Inn Roswell, GA American Express

12/31195 Lodging S 120.20 EAR /15790 Holiday Inn Roswell. GA American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 152.63 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

12/31/95 Lodging S 28~.85 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Roswell. GA American Express

PJB A' ,n Express Expenses Page f' .~ "99

..... _.. ....-'
... - - - - - - - .. - - .. - ow • ~:!'f2.~, 1i!1" '!!!' eii:?"~ ,~-h~~lIl!:~lI!!k ••••••••••••••••

I Dale Elpcnse Type Amoonl Reference Mercbant City Payment Metbod I

12/31/95 Lodging S 28498 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Dubuque.IA American Express

12131/95 Lodging S 1.233.19 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

12131/95 Lodging S 11537 EAR 115790 Mamoll Des Moines American Express

12131/95 Lodging S 218.40 EAR 11571}() Mamoll Des Moines American Express

12/31195 Lodging $ 219.38 EAR 11571}() Mamoll Des Moines American Express

12/3 1195 Meals S 54.00 EAR 11571}() Outback Steakhouse Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

12/31/95 Meals S 136.00 EAR 11571}() Puritan Back Rm Restr Manchester, NH American Express

12/31/95 Meals $ 135.59 EAR 115790 Ralph & Kacoo's Bossier City. LA American Express

12/31/95 Meals S 109.20 EAR 115790 Red Lobster Roswell, GA American Express

12/3 1/95 Meals $ 390.00 EAR 115790 Rilz Carllon Mclean American Express

12/31/95 Lodging $ 508.5.5 EAR 115790 Rilz-Carllon Phoenix, AZ American Express

12/31/95 Airfan: $ 52.50 EAR 11571}() USAir Mclean American Express

12131/95 Airfan: $ 52.50 EAR 115790 USAir Mclean American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 71.69 EAR 115790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 104.56 EAR 115790 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29/96 Lodgmg S In18 EAR 1157911 Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29196 Lodgmg S .11804 EAR 11579tl Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29196 Lodgmg S 465 75 EAR 115791J Adam's Mark Columbia. SC American Express

01/29/96 Meals S 72 59 EAR 115790 Ausllns Omaha. NE American Express

01/29/96 Lodgmg S 114 00 EAR 115791J Bedford Village Inn Bedford. NH American Express

01/29/96 Supplies S 58 90 EAR 115790 Benjamin Books Denver American Express

01/29/96 Meals S 439.00 EAR 115790 Brennans Restaurant New Orleans. LA American Express

01/29/96 Meals S 93.25 EAR 115790 Cafe Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

0\/29/96 Meals S 99.00 EAR 115790 Chen Yang Li Bedford. NH American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 80.82 EAR 115790 Comfort Inn Memphis. TN American Express

01/29/96 Meals S 14000 EAR 11579tl Copeland's Baton Rouge American Express

01/29/96 Airfare S 185.27 EAR 115790 Della Airlines Boston American Express

01/29/96 Airfare S 185.27 EAR 115790 Della Airlines Boston American Express

01/29/96 Airfare S 185.27 EAR 115790 Delta Airlines Boston American Express

01/29/96 Airfare S 185.27 EAR 115790 Della Airlines Boslon American Express

f~ 01/29/96 Telephone S 42.81 EAR 115790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

01/29/96 Telephone S 45.68 EAR 115790 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 24.16 EAR 115790 Hillon Baton Rouge American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 9568 EAR 115790 Hilton Baton Rouge American Express

01/29196 Lodging S 146.10 EAR 115791J Hilton Anchorage. AK American Express

01/29/96 Lodging S 159.01l EAR 115791l Hilton Sioux City. IA American Express

o I 01/29/96 Lodging S 162 III EAR 115790 Hilton Chicago American Express

ML- 01/29/96 Lodging S 200 (X) EAR 115790 Hillon Balon Rouge American Express

PJS American Express Expenses Page 9 of 12 3/24/99
- --

------ - - .. ., ., .. ., • • • ~'I!~.~ 'ell' "~ii!':'!' '~'~.dllll!!!'.

I nate E~peDse Typ! Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method

I

01/29/% Lodging

S 202 0 I EAR 115790 Hilton New Orleans, LA American Express

01129/96 Lodging

S 29282 EAR 115790 Hillon Sioux City, IA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging

S 52 58 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Manchester, NH American Express

01/29/96 LodgingS 8247 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Dubuque,lA American Express

01/29/% LodgingS too.73 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Monroe, LA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging

$ 137.64 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Seatlle. WA American Express

01/29/% Lodging

$ 41476 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01129/96 Lodging

$ 497.40 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01129/% Lodging

$ 701.78 EAR 115790 Mamou Des Moines American Express

01/29/% Lodging$ 719.80 EAR 115790 Mamoll Des Moines American Express

01/29/% Lodging$ 53.06 EAR 115790 Omni New Orleans. LA American Express

01/29/96 Meals

$ 48.75 EAR 115790 Pour La Fl1lnce Cafe Denver American Express

01/29/96 Lodging

$ 79.86 EAR 115790 Ramada Inn Shreveport, LA American Express

o1/29196 Lodging$ 3139 EAR #5790 Ritz-Carlton New York American Express

01/29/96 Lodging

$ 74152 EAR #5790 Ritz-Carllon New York American Express

01/29/% lodging

$ 58 00 EAR 115790 Sanstone Inn Fon Dodge. IA American Express

() 1/29/96 lodging

$ 92 99 EAR 115790 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

lll/29196 LodglOg

$ 112 78 EAR 115791) Sheraton Omaha. NE American Express

01/29/96 LodglOg$ )0 \36 EAR 1157911 Sheraton Cedar Rapids. fA American Express

01/29/96 Meals

$ 201 00 EAR #5790 Steak

& Chop Des Moines American Express

01/29/96 Meals

$ 6733 EAR 115790 TGI Friday's Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

01/29/96 Meals

$ 115 00 EAR 115790 The First Edition Sioux City. IA American Express

01/29/96 Lodging

$ 74.52 EAR 115790 The Highlander Inn Manchester, NH American Express

01/29196 Lodging

$ 19440 EAR 115790 The Highlander Inn Manchester. NH American Express

01129/96 Miscellaneous

$ 5.99 EAR 115790 Timberland Factory North Conway. NH American Express

01/29196 Miscellaneous

$ 175.97 EAR 115790 Timberland Factory North Conway, NH American Express

01/29/96 Lodging

$ 290.30 EAR 115790 Village ResoJ1 Spirit Lake, IA American Express

02129/96 Meals

$ 116.00 EAR 115790 Black Angus Phoenix. AZ American Express

02/29196 Meals

$ 120.0

I EAR 115790 Cafe Pavone Manchester. NH American Express

02/29/96 Meals

$ 152.47 EAR #5790 California Dreaming Greenville. SC American Express

02/29196 Meals

$ 210.00 EAR #5790 Chen Yang Li Bedford. NH American Express

02129196 Lodging

$ 60.00 EAR 115790 Collins Plaza Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

02/291% Lodging

$ 68.25 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Cedar Rapids. IA American Express

02/29/96 Lodging

$ 94.41 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Manchester. NH American Express

02/29196 Lodging$ 98.12 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Lake Charles. LA American Express

02/29/96 Lodging

$ 142.26 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Lake Charles. LA American Express

02129/96 Lodging

$ 173.13 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn Monroe. LA American Express

02129196 Lodging

$ 188.79 EAR #5790 Holiday Inn Lake Charles, LA American Express

PJB Arr 'n Express Expenses Page 1(1 .~ 'qg
~~~~~e~ ••• e ••••••••••••••• ••••••~~"~•••••••••••""" .d

I Date Expense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

02129/96 Lodging

02129/96 Lodging

02129/96 Lodging

02129/96 Lodging

02129/96 Lodging

02/29196 Lodging

02/29/96 Miscellaneous

02129/96 Meals

02/29/96 Meals

02/29/96 Meals

02/29/96 Meals

02129/96 Airfare

02129/96 Airfare

03/30/96 Meals

03/J0196 Meals

01/JO!'!6 Meals

011l0!'!6 Meals

O.Vl0!'!(, Meals

01/J0!'!6 Meals

01110196 Meals

0313019(, Meals

OJ/J0196 Mcals

OJ/30196 Meals

03/30196 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

03/30/96 Meals

05/30/96 Lodging

05130196 Meals

05130196 Lodging

05/30196 Meals

Q' ,... 05/30/96 Meals

I 05/30/96 Lodging

fE 05/30196 Lodging

[;:J 05/30/96 Lodging

z 05130/96 Lodging

I 05130196 Meals

05/30/96 Lodging

_. 06/29196 Lodging

PJ8 American Express Expenses

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

$

S

S

S

S

$

S

$

$

S

$

S

S

S

S

S

$

212.31 EAR 115790 Holiday Inn

240.89 EAR 115190 Holiday Inn

683.25 EAR #5190 Hyau

254.85 EAR 115790 Marriott

782.59 EAR 115790 Marriou

1.024 31 EAR #5190 Marrioll

299.98 EAR 1/5790 McCade. Inc.

102.00 EAR 1/5790 Pier D'Orleans

176.00 EAR 115790 Puritan Back Rm Restr

180.00 EAR 115790 Puritan Back Rm Restr

78.00 EAR #5790 The First Edition

403 ()O EAR 1/5790 United Airlines

403.00 EAR 115790 United Airlines

11203 Memo 960509 BcechTree

97.00 Memo 960509 Boston Steak House

In09 Memo 9(,0509 Brennans Restaurant

275 O(J Memo 'J6050<) Chicago Road Steak House

410 00 Memo 'l605()<} Hamplon Streel

88.00 Memo 960509 Hunan Lion

89 65 Memo 960509 Hunan Lion

54.00 Memo 960509 Marrioll

92.00 Memo 960509 Marriou

170.00 Memo 960509 Old San Fran Steak House

95.00 Memo 960509 Outback Steakhouse

272.00 Memo 960509 Ritz CarHon

280.00 Memo 960509 Ruth's Chris Steak House

37.45 Memo 960708a Best Western

93.19 Memo 960108a Can'ers

99.68 Memo 960108a Hilton

121.10 Memo 960108a Irregardless

118.00 Memo 960108a Jakes

228.97 Memo 960708a Radisson

96. 10 Memo 960708a Red Lion Hotels & Inns

106.93 Memo 960108a Red Lion Hotels & Inns

125.83 Memo 960108a Sheraton

148.00 Memo %0108a The Chart House

227.40 Memo 960708a The Weslbank Inn

130.89 Memo 960108a Adam's Mark

Page 11 of 12

Davenport, IA

Mason City.IA

New Orleans, LA

Boslon

Des Moines

Des Moines

Manchester, NH

Mesa,AZ

Manchester. NH

Manchester, NH

Sioux City, IA

Chicago

Chicago

Flint, MI

Greenville. SC

Houston. TX

Dearborn. MI

Columbia. SC

Vienna. VA

Vienna. VA

Chicago

Chicago

Dallas

Columbus, GA

Mclean

Memphis. TN

Pocatello. ID

Charloue. NC

Sioux City, IA

Raleigh. NC

Idaho Falls, ID

Raleigh. NC

Boise.1D

Boise.ID

Charlotte. NC

Boise.1D

Idaho falls. ID

Mobilc. AL

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

American Express

3/24/99
i~

-':11 -'J' n-" ~, "-;; ""';Ii""'" -!L" "--'"ill" ".... ... - - - - -- - - ......... • • .. III !k,., n;:", f!! '1"J.! _,l~ it! rl..Jl \6:';, ,,:::\1 m' it· ,,~il 1!:d1 il1'r

I Date Elpense Type Amounl Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

06/29/96 lOOging $ IM.59 Merna 9607011a Adam's Mark Mobile. AL American Express

06/29/96 Meals $ llJ. i4 Memo 9607011a Anthony's Des Moines American Express

06/29/96 lOOging $ 69.07 Memo 9607011a Best Western B07.eman. MT American Express

06/29/96 lOOging $ 117.72 Memo 9607011a Crown Sterling Birmingham. AL American Express

06/29/96 lOOging $ 19109 Memo 960708a Cro\m Sterling Birmingham. AL American Express

06/29/96 lOOging $ 108.90 Memo 9607()lla Embassey Suites Montgomery. AL American Express

06129/96 Meals $ 13500 Memo 960708a Ella's Seafood Seallie. WA American Express

06/29/96 Meals S 153.20 Memo 960708a Hunan Lion Vienna. VA American Express

06/29/96 Meals S 125.00 Memo 960708a Juliano's Billings. MT American Express

06/29/96 lOOging S 138.37 Memo 960708a Mamoll San Antonio. TX American Express

06/29/96 Meals S 232.00 Memo 960708a Morton's San Antonio. TX American Express

06/29/96 lOOging $ 434.1 ) Memo 9607()8a Red Lion Hotels & Inns Seall/e. WA American Express

06/29/96 lOOging S 439.81 Memo 9607011a Red Lion Hotels & /nns Seallle. WA American Express

06/29/96 Meals S J23()(J Memo 960708a Ruth's Chris Steak House Mobile. AL American Express

06129196 lOOging $ 97.70 Memo 9607011a Sheraron Billings. MT American Express

TOlal S 9U9154

PJS American Express Expenses Page 12 of 1? 31' '1:1
- - - - - -.::Il-J\- ~l ,"'" --I['r-:~"- ~1"'~I'Y ~; 'W ., - - ., ,. .. • •• {b,H:", IJ! It,,,U .•i1' ~! .. ,. ih": .....'1l m '!j" ~~!l lt1f ;~~

Patrick J. & Shelley S. Buchanan

Expenses Paid by Cash, Checking, Visa, etc.

I Date EIpen5e Type AmlMlnt Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

01125/95 Telephone S 147.42 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic Mclean Checking

01/31/95 Per Diem S 45.00 Memo 961995 03 days@SI5/day Mclean Cash

02125195 Telephone S 190.00 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic Mclean Checking

02128/95 Per Diem $ 135.00 Memo 961995 09 days @ SI5/day Mclean Cash

03/10/95 Lodging S 378.42 EAR tlI244 Adam's Mark Mclean VISA

03/15195 Telephone S 211.24 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic Mclean Checking

03/15195 Telephone S 182.00 Memo 96040la Motorola Mclean Checking

03/19/95 FIR Event S 1.549.41 Memo 951222 MacArthur Beverage Mclean Checking

03/20/95 Telephone S 120.00 Memo 96040la Motorola Mclean Checking

03131/95 Per Diem $ 450.00 Memo 961995 30 days @ S 151day Mclean Cash

04/14/95 Telephone $ 142.37 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic Mclean Checking

04/30N5 Per Dicm $ 160 00 Memo 961995 24 days (ei' S15/day Mclean Cash

0511ON5 Gas $ 18 07 Memo 96040 I Chenon Del Ray Beach.FL VISA

05/10N5 Lodging $ 156 29 Memo 96040 I Comfort Inn York. PA VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 5.15 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 5.15 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 7.73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 7.7J Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ .7.73 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 10.30 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 10.30 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 12.88 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S )8 03 Memo 96040) GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 23.18 Memo960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 25.75 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10195 Telephone $ 10.90 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

i~ 05/10195 Telephone S 33.48 Memo 96(40) GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 3348 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone $ 38.63 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S 46.35 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Telephone S 5UO Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

05/10/95 Gas S 23 15 Memo 96040 I Mobil Newcumbcr. PA VISA

.~ \_. 05/1 0/95 Taxi S 45.00 Memo 96040 I Yellow Cab Denver VISA

I _

PJB Cash, Checking VISA Expenses Page 1 or 6 3/24/99
- - - - - - - •• - - - - .. - - ~c~~ --: 1Mi:7 :::"[1ii;!!!-:::'",:-r.·n·~~~~ li' ...... • • • • • • • • • • • .. •

I Date ElpenRTypt Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

OS/20/95 Telephone S 2S II Memo 960401a MOlorola Mclean Checking

05/31/95 Per Diem S 411500 Memo 9(,1995 27 days lit> SIS/day Mclean Cash

06/0 1195 Telephone S 53 7 00 Memo %040 Ia Bell Allanlic Mclean Checking

06/1 5/95 Telephone S 23 5 16 Memo 9604111 a Bell Allanlic Mclean Checking

06/15/95 Telephone S 2200 Memo 960401a MOlorola Mclean Checking

06130/95 Per Diem S 43500 Memo %1995 29 days Ili' SIS/day Mclean Cash

07/26195 Telephone S 193.05 Memo 9604111a Bell Allanlic Mclean Checking

07126195 Telephone S 257.21 Memo 960401a Motorola Mclean Checking

07131/95 Per Diem S 390.00 Memo 961995 26 days @ S15/day Mclean Cash

OS1I0/95 Limo S IS6.00 EAR lI·un A-I Limo Mclean Checking

08/10/95 Lodging S 55505 Memo 96040 I Embassey Suites Coraopolis, PA VISA

08110/95 Meals $ 207 00 Memo 96040 I Greenhouse Cafe Amher.;t. NH VISA

OS/I0/95 Telephone S 5 IS Memo %0401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

1181 1O/9S Telephone $ 30 40 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. fL VISA

08/IONS Telephone $ 10 90 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

IlS/I0/95 Meals $ 132 01) Memo %04111 Hannah Java Tavern Merrimack. NH VISA

IIS/IO/95 Meals $ lllO 110 Memo 96040 I Legal Sea Foods Boslon VISA

IISI1 O!'lS Lodging $ I7S 19 Memo 9604111 Marrioll Kansas City. MO VISA

OSIIO!'l5 Meals $ 60 7 I Memo 96040 I Nouvelle Omaha. NE VISA

IIS/10/95 Lodging $ 21192 Memo 9604111 Park Pla/.a Boslon VISA

08/10/95 Meals $ 56.42 Memo 9604111 Ritl CarHon San Francisco VISA

OS/10/95 Lodging $ l04.94 Memo 960401 Theas Lawton, fA VISA

08/10/95 Meals $ 29.04 Memo 96040/ WH Smith Boston VISA

OS/10/95 Meals $ 97.00 Memo 960401 Wild Bills Red B1ulT, CA VISA

OSII 1195 Telephone $ 22.00 Memo 96040la Motorola Mclean Checking

08/22/95 Telephone $ 203 76 Memo 960401 a Bell Alfanlic McLean Checking

0813 Jl95 Per Diem $ 255.00 Memo 961995 17 days@SI5/day Mclean Cash

09/02/95 Telephone S 202.18 EAR 113704 Bell Allanlic McLean Checking

09/10/95 Lodging S 134.40 Memo 960401 Kenmore Inn Fredricksburg.VA VISA

l~ 09114195 Telephone S 5000 EAR 113704 MOlorola Chicago Checking

0911 5/95 Telephone $ 28.00 Memo 960401 a Motorola Mclean Checking

09130/95 Pcr Diem S 315.00 Memo961995 21 days {al Sl5/day McLean Cash

10/02/95 Telephone S 214.38 EAR 113704 Bcll Atlantic Mclean Checking

10/06/95 FIR Evenl $ 688.96 Memo 951222 MacArthur Beverage McLean Checking

10/07/95 Telephone $ 4123 I EAR 113704 MOlorola Chicago Checking

~I- 10/08/95 Taxi $ 184.00 EAR 113704 A-I Limo McLean Checking

10/10/95 Telephone S 30 I.00 Memo 960401 a Bell Atlanlic McLean Checking

10110/95 Supplies $ 25011 EAR 1/3704 EMS Manchesler. NH VISA

PJ8 Ca' 'hecking VISA Expenses Page '2 , qg
-----------.. v~~~e~~~~~~~~y········· .....•

I Date Expense Type Amount Rden:nce Merchant City Payment Method I

10/10/95 Miscellaneous

10/10/95 Meals

10/10/95 Meals

10/10195 Meals

10/10/95 Miscellaneous

10131/95 Per Diem

11/10/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Telephone

11110/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Telephone

11/10195 Telephone

11/1U1'J5 Telephone

IJ/10/'15 Telephone

11/10195 Telephone

11/10/'15 Telephone

IIIIU/95 Telephone

IJ/10/95 Telephone

11/10/95 Miscellaneous

11110/95 Miscellaneous

11/10195 Miscellaneous

11110/95 Meals

11/10195 Lodging

11/11/95 Telephone

11/21195 Telephone

11/24/95 Bar Tab

;.r 11/24/95 Telephone

2 11/24/95 Telephone

11/25195 Telephone

11/25195 Telephone

11/30/95 Per Diem

i 12102195 Telephone i 12108/95 FIR Event

~- 12/IU/95 Meals

I~ PJB Cash, Checking VISA Expenses

$

S

S

S

$

S

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

S

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

S

$

$

$

$

S

$

$

$

$

S

S

S

49.99 Memo 960401 EMS

17.00 EAR #3704 Host International

(1700) Memo 96040 I Host International

17.00 Memo 96040 I Host International

15250 Memo 960401 Wallachs

360.00 Memo 961995 24 days @ S15/day

5.45 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

5.45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone

8.32 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

8.32 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

11.20 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

IUO EAR 11)104 GTE Airfone

11.20 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

I 1.20 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

1694 EAR #3704 GTE Airfone

1694 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

22 69 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

22 69 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone

39.93 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

39 93 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone

5718 EAR 113704 GTE Airfone

5718 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone

11000 EAR 113704 The Costume Gallery

(110.00) Memo 960401 The Costume Gallery

110.00 Memo 960401 The Costume Gallery

37.51 EAR 113704 Town Clock Inn

3751 Memo 960401 Town Clock Inn

600.00 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic

581.30 Memo 96040la Bell Atlantic

426.65 EAR 113704 MacAnhur Beverage

40.02 EAR 113704 Motorola

413.00 Memo 96040la Motorola

200.84 EAR 113704 Bell Atlantic

40.00 Memo 96040la MOlorola

390 00 Memo 961995 26 days (cl> S151da}'

308.38 EAR 113704 Bell Atlantic

1.624.85 Memo 951222 MacArthur Beverage

51.20 Memo 96040 I Edward

Page 3 of 6

Manchesler. NH

San Francisco

San Francisco

San Francisco

Manchester. NH

Mclean

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Oak Brook. IL

Manchester. NH

Derry. NH

Derry. NH

Dubuque.IA

Dubuque.IA

Mclean

McLean

Mclean

Chicago

McLean

McLean

McLean

Mclean

McLean

McLean

Palm Beach. FL

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

Cash

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

VISA

Checking

Checking

Checking

Checking

Checking

Checking

Checking

Cash

Checking

Checking

VISA

3/24/99
- - - - - - - - - - j?-"- 0'" -[J;;k- "I!:".~~1l!: - - - • • - _ ......... 11I . "" 16:.. .. .,' t:!" ll"", =~ I!! 'I' ,...,!> !l .,~

I Date ElpeaJe Typ! Amount Reference Mercbant elly Payment Metbod I

12/10/95 Telephone $ 1120 EAR #J70.$ GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone $ II 20 Memo 960~OI GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12110/95 Telephone $ 3.$.19 EAR #370~ GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12110/95 Telephone $ H 19 Memo 960.$0 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12110/95 Telephone $ 3862 EAR #)70.$ GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12/10/95 Telephone $ 38.62 Memo 960.$01 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

12/20/95 Telephone $ 105.16 EAR #J70.$ Motorola Chicago Checking

12n0/95 Telephone $ 106.00 Memo 960.$01 a Motorola Mclean Checking

12/22195 Miscellaneous $ 53818 EAR 11370.$ Alexandria Florist Alexandria. VA Checking

12122195 Miscellaneous $ 977.07 EAR 113704 Classic Tenls Alexandria. VA Checking

12122195 FIR Event $ 977.07 Memo 951222 Classic Tents Mclean Checking

12/31/95 Per Diem $ 40500 Menw 961995 27 days@$15/day Mclean Cash

12131195 Miscellaneous $ 389.80 EAR 11370~ BFP Expenses Mclean UndoclDuplicate

12131/95 Miscellaneous $ (38980) EAR #3704 BFP Expenses Mclean UndoclDuplicate

01110/96 Telephone $ 5.56 Memo 960401 AT&T AirOne Jacksonville, FL VISA

01110196 Telephone $ 8 15 Memo 960.$0 I AT&T AirOne Jacksonville. FL VISA

01/10196 Telephone $ 5 4S Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

() 1/10196 Telephone $ S.$S Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/1tl/96 Telephone $ 5 45 Memo 960.$0 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

oIII 0196 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960.$0 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01/10196 Telephone $ 5 45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01110196 Telephone $ 5.4 5 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/1tl/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ S.4S Memo 960.$0 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01110/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

is 01/10/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 7.73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 7.73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach, FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 7.73 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 8.32 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA H 01/10/96 Telephone $ 8.32 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

~I 01/10196 Telephone $ 14.07 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 14.07 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Palm Beach. FL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

PJB Cash Checking VISA Expenses Page 4,.,f Fi ?'- -'99
-~----~--------------------- - - -

- - - .... - - - !\! ':"ilT:;.'" .~~"'!;;;~ l!!f-:'! 84' • • • ........,••••••••

I Date Expense Type Amount Reference Merchant City Payment Method I

01/10/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone $ 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/10/96 Telephone S 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

01/I0/96 Lodging S 1715 Memo 960401 Hilton Balon Rouge VISA

01/10/96 Lodging S 23.85 Memo 960401 Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

01/10/96 Lodging S 29.66 Memo 960401 Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

01/10/96 Lodging S 35.78 Memo 960401 Younkers Sioux City. IA VISA

01/10/96 Lodging S 127.19 Memo 960401 Younkers Sioux City, IA VISA

01131/96 Per Diem S 435.00 Memo 961995 29 days @ SI5/day McLean Cash

02110/96 Telephone S 31.06 Memo 96040 I AT&T AirQne Jacksonville. FL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 10687 Memo 960401 AT&T AirQne Jacksonville. FL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 1.55 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 155 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5 U Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10196 Telephone S 545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10196 Telephone S 545 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. lL VISA

02/10/96 TeIcphone S 5 45 Memo 96040 J GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone $ 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 5.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone $ 8.32 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone $ 8.32 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone $ 8.3 2 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. lL VISA

02110/96 Telephone $ 1120 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone $ 1407 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

U 02/10/96 Telephone $ 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone $ 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

02/ J0/96 Telephone $ 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110196 Telephone $ 15.45 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

t-3 02110/96 Telephone $ 16.29 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA kl 02110/96 Telephone $ 3 U 1 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Telephone S 48.55 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone $ 62.92 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook, IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone S 68.67 Memo 96040 I GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

PJB Cash. Checking VISA Expenses Page 5 of 6 3/24/99
•••••••••••••••••••••••••V ••••:...:w:_,_L.:•••••••••••••••••

I Date Expe:nse Type: Amount Rde~nce Merchant City Payment Method I

02110/96 Telephone $ 7442 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oak Brook. IL VISA

02/10/96 Telephone $ 74.42 Memo 960401 GTE Airfone Oall Brook. IL VISA

02110/96 Meals S 72 60 Memo 960401 Monroe's Rest & Bar Mason City, IA VISA

02110/96 Meals $ 7215 Memo 9604tll The CUlling Co Des Moines VISA

02/10/96 Meals S 269.98 Memo 960401 The CUlling Co Des Moines VISA

02/10/96 Supplies S 101.\S Memo 96040 I Walgreen Des Moines VISA

02110/96 Supplies S 15987 Memo 960401 Walgreen Des Moines VISA

02129196 Per Diem S 4J5oo Memo 961995 29 days (ij> SJ5/day Mclean Cash

02/29196 Miscellaneous $ (6,362.13) EAR #5790 BFP Expenses McLcan UndoclDuplicate

02129/96 Miscellaneous S 6,362.13 EAR #5190 BFP Expenses Mclean UndoclDuplicale

03/28196 FIR Event S 645.06 Memo 96071lS MacAl1hur Beverage Mclean Checking

03/19196 fIR Event S 688 00 Memo 96070S Miguel Yanos Mclean Checking

031J1/96 Pcr Diem S 405.00 Memo 961995 27 days !iV SI5/day Mclean Cash

04/10/96 fIR Evcnt S 1,675.00 Memo 96071lS Chevy Chase Caterers Mclean Chccking

1l41l1l/96 Per Dicm S 60 110 Mcmo 961995 U4 days I(jl SIS/day Mclean Cash

OSII0196 fIR E\cn! S 697 O() Mcmo 960708 Alcxandria Florisl McLcan Checking

05/10/% Telcphone S 11601l Memo961114 Bcll Allanite Mclean Chccking

OSIll196 Per Diem S 16S U() Memo 961995 II daysal SIS/day Mclean Cash

06/10/96 Mcals S Ull U() Memo 96070Sb O'Brian's Bozeman, MT VISA

06IJO/96 Pcr Dlcm S 90 Ill) Memo 961995 06 days la'S IS/day Mclean Cash

09107196 Luna S '12.00 Memo 960916 A-I Limo McLcan Chccking

Total S 28,976.59

i~

~It" H

~,-

PJ8 ( '1 ~hecking VISA Expenses Page 199
Bay Buchanan

Buchanan for President

Reimbursed Expenses - Overpayment

Original FEC Audit Cmte Adjusted

Amounts Amounts Amounts

EAR's Submitted:

Angela "Bay" Buchanan $ 17,996.62 (1-31 ) $ 17,973.66 (1032) $ 22;066.78 (1-33)

=;1,1:11

First Deposit 14,578.01 (I-bl ) 8,746.06 (l-b2) 10,353.70 (l-b3) :; il Colonial 11,796.23 (I-cl) 8,211.07 (1-c2) 8,305.46 (1-c3)

~~

(IiIT Subtotals $ 44,370.86 (1-<l1 ) $ 34,930.79 (1-<l2) $ 40,725.94 (1-<l3) ;f.

::

U~

rh~ Checks Paid: W Angela "Bay" Buchanan $ 19,651.89 (l1-a1)

1'\ First Deposit 10,459.57 (lI-a2)

Colonial 11,796.23 (lI-a3) g

ru' Total Payments (41,907.69) (11-34)

ru

Over-Payment $ (1,181.75)

Summary:

Duplicate Payments

Undocumented Expenses

Amount Due to Committee

$ 1,151.31 (11I-a1)

30.44

$ 1,18175

Bay Expenses_bfp 3/25/99

ATUC Nt _..,..1.,.,..,._

Page of :"3 z::
r.:~ i:!~ !!l []l ~;if' ill [:Ii y:::~ !~; III Ii..R.. :~~~: ~~t<

Bay Buchanan

Schedule of Reimbursed Expenses - Adjusted

.,: \:fL~~.~f~~~{~n;:~f~~m;~gD~U%~:~:~m;:;:;.mt;:;:nhit~iMm~~M!.[~~~m~~m~rl~~~l?mlw@m~_~mm~11~i~~~~~%i~~~mlliW Dupes Audil Ami Add'i Doc's Adjusted Totals

Bay 0110 S U8·U8 S IA84611 S - S - $ · $

Bay 0111 167.00 - - 167.00 - 167.00

Bay 1025 21.85 - · 2385 · 23.85

Bay 1459 \.50306 - - 1.503.06 - 1.S03.06

Bay 1461 12512 - · 325.12 · 325.32

Bay 1803 216 <J<J - - 216.<J9 - 236.99

Bay 1877 22 <J'J . · 22.'J'J · 22.'J9

Bay \KK5 'J7 02 - - <J7.02 - 97.02

Ba., 1'1.J.J lK? (HI - - :lK<JOO - 389.00

Ba\ 2072 8\2 57 KI2 57

Ba~ 207:1 6'J 20 6920 - 69.20

Bay 2120 1{HI 32 :100.32 · 300.32

Bay 2251 45.J 6\ - · 454.6\ - 454.6\

Bay 2562 28.168 - 283.68 - 283.68

Bay 2705 408.65 - · 408.65 - 408.65

Bay 2914 1.33510 1.0\5.17 - :119.93 797.27 1,117.20

Bay 2<J50 174.09 - · 174.09 · 17409

Bay 3075 1.280.95 1.280.95 · - 766.74 766.74

Bay 3095

Bay 3096 86.27 86.27 · - 18.01 18.01

Bay 3767 2.196.54 . - 2.196.54 · 2.196.54

Bay 6216 374.10 37410 - - 102.10 102.10

Bay 6217 843.83 843.83 - - 843.83 843.83

"'It-- Il' >-;l Bay 6218 765.25 765.25 - - 765.25 765.25

Bay 62\9 737.56 737.56 - - 737.56 737.56

~~ Bay 6220 1.134.\2 - - 1.134.12 - 1,134.12

Bay 6221 788.79 - 788.79 - 788.79

Bay 6222 U3U4 - 1,33 1.44 - 1.331.44

Bay 6225 345.28 - - 345.28 - 345.28

Bay 6226 24.36 2·U6 - . 62.36 62.36

SublOlal $ J7.99662 S 6.612.17 S 812.57 S 10.571.88 S 4.093.12 $ 14,665.00

Bay r 'ses_bfp Schedu!' . of 2) ,{99
r,. fl] ~;" m [ti

Bay Buchanan

Schedule of Reimbursed Expenses - Adjusted

Post Fieldwork 6780 S S (1,40845) S - S 1,40845 $ - $ [.408.45

Post Fieldwork "B - R" (5,'.1'.13.33) - 5,9'.13.33 - 5,993.33

Subtotal S S (7.40178) $ · S 7.40178 $ - $ 7,40178

Bay Subtotal S 17,'.1'.16.62 S (78'.161) S 812.57 S 17.'.173.66 $ 4.0'.13.12 $ 22.066.78

(a I) (a2) (a3)

Firsl DeposlI n 11857 S 1.01K) 00 S I.lKKIOO S - S S - $

First DepoSit 1451 )'.Il1 02 . · )'.1802 - 39'.1.70

FIrSI DepoSit 11,41 404 49 - · 404.49 · 404.49

First DeposlI 1817 '.122 '.122 '.1.22

Firsl DeposlI 21162 640 50 . · 640.50 · 640.50

First DeposlI W2'.1 un 18 1.17477 - 1.81761 157.69 1.975.30

First Deposit Ckll1578 ).111I44 ).11844

FIrSt Deposit J153 564.5'.1 - - 564.59 - 564.59

First Deposit )720 1.292 81 - - 1.29281 1,29281

First Deposil 4111 1.27794 338.74 '.139.20 1.182.81 2.122.01

Firsl Deposit 4521 1.81196 - - 1.81196 · 1.811.96

FirSI DeposiI 5486 867.66 - - 867.66 265.46 1.133.12

Subtotal S 14,578.01 S H93.21 S 338.74 S 8.746.06 $ 1.605.96 $ 10,353.70

(b I) (b2) (b3)

Visa Colonial 5485 S 5.21219 S )04 3'.1 S - S 4.907.80 S 9·U9 S 5.002.19

~lo- Visa Colonial 5788 6,58404 ).28077 - 3,303.27 3.303.27

§ Subtotal S 11.79623 S 3.58516 S - S 8,21107 $ 94.39 $ 8,305.46

(e I) (e2) (e3)

TOlals $ 44.37086 S 8.28876 $ 1,151.31 $ 34.930.79 S 5.793.47 S 40,725.94

01 (dl) (d2) (d3)

H>

Bay Expenses_bfp Schedule I {2 of 2} 3/25/99
Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Checks

•

r--=:;

•

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

Bay Buchanan

First Deposit

First Deposit

First Deposit

First Deposit - Void

First Deposit

First Deposit

First Deposit

First Deposit

First Deposit

Visa Colonial

Visa Colonial

91

224

459

467

807

10179

10443

1464

1586

2026

. 2045

453

527

797

857

1190

1363

1486

1578

1714

1715

2008

01110/95 $

03/08/95

04/13/95

04/18/95

07/11/95

08/16195

11/14/95

11/28/95

04/04/96

05/13/96

05/17196

Subtotal

04/12195 $

05/08/95

07111/95

07117/95

10/10/95

11/08/95

12104/95

04/03/96

04/10/96

Subtotal

04/10/96 $

05/08/96

Subtotal

1,484.68

190.85

1,500.00

328.38

1,627.77

4.000.00

496.96

1.000.00

1.023.25

3.000.00

5.000.00

398.02

404.49

649.72

2,000.00

1.800.00

1.249.78

3.089.90

867.66

5.212.19

6.584.04

(lI-a1) $ 19.651.89

(lI-a2) 10.459.57

(lI-a3) 11.796.23

Total Expense Reimbursement Checks (lI-a4) $ 41.907.69

Schedule II (1 of 1) 3/25/99

AT1'AC.I:lJd.E;NT --f.................__ Pale (olpo~ "i L
g;~~ ~-:: w 0 :;il' H1 0 ii~ S er 1L.jJ.. :::~p ~~;lt' ~;

.Bay Buchanan

Duplicate Expenses

Audit Ref Date Expens. Merchant City Payment Method Envelope Amount

"t:1/»>

iii '" 0-3 0-3

~if\

I

1 229 11/18/95 Lodging Omni

1 230 11/18/95 Lodging Omn!

2 227 11/18/95 Lodging Omni

2 228 11/18/95 Lodging Omni

3 207 11/12195 Lodging Hilton

3 208 11/12195 Lodging Hilton

4 9 01122195 Telephone CeliularOne

4 10 01/22195 Telephone CeliularOne

5 19 02122195 Telephone CellularOne

5 20 02122195 Telephone CeliularOne

6 41 03/22/95 Telephone CellularOne

6 42 03/22195 Telephone CeliularOne

7 26 03/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic

7 27 03/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic

8 33 03/13/95 Telephone AT&T

8 34 03/13/95 Telephone AT&T

9 45 04/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic

9 46 04/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic

Bay Expenses_bfp

Orlando, Fl Providian Visa EAR #3767

Orlando, Fl Providian Visa EAR #4111

Orlando, Fl Providian Visa EAR #4111

Orlando, Fl Providian Visa EAR #3767

Oakland, CA Proviaian Visa EAR #4111

Oakland, CA Providian Visa EAR #4111

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #1459

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #1459

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #1459

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #1459

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #1459

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072

Oakton, VA Checking EAR #1459

Total Submitted

Actual Expenses per FEC

Add" Expense per Cmte Ii!

Total Duplicate Expenses

Shedule III (1 of 1)

$

$

$

184.17

184.17

154.57

154.57

98.79

98.79

184.47

184.47

337.79

337.79

241.98

241.98

11.40

11.40

8.90

8.90

28.03

28.03

2,500.20

(1,250.10)

- (98.79)

1,151.31

(a1 ) 3/25/99
~;~ ii:;~,! m [!J ~:?' I!! [::n ~~~ 5; Hi fi,~n :~3: :;? ~Si

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

9 01/22195 Telephone CellularOne Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072 $ 184.47

11 01/22195 Telephone CellularOne Oakton, VA EAR #1459 EAR #2072 $ (184.47)

20 02122195 Telephone CellularOne Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072 $ 337.79

21 02122195 Telephone CellularOne Oakton, VA EAR #1459 EAR #2072 $ (337.79)

26 03/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072 $ 11.40

28 03/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic Oakton, VA EAR #1459 EAR #2072 $ (11.40)

33 03/13/95 Telephone AT&T Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072 $ 8.90

35 03113195 Telephone AT&T Oakton, VA EAR #1459 EAR #2072 $ (8.90)

42 03/22195 Telephone CeliularOne Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072 $ 241.98

43 03122/95 Telephone CeliularOne Oakton, VA EAR #1459 EAR #2072 $ (241.98)

45 04/01195 Telephone Bell Atlantic Oakton, VA Checking EAR #2072 $ 28.03

47 04/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic Oakton, VA EAR #1459 EAR #2072 $ (28.03)

$

.e"'~~J

Bay 5es_bfp Envelop' 'f 13) 199
i~~~!~ i~~~ !U l[]i 'l' Il! Il] [2: ~;~;; J!! ""Jl~ :E.~ ~;w

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

Envelopes (2 of 13) 3/25/99

i~~l_J~f:W~~M~~~mwmi~W.}mHi~~:~mIDl~illKlwUil~il~W%1tm~;1:lUt1~Ut~~~tW1m~t~lm~*m~~~~WW~~~m!~n~~~~lt~tm.m~%lliMlii*~t~!!~i,~itwl~m\: City Payment Method MI/es Envelope Amount

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 79.83

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 38.63

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 23.18

Comfort Inn Navarre Bch, FL First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 167.99

Courtyard Tallahassee, FL First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 85.80

Courtyard Tallahassee,FL EAR #2582 EAR #2914 $ (85.80)

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 10.30

GTE Airfone Oakbrook. II First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 5.15

Oscars Restaurant New York First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 37.66

Oscars Restaurant New York EAR #2582 EAR #2914 $ (37.65)

Des Moines, IA EAR #2914 $ 30.00

Host Int'l Detroit Cash EAR #2914 $ 4.41

Des Moines, IA EAR #2914 $ 30.00

Noah's Ark Ristorante Des Moines, IA First USA Bank EAR #2914 $ 71.80

Airport Parking Dulles Cash EAR #2914 $ 38.00

Des Moines, IA EAR #2914 $ 30.00

Holliday Inn Des Moines, IA Crestar Visa-MC EAR #2914 $ 10.81

Des Moines, IA EAR #2914 $ 30.00

Vie de France Des Moines, IA Cash EAR #2914 $ 2.98

Des Moines, IA EAR #2914 $ 30.00

Mamoll Des Moines, IA Crestar Visa-MC EAR #2914 $ 514.11

$ 1,117.20

102 07/12195 Telephone

101 07/12195 Telephone

100 07/12195 Telephone

103 07/13/95 Lodging

106 07/14/95 Lodging

104 07/14/95 Lodging

111 07/30/95 Telephone

°AO 07/30/95 Telephone

115 08/02/95 Meals

114 08/02195 Meals

123 08/18/95 Per Diem

122 08/18/95 Meals

124 08/19/95 Per Diem

126 08/20/95 Meals

127 08/20/95 Parking

128 08/20/95 Per Diem

137 09/02195 Meals

139 09/05/95 Per Diem

138 09/05/95 Meals

141 09/06195 Per Diem

144 09/07/95 Lodging

~~H%~IErt~~\~~mUm~tl~NWt~~~'

Ref Date

Bay Expenses_blp

"dl--

I" '"" ;:

0 1
ir.;!: i~!~ It! ij]:7 III [:II ij~::::;;i; J]J Unn',:3 ::?' :Fit

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

Cltv Pllyment Method MI/8!S Envelope Amount

Oakton. VA Checking EAR #3075 $ 350.95

Des Moines. IA Crestar Visa-MC EAR #3075 $ 514.11

Des Moines. IA Crestar Vlsa-MC EAR #3075 $ 131.79

Des Moines. IA EAR #2914 EAR #3075 $ (514.11)

Newark.NJ Crestar Visa-MC EAR #3075 $ 272.00

Oakton. VA EAR #3075 $ 10.00

Dulles Cash EAR #3075 $ 2.00

$ 766.74

CarPark

·;{~~fJll~;~;.;f-FTI:~;,n.:~~~ j;Tht,.t~f~lB~tt~;:lliH~~~~~}~1~~~ml~¥~U%1~tt1lqMMillI}tl\t\~l~]lI[l~Rl~ml[i~E~~~.*lifi~.~Mwmm~lt~~~lI~ll~~&~lK~

Bell Atlantic

Marriott

Marrioll

Marrioll

Continental Ail1ines

136 09/01/95 Telephone

143 09/07/95 Lodging

142 09/07/95 Lodging

145 09/07/95 Lodging

150 09/22/95 Airfare

154 09/22195 Per Diem

153 09/22/95 Parking

'1:1:>-

i a

p,1

Bay F ~es_bfp Envelope f 13) '99
i;.~ iC2.~ 1!l fO :;;if 11! (]2~; !I! H"n" :~; 7 gi

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

J~w~u%1*~lliillit:~wml\Wi~.\:·~m~i~¥~1~i\{¥.~~~m~\t~~~~~llil$~~[t111~t~mK~l~1~~m~tw1~i:~@~m~t~l~~~}~~~U~ti%'~mtti~mll~U%_*a~t~~~t~Mt:

pam ype C/ry Payment Method Miles Envelope Amount

67 06/01/95 Telephone Bell Atlantic Oakton, VA Checking EAR #3096 $ 39.61

68 06/01/95 Telephone Bell Allantic Oakton, VA EAR #2251 EAR #3096 $ (39.61 )

80 06/16/95 Meals Ristorante iI Borgo Mclean, VA Cash EAR #3096 $ 23.15

86 06/16/95 Meals Ristorante iI Borgo MClean, VA EAR #2073 EAR #3096 $ (23.15)

91 06/20/95 Parking Atlantic Garage Washington D.C. Cash EAR #3096 $ 5.50

93 06/20/95 Parking Allantic Garage Washington D.C. EAR #2251 EAR #3096 $ (5.50)

370 06/19/96 Gas Shell Vienna, VA Gas Card EAR #3096 $ 18.01

$ 18.01

't1~

It;

~I~.

I Bay Expenses_bfp Envelopes (4 of 13) 3/25/99
2 ii::: !U [:II :;? III If] if.::~~:; m U..fr, ::.~: ~~J [}

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

m%I-h~ti@H~~j~Jh~lliH~:~{~~~

Ref Date

151 09/22195 Airfare

152 09/22195 Airfare

156 09/24/95 Lodging

·~~~?J]*§K~f~l~1.lliii+~~}@l;t%~m~;;~~~~~:;\Hm~:;;~H~:~E~~mtlfrm~mmtlli~tWm1mm~m~~¥lmtt.m~~~~~%*1~~~~ru~~~~.~t1f.fm~1Jill[~.~~~mWm~1tmglli]fWti~jlli1~~.mJW~:

City Payment Method Miles Envelope Amount

Continental Airlines Washington D.C. Crestar Visa-MC EAR #6216 $ 272.00

Continental Airlines Washington D.C. EAR #3075 EAR #6216 $ (272.00)

Maniott Newark,NJ Creslar Visa-MC EAR #6216 $ 102.10

$ 102.10

'"d l<-

i

r~

1M Boy' ~e5_bfp Envelope' f 13) 99
i;?':~ i'E~~ H! []I :~~l !H it)i2!Si; III ILlI.. :3: ~E~ ,1.

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

160 10/02195 Telephone

161 10/05/95 Parking

164 10/09/95 Telephone

163 10/09/95 Telephone

166 10/10/95 Lodging

165 10/10/95 Lodging

173 10/12/95 Meals

172 10/12/95 Airfare

178 10/14/95 Telephone

175 10/14/95 Per Diem

177 10/14/95 Telephone

176 10/14/95 Telephone

184 10/18/95 Telephone

183 10/18/95 Telephone

188 10/19/95 Telephone

187 10/19/95 Telephone

186 10/19/95 Telephone

\if:f::W;~~%m~~;:~m~m~m~TImfl~it: Ref Date

*~'_t~~*l%~~mim~m&t~~%~~n1~r@m~iMW~~mK~mI~~Bl~~(@~l~~\H~~t1~mUNt%1@~KmmilWm~~~mfut@~i~¥l1t;;fttm~@~~~q~i~m%~~\\¥:~t~;~mtm~@~¥1~~Wmmt~\~[¥If~r

"'erchant City Payment "'ethod "'iles Envelope Amount

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, " First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 60.05

CarPark Dulles Cash EAR #6217 $ 12.00

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, " First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 177.87

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 16.94

Hotel Syracuse Syracuse, NY Crestar Visa-MC EAR #6217 $ 182.89

Hotel Syracuse Syracuse, NY Crestar Visa-MC EAR #6217 $ 88.53

B S Des Moines. IA Crestar Visa-MC EAR #6217 $ 30.79

USAir Manchester. NH Crestar Visa-MC EAR #6217 $ 23.00

GTE Airfone Oakbrook. II Crestar Visa-MC EAR #6217 $ 62.92

New Hampshire EAR #6217 $ 30.00

GTE Airfone Oakbrook. II Creslar Visa-MC EAR #6217 $ 19.82

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, " Crestar Visa-MC EAR #6217 $ 14.07

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, " First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 28.44

GTE Airfone Oakbrook. " First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 5.45

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 54.30

GTE Airfone Oakbrook. " First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 19.82

GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #6217 $ 16.94

$ 843.83

'"CIl»

P' .-;

~f

IN Boy E,pe","'_bfp Envelopes (6 of 13) 3/25/99
""

&;

o ._

1-\

i2 i~ II! U] :~7' !!! lCt I~;::~ ~~~; m ""6"3: iE?J iC~

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

206 11/12/95 lodging Hillon Oakland, CA First USA Bank EAR tffl218 $ 163.55

205 11/12/95 lodging Hilton Oakland, CA First USA Bank EAR tffl218 $ 145.78

212 11/12/95 Telephone AT&T Airfone Jacksonville, Fl Crestar Visa-MC EAR tffl218 $ 26.41

213 11/12/95 Telephone AT&T Airfone Jacksonville, Fl Crestar Visa-MC EAR tffl218 $ 26.41

214 11/12/95 Telephone AT&T Airfone Jacksonville, Fl First USA Bank EAR tffl218 $ 15.84

211 11/12/95 Telephone AT&T Airfone JacksonVille, Fl Crestar Visa-MC EAR tffl218 $ 10.57

210 11/12/95 Telephone AT&T Airfone Jacksonville, Fl Crestar Visa-MC EAR tffl218 $ 5.28

237 11/22/95 Telephone CeliularOne Oakton, VA Checking EAR #6218 $ 371.41

$ 765.25

Bay r ses_bfp Envelopf ,f 13) -199
"d~

IU >-3 lJq >-3

~g

i!~~~ii;::!~ ffl [fi ::~iI' iii (J[ n:.:~~~; ill u..U.. ::.~;:~~~C :3

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

\~limMtmi~lWim~lli~tli:~~:mMm~MgtJmf;~Ilf4V@~·K@jfmnH~E1~t~~~wmmn~m~mmt~~~t:tr1%i~1m~HtfJ~}mrtW:[t~1~~11ttiimt~~tim~lli%~~t~mlfu~llhTIl1}

Ref D.te Expen.. TyPe Mereh.nt City P.yment Method Miles Envelope Amount

18 02121195 Gas Shell Mclean, VA Gas Card EAR #6219 $ 10.24

240 12101195 Telephone Bell Atlantic Oaklon, VA Checking EAR #6219 $ 155.68

241 12104/95 Postage U5 Postmaster Nashville, TN Checking EAR #6219 $ 64.00

247 12118/95 Shipping Delta Dash Mclean, VA VISA Colonial EAR #6219 $ 108.38

249 12119/95 Meals Elm 51 Deli Mclean, VA Cash EAR #6219 $ 14.25

251 12122195 Telephone CellularOne Oakton, VA Checking EAR #6219 $ 385.01

$ 737.56

Say Expenses_bfp Envelopes (8 of 13) 3/25/99
'UI>-

(J) :<-

u~

s-~

ii;;;!: ~~: !!! ll:::n :~? ~! U] it:;!: ~:;.; 1H tLll.. :~:!:: ii;~l;

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

232 11119/95 Lodging MarrioU Ortando, FL Providian Visa EAR #6226 $ 264.32

235 11119/95 Parking Airport Parking Dulles Cash EAR #6226 $ 38.00

231 11119/95 Lodging MarrioU Ortando, FL EAR #4111 EAR #6226 $ (264.32)

367 05/05/96 Gas Mobil Oakton, VA Gas Card EAR #6226 $ 24.36

$ 62.36

o

I

---.

Bay F 'Ses_bfp Envelope' 'If 13) '/99
2 it~~ J!I n:Ji :;:? ;r. ij] ii:~ ~~ !I! iLU.. ~~Tt iEt ~~;

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

~m~m~~lt~~i:i~B.ll~@~R' Ref Date

~~~~*_1l~~~t%~~UJlliJr~mjk%~l:~m~WfmW£illf.~*11t@~l\~~m~t1il1mn~~7Jll_~lill~1~~~~tlH~~mt~~\~~nm~~~t1lli1m~~Immfm~!till~imI1lHlll~r City Payment Method Miles Envelope Amount

63 05/16/95 Lodging Harbor Court Baltimore, MD Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 168.00

64 05/18/95 Lodging Holiday Inn Iowa City, IA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 211.28

69 06/05195 Lodging Hilton Kenner, LA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 162.04

71 06109195 Lodging Embassy Suites College Pari<, GA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 97.44

125 08/20/95 lodging Hampton Inn Ames,IA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 68.20

133 08121/95 Lodging Marriott Des Moines, IA providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 246.15

132 08/21/95 Lodging Marriott Des Moines, IA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 229.89

131 08/21/95 Lodging Marriott Des Moines, IA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 199.08

130 08/21195 Lodging Marriott Des Moines, fA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 154.56

129 08/21/95 Lodging Marriott Des Moines, IA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 77.28

135 08/23/95 Lodging Marriott Des Moines, IA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 82.88

140 09/06/95 lodging Marriott Allanta Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 200.00

146 09108/95 Lodging Hyatt Greenville, SC Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 52.50

147 09/14195 Miscellaneous Late Payment Fee Oakton, VA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 13.00

148 09114195 Miscellaneous Over Limit Fee Oakton, VA Providian Visa EAR #3029 $ 13.00

$ 1.975.30

i~

~IgJ- Bay Expenses_bfp Envelopes (10 of 13) 3125/99
l~~!~ E:.~: III U] ~~~!' !If ij] n;:~ ~~1; Ii! 11 ..0" :~~s; Q::t E!i

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

~t,~~_~~~t_r~mM;1~~W~~~MJ~1~_~.E$'iKlli~~~~mI\~!.$~W1tNlttI~~l~fumtDMtm~mt~fHl~~~~Jt2~.\~.mf~~.tlillM~%Tht~tt~nl~mt~IW!~~[51tmt11T&~[I@

Ref a.te &pense TyP! 1118TCh.nt City P.yment Method Mlfea Enve/ooe Amount

207 11/12195 Lodging Hilton Oakland, CA Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 98.79

208 11/12195 Lodging Hilton Oakland, CA Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 98.79

217 11/14/95 Lodging Cpt Morgans Plntn Columbia, SC Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 147.11

220 11/15i95 Lodging The Breakers Palm Bch, FL Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 242.00

224 11/17/95 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, 1/ Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 34.19

223 11/17/95 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 14.07

221 11/17/95 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 8.32

222 11/17/95 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 8.32

230 11/18/95 Lodging Omni Ortando, FL Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 184.17

227 11/18/95 Lodging Omni Ortando, FL Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 154.57

226 11/18/95 Lodging Omni Ortando, FL EAR #3767 EAR #4111 $ (154.57)

225 11/18/95 Lodging Omn; Or1ando, FL EAR #3767 EAR #4111 $ (184.17)

234 11/19/95 Lodging Omni Ortando, FL Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 105.92

233 11119/95 Lodging Omni Ortando, FL Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 79.03

236 11/20/95 Lodging Marriot1 Ortando, FL Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 264.32

238 11/24/95 Meals Stouffer Ren Rest Ortando, FL Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 219.00

239 11129/95 Lodging Marrioll Des Moines, fA Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 138.03

242 12107/95 Lodging Sheraton Tucson, AZ Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 227.85

243 12107/95 Lodging Sheraton Tucson. AZ Providian Visa EAR #4111 $ 227.85

244 12108/95 Supplies OAG Hotel Disk Denver Providian Visa EAR#4111 $ 208.42

$ 2,122.01

lUI>

OR'" >-3 >-3

(l) I>

••v, 'es_bfp Enveloper 'f 13) '99
~~ ~2: I!! 6] '?' I!' U] if.;;~ ll!

:~::i~ I,,,,,"

't:l ;»

i

fiI

l?9 -

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

~:WHWmW#1n¥£]m~li'Mrf' Ref O.te

301 02127/96 Lodging Sheraton Mesa, AZ. First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 311.33

302 02128/96 Lodging Marriott Atlanta First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 215.50

303 02128/96 Lodging Sheraton Mesa. AZ First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 106.71

311 03/03/96 Lodging Radisson Kenner, LA First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 119.01

312 03/03/96 Meals Braves Club House Atlanta First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 74.10

313 03/03/96 Meals Embassy Suites Greenville, SC Firsl USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 10.02

316 03/04/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 15.45

317 03/04/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 15.45

332 03/19/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 15.45

333 03/19/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook. II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 15.45

334 03/19/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 15.45

343 03/22196 Car Rental National Newport Beach VISA Colonial EAR #5486 $ 70.97

351 03/25/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook. II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 103.15

350 03/25/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook. II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 22.69

349 03/25/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 14.07

348 03/25/96 Telephone GTE Airfone Oakbrook, II First USA Bank EAR #5486 $ 8.32

$ 1.133.12

rl Bay Expenses_bfp Envelopes (12 of 13) 3/25/99
'til>

i

~,I

2: ic~ ffl JlJ ~7:i1' f!! [11 2 :~:; Ul ILfl..3: :!:1: :E~

Bay Buchanan

Expense Reimbursement Envelopes

Mfll'Chanl

258 01/07/96 Airfare USAir Columbia, SC VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 388.00

259 01/07/96 Lodging Host Inl'l Charlotte, NC VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 27.03

262 01/08/96 Lodging Hilton Kenner, LA VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 161.74

261 01/08/96 Lodging Adams Marll Columbia, SC VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 148.47

267 01/09/96 Lodging Holiday Inn Balon Rouge, LA VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 74.44

264 01/09/96 Car Rental Enterprise Kenner, LA VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 61.22

272 01/10/96 Lodging Hyatt Charlotte, NC VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 199.39

265 02106/96 Lodging Holiday Inn Lake Charles, LA VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 256.93

287 02113/96 Airfare Umted Airlines Basion VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 134.27

286 02113/96 Airfare United Airlines Boston VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 134.27

289 02113/96 Meals Noah's ArlI Ristorante Des Moines, IA VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 43.91

291 02114/96 Lodging Marriott Des Moines, IA VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 174.21

292 02115/96 Airfare United Airlines Washington D.C. VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 604.00

295 02117/96 Meals Puritan Back Room Rstr Manchester, NH VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 491.76

294 02117/96 Airfare United Airlines Washington D.C. VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 194.00

293 02117/96 Airfare United Airlines Washington D.C. VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ (105.00)

297 02120/96 Miscellaneous Executive Club Manchester, NH VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 24.00

298 02121/96 lodging Holiday Inn Manchester, NH VISA Colonial EAR #5485 $ 1,989.55

$ 5,002.19

Bay EO' ~es_bfp Envelopef 'f 13) 99
APPENDIX C

March 25 1999

scon MCKENZIE

JOANNE TARANTINO

BUCHANAN 1996 EUROPEAN TRAVEL

e Tarantino

~th 100strator

SUBJECT:

t am faxing a copy of the invoice for the Buchanan's personal travel to Paris/London

which was paid for with their personal check. The ticket numbers shown were not charged or

billed to the Buchanan for President account, nor paid for by the campaign.

Thank you,

MEMO:

FROM:

11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW . SUITE 375. WASHINGTON. DC. 20036

PHONE: (2Q2) 986-2066 TOLL FREE 1·800·368·5874 FAX; (202) 986-2064

ATT.lCJ¥.EtN'Jl.--1. . PA8ElAL-~
ITINERARY/INVOICE NO. ~~45759

QYUQCC

.",.1111 fll"lIIIr~"'Ill~!·IL'~~~~~f!*tt1~#~ .._ 1111."" u.J.IA'" ~.".,,,,..,. ....., ...

I DUPONT CIRCLE N.W., surre 375, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

;ALES PERSON: IIJB

:USTOMER N~R: 010900

TO: OFFICES OF PAT 5UCHANAN

FOR PRESIDENT

6862 ELM STREET

SUITE 2Ul

MCLEAN VA 221ti11

FOR: BUCHANAN/PATRICK J

BUCHANAN/SHELLEY

JEFFR£.Y·A=ERRANE:E-· ..--- _.._--_.. ---_.--_. - ._-.--.---- .

TOLL FREE: 1·800-368·5874

FAX: (202) 986-20t'iJ,

DATE: 24 JUN S

PAGE: tll1

0

~5 JUN 96 TUESDAY

f-:i1 AIR UNITED AIRLINES FLT:914

= LV WASHINGTON DULL.ES a:

-26 JUN 96 WEDNESDAY iJi AR PARIS DE GAULL.E rw

F'I BUCHANAN/PATRIe SEAT-14D = BUCHANAN/SHELLE SEAT-14E • JEFFREY/TERRANe SEAT-14". r",.

iI ...,

t:29 JUN 96 SATURDAY • AIR BR IT ISH AIRWAYS FL.T:3S7 :F.:~

Hi LV PARIS DE GAUL.LE TERM:l

iiJ AR LONDON HEATHROW

05 JUL 96 FRIDAY

AIR UNITED AIRLINES FLT:921

LV LONDON HEATHROW TERM:3

AR WASHINGTON DULLES

BUCHANANIPATRIC SEAT-40E

BUCHANAN/SHELLE SEAT-4eF'

JEFFREY/TERRANC SEAT-40G

BUSINESS

6llP

735A

UA-SSt61SBS672

UA-"""6152e9B3

STANDARD

1230P

124BP

ECONOMY

115SA

250P

UA-0""61:585672

UA-s"e615229,3

DINNER

EGlP: BOEING 777

NON-STOP

EQP: BOEING 757

NON-STOf

LUNCH

EQP: BOEING 777

NON-STOP

AIR TICKET

AIR TICKET

AIR TICKET

UA131988~~84

UA1319BB558S

UA13198B5586

BUCHANAN PATRICK J

BUCHANAN SHELLEY

JEFFREY TERRANCE

SUB TOTAL

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE

2,737.55

2,737.55

2,737.55

8,212.65

DELIVER TO BUCHANAN OFFICE TODAY •••••*•••••*.6124
REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION

ON

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT, INC.

Approved January 14, 1999

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT, INC.

PAGE

n~

Executive Summary H,,=,

Rio

=~~

:..:;;, Audit Report 3 f~

~~ Background 3 =~

• Findings 4 :! i;~

bP

it,! Legal Analysis 27

Q

iii

Transmittal to Committee 33 r....~,

t=~ ,= Transmittal to Candidate 35

iiJ

f\~ Chronology 37
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 204b'\

•

r~ ",

REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION

ON

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT, INC.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Buchanan for President, Inc. (the Committee) registered with the Federal Election

Commission on February 16, 1995 as the principal campaign committee for Patrick J.

Buchanan, a primary candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for the office of

President ofthe United States.

The audit was conducted pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9038(a), which requires the

Federal Election Commission to audit committees authorized by candidates who receive

Federal funds. The Committee received $10,983,475 in matching funds from the United

States Treasury.

The findings ofthe audit were presented in the Exit Conference Memorandum

received by the Committee on May 8, 1998. The audit report includes the Committee's

response to the findings.

Use OfCandidate's Funds In Excess OfThe Limitation - 11 CFR

§9035.2(a)(I) and (2). The Candidate loaned the Committee $40,000 and made a direct

contribution of $1 ,000, in addition to using his personal credit card to pay for campaign

related expenses, exceeding his $50,000 contribution limitation by a minimum of

$50,374.

Apparent Prohibited Contributions Resulting From Extension OfCredit By

Commercial Vendor - 2 U.S.C. §441b(a), llCFR §100.7(a)(4), llCFR §116.3(c).

The Committee used Matching Funds, Inc. (MFI) to prepare and file matching funds

submissions. MFI did not make commercially reasonable attempts to collect $183,009

for services rendered, thereby making an apparent prohibited contribution to the

Committee.

Disclosure Of Occupation/Name Of Employer - 2 U.S.C. §434(b)(3), 2 U.S.C.

S431 (I3)(A), 2 U.S.C. §432(h)(2)(i). A sample review of the Committee's contributions

resulted in a material error rate with respect to the disclosure of contributors' occupations

and names ofemployer. The projected dollar value ofthe errors in the population was

$2,422,604. The Audit staff concluded that the Committee did not exercise best efforts to
obtain and report the information. The Committee filed a miscellaneous document to

supplement the public record. However, the document did not conform with the

requirements for amendments at 11 CFR §104.7 (b)(4)(i).

Receipt of Cash Contributions in Excess ofthe Limitation - 2 U.S.C §431 g, II CFR

§11 0.4(c)(2) and (3). The Committee received $15,163 in excessive cash contributions

which were either not refunded/disposed of($2,408) or not timely refunded ($12,755).

The Audit staffrecommended a payment to the U.S. Treasury, however, the Commission

determined not to require a payment in this case where the amount at issue had been

refunded, albeit untimely. The remaining amount ($2,408) was immaterial.

Apparent Non-Qualified Campaign Expenses- 26 U.S.C. §9032(9), 11 CFR

§9034.4(a)(l) and (3),11 CFR 9034.4(b)(3), IICFR §9033.11(a) and (b), 11 CFR

§9038.2(a)(2) and 11 CFR §9038.2(b)(2)(i) and (iii). The Audit identified undocumented

disbursements totaling $58,845 and duplicate or non-campaign related disbursements

totaling $51,343. As a result, The Commission determined that a pro-rata repayment to

the U.S. Treasury in the amount of$44,791 was warranted.

Press Billings for Transportation Costs - 11 CFR §9034.6(a) The Audit staff

calculated that the Committee received reimbursements from the press for transportation

which exceeded the amount to which it was entitled and as a result, an amount was

payable to the U.S. Treasury and the press was entitled a refund. In response, the

Committee provided documentation in support of additional transportation costs which

when factored into our cost analysis demonstrated that no refund to the press or

repayment to the U.S. Treasury was required.

Determination of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations - II CFR

§9034.5(a), 11 CFR §9034.1 (b). The Audit staff conducted an analysis of the

Committee's financial position and concluded that the Committee did not receive

matching funds in excess of its entitlement.

Stale-Dated Committee Checks - II CFR 9038.6. The Audit staff identified

checks issued by the Committee totaling $27,431, that had not been negotiated. The

Commission determined that this amount was payable to the U.S. Treasury.

2
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 2U41> 1

REPORT OF THE A UDIT DIVISION

ON

BUCHANANFOR PRESIDENT, INC.

I. BACKGROUND

This report is based on an audit ofBuchanan for President, Inc. (the

Committee). The audit is mandated by Section 9038(a) ofTitle 26 ofthe United States

Code. That section states that "After each matching payment period, the Commission

shall conduct a thorough examination and audit ofthe qualified campaign expenses of

every candidate and his authorized committees who received payments under section

9037". Also, Section 9039(b) ofthe United States Code and Section 9038.1 (a)(2) ofthe

Commission's Regulations state that the Commission may conduct other examinations

and audits from time to time as it deems necessary.

A. AUDIT AUTHORITY

In addition to examining the receipt and use of Federal funds, the audit

seeks to determine ifthe campaign has materially complied with the limitations,

prohibitions, and disclosure requirements ofthe Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971

(FECA), as amended.

B. AUDIT COVERAGE

The audit covered the period from the Committee's first bank transaction,

January 11, 1995, through October 31, 1996. The Committee reported an opening cash

balance of$-O-; total receipts of$31 ,012,597; total disbursements of$31,018,963; and a

closing cash balance of$2,460. 1 In addition, a limited review ofthe Committee's records

and disclosure reports filed through September 30, 1997 was conducted for purposes of

determining the Committee's matching fund entitlement based on its financial position.

C. CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION

The Committee maintains its headquarters in McLean, Virginia. The

Treasurer is Mr. Scott B. Mackenzie.

The reported figures do not foot due to various reporting errors. All figures are rounded to the

nearest dollar amount.

3
4

The Committee registered with the Federal Election Commission on

February 16, 1995 as the principal campaign committee for Patrick 1. Buchanan, a

primary candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for the office of President ofthe

United States. During the period audited, the Committee maintained depositories in

Virginia, District ofColumbia, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, New Hampshire, South

Carolina, and California. To handle its financial activity, the Committee utilized 23 bank

accounts. During the audit period, the Committee made approximately 7,865

disbursements from these accounts and received approximately 472,200 contributions,

totaling approximately $15,122,000.

Mr. Buchanan was determined eligible to receive matching funds on May

31, 1995. The Committee made 19 requests for matching funds and received

$10,983,475 from the United States Treasury. This amount represents 71% ofthe

$15,455,000 maximum entitlement that any candidate could receive. For matching fund

purposes, the Commission determined that Mr. Buchanan's candidacy ended on August

14, 1996, the date on which the Republican Party selected its nominee. On April 29,

1997, the Committee received its final matching fund payment to defray qualified

campaign expenses and to help defray the cost of winding down the campaign.

D. AUDIT SCOPE AND PROCEDURES

In addition to a review of expenditures made by Buchanan for President,

Inc. to determine ifthey were qualified or non-qualified campaign expenses (see Finding

III.B.), the audit covered the following general categories:

I. The receipt of contributions from prohibited sources, such as those from

corporations or labor organizations (see Finding II.B.);

2. the receipt of contributions or loans in excess of the statutory limitations

(see Findings ILA. and IILA.);

3. proper disclosure of contributions from individuals, political committees

and other entities, to include the itemization of contributions when

required, as well as, the completeness and accuracy ofthe information

disclosed (see Finding II.C.);

4. proper disclosure of disbursements including the itemization of

disbursements when required, as well as, the completeness and accuracy of

the information disclosed;

5. proper disclosure of campaign debts and obligations (sec Finding ILB.);

6. the accuracy oftotal reported receipts, disbursements and cash balances as

compared to campaign bank records;

4
2

5

7. adequate recordkeeping for campaign transactions;

8. accuracy ofthe Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations filed

by the Committee to disclose its financial condition and to establish

continuing matching fund entitlement (see Finding III.D.);

9. the Committee's compliance with spending limitations; and,

10. other audit procedures that were deemed necessary in the situation

(see Findings III.B., III.e. and ULE.).

As part ofthe Commission's standard audit process, an inventory of

campaign records was conducted prior to the audit fieldwork. This inventory was

conducted to determine ifthe Committee's records were materially complete and in an

auditable state. Based on our review ofrecords presented, it was concluded that the

records, except disbursements, were materially complete and fieldwork began

immediately on the contribution and bank reconciliation portions ofthe audit. The

Committee materially complied with the Audit staffs request for additional records and

the disbursements portion ofthe audit commenced.

With respect to disbursements, the records maintained by the Committee

met the minimum recordkeeping requirements of 11 CFR §9033.11. However, the

records did not contain sufficient information in every case to establish that the

expenditure was incurred by or on behalf ofthe candidate or his authorized committee

and made in connection with his campaign for nomination (see Finding III.B.).

During our testing ofthe Committee's disbursements, the Audit staff

noted instances where the available documentation was a canceled check (with a notation

as to purpose) to evidence payments to consultants and stipends to employees for living

expenses. In addition, the Committee used an Expense Authorization Request (EAR)2

created by the Committee's accounting staff to support these payments. The Audit staff

noted that many ofthe EAR's did not contain an authorization signature. Also, the

Committee did not (except in a few instances) establish contracts or have written

employment agreements with its consultants or maintain written administrative policies

to govern the payment ofstipends to employees for living expenses.

The Audit staff was unable to verify the accuracy ofinformation contained

on the EAR or other memoranda because the Committee generated the documents and no

documentation from the payees was available for review.

Section 9033.11 (b)(1 )(ii)(B) of Title II of the Code of Federal Regulations provides for the use of

a contemporaneous memorandum as an acceptable form of documentation. An EAR containing the

payee's name and address, the amount, date and an adequate purpose or description ofthe disbursement

meets the minimum documentation requirements.

5
3

6

It should be noted that the Commission may pursue further any ofthe

matters discussed in this memorandum in an enforcement action. As set forth at Section

9038.2(f) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, the Commission may make

additional repayment determinations based on one or more ofthe bases for repayment set

forth at Section 9038(b) ofTitle 26 ofthe United States Code and Section 9039.2(b) of

Title II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations where there exist facts that were not used as

the basis of any previous repayment determination.

The audit findings were discussed at a conference held at the end of audit

fieldwork, January 29, 1998, and detailed in the Exit Conference Memorandum received

by the Committee on May 8, 1998. At the Committee's request, an Exit Conference was

not conducted.

II. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDAnONS - NON-REPAYMENT

MATTERS

A. USE OFTHE CANDIDATE'S FUNDS IN EXCESS OFTHE LIMITATION

Section 9035.2(a)(I) ofTitle 11 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states,

in part, that no candidate who has accepted matching funds shall knowingly make

expenditures from his or her personal funds, or funds of his or her immediate family, in

connection with his or her campaign for nomination for election to the office of President

which exceed $50,000, in the aggregate. This section shall not operate to prohibit any

member of the candidate's immediate family from contributing his or her personal funds

to the candidate, subject to the limitations of I I CFR part 110.

Section 9035.2(a)(2) ofTitle I I ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states

that expenditures made using a credit card for which the candidate is jointly or solely

liable will count against the limits ofthis section to the extent that the full amount due,

including any finance charge, is not paid by the committee within 60 days after the

closing date of the billing statement on which the charges first appear. For purposes of

this section. the closing date shall be the date indicated on the billing statement which

serves as the cutoff date for determining which charges are included on that billing

statement.

On January 12, 1995, the candidate made a loan in the amount of $40,000

to the Committee; on March 31, 1995 the Committee received a $ I,000 contribution from

the candidate in the form of a check. In addition, the candidate and his spouse, Shelley

Buchanan. used an American Express credit card3 to pay for campaign related travel and

subsistence. Credit charges totaling $86,885 were paid directly to American Express

Company by the Committee.

American Express account with separate cards available for the candidate and his spouse. The

account is in the name of Patrick 1. Buchanan.

6
4

7

The Audit staffreviewed the credit card payments to American Express to

determine compliance with the 60 day reimbursement requirement of I I CFR

§9035.2(a)(2). Ofthe total, charges totaling $83,203, were not reimbursed within the

time limits provided and this amount was applied to the limitation on use of personal

funds by the candidate. The untimely payments were made from 67 to 342 days from the

closing date ofthe billing statements. Based on initial calculations made during audit

fieldwork, the largest amount by which the candidate exceeded the $50,000 limitation

was $72,203 after applying a payment made on May 8, 1996.

There was no documentation available with which to review any American

Express charges which may have been incurred after February 29, 1996. The Committee

repaid the candidate $38,000 on July 8, 1996 to liquidate the balance ofthe personal loan

($40,000 less previous repayment of $2,000 made on April 6, 1995) and reduced the

amount exceeding the $50,000 limitation to $34,203.

The Audit staffs finding was discussed with the Committee at the

conference held subsequent to the close offieldwork and the Committee was provided

with a detailed schedule.

In the Exit Conference Memorandum (the Memorandum), the Audit staff

recommended that the Committee provide evidence that the candidate did not exceed the

limitation on use ofpersonal funds in connection with his campaign. Also, the

Committee was requested to provide credit card statements and charge slips for the

candidate's American Express account or any other credit card account used for the

period of March I, 1996 to August 14,1996.

In response to the Memorandum, the Committee provided a list of

expenses that were submitted for reimbursement. These expenses were apparently (I)

incurred by the candidate and his spouse using the candidate's American Express card,

(2) incurred by the candidate or his spouse unrelated to the use ofthe candidate's

American Express card, or (3) charged to a Visa credit card account4

. The list also

included the candidate's loan and personal contribution to the Committee. These items

were listed in chronological order by due dateS beginning with the $40,000 loan.

Amounts were added or subtracted, depending on the type of transaction, from a running

contribution balance. The Committee acknowledged in its response that "the candidate

may have exceeded the limitation." According to the list prepared by the Committee, the

largest amount by which the candidate could have exceeded the limitation was $57,672

on March 30, 1996.

The account is in the name of Patrick and Shelley Buchanan.

The due date listed for loans and contributions was the date received; for an expense

reimbursement, the date of the reimbursement check; for expenses paid by cash, 30 days after incurrence;

and for expenses charged to a credit card, 60 days from the credit card statement date.

7
6

8

The Committee's analysis is inaccurate because expenses and

reimbursements not related to the candidate's limit were included and other expenses

were duplicated. It should also be noted that the list provided by the Committee indicates

that American Express charges were incurred subsequent to February 29, 1996. The

Audit staff was not provided with the statements and charge slips for American Express

charges incurred subsequent to February 29, 1996 or for any Visa credit card charges in

order to verify the accuracy ofthe listed transactions and to detenuine ifthe expenses

charged to the Visa credit card were applicable to the candidate6

. Ifthe transactions listed

by the Committee, for which complete documentation has not been made available, all

relate to the candidate's limitation - "worst case scenario" - the largest amount by which

the limitation would have been exceeded is $66,549.

Notwithstanding the above, for purposes ofthis report and based on our

revised analysis of complete documentation currently available?, the largest amount by

which the candidate exceeded the $50,000 expenditure limitation at 2 U.S.C. §9035(a) is

$50,374. Credit card charges included in documentation presented by the Committee in

response to finding III.B. ofthis report, (Apparent Non-Qualified Campaign Expenses)

may impact on this amount. Iftransactions pertaining to the American Express and Visa

credit cards for which complete documentation is not now available are later found to be

applicable to the candidate's $50,000 limit, adjustments will be necessary. These

adjustments would likely occur in the event that the Commission addresses this issue in

another context.

B. APPARENT PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTION RESULTING FROM EXTENSION

OF CREDIT BY COMMERCIAL VENDOR

Section 441 b(a) ofTitle 2 ofthe United States Code states, in part, that it

is unlawful for any corporation to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with

any election to any political office, and that it is unlawful for any candidate, political

committee or any other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited

by this section.

Section ]00.7(a)(4) of Title 11 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states,

in part, that the extension of credit by any person is a contribution unless the credit is

extended in the ordinary course ofthe person's business and the tenus are substantially

Because the Candidate was the sole holder on the American Express account, all charges, except

charges unrelated to the campaign, made on this account are applicable to the candidate's limit. In the case

of the jointly held Visa credit card. charges incurred by the candidate's spouse, solely related to her

expenses would not be applicable to the candidate's limit. Conversely, charges incurred by the candidate

using the Visa credit card for goods and services provided to the candidate irrespective of who signed the

charge slip would be applicable.

7 This includes documentation available to the Audit staff at the time the Memorandum was

forwarded to the Committee and information listed in the Committee's response in conjunction with

collateral evidence in the Audit staffs possession.

8
9

similar to extensions of credit to nonpolitical debtors that are ofsimilar risk and size of

obligation. If a creditor fails to make a commercially reasonable attempt to collect the

debt, a contribution will result.

Section I 16.3(c) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states, in

part, that in determining whether credit was extended in the ordinary course of business,

the Commission will consider whether the commercial vendor followed its established

procedures and its past practice in approving the extension of credit; received prompt

payment in full ifit previously extended credit to the same candidate or political

committee; and the extension of credit conformed to the usual and normal practice in the

commercial vendor's trade or business.

The Committee used Matching Funds, Inc. (MFI) to prepare and file all

submissions for matching funds. Scott Mackenzie, Committee Treasurer, is a principal of

MFI. As stated in the contract between the two parties, in return for its services MFI was

to receive a fee equal to 10 percent ofthe "Match Rate"S applied to the amount of

matching funds received. Invoices were to be submitted on a monthly basis beginning

January 1, 1996 and continuing until the termination ofthe contract. Invoices were to be

paid from the matching funds received or within thirty (30) days.

The Committee received and reported matching funds of$IO,983,475 as

result of 19 original submissions and 6 resubmissions. Using a fee factor of7.05%', the

Audit staff calculated MFI's fee for its services at $774,846. As ofthe conclusion of

fieldwork, MFI had billed the Committee $597,336, including a software fee of $5,500,

for matching fund submissions I through 8, leaving an uninvoiced balance of $183,009

[($774,846 + $5,500) - $597,336J. The Committee made payments totaling $586,510

through June 25, 1997 and reported an outstanding debt to MFI of $10,826 on its Second

Quarter 1997 disclosure report.

Based on the above information, it appeared the Committee still owed

MFI a total of $193,835 ($183,009 + $10,826) for its services. At the conference held at

the conclusion of fieldwork, the Committee was provided with the Audit staffs

calculations. Subsequently, the Committee provided additional invoices from MFI

reflecting amounts due for submissions 9 through 16; no documentation was provided for

submissions 17 through 19 and resubmissions I through 6. Matching funds were

certified payable for these submissions monthly from May, 1996 through March, 1997.

The Committee reported an outstanding debt to MFI of $183,009 (which included the

previous outstanding debt of$1 0,826) on its Year-End 1997 disclosure report. This lack

of action on the part of MFI to invoice and seek payment appears to represent an apparent

8 The "Match Rate" is equal to the matching funds received divided by the net individual

contributions (individual contributions less refunds of individual contributions) for the particular

submission.

9 Match rate of70.55% (reported matching funds of$10,983,475/ net contributions of

$15,569,128) times 10%.

9
10

prohibited contribution resulting from an extension of credit not within the ordinary

course of business.

In the Memorandum, the Audit staffrecommended that the Committee file

an Amended Schedule D-P, Debts and Obligations excluding Loans, to report the correct

indebtedness to MFI of$193,835 as of year-end 1997. Also, it was recommended that

the Committee provide evidence, to include but not be limited to, statements and invoices

detailing all billings and efforts to collect indebtedness, explanations to demonstrate that

the extension of credit was in the ordinary course of business, examples of other

customers or clients ofsimilarsize and risk for which similar services had been provided

and similar billing arrangements had been used, information concerning billing policies

for similar clients and work, and debt collection policies to demonstrate that the

Committee did not receive an apparent prohibited contribution of $183,009; or absent

such evidence provide documentation which demonstrates that MFI billed the Committee

in a timely manner for the full amount due for its services and made a reasonable attempt

to collect the debt.

In response to the Memorandum, the Committee filed an Amended

Schedule D-P, Debts and Obligation excluding Loans, to report the correct indebtedness

to MFI of$I93,835 as September 30,1997. In its response the Committee stated that it:

"strongly disagrees that the facts presented in the Exit Memorandum evidence

the receipt of a corporate contribution by the Committee. Political committees

have never been deemed to receive contributions because they do not pay every

vendor or employee in full on time. If committees did not acquire debts and

obligations other than loans in the course of their activities, most of which are

with corporations, no schedule of debts and obligations would be needed. MFI

also requests that we state its strong objection to the suggestion that its actions

constituted a corporate contribution to the Committee."

It is the opinion of the Audit staffthe Committee's response failed to

demonstrate that MFI made commercially reasonable attempts to collect payment from

the Committee. Furthermore, the response did not present evidence that MFI's actions

were in accordance with its own contractual terms. Therefore, pursuant to II CFR

§100.7(a)(4), an apparent prohibited contribution in the amount of$183,009 occurred.

C. DISCLOSURE OF OCCUPATIONfNAME OF EMPLOYER

Section 434(b)(3)(A) of Title 2 of the United States Code requires a

political committee to report the identification of each person (other than a political

committee) who makes a contributions to the reporting committee during the reporting

period, whose contribution or contributions have an aggregate amount or value in excess

of $200 within the calendar year.

10
11

Section 431 (l3)(A) of Title 2 ofthe United States Code defines the term

"identification" to be, in the case of an individual, the name, the mailing address, and the

occupation ofsuch individual, as well as the name of his or her employer.

Section 432(h)(2)(i) ofTitle 2 ofthe United States Code states, in part,

that when the treasurer of a political committee shows that best efforts have been used to

obtain, maintain, and submit the information required by this Act, any report or any

records ofsuch committee shall be considered in compliance with this Act.

Section 104.7(b) ofTitle II of the Code of Federal Regulations states, in

part, that the treasurer and the committee will be deemed to have exercised best efforts if

all written solicitations for contributions include a clear request for the contributor's full

name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer, and include the following

statement: "Federal law requires political committees to report the name, mailing

address, occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions

aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year."

For each contribution received aggregating in excess of$200 per calendar

year which lacks required contributor information, the treasurer must make at least one

effort after the receipt ofthe contribution to obtain the missing information. Such effort

shall consist of either a written request sent to the contributor or an oral request to the

contributor documented in writing. The written or oral request must be made no later

than thirty (30) days after receipt ofthe contribution. The written or oral request must

clearly ask for the missing information and shall not include material on any other subject

or any additional solicitation, except that it may include language solely thanking the

contributor for the contribution.

If any ofthe contributor information is received after the contribution has

been disclosed on a regularly scheduled report, the political committee shall either file

with its next regularly scheduled report, an amended memo Schedule A listing all

contributions for which contributor identifications have been received during the

reporting period together with the dates and amounts ofthe contribution(s) and an

indication ofthe previous report(s) to which the memo Schedule A relates; or file on or

before its next regularly scheduled reporting date, amendments to the report(s) originally

disclosing the contributions(s), which include the contributor identifications together with

the dates and amounts ofthe contribution(s).

The Audit staffreviewed the Committee's contributions on a sample basis

and noted a material error rate with respect to the disclosure of contributors' occupations

and names of employer. The identified exceptions, when used to estimate the total dollar

value of the errors in the population of $4,175,127, resulted in a projected error amount of

$2,422.604. As part of the contribution sample review, the Audit staff requested a copy

of the Committee's procedures to evidence its best efforts to obtain and report the

missing information. Also, a similar request was made at the conference subsequent to

the close of fieldwork. Although the Committee's fundraising guidelines indicated that

II
10

12

solicitation devices should request the contributor's occupation and name of employer,

our testing indicated that the Committee did not exercise best efforts to obtain and report

the required information. Requests for additional information to qualify contributions for

matching funds included a general request for the information, but evidence of attempts

to obtain the information for other contributions was not provided. A review of the

Committee's disclosure reports indicated that the Committee did not file amended

schedules to disclose the contributor information when it was obtained. Therefore, the

Committee has not demonstrated that it exercised best efforts to obtain, maintain and

report the occupation and name of employer of contributors when required by the Act.

In the Memorandum, the Audit staffrecommended that the Committee

provide evidence to demonstrate that it exercised best efforts to obtain, maintain and

report the required contributor information. Absent such a demonstration, the Audit staff

recommended that the Committee contact all contributors for which no record was

maintained or information request made and provide evidence of the contacts along with

copies of responses to these requests, and file an Amended Schedule A-P (Itemized

Contributions) as necessary.

According to the response, NL Company contacted 2,699 donors by

telephone whose aggregate annual contribution(s) was in excess of $200 and whose file

did not contain the required information. Occupation and name of employer information

was obtained from 2,176 individuals (81 %iO; for the remaining 523 contributors initially

contacted who refused to provide the information, NL sent each contributor a form and

requested that he/she sign a statement declining the Committee's request for occupation

and name of employer. Using the receipts database supplied by the Committee, the Audit

staff identified 3,699 individuals" whose contributor record did not contain an occupation

and name of employer. The reason for the variance with the number ofindividuals

identified above by the Committee is unknown. On August 20, 1998 the Committee filed

a miscellaneous document to supplement the public record. 12

Based on our review ofthe submitted evidence, although the Committee's

recent efforts to obtain the required occupation and name of employer information

involved a significant undertaking, the Committee did not demonstrate that it exercised

best efforts, since the information was requested well beyond the time specified.

Nonetheless, the Committee should file amended Schedules A-P in the proper form to

supplement the public record.

A list oflhe respondents was submitted which provided the contributor's name, address,

occupation and name of employer.

11 The Audit staff reviewed the contributor records of those individuals whose contributions

aggregated over $200 during calendar year 1995 and/or calendar year 1996.

12 Although not filed timely with the response to the Memorandum, the Committee did file a listing

of approximately \5.505 contributors which included occupation and name ofemployer information. This

listing did not conform with the requirements for amendments at II CFR §104.7(b)(4)(i).

12
13

III. AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDAnONS - AMOUNTS DUE

TO THE U.S. TREASURY

A. RECEIPT OF CASH CONTRIBUTIONS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION

Section 441g of Title 2 ofthe United States Code states that no person

shall make contributions of currency ofthe United States or currency of any foreign

country to or for the benefit of any candidate which, in aggregate, exceed $100, with

respect to any campaign ofsuch candidate for nomination for election, or for election, to

Federal Office.

Section 110.4(c)(2) and (3) ofTitie II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations

states, in part, that a candidate or committee receiving a cash contribution in excess of

$100 shall promptly return the amount over $100 to the contributor. A candidate or

committee receiving an anonymous cash contribution in excess of$50 shall promptly

dispose of the amount over $50. The amount over $50 may be used for any lawful

purpose unrelated to any Federal election, campaign, or candidate.

The Audit staffreviewed currency contributions totaling $262,429 and

identified $15,163 in apparent excessive cash contributions. Cash contributions totaling

$251,678 were received from identified contributors and $10,751 from anonymous

sources. The aforementioned excessive amount contains $2,408 in contributions not

refunded or disposed of, and $12,755 in contributions not refunded/disposed of within 30

days of receipt. The number of days to refund the excessive contributions ranged from 33

to 279 days. Ofthe 438 untimely refunds, 167 or 38% ofthe refunds were made more

than 60 days after the contributions were received.

The Audit staffs finding was discussed with the Committee at the

conference held subsequent to the close offieldwork and the Committee was provided

with a detailed schedule ofthe apparent excessive cash contributions.

In the Memorandum, the Audit staffrecommended that the Committee

provide evidence that the cash contributions noted above are not excessive. Absent such

evidence, the Audit staff would recommend that the Commission determine that the

Committee make a payment to the U.S. Treasury in the amount of$14,21 lB.

In response to the Memorandum, the Committee submitted a copy ofan

apparent contributor's check in the amount of$90, deposited on September 27, 1995, and

requested the total amount of cash contributions be reduced by that amount. The

Committee's policy was to assign anonymous cash contributions to an account named

"Sheldon P. Kuzowski." Although this contribution was made by check (the account

holder's name was not imprinted or otherwise recorded legibly on the instrument), it was

13 Total excessive cash contributions of $ J 5, 163 less $952 previously paid to the U.S. Treasury.

13
\4

assigned to the anonymous cash account because the Committee was unable to identifY

the contributor. In addition, the location ofthe bank upon which the check was drawn is

not listed on the face ofthe instrument. Since the Committee has not provided any

additional documentation to identifY the contributor, the Audit staff continues to identify

this contribution as anonymous and excessive in the amount of $40.

In addition, the Committee's response to the Memorandum stated,

" ...the Commission is without authority to require the Committee to pay to the

Treasury money already refunded to the donor. The Commission's requirement

that money be paid to the Treasury rather than refunded to the donors, where the

identity ofthe donors is known, constitutes a "taking" in violation ofthe Fifth

Amendment to the Constitution."

The Audit staff disagrees with the Committee's statement; the Explanation

and Justification provided in support of Section 103.3(b)(I), (2) and (3) ofTitle II ofthe

Code of Federal Regulations regarding disgorgement published in the Federal Register on

June 16, 1995 (Vol. 60, No. 116) states:

" ...Committees have 30 days from the date ofreceipt in which to refund

prohibited contributions. A Committee's failure to take action on these

contributions is a failure to cure contributions that are in violation ofthe FECA.

The same is true of attempts to cure them outside ofthe specified time periods.

Courts have upheld the use of disgorgement in cases involving securities

violations'as a method offorcing a defendant to give up the amount by which he

was unjustly enriched' SEC v. Tome. 833 F.2d 1086, 1096 (2d Cir. 1987), citing

SEC v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 102 (2nd Cir.

1978). Requiring repayment to the Treasury for contributions that have been

accepted in violation 0£2 V.S.c. §§441 a and 441 b is consistent with this

reasoning."

Also, the Committee's own actions are contrary to its statement. During the period June

25, 1996 through March 31, 1997, the Committee remitted $13,429, including $952

related to excessive currencyJ4, to the V.S. Treasury representing prohibited

contributions which were not refunded in a timely manner and the identity ofthe donors

was known.

At the open session Commission meeting held on January 14, 1999, the

Commission voted to reject Recommendation #I wherein $14,211 was recommended as

payable to the U.S. Treasury, and instead determined not to require a payment in this case

where the amount at issue had been refunded albeit untimely. The remainder ($2,408) is

immaterial.

14 See footnote 13.

14
•

•

•

15

B. ApPARENT NON-QUALIFIED CAMPAIGN EXPENSES

Section 9032(9) ofTitle 26 ofthe United States Code defines, in part, the

term "qualified campaign expense" as a purchase or payment incurred by a candidate, or

by his authorized committee, in connection with his campaign for nomination, and

neither the incurring nor payment ofwhich constitutes a violation of any law ofthe

United States or ofthe State in which the expense is incurred or paid.

Section 9034.4(a)(I) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states

that all contributions received by an individual from the date he becomes a candidate and

all matching payments received by the candidate shall be used only to defray qualified

campaign expenses or to repay loans or otherwise restore funds (other than contributions

which were received and expended to defray qualified campaign expenses) which were

used to defray qualified campaign expenses.

Section 9034.4(a)(3) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states,

in part, that costs associated with the termination ofpolitical activity, such as the costs of

complying with the post election requirements ofthe Act and other necessary

administrative costs associated with winding down the campaign, including office space

rental, staff salaries and office supplies, shall be considered qualified campaign expenses.

Section 9034.4(b)(3) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states,

in part, that any expenses incurred after a candidate's date ofineligibility under II CFR

§9033.5, are not qualified campaign expenses except to the extent permitted under II

CFR §9034.4(a)(3).

Section 9033.II(a) ofTitle II of the Code of Federal Regulations states,

in part, that each candidate shall have the burden of proving that disbursements made by

the candidate or his authorized committee(s) or persons authorized to make expenditures

on behalf ofthe candidate or authorized committee(s) are qualified campaign expenses.

Section 9033.II(b) ofTitle II of the Code of Federal Regulations states,

in part, that for disbursements in excess of $200 to a payee, the candidate shall present a

canceled check negotiated by the payee and either a receipted bill from the payee that

states the purpose ofthe disbursement or a bill, invoice or voucher from the payee that

states the purpose ofthe disbursement. Where the documents specified above are not

available, the candidate or committee may provide a voucher or contemporaneous

memorandum that states the purpose of the disbursement. Where the supporting

documentation required above is not available, the candidate or committee may present

collateral evidence to document the qualified campaign expense. Such collateral

evidence may include, but is not limited to, evidence demonstrating that expenditure is

15
16

part of an identifiable program or project which is otherwise sufficiently documented or

evidence that the disbursement is covered by a pre-established written campaign

committee policy, such as a daily travel expense policy. Ifthe purpose ofthe

disbursement is not stated in the accompanying documentation, it must be indicated on

the canceled check. Purpose means the full name and mailing address ofthe payee, the

date and amount ofthe disbursement, and a brief description ofthe goods and services

purchased.

Section 9038.2(a)(2) of Title 11 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states

that the Commission will notify the candidate ofany repayment determinations made

under this section as soon as possible, but no later than three years after the close ofthe

matching fund period. The Commission's issuance ofthe audit report to the candidate

under II CFR §903 8.1 (d) will constitute notification for purposes ofthis section.

Section 9038.2(b)(2)(i) and (iii) ofTitle 11 ofthe Code of Federal

Regulations states, in part, that the Commission may determine that amounts of any

payments made to a candidate from the matching payment account were used for

purposes other than to defray qualified campaign expenses. The amount of any

repayment under this section shall bear the same ratio to the total amount determined to

have been used for non-qualified campaign expenses as the amount ofmatching funds

certified to the candidate bears to total deposits, as of 90 days after the candidate's date of

ineligibility.

The Committee provided the Audit staff with a database ofits

disbursements which covered the period from the Committee's inception through October

31, 1996. The Audit staff conducted a review of operating disbursements as identified

from the database. In addition, disbursements made after the candidate's date of

ineligibility (DOl) August 14, 1996 through February 28, 1997 were reviewed. These

reviews resulted in the identification of payments to individuals and vendors that

appeared to be non-qualified campaign expenses due to inadequate documentation,

duplicate payments or non-campaign related nature, as categorized below:

I. Inadequate Documentation for Disbursements

The review of the Committee's operating disbursements resulted in

a material error rate with respect to the adequacy of documentation to support numerous

payments to individuals for travel and expense reimbursements as well as other

payments. Undocumented disbursements totaling $339,552 were identified. In the

majority ofinstances, the only documents available for review were canceled checks

lacking an adequate purpose statement and EAR's without authorizing signatures and

adequate purpose statements. Listed purposes included "advance", "reimbursement",

"expense advance", and "reimburse expenses" which are not sufficient to either document

the expense as a qualified campaign expense or establish that the expense was incurred in

connection with the candidate's campaign for nomination

16
15

fii,

17

The Audit staff's findings were discussed with the Committee at

the conference held subsequent to the close offieldwork and the Committee was provided

with detailed schedules ofthe inadequately documented disbursements.

In the Memorandum, the Audit staff recommended that the

Committee provide documentation, including but not limited to, receipted bills, invoices

or vouchers from the payee that states the purpose ofthe disbursement or other collateral

evidence to support these disbursements as qualified campaign expenses. Absent such

evidence, the Audit staff would recommend that the Commission determine that the

Committee make a pro rata repayment of$139,804 ($339,552 x .41173)15 to the U.S.

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

In response to the Memorandum, the Committee provided

documentation, including receipted bills, invoices, vendor statements and other collateral

evidence, to adequately document disbursements totaling $280,707. Ofthe remaining

$58,845 in undocumented expenditures, the Committee submitted various statements

from payees for disbursements totaling $27,535. In our opinion these statements did not

demonstrate that the disbursements were made in connection with the candidate's

campaign for nomination. The Committee did not submit any additional documentation

in support ofthe balance ofthe undocumented disbursements.

Recommendation #2

The Audit staffrecommends that the Commission determine that $24,228

($58,845 x .41173) is repayable to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9038(b)(2).

2. Payments to Vendors - JVL Company

The Commillee paid JVL Company a total of$1,787,744 for

telemarketing services. In general, the method of payment used to compensate this

vendor was "on account" and not by specific invoice. The Audit staff reconciled these

payments to the available supporting documentation, which included canceled checks,

vendor invoices and statements, and Committee EAR's. Vendor invoices were supplied

to document payments totaling $1,360,822. At the close of audit fieldwork, the only

documentation to evidence the remaining payments of $426,922 was an EAR dated June

30, 1996 in the amount of $330,819 and the canceled checks.

This finding was discussed with the Committee at the conference

held subsequent to the close of fieldwork and the Committee was provided with a

detailed account reconciliation for disbursements to JVL Company.

This figure (041173) represents the Committee's repayment ratio as calculated pursuant to II CFR

§9038.2(b)(2)(iii).

17
18

In the Memorandum, the Audit Staffrecommended the Committee

provide documentation, including but not limited to, receipted bills, invoices or vouchers

from the payee or other collateral evidence to support these disbursements as qualified

campaign expenses. Absent such documentation, the Audit staffwould recommend that

the Commission determine that the Committee make a pro rata repayment of$I 75,777

($426,922 x .4 1173) to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9038(b)(2).

In response to the Memorandum, the Committee submitted vendor

invoices for telemarketing services and other information which sufficiently documented

the amount at issue.

3. Duplicate Payments and Non-Campaign Related Disbursements

The Audit staff identified payments to individuals and vendors

totaling $51,343 that appeared to be either duplicate payments of qualified campaign

expenses or non-campaign related disbursements.

The duplicate payments, totaling $26,538, included the

reimbursement of expenses to individuals totaling $ I8,527 which the Committee had also

paid directly to the vendor providing the goods or service and the duplicate

reimbursement oftravel and other expenses to individuals totaling $8,0 I I.

The non-campaign related disbursements, totaling $24,805,

included a payment of$1 0,406 to William Channel on January 7, 1997; information

provided indicated that damages were sustained to a recreational vehicle. The only

documentation provided to support this expenditure were copies of appraisals and

damage repair estimates. No other documentation (i.e., lease/rental agreement, rental

cost/payment, damage/accident report) was made available to establish a connection

between the use of the vehicle and the campaign.

Also, during the Audit staffs reconciliation of disbursements to

West End Travel, the Committee's travel broker, we identified airline tickets totaling

$8,2 I3 purchased for overseas travel during June 1996. The tickets were purchased for

the candidate, his spouse and an aide. Documents available during audit fieldwork

indicated that the travel was personal and not campaign related. No evidence was

provided in response to our request to indicate that the Committee was reimbursed or

received a credit from the vendor for this payment.

Further, payments totaling $3,401 for printing, photography and

video duplication services were questioned; documentation sufficient to establish that

these expenditures were made in connection with the candidate's campaign for

nomination was not made available during audit fieldwork.

18
19

Finally, an expense reimbursement was made to an individual

which included $2,650 for printing charges. Included with the documentation in the

Committee's file was a copy of a register slip identified as a "POST TRANSACTION

VOID" from the vendor which apparently voided the transaction. Thus, it appeared the

individual was reimbursed for expenses for which the goods or services were not

provided.

The Audit staffs findings were discussed with the Committee at

the conference held subsequent to the close offieldwork; the Committee was provided

with detailed schedules ofthe apparent duplicate expenditures and non-campaign related

disbursements.

In the Memorandum, the Audit staffrecommended that the

Committee provide documentation to demonstrate that the expenditures noted above are

qualified campaign expenses or present evidence that the Committee has been reimbursed

for these expenditures. Absent such evidence, the Audit staff would recommend that the

Commission determine that the Committee make a pro rata repayment of$21,139

($51,343 x .41173) to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9038(b)(2).

In response to the matter involving duplicate payments outlined

above, the Committee provided documentation previously reviewed by the Audit staff

during fieldwork in an attempt to resolve one duplicate payment in the amount of $99.

The apparent duplicate payment occurred when the Committee paid/reimbursed both a

credit card company and an individual for what appeared to be the same expense; the

Committee submitted a copy of a credit card statement but no information related to the

payment to the individual. Therefore, duplicate payments totaling $26,538 remain

unresolved.

In response to the non-campaign related travel, the Committee

submitted an affidavit, with a copy of an itinerary/invoice for $8,213, from West End

Travel. In the affidavit, the vendor stated that the Buchanan's personal trip to

Paris/London was paid by personal check and "the ticket numbers shown were not

charged to the Buchanan for President American Express credit card nor paid for by the

campaign." In the Audit staffs opinion, this additional documentation, although helpful,

does not fully document the transaction as requested. The cost ofthe tickets was listed on

West End Travel's June 1996 statement for the Committee's account. The September

1996 statement indicated that all but $852 ofthe cost ofthese tickets had been paid. The

Committee did not provide any additional evidence in the form of a copy of the canceled

check or account statement detailing the payment (other than by campaign funds) for this

travel.

The information submitted relative to the $2,650 reimbursement

for goods or services apparently not provided, consisted of a hand written statement from

an individual. This individual, who apparently works at a similar business in Virginia

(the transaction in question occurred at a business in Georgia) attempted to explain how

19
20

the transaction was processed. No information was provided from the individual who

requested reimbursement or from the business which actually processed the transaction.

Also in its response to the Memorandum, the Committee provided

additional documentation which resolved $1,401 (ofthe $3,40 I) in expenses questioned

above.

In summary, based on our review ofthe information provided by

the Committee, the amount ofduplicate payments to individuals and/or vendors remains

unchanged and non-campaign related disbursements is reduced to $23,405.

Recommendation #3

The Audit staff recommends that the Commission determine that $20,563

[($26,538 + $23,405) x .41173] is repayable to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 26 U.S.C.

§9038(b)(2).

Section 9034.6 (a) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations states, in

part, that expenditures by an authorized committee for transportation, ground services and

facilities (including air travel, ground transportation, housing, meals, telephone service,

and typewriters) made available to media personnel, Secret Service personnel or national

security staff, will be considered qualified campaign expenses. The committee may seek

reimbursement for these expenses. Part (b) ofthis section states that the total amount of

reimbursement sought from a media representative under this section shall not exceed

110% of the pro rata cost ofthe transportation and services made available to that media

representative. A media representative's pro rata share shall be calculated by dividing the

total actual cost of the transportation and services provided by the total number of

individuals to whom such transportation and services are made available. For purposes of

the calculation, the total number ofindividuals shall include committee staff, media

personnel, Secret Service personnel, national security staff and any other individuals to

whom such transportation and services are made available, except that, when seeking

reimbursement for transportation costs paid by the committee under II CFR

§9034.7(b)(5)(i)(C), the total number ofindividuals shall not include national security

staff

c. PRESS BILLINGS FOR TRANSPORTATION COSTS

Part (c) ofthis section continues that the committee may deduct from the

amount of expenditures subject to the overall expenditure limitation of II CFR

§9035.1 (a) the amount ofreimbursements received in payment for the transportation and

services described in (a) of this section, up to the actual cost oftransportation and

services provided. The committee may also deduct from the overall expenditure

limitation an additional amount ofreimbursements received equal to 3% ofthe actual cost

oftransportation and services provided under this section as the administrative cost to the

committee of providing such services and seeking reimbursement for them. For the

20
21

purposes ofthis section, "administrative costs" shall include all costs incurred by the

committee for making travel arrangements and for seeking reimbursements, whether

performed by committee staff or independent contractors. Ifthe committee has incurred

higher administrative costs in providing these services, the committee must document the

total cost incurred for such services in order to deduct a higher amount of reimbursements

received from the overall limitation.

Finally, part (d)(l) and (2) ofthis section states, in part, that ifthe

committee receives reimbursements in excess ofthe amount deductible under paragraph

(c) ofthis section, it shall dispose ofthe excess amount in the following manner:

=.

• any reimbursement received in excess of 110% ofthe actual pro

rata cost ofthe transportation and services made available to a

media representative shall be returned to the media representative.

any amount in excess ofthe amount deductible under paragraph

(c) ofthis section that is not required to be returned to the media

representative under paragraph (d)(l) ofthis section shall be

repaid to the Treasury.16

16

The Committee used Charter Services Inc. (CSI) to arrange its aircraft

charters. CSI arranged 26 flight legs, including chartered aircraft, catering services and

passenger facility charges, for the Committee between February 20, 1996 and March 25,

1996. In addition, the Committee, through various vendors, arranged for 5 charter bus

tours between February 22, 1996 and March 25, 1996.

For our review, the Committee provided copies offlightlbus manifests,

schedules which detailed the Committee's calculation ofthe cost per flightlbus leg and

invoices from CSI. In addition, the Committee provided its reconciliation ofthe

flight/bus costs which was used to bill and collect payments from the press personnel.

Documentation to support administrative costs in excess of 3% was not provided by the

Committee during audit fieldwork.

Using the documentation provided by the Committee, the Audit staff

determined the total cost per flightlbus leg, number of passengers per leg and cost per

seat. The documented cost to transport the press personnel, as calculated by the Audit

Staff, totaled $257,393 ($232,728 for aircraft charters and $24,665 for bus charters). The

documented cost plus a 3% administrative cost allowance was $265,115 and the

documented cost plus a 10% allowable mark-up was $283,133. The Committee received

reimbursements totaling $304,609 from the press. This indicates that the Committee has

collected $21,476 ($304,609 less $283,133) in excess of the amount it was allowed to

As published in the Federal Register (Vol. 56, No. 145) in support of the provisions contained in

II CFR §9034.6(d), this amount is the amount between 103 percent and 110 percent ofthe actual cost,

unless a higher administrative cost is documented.

21
22

coHect from the press. The Committee's calculated cost to transport the press on aircraft

charters was higher than the cost calculated by the Audit staff ($246,020 compared to

$232,728); the Audit staff did not recognize undocumented ground costs in its

calculation.

As previously cited, the Committee may deduct from the overall limitation

the amount ofreimbursements received in payment for the actual cost oftransportation

and services made available to the press plus an amount equal to 3% ofthe cost as an

administrative cost to the Committee for providing such transportation and services. A

larger administrative allowance, not to exceed 10%, may be taken only if the Committee

provides sufficient documentation to support that the excess amounts were actually

incurred. Since additional documentation was lacking to support the larger

administrative allowance, $18,018 [$283,133 (cost plus 10%) less $265,115 (cost plus

3%)] in reimbursements was received in excess of costs documented by the Audit staff;

absent documentation to demonstrate additional transportation, ground or administrative

costs, this $18,018 is payable to the U.S. Treasury.

A refund of$21,476 to the press would also be necessary, unless

additional costs could be documented.

The Audit staffs findings were discussed with the Committee at the

conference held subsequent at the close offieldwork and the Committee was provided

with detailed schedules, including the Audit staffs calculation of amounts, apparently

due the press and the U.S. Treasury.

In the Memorandum, the Audit staffrecommended that the Committee

provide documentation to support the ground costs billed to the press and additional

administrative costs, if any, in excess of the allowed 3% of actual cost oftransportation

and services provided to the press. Absent such evidence, the Audit staff would

recommend that the Commission detennine that the Committee refund $21,476 to the

press and make a repayment of$18,018 to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 11 CFR

§9034.6.

In response to the Memorandum, the Committee submitted documentation

to support additional transportation, ground service and facility costs totaling $20,973.

As result ofthese additional expenses, the documented cost of providing transportation

and related services for press personnel increased to $278,366 ($240,941 for aircraft

charters and $37,245 for bus charters). Also, the Committee submitted documentation

and other coHateral evidence to support actual administrative expenses of $26,783 which

the Committee incurred to provide these services.

Based on our review of the documented costs, the Committee did not

receive reimbursements from the press in excess of the actual costs oftransportation and

services provided, and allowable administrative costs. Therefore, no refund to the press

or repayment to the U.S. Treasury is required.

22
23

D. DETERMINATION OF NET OUTSTANDING CAMPAIGN OBLIGATIONS

Section 9034.5(a) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal Regulations requires

that within IS calendar days after the candidate's date ofineligibility, the candidate shall

submit a statement ofnet outstanding campaign obligations which reflects the total of all

outstanding obligations for qualified campaign expenses, plus estimated necessary

winding down costs.

In addition, Section 9034.I(b) ofTitle II ofthe Code of Federal

Regulations states, in part, that if on the date ofineligibility a candidate has net

outstanding campaign obligations as defined under I I 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.

Mr. Buchanan's date ofineligibility was August 14, 1996. The Audit staff

reviewed the Committee's financial activity through February 28, 1997, reviewed disclosure

reports through September 30, 1997, analyzed winding down costs, and prepared the Statement

of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations which appears below.

23
24

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT, INC.

STATEMENT OF NET OUTSTANDING CAMPAIGN OBLIGATIONS

As of August 14, 1996

As Determined September 3D, 1997

ASSETS

Cash in Bank

Accounts Receivable

Capital Assets (60% of cost)

Total Assets

71

:r OBLIGATIONS

$ 209,653 (a)

206,436 (b)

92,685

$ 508,774

Accounts Payable for Qualified Campaign Expenses:

Outstanding at 2/28/97

Paid 8/15/96 - 2/28/97

Winding Down Costs Paid 3/1!/97 - 9/30/97

Estimated Winding Down Costs 10/1/97 - 12/31/98

Amount Payable to U. S. Treasury:

Stale-Dated Checks

Total Obligations

Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations

FOOTNOTES TO NOCO

$ 540,573

2,549,133 (c)

332,045 (d)

420,500 (e)

27,431

3.869,682

($3,360,908)

(a) Includes contributions totaling $70,764 dated prior to but deposited after 001 and an acljustrnent

for outstanding stale-dated checks totaling $22,335 issued prior to 001 and considered payable to

the U,S. Treasury.

(b) Includes a deposit of$68,OOO 10 Bell Atlantic which was listed by the Committee at $20,000.

(c) Includes actual winding down costs of$I,OI9,488: excludes non-qualified campaign expenses of

$12,541 paid post DOL (see Finding III.B.3.)

(d) Unaudited, based on review ofComminee'sdisclosure reports.

(e) Audit staff estimate based on review of disclosure reports and Committee estimates.

24
25

Shown below are adjustments for funds received after August 14, 1996 through

April 29, 1997, based on the most current financial information available at the close of

fieldwork)7

Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations

(Deficit) as of 8/14/96

Matching Funds Received 8/15/96 to 4/29/97

Private Contributions Received 8/15/96 to 4/29/97

Sale of Donor Lists 1/8/97 and 1/15/97

Rental ofDonor List 2/21/97

Interest Received 8/15/96 to 4/29/97

Remaining Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations

(Deficit) as of 4/29/97

($3,360,908)

1,170,954

1,214,282

320,000

19,279

3,612

($ 632,781)

i.:::::;

As presented above, the Committee has not received matching fund payments in

excess ofits entitlement.

E. STALE-DATED COMMITTEE CHECKS

Section 9038.6 ofTitle II of the Code of Federal Regulations states that if

the committee has checks outstanding to creditors or contributors that have not been

cashed, the committee shall notify the Commission. The committee shall inform the

Commission of its efforts to locate the payees, ifsuch efforts have been necessary, and its

efforts to encourage the payees to cash the outstanding checks. The committee shall also

submit a check for the total amount ofsuch outstanding checks payable to the United

States Treasury.

During our review of the Committee's disbursement activity, the Audit

staff identified 247 checks made payable to vendors and contributors totaling $27,431

that had not been negotiated.

The Audit staffs finding was discussed with the Committee at the

conference held subsequent to the close offieldwork and the Committee was provided

with a detailed schedule ofstale-dated checks.

In the Memorandum, the Audit staff recommended that the Committee

submit evidence that the checks are not outstanding by providing copies of the front and

back ofthe negotiated checks, or that the outstanding checks were voided and/or that no

17 Based on the Committee's disclosure reports. the funds received from the last matching fund

payment on April 29, 1997 would have been expended as of April 30, 1997.

25
26

Committee obligation exists. Absent such evidence, the Audit staff would recommend

that the Commission determine that $27,431 is payable to the U.S. Treasury.

In response to the Memorandum, the Committee submitted a listing of

checks totaling $1,541, stating that these checks were never issued by the Committee and

were not promptly voided from the campaign operating account check register. The

Committee requested that the amount ofstale-dated checks be reduced to reflect the

checks written but not issued.

In the Audit staff's opinion, the evidence submitted by the Committee is

insufficient. Neither did the Committee provide copies ofthe checks to evidence that

they had, in fact, been voided nor evidence from the payee that no obligation existed.

Recommendation #4

The Audit staffrecommends that the Commission determine that the total amount

ofstale-dated checks ($27,431) is payable to the U.S. Treasury pursuant to 11 CFR

§9038.6.

VI. SUMMARY OF AMOUNTS DUE TO THE U.S. TREASURY

Finding IILB.

Finding III.E.

Apparent Non-Qualified Campaign Expenses

Stale-Dated Committee Checks

Total

26

44,791

27,431

$72,222
November 25, 1998

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WA5HING HJN. lJ[ 2U4&J

RECEIVED

FEDEHAL ELECTION COM~fISSIO~1

AUDIT OIVISION

Nov 25 1145 AH '98

•

MEMORANDUM

TO: Rabat J. Costa

Assistant StaffDirector

Audit Division :f

THROUGH: James A. Pehrkon

Acting Staff Direc' ,

FROM: Lawrence M. NobIS;;

Gcneral Counsel /'t

Kim Uright-Coleman \rft Associate General Counsel

Lorenzo Holloway '1 . Assist11l11 General Counsel

SUUJECT: Proposed AuJit Rcport on l3uchanan for President, Inc.

(LRA # 4(6)

The Office of General Counsel has rcvicwedthc proposed Audit Report on

Duch111lan for President, Inc. ("the Committec") submitledto this Oflicc on September

16, 1998. This Oflice submits the following comments on the report. To the extent that

this Office has not made specific comments on sections ofthe report, we concur with the

Audit Division's analysis and recommendations. (fyou have any questions concerning

our comments, please contact Tracey L. Ligon or Jamila l. Wyall, Ihe staIr assigned til

this mallc!".1

The pruruseu Audit Rerun concerns the auuil ur a publicly-financed eandidale. Thererlll'e.lhe

<)flicc or r,ellcral Coonsel reconlllWlllls Ihal Ihe ('onllnission consider Ihe !\odit Ih'lloll ill 0lleo ses,;ioll.

See II C.F.lt § <JUJH.I(e)(I).

Page 27
Memorandum to Robert J. Costa

Proposed Audit Report on Buchanan for President, Inc.

Page 2

The Office of General Counsel noles lhal Audil Division slaff altempted lu schedule an

cxit confercnce with the Commillee to discuss the Commillcc's Exil Cunfercnce Memorandum.

However, the Committee informed Audit Staff that it did not desire to have an exit conferencc

because the Committee did not anticipate having any questions. Consequcntly, on May 8, 1\>\>8.

the Audit Division delivered to the Commiltee the Exit Conference Memorandum without

holding an exit conference. In light ofthe fact that the Commiltee did nol dcsire to have an exit

conference and the fact that the Commiltee received the Exit Conference Memorandum. the

Office of General Counsel believes that the Audit Division has satisfied the requirements of I I

C.F.R. § 90J8.I(b)(2)(iii). Nevertheless, in order to avoid any possible procedural arguments.

we recommend that the Audit Division revise the Audit Report to note that the Audit Division

attempted to schedule an exit conference pursuant to II C.F.R. § \>038.1 (b)(2)(iji) and the

Commillee stated that it did not desire to have an cxit conference. 2

I. USE OF THE CANUIDATE'S FUNDS IN EXCESS OF THE LIMITATION

(II.A.)J

The Audit Division con<.:ludes that the candidate exceeded the $50,000 candidate

expenditure limitation set out at 26 U.S.c. § 9035(a) by $50,374. This amount includes

expenditures, made by the candidate and/or the candidate's wife using llll American Exprcss and

Visa cards, that the Committee did reimburse not in a timely manner. The report stales that if

additional transactiolls pertllining to the cards are later found to be applicable to the eandidate's

$50,000 personal expenditure limitation, adjustments will be ncccssary.

The proposed Audit Report docs not state the context in which slich an adjustmcnt call be

made to the candidate cxpcnditure limitatiun.' Irthe Committce seeks an administrativc rcview

of the repayment determination, thc auministralive review will be limited to rcpayment matters.

Sec Explunatiun and Justificatiun for II C.F.R.§ 9007.2(d) (general election financing

repaymcnt procedure thul is parallel to II c.F.R. 9038.2(d)(I», GO Fed. Reg. 31863 (.Julle 1("

J995). The amount that the candidate execeded his personal expcnJiture limitatiun is nut a

rcpaymcntmattcr.l Therefore, the post-administrative revicw slatemenl uf reasons will nut

In a letter daled May 21, 1998. the Auuil Divisiul1 nutilleuthe Cunllllittee thai the Cummissiun satislieu

the requirements uf II C.F.R. § 9038.ltb)(2)(iii) under the circumstances uescribeu abul'e. SlIbsequenlly, un June

16 and July 8, 1998, stail from the Audil Divisiun am) the Ornee uf General Counsel mel wilh the Cummitlee tll

answer specific questions abuut the Exit Conference Memurandum.

I'arcnlhclil:ul rclcl'clIl':cs arc tu Idalcu SCt:tlUIl:l 111 (lit: AuJit RCPtHt.

The Office of General Counsel recol1lmenus Ihat the Audit Division revise the Audit Repurt 10 nole 101'

c1arincalion purposes that the additiunal caru transactiuus me amonl; the undocUlnellled nunquali!ieu campaign

expenses discussed in Seclionlll.n. orlhe propused report. The Cummillee will have anupportunity 10 prllviue

uucumentation for these charges irthe Cummillee seeks all administrative review urthe repayment determinatiun.

Sec II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2).

In contrasl, lhe "'lIuunt Ihal a principal campaign commillee exceeds the state 01' overall expendilure

limitatiun is a basis rur repayment. II C.F.I" §§ 'iOJ8.2(1l)(2)(ii)(A) and (v).

Page 28
Memorandum to Robert J. Cosla

Proposed Audit Report on Buchanan for President, Inc.

Page 3

include an adjustment to the amounl subject to the candidllle's personal expenditure limitation.

Thc Commission can only make such an adjustmcnt in an addemlum to the Audit Report. II

C.F.R. § 9038.J(d)(3). Jfthc Audit Division's re!erence to later adjustments is meant only to

convcy that subsequently obtaincd documcntation warranting an aJjustmcntto the amount

dccmcd to be applicablc to the candidate's $50,000 expenditure limitation will be ~onsidered In

the event that the Commission addresses this issue in another context, see II C.f.R.

§ 9038.1 (d)(2), this Office recommends that the Audit Division revise the Audit Report 10 clearly

reflect this fact.

Additionally, Ihis Office rccolllmcnds that the Audit Division rcvise footnote si~. Tilt·

footnote states, inter alia, that because the candidate was the sole holder on the American

Express account, all charges made on the account arc applicable to the candidate's personal

expenditure limitation. The Report states that Audit staff were not provilh:d with statements ,Iml

charge slips [or certain Ameri~an Express or Visa charges. The foollWle suggests that any crL·dit

card charge made by the candidate and submitted to the Committee [or reimbursement is

automatically applicable to the candidate's personal expenditure limitation.

The Oflice of General Counsel believes that the amount subject to the candidates'

personal expenditure limitation does not include any and all charges on a candidate's credil card.

Rather. we believe that it is limiteJ tu expenditures that are maue in conllection wilh lhe

campaign. Seetiun 90J5.2(a)(2) upplies [0 "cxpcnditurcs" made using ;l c<lrJ. Tht: l'rt:sidcnliul

Primary Matching Paymelll Act <lnJ the regulations promulgated thereunder do nut Jcline

expenditure." However, Section 9035.2(a)(2) requires that thc cxpenditure be maJe in

connection with the candidate's campaign for the nomination. 11 C.F.R. § 9035.2(a)( I). This

requirement in 11 C.r-.R. § 9035.2(a)(I) recognizes that a candidate can usc his personal curd (0

incur expenses that will nut be related to the campaign and arc therefore not sllbjcct to his

personal expenditure limitation. Since the Audi( staff is currently unable to confirm [he nature of

the charges, we recommend (hal lhe Audit Division revise the foolnote to stale that all

"cxpenditures" made Oil the American Express or Visa cards, regardless or who signeJ the

charge slip, would be applicable to the candidate's expenditure limitation, while charges

unrelated to the campaign would nut be subject to the candiJate's personal exp~nditlll'e

limitation.'

II. APPARENT PIWIlIUITED CONTIUDUTION RESULTING FROM

EXTENSION OF ClmDIT UY COMMERCIAL VENDOR (II.B.)

ThL: Audit Slalr concludes lhal onc or th~ COlllmittee's wndors. NUTs. I'ailur~ to act

timely in invoicing and seeking payment from the Committee represents an apparent

contribution. The O[lIce of General Counsel agrees with this conclusion. Ilowever. wc

The term "coillribuliull" is defined alii C.F.R. § 9032.3.

flowever, charges ullrclaleu to Ihe campaigllthat were reimbursed by the Cumll\illee would cOllstilule thl'

use of camp,lIgll fUllus for Iloll-qualitieu camp,lIgll expellses. Sec II C.F.R. § 9034.4(b)(S).

Page 29
Memorandom lo /(obert J. Costa

Proposed Aodit Report on Bochanan for Presidenl, Inc.

Page 4

rccommend that the Audit Division revise the proposed Audit Rcport to rcfcrcncc the concluswll

10 the lcgal standard under II C.F.R. § 100.7(a)(4), i.e., failurc to makc a commcrcially

reasonable aHcmptto collect thc debt. To buttress this conclusion, wc rccomlllcnd thai tht: Audil

Division revise the proposed Audit Rcportlo nOlc datcs andtimc framcs during whit:h !VIFl

failed to invoice the Committee for its balance due.

The Oflice of Gencral Counsel also recommcnds that the Audit Division rcvise the Audit

Rcport to utilizc the agrcemcnt bctween the Committee and MFI to li.lrlhcr support Its t:ol1t:lusillfl

that!VIfl failed to make a commercially rcasonable allempt to collcctthc dcbt. See II CLK

§ 100.7(a)(4). Under thc tcrms ofthc agrecmcnt, MFI was to submit invoiccs on a monlhly basi:;

beginning January I, J996 and continuing until the tcrmination of the COJltract, and invoil:es wei C

10 be paid from matching funds gcncrated or wilhin thirty days, whiehevcr camc first. !VIITs

failurc to submit invoiccs in accordance with its own contractual terms should bc t:ilt:d as

evidcnce of failure to act in a commcrcially rcasonable manner.

III. RECEIPT OF CASII CONTRWUTIONS IN EXCESS OF TilE

LIMITATION (liLA)

The Audit Divisiun concludes Ihaltlw CommiHec n:t:civt:d $14,211 in ext:t:ssi\'t: l:<lsh

contributions that were nol rcfundcd or disposcd of in a timely manner and, at:t:ordingly,

recommends that the Commission determine that $14,211 is payable to the United Stales

Treasury. The proposed i\udit Report luulllJ that $2,408 was never refunoed 01' dispused or or

paidlo the Uniteo States Treasury, and $12,755 was refundeo or disposed ofill an untimely

nlanner. R The COlllmillet: docs not dispule that it did not promplly rdi.mo or dispost: ur t:xcessive

cash contributions. 'I The CUlllmillee raised two arguillents. First, Ihe Committec argues th;ll the

Commission is without aUlhority (0 require a payment to the United Slales Treasury fur funds

that the COlllmillee has alreudy refunded [0 the contributors (albeit ulllimdy). St:t:ond, wilh

respect to excessive cash cuntributions thaltlw Committee has IlOt rd'ullded 10 coniribulllrs, lhe

Commillee contends lhal a requirement 10 pay the Uniteo Stales Treasury ralher than tll rcl'und

the money to the contributor, where the contributor's identity is known, l:Unstilutes a "laking" in

violation of lhe Fifth Amendmellilu Ihe United States Constitution.

Section 9038.1(1)(3) orthe Commission's regulations requires conunillccs 10 SUbllllllo

the United States Treasury a check for the lotal amount of any excessive or prohibikd

contributions not refundeu, reattributeu or redesignated in a timely manner in accordance wilh 11

The Audit DivislOIl idel1tified $~52 ill excessive cash contributions thatlhe Commillee prcviOllsly paid 10

Ihe Ullited Stales Tleasury. Tllis "111011111, thcrel'ure, is 1101 il1c1l1ded in the $1'1,211 thai the AudillJlVi"uII

recommends thatlhe Commission de\erliline \0 be payable tll United Slales Treasury.

IllIs UIIIl'l' ICl'OllIlIll·lId., illillilic Aud'l IJlvI,loll h~.llVhelllhe C,XLC,:""C L.I:,II Lllilil dl1llll1ll', WelL 1l'llIlId,,1

ill order to determine exactly how late the refumJs were madc.

Page 30
Memorandum 10 Robert J. Cosln

Proposed Audit Report on Buchanan for President. Inc.

Page 5

C.F.R. § 103.3(b)(I), (2) or (3).IU Remitting to the United Stales Treasury excessive cash

contributions that are not promptly refunded is consistent with the equitable uoctrine of

uisgorgemenl. As the Commission noteu in the Explanation and Justillcation fur a parallel

provision, 11 C.F.R. § 9007.1(f)(3), "courts havc upheld the usc ofuisgorgemcnl in cases

involving securities violations 'as a mclhou offorcing a defendant to give up the alllount by

which he was unjustly enrichcd,' SEC v. Tume, 833 F.2d 1086, 1096 (2"'1 Cir. 1987), citing SEC

I'. Cummunwealth Chemical Securities, Inc., 574 F.2d 90, 102 (2"" Cir. 1978)." Explanatiun ami

Justification for II C.F.R. § 9007.1(1)(3) 60 Fed. Reg. 31863 (June 16, 1995). Moreover. the

1996 Presidential Primary Compliance Manual provides that "[a] refunu made more than 30 days

after receipt of the contribution does not relieve the committee orthe Obligation to pay the

amount of the contribution to the Treasury."" 1996 Presidential Prilllltly CO/llpliance Mali/wI.

p.92.

As a condition preceuentto receiving public funds, the Commillee agreed tu eomply with

the cash contribution limilations under the fECA. See 11 C.F.R. § 9033.1(b)(10). A

commillee's failure to take action on excessive contributions within a timely manner is a failure

to cure contributiuns that me in violation ofthe Feueral Election Campaign Act of 1971 ,IS

amended ("FECA"). Requiring presidential comlllillees to pay the United Slates Treasury the

amount of funds that are not refunded or disposed of in a timely manner is a part or the

Commission's duty to prosl.:ribe rules in the audit process to ensure that presiuentiall.:Ummillees

arc in compliance with the FECI\. See 2 U.S.c. § 437d(a)(8); see alsu 11 C.F.R.

§ 9038.1(b)(2)(iii). The Commission's regulations as well as the 19tJ6l'n.:siuentiall'rilllary

Complianl.:e Manual provided the Commillee with notice that if they diu not timely CUfe

excessive contributions in accoruance with the Commission's fegulations, tlll':y would be

required to pay all allJount equal [0 such contributions to the Unitt.:d StaLes Treasury. St't' I I

C.F.R. § 9038.1 (1)(3); 1YlJ6 Presidential Primary Cvmpliance lV/Willa!. p. 71

The Office of General Counsel believes that a payment to the United Sta(cs Treasury for

untimely refunded excessive cash contributions where the contributUf is known, tloes not

10 Section I03.3(b)( I)-(3). however. docs not address the issue of refundillg excessive cash contribulions.

Sec II C.F.R. 103.3(b)(1 )-(3). Excessive cash contributions arc refunded iu accurdoncc wilh II C.F.R.*

110.4(c)(2). nol II C.F.R. *103.3(b)(3). Unlike Section 103.3(b)(3), which relluires a refund ofexcessivc

cuntributions wilhin sixty dol'S. Sectiun 110.4(c)(2) requires a commiltee tu refunu excessive cash cuniriblliions

promptly. em"l",rc II C.F.R. §/03.3(b)(3) ",i,h II C.F.lt § 110.4(c)(2). SecLlon,)038.1(1)(3) requircs a paymellt

10 Ihe Uniled Slates Treasury for untilllely refunded contribotions in excess of $1.000 under 2 U.S.c. § 441 a.

Ilowever. there is no reason to limil this disgorgement remedy to specific Iypes or excessive contributions. The

allltltlllb III CXl:.C!->~ ul the \ I ,OliO 1I1lliVidllilf Ll)lllrihllllflll IlIllilalioll mul ;mwlIlIl.... III l·.\l'l·S~. tlf Ihe $1 Otll'a.'.h

cOlllribulioll limilalion arc both funds available Lo the Conll11iltee that were limited by thc FECi\.

II However. requiring a committee to pay to the United States Treasury in Ille "uuil conleXi exccssive

contributions that the commillee has already refunued 10 the contribulors (albeit in an untimely manner). could be

viewed as punitive in nalure since lhe Commillee no longer has the funds thaI constitute the unjusl enrichmenl. See

"'elllledl'!lIr /'re."de,,' (","''''''11"., \' rn·. 7.1,1 F.2d 1558. 1%5 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (alldllprllccss is 1I11t (0 pellalile llic

persoll 01 Lllllllllllkc SUbJcLltllthe audit. blilliithel tu ICLilptulc puollL IlIlId,. ",.cd 1\11 '""III,lIl1,C,) l'.\jJclltlJIIIIC',)

Page 31
Memorandum 10 Robert J. Costa

Proposed Audil Report on I)uehanan for President, Inc.

Page 6

constitutc 11 "taking" in viulalion of the Firth Amcndmcnt to the United States Constitution. The

Takings Clause provides, "privatc property [shall not] be taken for public use without just

compcnsation." U.S. Const. Amend. V. However, a party challenging governmental actiun as

an unconstitutional taking bears a substantial burdcn. United States 1'. Sf)!!''!')' CCllp.. 4l.J3 u.s. 52.

60 (1989). Although lhe question of what constitutes a taking for the purposes orthe fillh

Amendment has provcn to be problematic, thc courts have stated that the inquiry inlo whcther H

regulation constitutcs an unconstitutional taking does /lotlcnd itself [0 any set formula, and is

essentially ad hoc and facl intensive. Kaiser Aetna 1'. United S'lates, 444 U.S. 1M, 174-175

( 1(79).

Guidance may be found, howcvcr, in the couris' trcatment orsuch "laking" argument in

thc cuntext of cases involving viulatiuns uf thc ledcral securities laws. In S. E. C. I'. fJlavin. till':

United Statcs Court of Appcals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district cuurl's findings thaI the

Dcfendant violatcd securities laws, as wcll as its disgorgcmcnt order and disgorgclllcnl

distribution plan. SE.c. 1'. lJIavin, 760 F.2d 706 (6'h Cir. 1985). Aller linding thallhe Defendant

violatcd sccuritics laws, the district court ordcred disgorgcmcnl of prolits gained then:rrom, and

appointed an agent to implemcnt allt! administer a disgorgement plan. The Court or Appeals

held that the part of the disgorgemcnt plan that required a paymcnt to the United States Treasury

aftcr all claims had been paid did not violate the Takings Clause. See lJIavill, SlIfil'l1. at 71 J. The

[', COllrt of Appeals rcasoned that thc Defcndant's taking argumcnt was "based on the misguided

~~ belief that disgorgement is a form of restitution that is based upon proof that investors suJ1cn:d

loss through [the Defendant'sJsecuritics law violations." IJ.

The Officc of Gencral Counscl believes that requiring the CommiUee to pay to thc United

States Trcasury the amount of exccssive cash contributions not promptly refunded, where the

idcntity of thc contributors is known, docs not constitute a "taking" in violation or thc Fifth

Amcndmcnt to the United Slates Constitution. As the court cxplained, the principle is that till':

disgorgemcnt remedy operates without specific regard for thc inlerests of private parties. See

[Jlm'ill, at 713. Although the audit context docs not involve a ddermination that the COlllmittee

violatcd the law, requiring the Committce to make a paymcnt to the Treasury or cash

contributions in the audit context, irrespcctivc of the fact thatlhe conlribulors' identity is known.

is consistent with this prim;iplc."

11 The Expiallatillll alld )u,I;I;(al;oll for II c.r.l\. (JOG7.1(!)(3) 1I11les Ihal: "il is eas;er Ii,r a ((lIlllllillee III

lIIa~L' ,I/IL' I'd)'IIIL'IJlllll"L' J lL'a,uly. as "1'1"ISL'd IllIL'illl\l"lI[; 1I/lllllpk lUI/\llhlll"I/I"" /-.1/'/'"1"'1"" "!I,I.IIIIIII" ,111""

fur II c.r.I" S9U07.1(!)(3) (general electiull lillall(illg repayment prucedure \"al is parallellll II c.r.I" S

9038.1(1)(3»,60 fed. Reg. 3 t863 (Julle 16. 1995).

Page 32
F[DlRAL HlCTION COMMISSION

WA,IIINLllJN. IJ I 11101'>1

•

January 21, llJlJ9

Me. Scoll Mackenzie, Treasurer

Buchanan for PresiJent COlJlmillee, Inc.

6862 EJm Street, Suite 2I0

McLean, VA 22101

DcaI' Mr. Mackenzie:

Attached please lind the )tcport of the AuJit Division on IJuehanan luI' I'resiJellt

Commillee, Inc. The COlllll1ission approveJ lhc rcport on January 14, \99l). As nutcJ un

page 4 of the allacheJ rcpurt, the COlllmissiun lIlay pursue any of the Illullers disCllsscJ ill

an enforcemcnt action.

In accordance with I I CFR §§90311.2(e)(l) anu (0)(1), the CUlIlll1issiun has lIlade

a delerminalion lhal a repaymenllo the Secretary of the Treasury in the amulintur

$72,222 is required within 90 ealenuar uays after service oflhis reporl (April 24, 1999).

ShoulJ the Call1liuate uispUlc lhe Comlllission's uelennination that a repayllH:nt is

requircu. COlllmission regulations at II CFR §9038.2(c)(2) proviue the CanuiJate with an

opportunity 10 submit in writing, within 60 calenJar Jays after service of the

Cummission's notice (March 25, 19(9), legal anu raelualmaterials lo uemonstrale thaI nu

rcpayment, or a lesscr rcpaymcnt, is rcquircJ. Further, J 1 CFR §90JS.2(c)(2)(ii) permits

a CanJiuale who has submitteu written materials to request an oppurtunity to aJJress the

Comlllission in open session baseu on the legal anu factual materials submitted.

The Commissiun will eunsiuer any written legal and raclualmatcrials submitlcL!

wilhin the 60 uay periou when ueeiuing whether tu revise the repaymcnt determination.

Such materials may be submitleu by counsel irthe C(lmliJate so dee Is. If the Call1liuate

ucciJes to lile a response (0 the repayment tlclcrminalion, please Cllnlact Kim L. IJrightCulemaJJ uflhe OfJice ufUeneral Cuunsel at (202) (1)4-1650 or lull free at (lHHl) 424-

9530. Ifthe CanJiJate tloes nut tlispute this uetennination within the 60 day periud

proviueu, it will be eonsiueretl final.

The Commission approved Audil Report will be placed 011 Ihe public record on or

alllllil January 2'), 1999. Should you have any questions regarding the puhlic rekase ol"lhis

reporl, please contact Ron Harris or the Cummissiun's Press Olliee all2Ul) u9<\-1 nu.

Page 33
•

Mr. Scull Mackcnzie, Treasurer

Page 2

Any questions you JIlay havc rclatcdto mailers covered during till': audit or in the

audit rcport should be directcd to Wanda Thomas or Rick Halter or the Audit Division at

(202) 694-1200 or toll free at (800) 424-9530.

~~~ Assistant Starr Direelor

Audit Division

Allaclullents:

Audit Rcport

Schedule of UndocuJllcnted Expenses

Schedule or Duplicatc Payments and

Non-Campaign Related Disburscments

SL:hedule of Stale-Dated Checks

Page 34
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WI\:)IlINC ION, IJ ( :11)·11'\

•

•

January 21, 1999

Mr. Patrick J. l3uchanan

Buchanan for Presidcnt COllllllillee, Inc.

6862 Elm Street, Suile 210

McLean, VA 22101

Dear Mr. Uuehanan:

Allached please lindlhc Report ofthe Audit Division on Uudwllan fur Presidenl

COlllmittee, Inc. The Commission approved the report on January 14, 1999. As nuledull

page 4 of the allaehed report, the Commission may pursue any of the mailers discussed in

an enforcement action.

In accon.lance with II CFR §§lJ0311.2(c)(I) and (d)(l), the CUlllmissiun has maue

a determination that a repaYlIlentto the Secretary of the Treasury in the amount ur

$72,222 is required within 90 calcnuar Jays after service of this report (April 2,1, ll)l)l)).

Shoulu you uispute the Commission's uetermination that a repayment is requireu,

COlllmission rcgulations at II CFR §90311.2(c)(2) provide you wilh an oppurlunily to

submil in writing, wilhin 60 calelluar Jays after scrvice oflhe Commission's nutiee

(March 25, 1(99), legal anu factual materials to demonstrate that nu repayment, or a

lesser repayment, is required. Further, 11 CFR §9038.2(c)(2)(ii) permits a candidate whu

has submillcu wrillcnmaterials tu request an opportunity to atldress the Commissiun in

open sessiun baseu un lhe legal allll ractualmaterials submilled.

The Commissiun will consiucr any wrillen legal and factual materials submilled

within the 60 day period when deciding whethcr to revise the repaymenl uelenninatiun.

Such matcrials may be submillcu by counsel iryou so elect Iryuu ueciue to lile a

response 10 the repayment delcrminaliun, please contact Kim L. IJrighl-Culelllan or (ht:

Oflicc of Genernl Counsel a( (202) 6Y4-lu50 ur lullli'ee at (!lUU) 424-')5JU. ll'yull du

nul dispule this uClenninalion within the 60 Jay periotl providetl, it will be consiuered

final.

The Commission approved Audit Keport will be placed un the pUblic record On ur

almlll Jalluary 21), Il)I)l). Should you have any qucstions regarding the puhlic rcleasc n['this

report, please conlact Ron Harris or the CotlJmission's Press UrIiCl: at (202) W4-I22U.

Page 35
o

•

Mr. Palrick J. lJuchal1al1

Page 2

Any qucslions yOll may have rclalculO mallcrs covereu uuring the auJit ur in Ihe

audil rcporl shouJu bc din:elculo Wanua Tholl1as or Riek Haller of the AuJil Divisiun al

(202) 694-1200 or loll frcc al (800) 424-9530.

Rob J. Cosla

Assistant SlafT Direclor

AuuilDivisiun

Allaehmcnls:

Audil Report

Schcdule of Untlucumcnleu Expenses

Scheuule of Duplicate Payments alll!

Non-Campaign Relateu Disbursemcnls

Schedulc of Stalc-Datcd Chccks

Page 36
CHRONOLOGY

BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT, INC.

"

Audit Fieldwork

Exit Conference Memorandum to Commillee

Response Received to the Exit Conference

Memorandum

Audit Report Approved

Page 37

12/3/96 - 1/29/97

5/8/98

7/22/98

1/14/99
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOi'J

WASHINGTON, 0 C 20463

October 25, 2000

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

Ronald M. Harris

Chief, Press Office

Kim Leslie Bright 'J{.rI\

Associate General Counsel

Rhonda 1. Vosdingh

Assistant General Counsel

" SUBJECT: Public Issuance of Statement ofReasons for Patrick 1. Buchanan and Buchanan for

President, Inc. t"LRA #512)

Attached please find a copy ofthe Statement ofReasons for Patrick 1. Buchanan and .

Buchanan for President, Inc., which the Commission approved on September 14, 2000,

Informational copies ofthe Statement ofReasons have been received by all parties

involved and the document may be released to the public.

Attachment as stated.

cc: Audit Division

FEC Library

Public Disclosure

Reports Analysis Division
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINC TO:-<. 0 C !Q4bJ

September 19, 2000

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Patrick J. Buchanan

c/o John 1. Duffy, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC. 20036-179$

Rc: Buchanan for President, Inc. (LRA #512)

Dear l\fr. Buchanan:

The Commission has considered the responses '~Ied and the oral hearing held on

behalf ofPatrick J. BuchllJ18ll and Buchanan for President, Inc. (collectively, "the

Committee") regarding the Commission's repayment determination issued on July IS, .

1999. On September 14, 2000 the Commission determined that the Committee must

repay a t.otal of$63,750 to the United States Treasury, including $62,116 for matching

funds related to improper reattributions and $1,634 for matched contributionsthat were

later refunded.

Enclosed is a Statement ofReasons in support ofthe Commission's determination.

See 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(3). The Committee must repay $63,750 to the United States

Treasury within 30 calendar days after service ofthe notice ofthis post-administrative

review repayment detemunation. 11 C,F.R. § 9038.2(d)(2). Judicial review ofthe

Commission's determination is available pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9041. Ifyou have any

questions regarding the Commission's determination, please contact Delanie DeWitt

Painter. the attorney assigned to this matter, at (202) 694-1650.

Kim Leslie Bright

Associate General Counsel

Enclosure

Statement ofReasons
FEDERAL ELECTION Cmv'\MISSlor~

"VASHINGTO~~, 0 C 20463

September 19, 2000

•

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Angela M. Buchanan, Treasurer

Buchanan for President, Inc.

c/o John 1. Duffy, Esq.

Stl(ptoe & Johnson

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. __

Washington, D.C. 20036-1795

Re: Buchanan for President, Inc. (LRA #512)

Dear Ms. Buchanan:

The Commission has considered the responses filed and the oral hearing held 011"

behalfofPatrick 1. Buchanan and Buchanan for President, Inc. (collectively, "the

Committee") regarding the Commission's repayment determination issued on July 15,

1999. Qn September 14, 2000 the Commission determined that the Committee must

repay a total of$63,750 to the United States Treasury, including 562,116 for matching

funds related to improper reattributions and $1,634 for matched contributions that were

later refunded.

Enclosed is a Statement ofReasons in support ofthe Commission's determination.

See II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c){3). The Committee must repay $63,750 to the United States

Treasury within 30 calendar days after service ofthe notice ofthis post-administrative

review repayment determination. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(d){2). Judicial review ofthe

Commission's determination is available pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9041. !fyou have any

questions regarding the Commission's determination, please contact Delanie DeWitt

Painter, the attomeyassigned to this matter, at (202) 694-1650.

Sincerely,

/fJi.dda;1Jf!

Kim Leslie Bright

Associate General Counsel

Enclosure

Statement ofReasons (without attachments)
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

rn the Matter of

Patrick 1. Buchanan and

Buchanan tor President, Inc.

)

)

)

)

)

LRA# 512

I.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

lNTRODUCTION

-On September 14, 2000, the Federal Election Commission ("the Commission") detennined

that Patrick 1. Buchanan and Buchanan'for President. Inc. (colleaively "the Committee") must

repay a total of $63,750 to the United States Treasury for matching funds received in e:a:esi of

the candidate's entitlement for matched contributions later.determined to have been nonmatchable. 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(1); 11 C.F.R·§ 9038.2(b)(I)(iii). This repayment arose from a-.

Commission inquiry under 26 U.S.C. § 9039(b) and 11 C.F.R. § 9039.3 ("the 9039 inquiry"):

The Commission's repayment results from Commission determinations that the Committee must

repay: $62,116 for matching funds related to improper reattributions, and Si,634 for matched

contributions that were later refunded. The Committee is ordered to repay $63,150 to the United

States Treasury within thirty (30) calendar days after service ofthis determination. 11 C.F.R.

§§ 9038.2(c)(3) and (d)(2). This Statement ofReasons sets forth the legal and factual basis for

the Commission'srepayment determination upon administrative review. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 9038(b)(I), 11 C.FR §§ 9038.2(c)(3) and (£), 9039.3(a)(2) and (b)(4).

U. INVESTIGATION AND REPAYMENT DETERMINATION

Patrick 1. Buchanan was a candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination in

the 1996 primary elections. The Committee registered with the Commission on February 16,

1995. On May 31, 1995, the Commission determined that Mr. Buchanan was eligible to receive
ru,

matching fur;ds under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, 26 Us.c.

§§ 9031-9042 ("Matching Payment Act"). The Committee received $10,983,475 in matching

fund payments from the United States Treasury.

During the Commission's audit ofthe Committee pursuant to 26 U.Sc. § 9038, the

Commission conducted a sample review ofthe Committee's matched contributions and found that

a number of contributions that were apparently improperly reattributed had been submitted for

matching. These included reattributions that did not appear to be between individuals with joint

accounts, reattributions to numerous individuals, reattributions ofthe entire amount of

contribution checks and possible reattributions to minors. Specifically, the Commission id~tified

7,220 matched contributions from all contributors who were associated with anyreattributioD

submitted for matching. From this universe-, the Commission drew a random sample of32.4

items. I The Commission reviewed the sample items and treated reattributions as improper ifthey

were made to an individual or individuals with a different surname from the original contributor or

who had the same surname but did not appear to be the contributor's spouse. See Attachment Q

at 3. Forty-seven ofthese sample items appeared to have been improperly reattributed and thus,

non-matchable.

In addition. the Commission's audit revealed reattribution documents which generally

stated that the reattributee"maintain[s] equitable ownership ofthe account" from which the

original contribution was drawn.1 See Attachment B at 18. Moreover, it appeared that the

Originally, the sample size was 325 items; however, as discussed infra at note 7, one item was

subsequently deleted from the sample because it was refunded on May 10, 1999.

However, thirteen ofthe contributors associated with the 47 sample items that appeared to be nonmatchable did not use the "equitable ownership" language in one or more of their reattribution statements. [t was

not clear why the reattribution statements use the term "equitable ownership," which appears in the regulations

governing malchability of contributions drawn on an escrow or trust account t 1C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(2).
-3-

Committee prepared the reattriolltion forms and sent them to the contributors with a torm cover

letter explaining that a maximum of $250 is matchable for each contribution. and suggesting that

iftheir "contribution can be partially attributed to your spouse, or other member ofyour family,

the Committee can submit it for additional matching funds," apparently to maximize matchable

contributions. See Attachment B at 19.

On June 16, 1998, the Commission opened the inquiry pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9039(b)

and lI.C.F.R. § 9039.3 to determine whether any contributions to the Committee were

improperly reattributedand whether the Committee owed a repayment for matching funds it

received for non-matchable contributions. See 26 U.S.c. § 9038(b)(1); 11 C.P.R

§ 9038.2(b)(I)(iii); Attachment A To verify the contributions and reattributions, the Commission

surveyed contributors who had reattributed all or a portion oftheir contributions, questioning

whether the reattributees "had the right to withdraw funds from any ofyour bank accounts.":!'

Attachment B at 15-17. Follow-up letters and telephone calls were made to contributors who did

not respond to the questionnaire or who returned only a partial response.

The Commission received responses for 39 ofthe 47 sample items.4 Based on the

responses, eight ofthe sample items appear to have been matchable, and 31 ofthe sample items

should not have been matched and are considered "errors." The Commission did not require a

In addition, the questiollIllliIe asked the contributors to verify the amounts and dates oftheir contributions,

state whether the contribution checks were drawn on an escrow or trust account, verify the amounts, dates and

name(s) of the reattributee(s) for each reattribution, provide the current mailing address for each reattributee, and

indicate whether the reattributee gave the contributor any money to make the contribution or reattribution. [d.

The Commission did not obtain information concerning the remaining eight sample items because two

were related to contributors who are now deceased, and six sample items are associated with fOUl contributors who

refused to respond completely to the survey.
--1-

repayment for sample items for which there was no response or for which there was an inadequate

response to the questionnaire.

Based on the results ofthe 9039 inquiry, on July 15, 1999, the Commission determined

that Mr. Buchanan and the Committee must repay a total of $63,750 for matching funds received

in excess ofthe candidate's entitlement for matched contributions later determined to have been

non-matchable, including $62,116 related to the improper reattributions and $1,634 for matched

contri~utions that were later refunded.' See Attachment B. In the Notice of Repayment

Determination, the Commission explained that the reattributions associated with the 31 "errors"

were not proper and were not matchable. See II C.F.R. §§ I LO.I(k), 9034.2(c)(1). Spe...--mcaJIy.

the contribution checks were drawn on the original contributors' accounts, and because the

responses to the questionnaires indicated that the reattributee(s) did not have the right to

withdraw funds from the contributor's ban.lc accounts, there was no indication that the

reattributees were joint owners ofthe contributor's accounts. See 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(1).

Thus, the contributed funds appear to have belonged to the contributor rather than to the

reattributee. See id

The Commission used the survey information concerning the 47 sample items to calculate

the percentage ofimproper reattributions in the total population ("error rate") and the associated

repayment amount for these non-matchable contributions. The Commission projected an error

rate of 9.57010 non-matchable items in the population with a sampling error of±3.69% and a

In a separate repayment matter that arose from the Commission'5 audit ofthe Committee pursuant to

26 U.S.C. § 9038(a), the Commission made a determination following an administrative review on March 16,

2000, that the Committee must repay $29,328 to the United States Treasury for non-qualified campaign expenses

including inadequately documented disbursements, duplicate payments and non-campaign related disbursements.

The repayment was made on April 12, 2000. In the Audit Report, the Commission also determined that a payment

of $27,431 was due to the United States Treasury for stale-dated checks, but the Committee has not yet made that

payment. See II C.F.R. § 9038.6.
-5-

contldence level of 95%. See Attachment B at 24-29 This error rate, when used to estimate the

total dollar value of errors in the population, resulted in a projected error amount of $62,116

which must be repaid for non~matchable contributions. Id.

The remaining repayment amount, $1,634, was based on the Committee's refund of

$2,000 to two contributors who each made a $1,000 contribution and subsequently completed

several reattribution forms. 6 The Committee had submitted these contributions and associated

reattrihutions for a total of$I,750 in matching funds in two matching fund submissions, and based

on its review ofthe matching fund submissions, the Commission certified a total of$I,634 in

matching funds for these contributions. 7 The total amount ofmatching funds certified for the

refunded contributions, $1,634, must be repaid because the contributions have been refunded.

See 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(1); 11 C.F.R. §§ 9034.2(a)(I), 9034.3(i), 9038.2(b)(l)(iii).

On October 12, 1999, the Committee submitted a written response to the repayment

determination and requested the opportunity to address the Commission in open session in order

to demonstrate that no repayment or a lesser repayment is required. 8 See Attachment E;

11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(ii). The Commission granted the Committee's request for an oral

hearing and the hearing was held on March 1,2000. See Attachment F.

Throughout the repayment process, the Committee made a number ofrequests for

documents from the Commission. After receiving the repayment determination, the Committee

6 The contributors stated in a letter dated May 17. 1999 that they requested refunds after Commission staff

contacted them "because ofan apparent misunderstanding about a fonn we were sent by the campaign after we

made the contributions." Attachment B at 20-22.

A reattribution of $250 of one of these contributions was originally one of the sample items. Because it

has been refunded, this item is not being treated as an error and has been deleted from the sample.

On September 30, 1999, the Commission granted the Committee a l5-day extension oftime, until

October 12, 1999, to respond to the Commission's repayment determination. Thus, the respouse was timely.
-6-

requested in a letter dated August 24, !999, two specific memoranda sent between the

Commission's Office of General Counsel and Audit Division and "any documents including

memoranda, oral contacts, questionnaires, etc. that form the basis ofthe Audit Staff's factual

conclusions that certain ofthe 48 sample items appear to be 'improperly reattributed. '"

Attachment C, On October 8, 1999, the Commission provided the requested memoranda, with

attaclunents, and copies ofthe surveys completed by contributors related to the sample items

which were considered to be improperly reattributed.9 Attaclunent D.

The Committee requested additional documents from the Commission prior to the oral

hearing. By letter dated February 7,2000, the Committee requested infonnation concerning the

Commission's sampling procedures, specifically, the database containing the population of7,220

observations, the database or spreadsheet ofthe sample results, the basis for the calculation ofthe

3.69% margin oferror, and an explanation for each ofthe exclusions from the sample.

Attac~ent G. On February 16,2000, Commission staffprovided the requested materials to the

Committee. 10 Attaclunent H.

9 The Commission did not provide copies ofinternal reports prepami by an investigator in the

Commission's Office of General CoUDSCl, electronic messages, or communications between <Ammission staff' of

the Office of General <Aunsc! and the Audit DivisioD, which are protected from disclosure by the attorney worlt

product privilege. Attachment [l Moreover, the Commission did not provide documents the <Ammittee should

have in its possession, such as contribution checks, or documents that appea:recl to be beyond the scope ofthe

request See id.

\0 The Commission provided a spreadsheet of the population of 7,220 items, two sp~eets listing each of

the sample items, and the script ofthe inputs and results ofthe computer program used 10 calculate the error rate,

margin of error and repayment amount. When the Committee informed Commission staffthat its software was not

compatible with two of the spreadsheets, Commission staff' converted the spreadsheets to a compatible format and

sent them to the Committee by electronic mail on Febrwuy 18, 2000. By facsimile transmission dated Febrwuy 18,

2000, the Committee stated that it had nOI received "an explanation for each ofthe exclusions from the sample."

Attachment I at 1. On Febrwuy 25, 2000, Commission staffresponded that the materials provided fully complied

with the request for documents, and e,,-plained that the color-coded sp~eets ofsample items provided to the

Committee on February 16, 2000 list each sample item and include a legend exp1aining the reasons for each ofthe

exclusions from the sample of observations. Attachment 1.
following the March !, 2000 oral hearing, the Commitree made several additional

requests for documents. In a facsimile transmission dated March 2,2000, the Committee's

counsel requested "a handbook, manual or other material that describes the Dollar Unit Sampling

method employed ... in this Repayment Determination.... or any other material describing the

Dollar Unit Sampling method used," as well as "any internal instructions or materials issued 10 the

Audit Staffthat provide guidance regarding how to conduct Dollar Unit Sampling analysis."

Attachment K The Committee also requested "any documents or materials prepared by Ernst &

\\'hinney that recommend use ofDollarUnit Sampling or describe the purpose or goals ofthe

method." Jd. The Commission staffprovided responsive documents to the Committee on

March 3, 2000, with a cover letter explaining that "there is.no'internai handbook or manual

describing the computer program or the doHar Unit sampling procedures." Attachment L.

However, the Commission staffprovided responsive materials that explained dollar unit sampling.

including two reports prepared by Ernst & Whinney in 1979 concerning the Commission's

sampling program, excerpts from two books used by the Commission's Audit staff'l and

computer code from the original computer program used for dollar unit sampling ofmatching

fund submissions at the Commission. 12 See id.

On March 10, 2000, the Commission staffhand-delivered additional responsive documents

to the Committee with a cover letter explaining that the "same doUar unit sampling review process

that is used to review matching fund submissions was used to draw the sample that is the basis of

the repayment determination." Attachment M. The Commission staffprovided the computer

I' JOHN H. MCCRAY, DOLLAR UNIT SAMPLING FOR AUDITORS (1978) and DoNALD M ROBERTS, STATISTICAL

AUDITlNO(1978).

12 Commission staff also informed the Committee that staffwere continuing to examine the agency's files

for additional responsive documents. See id
-8-

code for the current dollar unit sampling computer program used for review of matching fund

submissions and for the sample projection that is the basis ofthe repayment determination; I)

examples of matching fund submission review forms; documents used in the review ofthe

Committee's matching fund "Submission 07;,,14 and a document prepared by the Commission's

Audit staff entitled "Procedures for Reviewing Matching Fund Submission 99 (Sub99)," with

, On March i 7, 2000, the Committee submitted additional materials following the oral

several attachments, including a flow chart ofthe review process. 15 See id

hearing. 16 See Attachment P.

m. COMMITfEE'S RESPONSE TO REPAYMENT DETERMINAnON

The Committee disputes the Commission's repaymeni determination ofJuly 15, 199!}. In

its written response dated October 12, 1999, the Committee contends that the determination is

13 The computer code was redacted to delete file names and access logicals.

14 A "matching fund submission" is the package of documents submitredby a publicly-finan=! presidential

primary candidate to the Commission as the basis for a payment ofmatching funds and i!IClndes, inte,. alia, a list

ofcontributors and ~1lpporting documentation such as contribution check copies. See 11 C.F.R Part 9036. Each

candidate may make a number ofsubmissions_ Commission staffreview each submission for compliance with the

submission requirements ofthe regulations and the Commission's Guideline for Presentation in Good o,.c/e" and

ifthe submission is acceptable, review the contributions in the submission for matchability. 11 C.FR § 9036.4.

"Submission or was the Committee's seventh non-threshold submission and covered the period from January 26,

1996 through Fehnwy 24, 1996.

I S This IlIIOfiicial internal document, prepared by Commission staf( describes the procedures used to dJaw

and review the sample that is the basis ofthe repayment determination. See Attachment M at 2. Surveys were sent

to contributors associated with the sample itemS identified as errors through this process. [d. The document

includes prelimiDaly figwa; the comet numbers were provided to the Committee in the Notice ofRepayment

Determination, Attacbment B. and other document!. [d. On March 6, 2000, the Committee requested an

additional dOCllDlCll1 entitled"PPS sampling Operations Manual" referred to in the 1979Ernst & Whinney report

or any "othersimilar document.~ Attachment N. Commission staffwere unable to locate this document but

provided two related documents prepared by the Commission: the 1979 Guideline fo, Presentation in Good O,.de,.,

which was based on the dollar unit sampling system recommended by Ernst & WhinJIc:y. and the 1988 matching

fund submission review procedures. See Attachment M at 2.

16 While the Commission's regulations do not provide for the submission of additional documentation

subsequent to the oral presentation, the Commission bas permitted presidential committees five business days to

submit additional documentation related to the issues raised at the oral presentation. The Committee's additional
based on "methods of questionable validity and rciiability" and is "rife with errors." Attachment E

at 10. The Committee reiterated and elaborated upon its arguments and also raised several new

arguments at the oral hearing on March I, 2000 and in the additional materials submitted after the

oral hearing on March 17, 2000. See Attachments F and P.

A. IMPROPER REATTRIBUTIONS

The Committee contests the sampling method used to calculate the repayment amount of

$62,116 for non-matchable contributions related to improper reattributions and argues that

sampling is not an appropriate method to calculate the repayment amount in tbis matter.

Attachment E at 2-7. The Committee contends that the use ofsampling for "onerous repayment

determinations fails to meet the requirements ofdue proces.s" because the Commission has not

demonstrated that sampling was "the only feasible method" and that a full audit was "a practical

impossibility," and because the cases cited in the Notice ofRepayment Determination involved

audits with larger populations than 7,220. 17 Attachment Eat 3; see Attachment P at 2.

Moreover, the Committee claims that the Commission's use ofsampling rather than a "more

complete review" was not warranted because it is analogous to a state agency's use ofa test

period to extrapolate the amount oftax: due over a period ofyears that was rejected by a New

York state court because records were available for a complete audit.II Attachment E at 4-5,

documentation was due on March 8, 2000. The Commission granted the Committee's request for an extension of

time; thus, the additiollll1 materials were due on March 17, 2000. See Attachment 0; Attachment N.

11 At the oral hearing, counsel for the Committee argued that in a full audit, Commission staffwould review

only 1,000 items, which would not be "a number that is so burdensome and onerous as to justify sampling."

Attachment Fat 6-7. see 32-35. The Committee also claims confusion about the population size; however, the

correct population size is 7,220. See Attachment B at 23-29.

18 The Committee also cited a New York state case whicb applied the same reasoning to reject the use of

sampling to calculate Medicaid overpayments. AI/en v. Commn 'r ofSocial Services, 500 N.Y.S.2d 204 (N.Y. App.

Div. 1986).
::'"

-lO.

Gil/fig ;I"fohawk Airlines v. Tully, 429 N Y S 2d 759 (N. Y App Div 1980); Names in the News v.

New York State Tax Commission, 429 NYS2d 7SS (NY App. Div 1980); Chartair, Inc. v.

State Tax Comm 'n, 411 N.Y.S.2d 41 (NY App. Div. 1978.

Further, the Committee asserts that due process requires both that the sampling method be

"valid and reliable" and that the Committee have the opportunity to review both the sampling

method and supporting documentation. 19 Attachment E at 5. The Committee contends it either

did not receive jnformation it requested or was not timely provided with information. Id at 5-7.

In addition, the Committee questions the Commission's calculations. 20 The Committee

argues that the +/- 3.69% margin of error is "imprecise by statistical norms." Attachment P at 7-8

and 21-23; Attachment E at 7. Although the Committee acknowledges, in its additional materials,.

that the "acceptable level ofprecision is a matter ofopinion or policy," it asserts that because of

the P4rpose ofthe estimate, the estimate should have been made more precise by expanding the

sample. Attachment P at 8 and 22. Alternatively, the Committee contends that the Commission

19 TIle Commission provided documents to the Committee in response to several Committee requests;

however, the Committee maintains in the additional materials submitted after the oral hearing that it still has

insufficient documents to evaluate the Commission's statistical analysis. Attachment P at 3 and 20-21. The

Committee contends that the documents provided by the Commission do not establish the validity and reliability of

the sampling analysis because they do not provide information about "sample design and execution" and whether

the method was "property implemented." Attachment P at 6 and 20-21. The Committee asserts that it lacked

"materials showing that probability weights were calculated for each item in the population and that the sample

was then drawn accounting for these weights," such as "input data files in addition to the program execution logs

(or otherevidencc that the [Commission)'s computer programs were run with proper inputs) and program output

files." ld. at 7 and 20-21.

20 Although the Committee claimed at the oral hearing that the Commission's sampling method was biased

toward larger contributions, it later appeared to retreat from this position. Attachment F at 9-12; Attachment P at

3 and 20. The Committee acknowledged that "a sample of 324 items is large enough ... to be representative ofthe

population," but argued that the Commission's sample was not representative because the average contribution was

$90 while the average sample item was $155. Attachment P at 3-4 and 20; su AttachmentF at 9-12. However,

the Committee subsequently admitted in the additional materials submitted following the oral hearing that its

consultants determined, based on documents provided by the Commission, that the "apparent anomalous disparity

between the average contribution amounts in the population and in the sample could be explained as a

manifeSlation of the D(ollar) U(nit) S(ampling) method." Attachment P at 5 and 20.
-I 1-

should "request repayment ofthe lower bound ofthe estimate," 5.88% of the population (9.57% _

369%) to be "reasonably confident" that the rcpaymt:nt "does not exceed the true population

value." Attachment P at 8-9 and 22; Attachment E at 7; Attachment F at 15-18 and 67-70.

Further, the Committee asserts that the fact that the midpoint is used for matching funds payments

is not relevant because the purpose of matching funds payments differs from that ofrepayment

detemlinations, which "tak[e] away money to which a campaign initially was entitled."

Attachment P at 9-10.

Moreover, the Committee argues that the survey results were not correctly interpreted and

that it was not proper to consider particular contributions as "errors." Attachment E at 6-10;

Attachment P at 14-16; Attachment F at 18-20. For example, it asserts that it was not proper to

consider reattributions as errors ifthe reattribuiee did not have the right to withdraw funds from

the contributor's bank account because the Commission "refused to consider the responses of

contributors indicating that the reattributee gave the contributor the money to make the donation"

which, the Committee maintains, "contradicts regulations providing that contributions are

matchable ifreattributed to persons who owned the contributed funds who had the requisite

donative intent.,,21 Attachment Eat 7; Attaclunent Pat 15; Attaclunent F at 18-20. The

Committee also argues that the Commission concluded "that lack ofequitable ownership ofa

bank account precluded a proper reattribution, failing to consider the possibility of equitable

21 In the additional materials submitted following the oral hearing, the Committee claims that II C.FR

§ IIO.I(k) permits reattributions and "contains no requirement that the reattributee share the reattributor's bank

account" and that 11 C.F.R §§ 9034.2 and 9034.3 "contain no requirement that the reattributions be made only

between spouses orjoint tenants of bank accounts." Attaclunent P at 15 (emphasis in original).
-[2·

ownership of the fimds within the bank account,·n Attachment E at 8; Attachment P at i5

(emphasis in original).

The Committee also questions the survey process and contends there were flaws in the

Commission's treatment ofspecific reattributions as errors based on the survey responses. See

Attachment E at 8-10; Attachment P at 10-13. The Committee asserts that it is "effectively

precluded" from challenging the Commission's determination of errors because the Commission

provided only the survey response forms for contributors considered to be errors and no

information concerning the "additional interviews conducted with those contributors."

Attachment Eat 8-9.

Specifically, the Committee challenges five ofthe eTTors. First, the Committee argues that

Anna Newton's response indicated that she'did'not understand the meaning of"reattribution" and

that her "uninformed response" to the survey should not be treated as an error.23 Attachment E at

9. Second, the Committee avers that Catherine Radecki's reattribution should not have been an

error because her reattributed contributions were drawn on an escrow or trust account. [d.

Third, the Committee argues that James Pettit's reattribution should not have been an error

because he did not respond to the question ofwhether the reattributee had acceSs to his bank:

22 The Committee cOnteIlds tha& Uat least one-third" ofthe reattributees for the sample items treated as errors

were "equitable 0WIIClS ofthe n:attributed contribution" because surveys from the original contributors stated that

they received money from the n:attributces. See Attachment E at 8; Attachment P at 16. It argues that the

Commission should accept these SUIVey responses without requiring additional information because there was no

evidence that the reattrtbutees did not give money to the contributors 10 make the reattributions, and the

Commission bas accepted "[alll ofthe contributors' other statements" which"support the Audit Division's

position." Id. In the additional materials submitted after the oral hearing, the Committee lists the nine

reanributees who it contends were "equitable owners" ofreattributed contributions, including one who is associated

with two sample items (Watkins). See Attachment P at 17, n. 40.

23 In its additional materials submitted after the oral hearing, the Committee claims that although

Commission staff explained the meaning of "reattribution" to Ms. Newton in a "telephone interview," staff did not

attempt to "clarify whether she received funds from her reanributee." Attachment Pat 13.
-13-

account. fd. at 9-10. Fourth, the Committee contends that John W. Kn:mer's reattributlon was

incorrectly treated as an error because he responded that he did not make the reattributions. fd.

Finally, the Committee contends that Sheila Thomsen made a proper reattribution to her husband,

David 1. Thomsen24 fd.

At the oral hearing and in the additional materials submitted following the oral hearing, the

Committee makes several arguments it did not raise in its written response to the repayment

determination. See 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(i). First, the Committee argues that reattributions

by nine reattributees were matchahle because the reattributees gave funds to the original

contributors, and "under well settled legal principles such a transaction also creates a trust in

which the reattributee has equitable ownership ofthe money he or she pays to the reattibutor for

the purpose ofeffecting a joint contribution'or reattribution.":z.s Attachment P at 16; see

Attachment F at 63-65. The Committee asserts that 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(b) requires only that a

check be written on a personal, escrow or trust account representing or containing the

contributor's personal funds and that an account contains a reattributee's funds where "the

24 In its additioual sublllission following the oral hearing, the Committee claims that "there is no e"idencc~

other than the Commissiou staff'sstatement that a telephone contact had clarified that Sheila Thomsen made the

reanribution at issue to herson David A Thomsen rather than her husband David J. Thomsen, and that her written

survey contradicted this conc:lusilln. See Attachment Pat 13-14.

2.1 Counsel for the Committee argued at the oral hearing that a reattributee has "an equitable interest" in the

original contributor's account, which makes it a trust account ifhe or she gives the contributor money to make a

contribution, that the "person who has money that they're bolding for me for a particular purpose is a common law

trustee" and that the Committee interpreted the regulatory language concerning equitable interest in an account to

mean such a trust. Attachment F at 64-65. In the additional materials submitted after the oral hearing, the

Committee cites only 89 CJ.S. Trusts § 2 (1955) as support for this argument, and states that a "trust~ is "the

relationship in which one person holds'an equitable right, title, or interest in property, real or personal, distinct

from the legal ownership thereof. '" Attachment P at 16, n. 35.
-l~-

reattributee paid funds into [he reattributor' 5 personal account for the purpose of effecting a joint

contribution or reattnbution. ,,26 Attachment P at 15-16.

The Committee's second new argument is that rhe sample review was biased because the

Commission combined results ofa written survey with follow-up telephone "interviews" of

contributors which may have been improperly conducted and may have biased the responses.

Attachment P at 11-12; see Attachment F at 12-13 and 20-21. The Committee asserts that

because the Commission has not provided it with documentation memorializing the telephone

contacts, it cannot determine ifthey were proper.

27 Id. The Committee also claims that it had no

information that the interviewers were properly trained to avoid introducing error or bias by

"making improper suggestions or coercing respondents into giving responses favorable to the

[Commission]."28 Attachment Pat 11. Finally, the Committee argues that the survey was not

well-designed because additional contaet8 were necessary to clarify several responses.

Attachment P at 12.

B. REFUNDEDCONTmffiUTIONS

With respect to the repayment amount of$I,634 arising from refunded contributions, the

Committee questioned the "rationale for requiring repayment of only a portion ofthe matching

26 The Committee furtbcr argues that such transactions result in matchahle contributions even iftlle

reattributce gave the contributor cashbecause the reattributed contribution is not submitted to the Committee in the

form of cash. Attachment P at 15-16; Attachment F at 19-20. It also argues that the contributions are not

unmatehable contributionsin the name ofanother because the reattributce'5 name was submitted to the

Commission and the Commission's Guideline!or'!7esentation in GoodOrder' provides "forthe ac:ceptanc;e ofa

separate writing as sufficient to comply with the writing required by § 9034.2." Id

27 Specifically, the Committee protests the inclusion of "at least" two ofthe 31 errors that weIe "established

solely by means of these telephone interviews" (reattributees Carlita Brown and Roderick Fox). Attal:bment P at

12.

28 Because an Internal Revenue Service manual recommends that survey and interview questions should be

drafted in written fonn to avoid ambiguity, the Committee contends the Commission's survey process "introduced

bias" to the extent that follow-up telephone calls "were not conducted according to written questions prepared in
·15-

funds apparently received in connection with these contnbutions" by applying the "projected error

rate that was applied to the initial submissions" to calculate the repayment amount. Attachment E

at 2, n.2. At the oral hearing, counsel for the Committee asserted that donative intent should be

determined at the time of the contribution and a refund request would not make a contribution

non-matchable; however, he admitted that "[o)nce we give them their money back, I don't

disagree that the matching funds have to follow, but ... the mere fact that they've asked for it

does not negate their donative intent, and does not undercut the appropriateness ofmatching

funds." Attachment F at 40-41.

IV. POST-ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW REPAYMENT DETERMINATION

The Commission determines upon reviC?w that Patrick 1. Buchanan and the Committee

must repay $62,116 to the United States Treasury for matchirl8 funds received in excess ofthe

candidate's entitlement based on matched contributions related to improperly reattributed

contributions. 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(1); II C.F.R § 9038.2(b)(1)(iii). In addition, the

Commission determines upon review that Patrick J. Buchanan and the Committee must repay

$1,634 to the United States Treasury for matching funds received in excess ofthe candidate's

entitlement based on refunded contributions (5 x $250 x .928) + (2 x $250 x: .948). Id

Therefore, the Committee must repay a total of $63,750 for matching funds received in excess of

the candidate's entitlement based on matched contributions later determined to have been nonmatchable. Id.

advance," and "were not conducted by trained, impartial interviewers." Attachment P at 12-13; Attachment F at

12-13 and 20-21.

-.
.

= " '=::::'

-16-

A. THE REATTRIBUTlONS WERE I;VIPROPER AND NON-~IATCHABLE

1. LAW

The Commission may determine that portions of matching fund payments made to a

candidate were in excess ofthe aggregate amount ofthe candidate's entitlement and must be

repaid. 26 V.S.c. § 9038(b)(I); II C.ER. § 9038.2(b)(I). Payments made on the basis of

matched contributions later determined to have been non-matchable are subject to repayment.

11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(I)(iii)

A matchable contribution is a gift ofmoney made by an individual, by a written

instrument, for the purpose ofinfluencing the result of a prilI\lUY election. 26 U.S.C. § 9034(a);

11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(a)(I). A written instrument means a check written on a personal, escrow or

trust account representing or containing the' contributor's personal funds; a money order; or any

other negotiable instrument. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(b). The written instrument shall be payable on

demand, to the order of, or endorsed to the candidate or the candidate's committee, and shall

contain the full name, signature and address ofthe contributor(s) and the amount and date ofthe

contribution. 11 C.FR § 9034.2(c).

Checks drawn on a joint checking account are matchable and the contributor is considered

to be the owner whose signature appears on the check. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(I). To be

attributed equally to otherjointtenants ofthe account, the check or accompanying written

document shall contain the signature ofthe joint tenant; ifthe contribution is to be attributed other

than equally among the joint tenants, the check or written document shall also indicate the amount

to be attributed to each joint tenant. 11 C.F.R § 9034.2(c)(I)(i). In the case ofa check for a

contribution attributed to more than one person, where it is not apparent from the face ofthe

check that each contributor is a joint tenant in the account, a written statement shall accompany
-17-

the check stating that the contribution was made from each individual's personal funds in the

amount so attributed and shall be signed by each contributor. II CFR § 90342(c)(I)(ii).

Where a contribution is reattributed to a joint tenant ofthe account, the reattribution shall comply

with the requirements of II CFR. § 110.I(k), and the documentation described in II C.F.R.

§ 110.1(1), (3), (5) and (6) shall accompany the reattributed contribution. 29 II C.FR.

§ 9034.2(c)(I)(iii).

.A contlibution to a candidate which does not meet the requirements of 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2

is not matchable. II C.F.R. § 9034.3. Non-matchable contributions include, far example, in-kind

contributions; a subscription, loan, advance or deposit ofmoney or anything ofvalue;

contributions made or accepted in violation of2 U.S.C. §§.441a, 441b, 44lc, 44Ie, 441( or

441g; contributions made by persons without the necessary donative intent to make a gift or madefor any purpose other than ta influence the result of a primary election; and contributions of .

currency. II C.F.R. §§ 9034.3(a),(b),(e),(i) and (j).

The Commission's regulations provide that ifa contribution, on its face or in the

aggregate, exceeds the contribution limitations, the committee treasurer may obtain a written

reattribution from the contributor within 60 days. 11 C.FR §§ 103.3(b)(3), IlO.l(k)(3). A

contribution is reattributed ifthe treasurer asks the contributor whether the contribution is

intended to be a joint contribution by more than one person, informs the contributor that he or she

may request a refund ofthe excessive portion, and within 60 days, the contributors provide a

written reattribution, signed by each contributor, which indicates the amount ta be attributed to

29 Checks drawn on an escrow or trust account are also matchable provided that the "contributor has

equitable ownership of the account" and the "check is accompanied by a statement, signed by each contributor to

whom all or a portion of the contribution is being attributed, together with the check number, amount and date of

the contribution" and the statement specifies "that the contributor has equitable ownership of the account and the

account represents the personal funds of the contributor." 11 C.F.R. § 9034. 2(c)(2).
2.

Q.

-18-

each contributor ifequal attribution is not intended. I! CFR. § 1IO.1(k)(3)(ii). The treasurer

shall retain the written reattribution and the reattribution will not be effective unless the

conunittee retains the documentation. 11 C.fR. § 110.1(1)(3) and (5).

A candidate who disputes the Commission's repayment determination shall submit in

writing, within 60 calendar days after service ofthe Commission's notice ofrepayment, legal and

factual materials demonstrating that no repayment, or a lesser repayment, is required. 11 C.F.R.

§ 903&.2(c)(2)(i). The candidate's failure to timely raise an issue in these written materials will be

deemed a waiver ofthe candidate's right to raise the issue at any future stage ofproceedings

including any petition for review filed under 26 U.S.C. § 9041(a). Id. Moreover, the candidate's

oral presentation before the Commission should be based upon the written materials. See

II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(ii).

ANALYSIS

The Commission concludes, after considering the Committee's arguments on review, that

the Committee received matching funds for non-matchable contributions. The Committee has

failed to demonstrate, in response to the Commission's repayment determination, that no

repayment, or a Jesser repayment is required. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2).

The Commission's determination upon review that the reattributions were improper and

non-matchable is supported by the Commission's investigation.30 See Attachment B at 10-13.

The investigation revealed evidence including the contribution checks which were drawn on the

accounts ofthe original contributors and do not list the names ofthe reattributees, and the survey

30 The contributions appeared to be matchable when they were submitted for matching because the

reattributees signed writings stating that the money was their personal funds and that they intended to make a

contribution. The reattributions also generally appear to have been completed within 60 days. See 11 C.F.R

§ 110. 1(k)(3)(ii). However, as discussed infra, the Commission's investigation revealed that the reattributions

were not matchable.
32

.~:

•

·l9.

responses ofthe original contributors, who indicated that the ,eattributees did not have lhe rioht

'"

to withdraw funds from their accounts. See 11 C.FR. § 9034 2(c)(I); see also II C.F.R.

§ 110.l(k). Since the ccntributions do not appear to be drawn on joint accounts, the

reattributions are not matchable under 11 c.F. R. § 9034.2(c)(l)(ii)JI In addition, there is no

evidence that the reattributed contributions were drawn on accounts that represented or contained

the personal funds ofthe reattributees. See 11 e.F.R. § 9034.2(b). Moreover, the Committee's

relian~e on the "equitable ownership" language at 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(2) is unavailing because

that provision only applies to the mat~hing fund requirements for contributions drawn on trust or

escrow accounts; however, there is no indication, other than the Committee's unsuppotted and

untimely assertions, that any ofthe checks at issue in this matter were drawn on trust or escrow

accounts.J1 See 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(2). Therefore, the Committee has not demonstrated that

31 Moreover, the reattributions may not have complied with the requirements of 11 C.FR § 110.1(k), as

required by 11 C.F.R § 9034.2(c)(l)(ili). The form letter which was apparently sent to contributors did not inform'

them that they could request the return ofthe excessive portion oftheir contribution ifit was not intended to be a

joint contribution. See 11 C.F.R § llO.l(k)(3)(ii); Attachment B at 19.

The regulations address the matcbability ofcontributions drawn on, inter alia, joint accounts, escrow and

trust accounts, and partnership lIlXOUIItS. Sett 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c). The language ofthe Commission's

regulations does not provide for the matebability ofreattributions exa:pt where the check is drawn on ajoint

account. Sett II C.F.R § 9034.2(c)(1).. Although the regulations provide that reattributions among joint tenants of

an account must comply with the requirements of 11 C.F.R §§ 110.1(k) and (I), complying with those

requirements does not, conversely. automatically make a contribution reattributed among individuals who are Dot

joint tenants ofan account matcbable: Set! 11 C.F.R § 9034.2(c)(I). Moreover, the matcbability ofcontributions

is governed by the statute and regulations, not the Guide/inefor Presentation in Good Orckr f'Guickline")

(August 1991). The Guide/intt provides guidance to committeesfor the format and procedures for submitting

contributions for matching. The Guideline clearly cites 11 C.F.R § 9034.2(c)(I), which concerns the matebability

of checks drawn on joint accounts, wbere it addresses excessive portions ofwritten instruments made payable for

more than $1,000 and signature discrepancies. See Guideline, at 48 and 58. However, the discussion ofwritten

instrwnents that cannot be associated with the listed contributor does not include this citation. [d. at 65. Further,

the Guide/ine makes clear that the matcbability problems it discusses "may not be the sole basis for determining

that a contribution is non-matchable. Commission procedures provide that information obtained during an inquiIy

conducted under 11 C.F.R § 9039.3 may also be used as the basis for determining the matcbability of any

contribution submitted for matching purposes." !d. at 42.
Hi!

~::: ,:

-20-

any ofthe reattributions at issue were proper and matchable, and that the repayment

determination should be adjusted accordingly. See II C.FR. § 90382(c)(2).

The Committee failed to timely raise its contention that payments by nine reattributees to

the originai contributors somehow created a trust relationship which made the reattributions

matchable; thus, it has waived this argument. See Attachment P at 16; Attachment F at 63-65;

II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(i); Americansfor Robertson v. FEC. 45 F.3d 486,490-491 (D.C. Cir.

1995){Commission could refuse to consider argument raised at oral hearing that was not in

written submission); Fulanifor President v. FEC, 147 F.3d 924,927 n.5 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (in

denying com.'llittee's petition for rehearing, court observed that the committee may have been

barred from raising its new theory at the oral.hearing). The Committee's written response was

not sufficient to place the Commission on timely notice oftlle nature ofthe Committee's trust

argument; See 11 C.F.R § 9038.2(c)(2)(i). Although the Committee makes several cryptic

references to "equitable ownership" in its written submission, it never explains this language.33

Rather, it merely asserts that a number ofthe reattributees gave funds to the contributors, "thus

making them the owners - in law and equity - ofthe amounts attributed to them," and "the

equitable owners ofthe reattributed contribution." Attachment Eat 3, n. 3 and 7-8. Further. the

Committee contends that the Commission "concluded that lack ofequitable ownership ofa

account precluded a proper attribution, failing to consider the possibility of equitable ownership of

J3 In both the Notice of InquiIy and the Notice ofRepayment Determination, the Commission questioned the

use of the phrase "equitable ownership" in many of the reattribution statements because it appeared that the

Committee and contributors incorrectly applied II C.FR § 9034.2(c)(2) to contributions that were nOI drawn on

escrow or trust accounts. See Attachment A at 4-5; Attachment B at 4 and 13. However, the Committee provided

no explanation of this language in its written submission.
-21-

the funds within the bank account. "J4 Attachment E at 8. The Committee never explained how

the alleged payments by reattributees to the contributors could have had any effect on the

contributor's ownership of his or her bank account or upon the matchability ofthe

reattributions3l Nowhere in the Committee's written response does the Committee overtly refer

to these transactions as a "trust" or argue that the reattributions were matchable contributions

from a trust account pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(2); the Corrunittee only uses the same

"equitable ownership" language found in 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(2).36 The Committee first

explicitly expounded its trust argument-'in response to a question at the oral hearing on March 1,

2000, more than four months after its written response, when counsel for the Committee stated

that a common law trust was created when a reattributee gave the contributor money to make a

comribution, and that the reattributee therefore had equitable ownership ofthe funds within the

contributor's bank account, which, he argued, made it a trust account.37 Attachment F at 63~6S.

Nevertheless, even ifit had not been waived, the Committee has failed to demonstrate that

a common law trust is automatically created where one individual gives another funds to make a

contribution; nor has it demonstrated how such a transaction could transform a contributor's

)4 Contrary to the Committee's contention, 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(2), which governs matcbability of

contributionsfrom trust or escrow acc:ounts, requires that the contributor have equitable ownership ofthe account

and submit a W1tement with the contribution specifying that the contributor has equitable ownership ofthe accmmt

and the account repRSeIlts the personal funds ofthe contributor.

)5 The Committee only statesthat the Commission's definition ofem>I5 "flatly contradicts regulations

providing that contributions are matchable ifreattributed to persons who owned the contributed funds who bad the

requisite donative intent. Attachment E at 7.

36 Indeed, the only explicit reference to trust or escrow accounts in the Committee's written submission is its

contention that the survey response of one contributor, Catherine Radecki, "indicates that her reattributed

contributions were drawn on an escrow or trust account" and her reattributions would be proper"ifRadecki's

account is held in trust for any ofthe reattributees." Attachment E at 9.

)7 The Committee discussed the trust argument funher in its additional submission following the oral

hearing. See Attachment P at 15-16.
38

-22-

checking account into a trust account sUbject to I j C.F.R § 9034.2(c)(2) or otherwise make the

reattribution matchable. One individual giving another funds to make a contribution could equally

constitute agency, debt, or some other kind of contract as it could a trust relationship.38 A

determination of what legal relationship existed, if any, between a particular contributor and a

reattriburee would depend on the specific facts ofthe situation, such as the intent ofthe

individuals and any written instrument or other evidence of any agreement. None ofthat

information is available here. Further, since the reattriootions occurred after the dates ofthe

contributions, the Committee appears fo be illogically arguing that reimbursements from the

reattributees to the original contributors could retroactively create a common law trust.39

even if a common law trust was created; it is not clear how such a relationship couid change the·

contributor's personal checking account intO a trust account or make these reattributions

matchable.4O

A "trust" is a "fiduciaIY relationship with respect to property, arising as a result of a manifestation of an

intention to create that relationship and subjecting the person who holds title t«> the property to duties 10 deal with

it for the benefit of charity or for one or more persons, at least one ofwl1om is DOt the sole trustee.W REsTATEMENT

(THIRD) OF TRUSTS § 2, (Tentative Draft No.1 1996).

39 Moreover, these transactions would not result in matchable contributions ifthey involved, for example, a

loan. advance, deposit of money or anything ofvalue; in-kind contributions; a contribution in the name ofanother

or other illegal contribution; currency or contributions by persons who Iaclced the donative intent to make a

contribution because they were giving the contributor funds for some other reason, such as a gift. Set! 26 U.S.C.

§ 9034(a); 11 C.F.R. §§ 9034.3(a),(b),(e),(i), and (j). In addition, several reattributions appear to have been made

to minor children aDd would not have been proper unless the decision 10 contribute was made knowingly and

voluntarily by the minor child, the funds contributed were omted or controlled exclusively by the child, such as the

child's income, the proceeds ofa trust for which the child is the beneficiaIY or a savings account opened and

maintained exclusively in the child's name; and the contribution was not the proceeds ofa gift for the purpose of

providing the funds to be contributed and was not in any way controlled by any other individual. See 11 C.F.R

§ IIO.I(i); see. e.g., Attachment Z at 2 ("Stuart [Humphreys, the reattributeej is 7 years old"). The Commission

rejects the Committee's assertion that non-matchable contributions would necessarily be made matchable through

the use ofreattributions.

40 The Committee argues that "a personal, escrow or trust account, contains a reattributee's personal funds"

ifthe reattributee gives funds to the contributor and thus, appears to contend that such a reattribution is matchable

under II C.F.R § 9034.2(b) even if it is not from a trust account. Attachment P at 15-16 (emphasis in original).

Nevertheless, the regulations provide for equitable ownership only of trust or escrow accounts, 11 C.F.R.
-23 -

Moreover, the Committee has made no effort to obtain information to support its

assertions from the contributors or reattributees. The Committee has provided no evidence, such

as checks or other documentation, to demonstrate that any of the reattributees provided funds to

the contributors. Nor is there any evidence that the bank accounts ofthe nine contributors at

issue were trust accounts. To the contrary, seven ofthe nine contributors stated that the

contributions were not drawn on an escrow or trust accolint.~l See Attachment T. In addition,

the Committee has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the contributors and

reattributees who signed the reattribution statements understood the phrase "equitable ownership"

to mean the account was a trust account, or that they had any intention to create a trust

';' -.

relationship.

B. STATISTICAL SAMPLING

Sampling is an effective and appropriate means for the Commission to determine the

amount of a repayment of public funds. The Commission used a dollar unit sampling technique in

the 9039 inquiry to investigate representative reattributions (sample items) and to calculate the

error rate of9.57% with a sampling error of±3.6golo and the repayment amount of$62,116 for

non-matchable, improper reattributions.

1. SAMPliNG WAS APPROPRIATE

The use ofstatistical sampling to project certain components ofa large universe is a

legally acceptable. valid audit technique that is appropriate to determine repayments to the

government. See, e.g., Georgia v. Califano, 446 F. Supp. 404 at 409 (N.D. Ga. 1977) (use of

§ 9034.2(c)(2), and the Committee has failed to demonstrate how an account could contain an individual's

personal funds ifit is not the individual's personal account or a trust or escrow account

41 Two of the nine contributors did not respond to the question.
-24-

statistical sampling to audit Medicaid overbilling was not arbitrary and capricious where it was the

"only feasible method of audit," review ofindividual claims would be a "practical impossibility"

and Georgia had the opportunity to challenge the statisrical sample). In approving the use of

sampling to calculate Medicare overpayments, for example, one court recently stated, "The use of

sampling and extrapolation as part of audits to determine overpayments to parties who receive

publicly-funded reimbursements has been approved by courts in a number ofditferent settings."

Webb v. Shalala, 49 F. Supp.2d 1114, 1122 (WD. Ark., 1999). Moreover, courts have generally

deferred to agency expertise in upholding the use ofstatistical sampling.41 See, e.g., Chaves

County Home Health Service v. Su//ivan, 931 F.2d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S.

1091, 112 S.Ct. 407 (1992)(upheld use ofsampling audit to recoup Medicaid overpayments to

health care providers). In Ratana.sen v. California, the court approved

the use ofsampling and extrapolation as part ofaudits in connection with

Medicare and other similar programs provided the aggrieved party has an

opportunity to rebut such evidence. To deny public agencies the use ofstatistical

and mathematical audit methods would be to deny them an effective means of

detecting abuses in the use of public funds. Public officials are responsible for

overseeing the expenditure ofour increasingly scarce public resources and we

must give them appropriate tools to carry out the charge.

11 F.3d 1467 at 1471 (9th Cir. 1993)(use ofrandom sample to calculate Medi-Cal overbilling by

doctor held valid). Indeed, counsel for the Committee admitted at the oral hearing that "we

haven't found any case that says statistical samples, ifproperly done, are not appropriate evidence

42 Courts have also deferred to agency expertise in considering challenges to an agency's accounting

methods unless the agency's accounting methods are "so entirely at odds with fundamental principles of correct

accounting as to be the expression of a whim rather than an exercise ofjudgment." A.T. & T. Co. v. United States,

299 U.S. 232, 236-37 (1936); Warder v. Shala/a, 149 F.3d 73,84 (1" Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1455

(1999); Strickland v. Commissionel', Maine Dept. ofHuman Services. 48 FJd 12, 18 (1" Cit. 1995), cert. denied,

516 U.S. 850 (1995). The Commission's use ofsampling is consistent with accepted auditing standards.
-25-

in a federal case" or any federal decisions that turned upon the size of the sample. Attachment F

at 48-49.

In particular, statistical sampling has generally been upheld when audits ofthe total

population would be "impossible." Michigan Dep" ofEduc. ~'. us. Dep', ofEduc., 875 F.2d

\196, at 1205-1206 (6th Cir. 1989)(upheld use ofsample of payment authorizations to determine

amount of disallowed expenditures offederal funds by a vocational rehabilitation program).

Statistical sampling was necessary and appropriate in this inquiry because verification of each of

the 7,220 matched contributions related to reattributions in the population would be pragmatically

43

?:

impossible. Sufficient records are not available to enable the Commission to verifY that each of

the thousands ofreattributions was proper.

43 Moreover, the practical impossibility or'verifYing

each ofthe thousands ofreattributions is demonstrated by the difficulty ofconducting an

investigation using surveys ofcontributors to obtain information concerning merely 47 apparent

errors in the sample of324 items. In many cases, several contacts with co~butors were

necessary to obtain the requested information, and some contributors never responded.

In addition, there is "no case law that states how large a percentage ofthe entire universe

must be sampled," see Michigan, 875 F.2d 1196, at 1205, nor any "statistical 'floor'" which the

population or sample size must exceed. See RatanaseTl at 1471-1472. Contrary to the

Committee's contentions, federal courts have approved the use ofsampling in cases with sample

The Commission's sampling method is distinguishable from the audit method disapproved in the New

York state cases cited by the Committee. See, e.g. Chartair, 411 N.Y.S.2d 41; Mohawk, 429 N.Y.S.2d 759. Those

cases involved state agencies that had all ofthe necessary records to review the transactions, while in this case,

sufficient records, including, for example, bank documentation indicating whether contributors and reattributees

had joint accounts, are not available for the Commission to verifY each ofthe reattributions, and obtaining all of

the necessary records from the contributors would be difficult, if not impossible. In addition, unlike most of the

cases cited by the Committee, the Commission used a random sample drawn from the entire population rather than

the limited test period of time used to assess state taxes.

..
•

-26-

and population sizes similar to the sample size of 324 out of a population of 7,220 used here. See

Ratanasen, 11 F3d at 1469 (300 of a total of 8,761 Medi-Cal beneficiaries, or 3.4%); Michigan,

875 F.2d 1196 (259 out of a population of 66,368, or 0.4%); Webh, 49 F. Supp.2d 1114 (250 out

of9, 131 claims).

In addition, the Committee's argument that a 100% review would have been feasible in

this case is flawed. To complete a 100% review ofthe population, Commission staffwould have

had to.review each ofthe 7,220 contributions in the population to exclude those that were

apparently reattributions between spouses or that were not reattributions. 44 This process would

have been time and resource intensive, and it is not clear how many reattribution items reqUiring

additional verification would have remained. While the n~ber would probably be less than the'

total population of 7,220 contributions, there is no factual basis tor the Committee's assumptionthat the number would be around 1,000 rather than some other number. However, even ifthe

number were approximately 1,000. as the Committee asserts, completing the survey process and

obtaining sufficient information to verify the reattributions would not have been practicable. See

supra note 44. Since it was difficult and time consuming for Commission staffto obtain

... The stepS required fora 100% review oithe population would include the following: pulling the original

written instromcnt for ead1 ofthe 7,220 items from the paper files submitted in the Committee'sfirst seven

submissions, orfrom electronic: records for the remaining submissions; checking doc:umcntation for each matched

contribution to see ifit was rcattJjbutcd prior to matching and eliminating any items that were not related to

reattributions from the review; for the items that were reattributed, finding the additional documentation

supporting the reattribution; generating a matching funds history for each contributor, examining the work paper

files for each submission to determine in which submission the contribution was included and the percentage

matched for that submission; reviewing each submission to determine ifthe item was an error in the submission or

would have been an error and eliminating those items from the review; and reviewing the remaining transactions

to detennine ifthe reattributions· appear to be valid. See Attachment R at 2. Upon identification oftransactions

that appeared to be improper reattributions, Commission staff would prepare lettetS and questionnaires; update

addresses and mail the letters; send follow-up letters and make telephone contacts; respond to questions; review the

completed questionnaires and, if necessary, contal:t individuals to clariiY responses or obtain omitted infonnation.
-27-

information for 47 sample items by surveys and follow-up contacts, sending out more than twenty

times as many surveys would simply be unworkable.

Moreover, as a question of policy, the Commission notes the possible chilling effect of a

100% review. A 100% review would necessitate written and telephone contacts by Commission

staffto thousands of contributors, and could require several contacts or the use ofsubpoenas and

other discovery methods to obtain sufficient documentation from some individuals. Some

contributors, particularly those who are averse to cooperating, could have an unfavorable reaction

to such an investigation, resulting in a Widespread chilling effect on future contributions by

contacted contributors.

2. THE SAMPLINGMETHOD WAS VALiD AND RELIABLE

. .

The Commission's sampling method was valid and reliable. Donar unit sampling is an

accepted audit technique and information is publicly available explaining it. See, e.g.. JOHN H.

MCCRAY, DoLLAR UNIT SAMPLING FOR AUDITORS (1978); DoNALD M. ROBERTS, STATISTICAL

AUDITING (1978). The Commission has used the dollar unit sampling method in its review of

matching fund submissions since 1980.45 See 11 C.F.R. § 9036.4(b). The Commission's sampling

method selects specific pennies as sample items from the total amount ofall transactions in the

population, rather than selecting whole transactions, and projects the total amount ofmatching

funds for the population based on review ofthe matchability ofthe selected sample items.46 See

" The Commission staffreview the contributions and documents in each matching fund submission for

errors and, using the dollar unit sampling method, calculate the error rate and the amount ofthe matching payment

for the submission. See 11 C.F.R Part 9036; Guideline. Matching fund payments are based on an error rate

similar to the error rate used for this repayment determination.

46 The Commission's dollar unit sampling method accomplishes probability weighting ofsample items

because the larger the share ofthe population a transaction represents, the more likely it is to be selected in the

sample. Since matching funds are limited to $250 for each transaction, 26 U.S.C. § 9034(a), it is not likely that a

few very large transactions in a population would lead to an erroneous sample result It appears that the

Committee has largely abandoned its argument that bias in the sample is demonstrated by the fact that the average
-28-

Attachment R at 2-3. Commission staff have reviewed hundreds of matching fund submissions

over the course oftwo decades using essentially the same dollar unit sampling method that was

used to draw the sample and project the repayment amount here 47 The population in this matter

was treated like a matching fund submission and the same computer program was used to

calculate this repayment as was used to calculate the matching tlmd payments for the Committee

and all other matching fund recipients in 1996.4s

-Indeed, it is appropriate to calculate a repayment for non-matchable contributions using

the same statistical sampling technique that was used to review the Committee's matching fund

submissions. The purpose ofthe repayment is to recapture funds to which the Committee was .. never entitled. See 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(1); II C.FR § 9038:2(b)(1)(iii). Since the contributior.s

at issue were never matchable, matching funds should not have been paid to the Committee for

them.49 Thus, it is consistent to use the same sampling method to r«.over public funds for nonmatchable contributions as the Commission uses for making matching fund payments.

amount ofcontributions in the sample was higher thaD the average in the populatiou. Set!supra P. 10 DOIC 20:

Attachment F at 9-12; Attachment P 312-4 and 20. In fact, this result is not indk:ative ofa biased sample but is a

manifestation ofthe dollar unit sampling method. See Attachment R 31 2. The source ofthe Committee's

apparent confusion is not clear, since the Commission's Notice ofRepayment Determination indicates that the

Commission used the "same statistical sampling technique that is used to review matching fund submissions» and

that a "dollar unit sampling» technique bas been used to review matching fund submissions since 1980.

Attachment B 319. In addition. an internal Commission memorandum dated October 22, 1997 provided to the

Committee on October S. 1999 states that dollar unit sampling was used. See Attachment Q.

47 The Committee admits that its statistical consultants conclude that dollar unit sampling, "ifproperly

implemented cou1d produce an unbiased sample." Attachment Pat 5 and 20 (emphasis in original). Attachment

P at S and 20 (emphasis in original)_ The Committee bas failed to demonstrate that the Commission staffdid not

properly implement the Commission's long-standing dollar unit sampling procedures in this case.

48 While the computer program bas been modified over the years due to technological changes, it is

essentially the same method recommended by Ernst & Whinney in 1979 and used by the Commission since 1980.

49 Further, the Commission's policy is to allow prompt payments ofmatching funds to eligible candidates,

even ifit must forgo a thorough investigation of the matching fund submissions and later seek a repayment of

matching funds paid in excess of a candidate's entitlement. Couns have observed that Congress intended to

"provide prompt payments to eligible candidates" to "ensure that an eligible candidate will have the money he

needs at a time when its availability is most imponant to his campaign." Committee to Elect Lyndon LaRouche v.
·29-

Moreover, it was proper for the Commission to calculate the repayment amount using the

mid-point of the sample error range (957% ±3.69%) rather than the lower end of the range. The

precision ofthe estimate in the instant case is consistent with Commission policy. so See

Attachment R at 3-6. The sampling error of ±3.69% is consistent with the tolerable sampling

error of 4% used in the review of matching fund submissions to pay matching funds to

presidential primary candidates, alld the Commission generally uses a 95% confidence level in

these sample projections. In addition, the Commission uses the mid-point ofsample projections,

not only for matching funds but also for other uses ofsampling in audits, such as calculations of

the amounts ofexcessive or prohibited contributions. See II C.F.R. § 9038.2(f)(1).

C. THE COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION PROTECTED THE

COMMITTEE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND WAS FAIR'

The Commission's repayment procedures protected the Committee's due process rights.

See Explanation andJustification, Presickntial Election Campaign Fund and Presickntial

Primary Matching Fund, 44 Fed. Reg. 20338 and 20341 (April 4, 1979). The Commission's

repayment procedures meet due process requirements because they include "Notice ofthe legal

and factual matters upon which the Commission is relying~" the "opportunity [for the Committee]

to present in writing evidence and reasons" why the repayment should not occur; a "determination

by the Commission on the basis ofall evidence presented; and a statement ofreasons underlying

FEe, 613 F.2d 834,841 (D.C. Cir. 1979). This policy "is served by limiting the role ofthe Commission during

the certification process to reviewing the face of a ... submission except where that submission (or that submission

together with other reports on file with the Commission) contains patent irregularities suggesting the possibility of

fraud" fd. at 843.

so

23.

The Committee acknowledges that precision is a matter of agency policy. See Attachment P at 8 aod 21-
-30-

the Commission's determination";' 44 Fed. Reg. 20338. The Committee received ample notice

of the Commission's actions. The Committee received notice that the Commission had initiated

the 9039 inquiry. Attachment A. Following the investigation, the Committee received the

Commission's Notice ofRepayment Determination which set forth the legal and factual reaSons

for the Commission's repayment determination. Attachment B. The Committee then had the

opportunity to seek administrative review ofthe repayment determination by submitting written

materials and making an oral presentation before the Commission, and took advantage ofthat

opportunity. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2):' The Commission's repayment determination upon review

is delineated in this Statement ofReasons and is based upon the Commission's consideration of

the evidence and arguments presented by the Committee. .

Due process rights are not violated by the use ofsampling ifthe Committee has "accesstn

hearings and appeals and ... the opportunity to be heard," and the Committee had such an

opportunity. Ratanasen, 11 F.3d at 1472. The Committee was "given every opportunity to

challenge each disallowance as well as the audit technique itself," and thus, it "has been treated as

fairly as possible under the circumstances." Michigan, 875 F.2d at 1206. The Commission staff

provided numerous documents requested by the Committee and the Committee had sufficient

information to challenge both the Commission's sampling technique and the treatment ofspecific

sample items as errors.'2

5\ The 1979 Explanation aDd Justification for the Commission's procedures for determining disputes

concerning repayments and suspension of payments to candidates state that the Commission's procedures "meet

due process requirements" and explain that "procedural due process requirements mandate" that a candidate "be

afforded some type of opportunity to demonstrate to the Commission" that the proposed Commission action is "not

warranted." 44 Fed. Reg. 20338 and 20341. While some changes have been made to the Commission's repayment

procedures over the years, they still include all ofthe elements to satisfy due process.

S2 Further, the Commission rejects the Committee's contention that the Committee still lacks sufficient

information concerning whether the sample was properly designed and implemented to determine ifthe method

was valid. Attachment P at 5-7 and 20-21. Indeed, the Committee appears to be uncertain of which documents it
-31-

[v{oreover, the Commission's analysis of the sample and the contributor responses to the

questionnaire was not only fair to the Committee, but was structured to err, if at all, in the

Committee's favor. Indeed, the Commission made an assumption in favor ofthe Committee by

not requiring repayment where it was impossible to verity whether a reattributiQn was proper.

For example, eight sample items for which there was no response or an incomplete response to

the survey were not treated as errors in calculating the repayment amount. In addition, sample

items that appeared to be reattributions between spouses were assumed to be proper and were not

verified. Had the Commission assumed that additional infonnation would reveal these

contributions were improperly reattributed. it is possible that it would have concluded that the

Committee received more than $62,116 in matching funds based upon non-matchable

contributions related to improper reattributions. The Commission also treated an additional eight

sample items as properly reattnbuted based simply on the contributors' responses that the

reattributee had the right to withdraw funds from the contributor's bank account without

requiring additional documentation from those individuals.

Furthennore, the Commission concludes that the Committee failed to timely raise its

contentions that the Commission's investigation was improperly conducted and "introduced bias"

into the sample results and that two sample items, reattributees Carlita Brown and Roderick Fox,

wants because it made numerous separate requests for different kinds of documents. Se~ supra, p. 5-8. For

example, in its October 12, 1999 written submission the Committee claimed that it bad no "handbook. or manual"

that explained the "dollar unit sampling" method, but it had not specifically requested such a manual in its

previous request for documents. Attachment E at 6. The information tIu: Committee claims it still does not have,

input data files, program execution files and program output files, bas already been provided to the Committee in a

different format because the Committee does not have the Commission's computer database system. See

Attachments H and L and Attachment Rat 3. Contrary to tIu: Committee's argument that the Commission only

provided documents concerning the use ofsampling in "other contexts," Attachment P at S, the information the

Commission provided about the use ofsampling in the matching funds context concerns the same sampling

program that was used for the repayment calculation. The Commission made efforts to promptly provide the

documents requested by the Committee but it cannot be expected to anticipate the Committee's requests when the

Committee itself appears to be confused about which documents it wants.
55

-J2·

that were "established solely hy means of these telephone interviews" should not be the basis of

any repayment because the Commission did not provide the Committee documents memorializing

the interviews. Attachment P at 10-12; Attachment F at 12-14 and 20-21. The Committee's

written response does not include any of these arguments; thus, the Committee has waived

them. 53 See II c.F.R. § 90382(c)(2)(i); Robertson, 4S F.3d 486,490-491; Fulani, 147 F.3d

924,927 n.5.

- Nonetheless, even ifthese arguments had not been waived, the Committee has failed to

demonstrate that the Commission's investigation was improper or biased. The Committee has

provided no basis to support its assertion that an investigation ofindividual sample items is not

compatible and consistent with the use ofsampling.54 Moreover, sampling is an audit technique,.

. . and the questionnaire and telephone contacts were discovery tools that were properly used by te

Conunission in this 9039 inquiry to obtain factual information from the individuals who

participated in the reattribution transactions.55 See 11 C.F.R. § 9039.3(b)(2). Further, the

53 fn its written response, the Committee contmJds that the '''survey' process used by the [Commission) to

'verify' errors raises nlllDerous questions as to validity, reliability, dIJl: process and fairness" but does not elucidate

what these problems are. Attachment E at 8. The written response also states that the Committee is "effectively

precluded from challenging the determination oferror" because the Commission provided survey response forms

but no "information concerning interviews conducted with these contributors." !d. at 8-9. Nowhere in its Mitten

response does the Committee discuss whether follow-up telephone calls bias survey results, the proper techniques

for surveys and telephone contacts, the training ofinterviewers, or the reattributions to Carlita Brown and Roderick

Fox.

54 Indeed, it is particularly important to investigate sample items because problems with sample items

indicate larger problems in the overall population. The Commission's Audit stiffregularly uses sampling to

choose items for review and may seek additional information from audited committees concerning sample items.

Although the Internal Revenue Selvice Manual cited by the Committee is not binding on the Commission

and does not reflect the Commission's internal procedures, the Commission's written questionnaire and follow-up

telephone contacts were similar to the approach it describes. See. e.g.. Internal Revenue Service Manual

§ l282.54(l)("a large proportion of persons generally fail to reply to a mail inquiry, and this can lead to time

consuming follow-up work in the form of additional letters, telephone calls, or personal contacts"). Commission

staff drafted the questionnaire 10 be comprehensible, unambiguoUS, neutral and easy to complete, and contacted

several contributors by telephone to obtain complete information using the questionnaire as the basis for questions

and memorializing answers in writing. In contrast, the Committee's reference to Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Rogers, 216 F.
-33-

Committee has failed to demonstrate that because the responses were by telephone and the

Commission did not provide documents memorializing these contacts to the Committee, the

Commission should exclude the reattributions to Carlita Brown and Roderick Fox. 56 The

Commission has not provided to the Committee copies ofreports prepared by an investigator and

electronic messages memorializing telephone contacts, because these materials are protected by

the attorney work product privilege. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3); Upjohn Co. v. US., 449 US.

383 (1981); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (l947). However, the Commission has provided

the written survey form that was the basis ofthe oral contacts with contributors, and the results of

all ofthe surveys are summarized in a chart attached to the Notice ofRepayment Determination.

See Attachment Bat 27-29. Therefore, the Committee had sUfficient information to challengeeach ofthe errors.

D. SPECIFIC ERRORS

The Committee specifically challenged five ofthe non-matchable sample items upon which

the repayment determination is based, contending that these items should be treated as acceptable

Supp. 670 (S.D.N.Y. 1963), is not apt.. The market research survey ofconsumer opinions about similarities

between products in Zippo was completely different from the Commission's use ofa questionnaire as a discovery

tool in an investigation to obtain facts, not opinions, concerning specific contributions and realtributions from the

contributors involved in the transae:tiOIl5. Since the Commission was ttying to obtain facts rather than opinions. it

is unclear how telepOOM contacts would bias the survey results.

56 The Committee has provided no support for its contention that Commission staff may have biased the

responses ofcontributon by asking leading questions or coercing particular answers. See Attachment PatiO.

Indeed, telephone contacts with some contributors resulted in the treatment ofthe sample items as proper

reattributions. See, e.g., Attachment B at 28 (Tomberg). The SUJVey tilled in by Commission staffbased on a

telephone call from the son ofcontributor Christine Tomberg was provided to the Committee, with staff's initials

and a notation "Based on conversation with Lucian Orasel." Mr. Orasel informed staffthat he handles

Ms. Tomberg's finances and they share a joint account Accordingly, the reattribution to Mr. 0raseI was

considered proper and no repayment of matching funds was required. The other sample item, reattributed to

Constance Deehner, was considered improperly reattributed because Mr. 0rase1 stated that Ms. Deehner does not

have access to Ms. Tomberg's account Similarly, swvey responses by James Pettit and Sheila Thomsen were also

clarified by telephone contacts. In addition, two contributors sent in completed questionnaires after staffobtained

responses from them by telephone; those questionnaires were provided to the Committee. Finally, Commission

staff also spoke to several individuals who called with questions concerning the contribution verification.
-3-1-

and should not be the basis of any repayment. However, the Committee has failed to demonStrate

that any ofthe five sample items were properly reattributed or matchable and thus has failed to

demonstrate that the repayment amount should be reduced. See II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2).

First, Anna Newton contacted the Commission by telephone and the meaning of

"reattribution" was explained to her. Because she stated that the reattributee, Andrew Newton,

did not have the right to withdraw funds from her bank account, the reattribution was improper

and the matching funds related to this sample item are subject to repayment. See Attachment U at

2. Confusion about the meaning of "reattribution" by several contributors supports the

Commission's repayment determination because these contributors may not have realized the

significance ofsigning the reattribution statements. The fact that Ms. Newton, or any other

contributor who received a survey, contacted Commission stafi"to ask a question does not make·

hersurvey response biased or unreliable. See supra, Section IV. C.

Second, on the written survey, Catherine Radecki responded that her contribution check

was drawn on an escrow or trust account. See Attachment V at 1. However, it is not clear that

Ms. Radecki understood the question because she added the handwritten notation "my bank."

which is irrelevant to the question ofwhether the account was an escrow or trust account. Id. In

addition, there was no indication on the face ofher checks that the account was a trust or escrow

account, and the Committee has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the contribution was

made on a trust or escrow account. Ms. Radecki also responded that the reattributee had no right

to withdraw funds from her account." [d. The reattribution was not matchable because the

57 The Commission notes that Ms. Radecki's reattributee, Jean McMahon, was not one oithe nine

reattributees whom the Committee contends gave funds to contributors and were involved in a trust relationship.

See Attachment P at 17. In addition, while the Committee challenged the errors related to Ms. Radecki, Mr. Pettit,

and Mr. Kremer in its written submission of October 12, 1999, the chart the Committee presented at the oral

hearing and additional materials submitted on Marcb 17, 2000 do not refer to these individuals specifically. See
~.

-35-

reattributee did not have the right to withdraw trom Ms. Radecki's account. See l! C.FR.

§ 90342(c)(I).

Third, James Pettit did not respond in writing to the question of whether the reattributee,

Emily Jane Pettit, had the right to withdraw from his account, but in a telephone contact with the

Commission's investigator, Mr. Pettit clarified that it was not a joint account; thus, it was an

improper reattribution. See Attachment W at 2. Fourth, John W. Kremer's response that he did

not make the reattribution is not evidence that the reattribution was proper, but rather, supports

the Commission's conclusion that he did not make a proper reattribution. See Attachment X at 2.

Mr. Kremer also stated that the reattributee did not have the right to v,1thdraw funds from his

account; thus, the reattribution was not proper. See id

Finally, Sheila Thomsen reattributed funds from her contributions to her son, David Arthur

Thomsen, who has the same first name as her husband, David 1. Thomsen. This fact was clarified

in a telephone contact with Ms. Thomsen. Ms. Thomsen's survey indicated "n/a:' to both

questions concerning her son, David Arthur Thomsen, the sample item, and included a note that

there was a "typo."'s See Attachment Y at 2-3. However, the reattribution statements make

clear that there are two different people with different occupations (her husband is an

"economist," and the son lists "student") and apparently different handwriting. See Attachment S

at 2-3. A follow-up telephone call by the Commission's investigator to Sheila Thomsen clarified

that the reattribution in question was to David Arthur Thomsen, her son, a college student at the

Attachment F at Exhibit 3; Attachment P at 12-14. Thus, it is unclear whether the Committee continues to contest

these errors.

58 The Commission investigator contacted David J. Thomsen, who indicated that he, rather lhan Sheila

Thomsen, filled out the survey fonn and wrote "typo." David J. Thomsen signed the comer of Sheila Thomsen's

survey fonn. See Attachment Y at 1.
;=tH

-36-

time ofthe reattribution, but Ms, Thomsen was unsure of the amount ofthe reattribution, This

reattribution is non-matchable because Ms, Thomsen stated that she and her son do not have a

joint account See II C.FR, § 90342(c)(1),

E. REFUNDED CONTRIBUTIONS

The Commission's repayment determination in the amount of$I,634 for matching funds

based on contributions that were subsequently refunded, must be repaid because refunded

contributions are not matchable. 59 See 26 U.Sc. § 9038(b)(I); 11 C,F.R.

§ 9038,2(b)(I)(iii)(non-matchable contributions are subject to repayment). Since the

contributions have been refunded, they are no longer a matchable gift ofmoney given by the

contributors for the purpose ofinfluencing the primary election. See 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(a)(I).

Moreover, the fact that the contributors requested and received refunds negates the donative

intent necessary for matchability. See 11 C.F.R. § 9034.3(i). Although the Committee argued at

the oral hearing that a mere request for a refund does not negate donative intent, the Conunission -

need not address that issue here because refunds were made, and the Committee admits that

"[o]nce we give them their money back, I don't disagree that the matching funds have to follow."

Attachment F at 40-41.

The Commission's repayment calculation used the amount ofmatching funds actually paid

for the refunded contributions. as determined by the error rates applicable to the submission of

those contributions for matching. consistent with the Commission's calculation ofsimilar

repayments in other matters. See Memorandum from Lawrence M. Noble to the Commission

dated July 8, 1999, "Alexander for President, Inc., Buchanan for President, Inc., Clinton/Gore '96

S9 The Commission's regulations provide that committees must submit a list of all refunds with their

threshold submission and with subsequent matching fimd submissions. See II C.F.R §§ 9036. I(b)(6);

9036,2(b)(1){iv); see a/so Guideline at 14,31.
-]7-

Primary Committee, [nc: Matching Fund Error Rates (LRA # 559)" at 1-3 and 8-9. The

Committee submitted the contributions and associated reattributions for a total of S1,750 in

matching funds, $250 for each ofthe two original contributors and $250 for each offive

reattributees. These contributions were included in two matching fund submissions with different

error rates, two matched at a rate of94.8% and five at a rate of92.8%. The total amount of

matching f1_mds approved for the refunded contributions was $1,634 (5 x $250 x .928) + (2 x

$250 It..948). Thus, the Committee must repay the $1,634 in matching funds paid for the

refunded contributions.

v. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Commission has determined upon administrative review that

Patrick 1. Buchanan and Buchanan for President, Inc. must repay a total of$63,750 to the United:

States Treasury for matching fund payments received in excess ofthe candidate's entitlement

based on matched contributions later determined to have been non-matchable. 26 U.S.C.

§ 9038(b)(l); 11 C.F.R § 9038.2(b)(l)(iii). The repayment amount results from Commission

determinations that the Committee must repay $62,116 for matching funds related to improper

reattributions and $1,634 for matched contributions that were later refunded. Patrick 1. Buchanan

and Buchanan for President. Inc. are ordered to repay $63,750 to the United States Treasury

within 30 days.. 11 C.FR §§ 9038.2(c)(3) and (d)(2).

AttachmentsA Letter from Chairman Aikens to Patrick 1. Buchanan Notice ofInquiry dated

June 23, 1998

B. Letter from Kim Bright-Coleman to Patrick 1. Buchanan dated July 23, 1999 with

attached Notice ofRepayment Determination

C. Letter from John 1. Duffy to Delanie DeWitt Painter dated August 24, 1999

D. Letter from Joel 1. Roessner to John 1. Duffy dated October 8, 1999 (without

enclosures)
-38-

..

Memorandum from Robert J. Costa to Lawrence M. Noble dated May 15, 2000

Sheila Thomsen check and reattribution statements

Survey forms for Nine Contributors

Anna Newton survey

Catherine Radecki survey

James Pettit survey

John Kremer survey

Sheila Thomsen survey

Alyssa D. Humphreys survey

E Buchanan for President, Inc. response dated October 12, 1999 (attachments

omitted)

F Oral hearing Transcript - March 1,2000

G. Letter from Rhonda M. Rivens to Kim Leslie Bright dated February 7, 2000

H. Letter from Dclanie DeWitt Painter to Rhonda M. Rivens dated February 16, 2000

(without enclosures)

r. Facsimile transmission from Rhonda M. Rivens to Delanie DeWitt Painter dated

February 18, 2000

1. Facsimile transmission from Delanie DeWitt Painter to Rhonda M. Rivens dated

February 25, 2000

K. Facsimile transmission from Rhonda M. Rivens to Delanie DeWitt Painter dated

March 2. 2000

.L. Letter from Detanie DeWitt Painter to Rhonda M. Rivens dated March 3,2000

(without enclosures)

M. Letter from De/anie DeWitt Painter to Rhonda M. Rivens dated March 10, 2000

(without enclosures)

N. Facsimile transmission from Rhonda M. Rivens to Delanie DeWitt Painter dated

March 6, 2000

O. Facsimile transmission from Rhonda M. Riven!! to Delanie DeWitt Painter dated

March 1,2000

P. Additional materials submitted to Chairman Wold from 10hn 1. DuBY dated

March 17, 2000

Q. Memorandum from Robert 1. Costa to Lawrence M. Noble dated October 22:

1997

R.

S.

T.

U.

V.

W.

X.

Y.

Z.
FEDeRAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINCTON 0 C ZQ.l6J

June 22, 1995

.,

•

. CERTIFIED MAIL RETIJRN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Patrick 1. Buchanan

1017 Savile Lane

McLean. VA 22101

Ri:: Buchanan for President, Inc. -Inquiry Pursuant

to 26 U.S.C. § 9039(&) (LRA # 466)

Dear Mr. BucbaDaa:

On June 16, 1998, tbeFederal $lcetiOD Commjssion (the"ComminiOll") authorized. the

Office ofO:naal CoUDle1 to colld1.a ID inquUy ofthe BucbaDID for Presidal, IDc. (the

"Committee") pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9039(&) aDd 11 C.F.R. § 9039.3. Eaclosed is the LepI.

aDd F8dUIII Analysis tblIt SUDID1Uizes the basis oftbe CQI!!miPiOll's decisiOD. SH 11 C.F.R..

§ 9039.3(bXl).

The Commissioa', inquiry will htcludc a vcrifieatioG ofcertaiDzaaributed~.

and may 1110 iDelude additicmal disc:o\ray u delineeted at 11 c.F.L§ 9039.3(b)(2). Upe

examjnjna tile iDtimnatjO!l obcaiDecl illthis iDquiIy. tile Ofttce ofGtIIIII1 CoUDIIll willsubmit.

report to the Commiaioa SIJIIUUriziDI i1I findjnp, wbichwill COIIIidcred illBxIx:1Id_

Sessioa. The iDfOlmllioD obtaiDeci from the iDquiry may be used ••basisforInIIdditioaal

repaymentdetemUDatioa. 11 C.F.R. §t 9038.2(f); 9039.3(&)(2). IftlleCmmnjPioadctenDiDes

that the Committee must make lIS additional n:paymcat to the UDited Stms Treumy, the

procedures outlined ill 11 C.F.R. §§ 9038.2, 9031.4 8Dd 9031..5 will 8PPJy. You will be notified

ofthe results ofthe iDquUy ad liveDdie opportunity to rapoad to my IdditioDll repayII1IlDt

determiDlliOlL IftbeCMnniaiOD detamina that no IlCtioll is DeC 13 'Y. itwill notifY you by

letter u required by 11 C.FJt. § 9039.J(bX4)..

IfY~" pleae coDSlc& KimBriabt-eoleluD, A.ssociate GeDen1

Counselll( .(102) 6940l65C)• ... . .

Enclosunt

-'...... ".

~'...~.:~ -.; . . SiDcerely, •

:\ u.~~

IomD.AiDD

Cb·innap

..
Lrr rj

A.

"'"

FEDERAL EL~CTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

LEGAL A..l'IID FACTUAL BASIS

FOR INQUIRY PURSUANT TO 26 U.S.C. § 9039(b)

OF BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT, INC.

I. INTRODUCTION

Patrick J. Buchanan was a candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination in

the 1996 primary election. Buchanan for President. Inc. ( the "Committee") was Mr. Buchanan's

authorized committee. The Committee received SI0,983.475 in public funds under the

Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act ("Marcbinl Paymeal Act"). 26 U.S.C.

§ 903 J ~t seq. The Federal ElectionCommission (the "CommiMionj is couductins lID audit of

the Committee'a receipts. disbursements, and qualified campaip expeDlICS pws1IlIDt to 26 U.S.c..

§ 9038(a).

00 JUDe 16. 1998, the Commission authorized the Office ofOeaeral CQuueJ to ccmduc&:

an inquiry p~to 26 U.S.C. §. 9039(b) 11 C.FA.§ 9039.3 to determiDe ~1be

reaaributions ofcertaiIl COIl1ributioDs to tbi Committee were proper. TIle iDformatioa obtaiDed

from the inquiry may be used u • buis for • repayment determiDatioIa baed aD metehina ftmdI

received for improperly reauributed coll1ributicms. 26 U.S.C. §§903I(bXl). 9039(b); 11 C.F.R.

§§ 9038.2(bXIXihl. 9039.3(a)(2) aDd (bX4)~

U. BACKGROUND

The CommiMion's audit ofthe Commiuee. pursuant to 26 U.S.c. § 9031, revealed.

number ofquestionable COIl1ributicms. The Auditsudfideatified seYCI'aI iDsIIIICeS where

contributions were reattribuIId to persons who may DOthave owned die coatributcd fimds.1 Each

reattribution is sec fonh ill• siped writina where the newcoll1riburm....tbIldie reatlributcd

funds constitute • "penoDal CODtributiOD" to the Committee reprf'" med by "persoDal fimds."

The writiDp aIIo ....tbIl tbo iJldividuai mai!!UIins"equitible owna:dtiP:--oftbo ICCOUDl fro.m

which the oriaiDll c:oasri1NticlIlwas draW'll.

ForelCIIIIIIkr. die Audit."citIIa cuIUIr's dIec& for 51,000 wbida WII p".to die CommjrIM ill

Novembw 1995 lIJld IfIIMIIIdy h.alrlibtad to liabt IDlIDbIn ofdle SUH fImiIy illJ-.y 1996. III lIDlIIbIr

ins1mee. cODUibuQaas froaa _,iDclividuallOtlllinl17mwbicll wen lllldlto tlleCommjrIM blew...April 199'

and April 1996, _ raaribured to DiM illdividuals who IIaw 110 ""1'I111ia1a to till oriIiUI coaUibutor.

MoROVer, questiOllS _1'Iisecl by raariMOlIS oftile entinJ amount ofcoaUibuliaa checks fi'oIII tile oripwcQnUibuulr to otller individuals tvell Ihoup Iha funds were dnwu from Iha orilial COGIributor's bIok ICCOIIIIC.
The writing appears to be a form prepared by me Corrunittee that was provided to the

anginal contributors wittl a form letter informing them about me matching fund process and the

$250 maximum matchable amount. The form letter informs me contributors that if meir

"contribution can be partially attributed to your spouse, or other member of your fa.'llilv me

Committee can submit it for additional matching funds." The fonn letter '.vas apparent1~ sent to

contributors who had made contributions in exceS's of the S1,000 contribution limit, and to

contributors who had made contributions in lawful a.'l1ounts between $250·$1,000. S.1e 2 U.S.C.

§ 441a(a)(I)(A). It is possible that reattribution was suggested to the latter group in order to

maxim.ize the amount of funds that could be matched. The fomrtetter does not state that

excessive contributions can be refunded to the contributor.z 11 C.F.R., § 110.1 (k)(3 )(ii)(A).

Many ofthe reattributed contributions may have been submitted for matching and:nay have been

improperly matched.

III. 26 U.s.C. § 9039(b) INQUIRY

The Commission has initiated an inquiry under 26 U.S.C. § 9039(b) IDd 11 C.FoR.

§ 9039.3 to clarify whether the contributions were the pmoul fuDdI oftbe reauribulecs_

whether the reattributees intended to donate funds to the Committee. To the extent that the

inquiry m'als that any ofthe reauribmees did DOt own the c:omri~t\mds or lacked doutive

intent to contribute., the reartributions ~ulcl have been improper aod the reamibuted.-

contributions wou1~ not haw been mltt:babl~) S..11 C.F.R. §§ 9034.2 (aXI); 9034.2(cXIXi).

Guidtlll".for h,s,lItillion ill GO'.JdOrdlr("GuiMliM'') (Auaust 1991)Itaz.pr. V ExcepdO!l

Code 0-3 at page 65 aad Appeudic:a 10.11 aDd 21. Thus, the iDquir,ymay reveal tIwlthe.

',. Committee received mau:bjn, funds for IIO"D'mb'ble cotltributioaswbich sboal4 be repaid to

tl!e United StatesTreasury. S..26 U.S.c. § 9038(b)El); 11 C.f.R..t903l.2(b)(lXiii);..

The Commission may conduct an inquiry UDder 26 U.S.C. § 9039(1J) ("'9039 inquUyi

based on information obtaiDecl UDdertheCMJ77I;mOll', conrimtin, review oblipDo~

information received by the Commission from outside sources, or iDformatioD otherwise

ascertained by the CommissjOQ iD carryiqout its supervisory respouibilities 11 C.F.R.

§ 9039.3(&)(1). Issues coDCenliDlthe mstehability ofcoDtribulioas..well witbiIltbepulView

oftheCommissjOD'sautboritytol:Omb'C'9039~iDdeecl._CommissiOD"rcsuJatiOllS

on mau:bing fund submissioas pnmck thatIIIdiU ofa c:ommiaee',submissions may be.

I Whe C a mha.CGiWtih..CClIICIftliDIdIe I'IIIIribuIIaa oraCUIIIIilaIiDe.lbIlIa.....mUll inform me

conlributar ofdleCGIIII'i!luIiaI Jjmjnoions UId of_ cptioD10~.Nllllllollbei.c IIi"pcIdioa ofhia

conlributiaa. 11 c.FAlllG:I(k)(3)(UXA); _ AdVisory OpiDioa ("AO") 1915-2,5 (NqlIiriDc _iuee10 1'8\1_

I proposed .......iWilllibudcW ofiXCIIIive CClIIllilIlItla10 morm die CCllIIribuIIafof. oplioa 01

receivinllba reftmd oldie ill' '.. panicla oflbe COIIlribu:cioD).

If. COII1ribuliaa 011 illrae. Of ill • ilIII..... ac:eeds• caalrihutila 11miWims,• _mjaM mUll

retUrn die COIIIribu1ioa 10 lIIe COlIlribulOr Of dqloIilllle CllIIlritIUIiIl ill._p...."""Il"ipdapoUr«y UId obcaiIII

I WTiueIl redesipazialr OfreIIII'ibIlIiaI from lIIe COlllrillaIarwiIIUD 60 dayL. II c.F.It. t 103..3(b)(3). IfII»

conlributor clKides CO raaribur.lIIe C:OIlrributioa CO IIIOCbtr COIISributor, • wriDID ratII'iblIIioD mlllt be siped by

eac:b conlributor and suc:h ralZributioG mUll iIldic:ala tbllDllllllll01.CUIIIIibuIiaa CO be IIlributMlIO adt

conlributor. II C.F.R. I 110.1(le)(])(ii)(B). If no writtm rtelisipaIiaB or iiidllibcdioll ill otICIiIIcd widIiD 60 days,

me committee must reiIIDd the conaibutioa. II C.F.R. It I10.I(b)(5)(jj) aaGIIO.I(le)(J)(i).

..
-J.

eO[1,dUeled pursuant to sectio~ 9039. See t l-C.F.R. §§ 9036.4(d); 9039.3(a)(2) and (b)(4).

Information revealed by a 90.l9 tnqUli), may ser.e as the basis for initial or additional repayment

determinations. including a repayment determination based on matching funds received for

nonmatchable contributions. 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(l); 11 C.F.R. §§ 9038.2(b)(l)(iii);

9039.3(a)(2) and (bj(4).

The primary issue in this 9039 inquiry is whether the reattributions and associated

matching payments were proper. Reattributed contributions made to presidential campaigns of

candidates receiving matching funds can be matched ifthe committee receives a writing signed

by each contributor stating that the reattributed contribution constitutes the personal funds afthe

new contributor. 11. C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(IXii);4 Guide/iM at Appendices 10. I I and 21. The

writing should establish that the contribution is a gift ofmoney made for the purpose of

influencing the result of a primary election. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(a)(I); see AO 1984-27 (revising

a presidential primary committee's verification form to include language stating that contribution

"is made with donative intent to maJce a gift and is made for the purpose ofinfluencing the result

of a presidential primary electioD.j:J Contributions made without the requisite doDative intent

are not mBtchabI~ 11 C.F.R. § 9034.3(i).

The contributions in question appear on their face to haw been properly rattributecl sUK:a---

the new contributors submitteclsigned writings stalin; tbal the IIIGDCf 'NU tbein IIId tb.t _ intendecl to makul:ontributioD. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(cXl)(ii). Howaver. tbuwiJable

informatioD indie:ate:l tbIc the f\mds may nOthave beJonpcl to the IICWCOIltributon. 1be fbDU

were oriBiDallY contributed by checks drawn OQ IICCOUDtS iipjWRiJtly belonMta only the

origiDal contributors. In most wtm:ea,me DlIIIlCI md addresses OD die cIIecb from die orisiDal

contributions were tbo.te ofthe oripwCOIJIriburoa, _thereaaributeIsIIIIIICa InIDOt listed OD

the face ofthe checks. While not coqclusive. the abscoce oftbe reauri.buteca' namesllDd.

addresses on the checks raises questions about wbetberthe reattributees account holders for

the bank BCCOUJIIS or bad aD}' oWDa'Ship interesI inme coDtributed t'uIxIa!

In their reattribution writiDp.the DeW contributors claim to ba'ft "equitable ownasbip"

in the BCCOUlIIS used for die oripwCODtribuaioDS. The tam..equitIbIe OWDmhip" appears ill

the reguWions aove:miDa matcbebility ofcontributioas drawn on ID CSCiUW ortrusllCCOUDL

11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(cX2>! CoatrilJtiIioaain tbeformofchecadzawDOGlDesctOwortnl&

• II CJtJL !IIlXM.2(cXI)(ti)...........it illICIt appa_ froID 1M..01_cbIdt tblllIICII COIIU'ibutar is

a joint teIlIIIl oldie....taaawIIicllIM cbIck iI cIrawIIt.

Bill..11 c.PJt t 9034.2(cXtXii) (1'IIUriIlIDa may submitawriaa' ...dlI&lilaCO&IIribuaiaIl

reprtSCftts lbtir pII'IllII&I tbDdI).

• In edditioe, dill Com!!!i...•• nplatjms _ lMlIIna ".nth0- ill clIftniDIa cmdjdlta's

pcrsoaaI t\IIIdI spIIIII oa his ar.,.1ecIioa: "Ill)'.....wbicJJ, lIDdIrWlinb'- Iaw. IIdie lime be ar sIIe·

beaIm•• cmdi=- dIo cmdidafe bid IeplriIbI ofICCaa10 ar coanl CMI'.1IIIIlwidllaplC&10 wbicb 1Ia

candidlle bid tidier leplllld rilbdbl title ar ID equitlbll--." II CJt.R. f IIO.IO(b)(I); ..AO 1991·10

(candidlle'sspoIIIe would DOC IIIIka contributioll wt.. candid- oblained loa baed oa equity ill oaHWfof

jointly ownecl hOUM and widIdrtW oaHWfofftmdIli'ocn joint invauDellt -=uat.). lb. ElqtIIDMicla IIIIi

Justification f()l' II c.r.R. § 110.10 stIIa dill die UAoldle tenD "equitabk iaIIreIt' applia 10 ID ownersbip (W

!T'W'HII':"'t_A....; --' Pue-A-c~~- •
accqunt are matchable if the ~ontributor has equitable ownership in the account and the check IS

accomparued by a statement, signed by each contnbutor to whom all or a cOItion of the

contribution is being attributed which states that the contributor has equi:;;ble ownership of the

account and the account represents the personal funds of the contributor, and also includes the

check number, amount and date of contribution. 11 C.F.R.. § 9034.2(c)(2)(ii). However, the

reattribution checks that were matched do not appear to have been drawn on an escrow or trust

account, and there is insufficient evidence to ascertain whether any ofthe reattributed

contributions were related to escrow or truSt accounts.

\\-nile each new contributor signed a statement that the "contribution represents my

personal funds and my personal contribution to Buchanan for President." it is not clear whether

the reattributees had the requisite donative intent to make a contribution. For example, the

reattributions do not state explicitly that the new contributors have "donative intent,." nor that the

contributors are maicing the contributions "to influence an election." See AO 1984-27 (the

CormiUssion concluded that a form must state that the contribution "is made with donative inu:nt

to make a gift and is made for the purj)ose ofinfluencing the result ofa presidential primary

election.j;see also 11 C.F.R. §§ 9034.2(a)(l) and 9034.3(i). Moreover,!CVeral ofthe

reattributions appear to have been signed by minozs. and several reattributiODS appear to have

been signed in the same bandwritiq. These discrepancies additional questions about tbtt

reatlributious.

...

IV. DECISION TO CONDucr INQUIRY PURSUANT TO 26 U.s.c. § 9039(11)

For the forqoinl reasoas. tile Commissiou has decided to opeD lID inquiry pursuant to

26 U.S.C. § 9039(b) aDd 11 C.F.R. § 90393 in orderto dctermiDe wbctbI:rreaUributions of

contributions to Buchanan for PresideDt.lDc. properly made aDd, ifnot, whether Buchanan

for President, Inc. owes my repayment to the United States Treasury for mllh:hina funds received

for nonmatchable contributicms. 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(1). The Commission may use tho

information from the 9039 inqWry for • sepatlde additiOMl repayment detenninatioD

supplementing my repay!DCIIt determinations that may arise from the audit report. 11 C.F.Il.

§§ 9038.2(t); 9039.3(a)(2) m:l(b)(4).

pecuniary intereSl dill is DOC _ oflepllille, bur mUa clear lbal m. criteria oflepllDll riJbtft1l tide IDII

equitable intereSl must be linked widllep1 ri&bt of access to or c:omrol oYer sudl fundi. 41 Fed. Rq. 19020

(April 27. 1913). While 11 C.F.R. § 1I0.1O(b)(1) IIIC1 AO 1991·10 concenulle penoaaI ftIIIdI ora eaIlCIidata IIIC1

his or herspouse. die mmillutionsItWue do not appear to have becII made to die oripw conaibutor's SJlOUS8.

Moreover, the reataibutions do not lIWe tIIat dle reaaributces had boUl an equitable imerest lIIC1a 1ep1 ript of

access to or control over dle contributed funds. S. II C.F.R. § 110.1O(b)(1).

..
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

July 23. 1999

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Patrick J. Buchanan

c/o John J. Duffy, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20036

Re: Buchanan for Presiclcat.1Dc. • Repayment

Determination (LRA ## 512) "

.'

Dear Mr. Buchanan'

On July 15, 1999, the Commission determined tbal Patrick J. Buchl!MJl and Bu.cbanan for

President. Inc. (collcctively,"lbe Committeej must repay 163.750 to the United States T:Gsury

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 903!Kb)(l) aDd 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(1)(di).. Sttcll C.F.R.

§§ 9038.2(f): 9039.3(a)(2). The determination is based on the CommilSiOll'S iaquiry in10 tI&

matchability ofcertain reamiburcd conaibutioDS under 26 U.S.CO § 9039(b) IIIId ·11 C.F.R..

§ 9039.3. Enclosed is the Notice ofR.epaymcnt DetcrmiDatioD. which setsforth the lepl and.

faetual reasons for the repayment delamination. ThisrepayD1CIlt must be mIde to the Seadliy

ofthe Treasury within 90 calendar days ofyour receipt oftbis Notice.. 11 C.F.R.§ 9031.2(d)..

lithe Committee disputesthe Commission's determiJlation that. repayment is required,.

the Commission regulations at 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2) provide you with the opportunity to

submii in writing., wi1bin 60 calendar days afterservice oithe Notie».lepI and factual materials

to demonstra!e that no repaymeat. or a lesser repayment. is requUed. Moreover••Committee

that has submitted wriueIl materials may at the same time request an opportunity to add!essthe

Commission in opea sessioIlbased OD the legal and factual materials submitted. 11 C.F.R.

§ 9038.2(c)(2Xii). The Commission wiD consider any written lepllllld factual materials timely

submitted and any oral heIrina when deciding whetherto revise the repayment determinatioD.

II C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(3). Such materials may be submitted by coUDseL 11 C.F.R..

§ 9038.2(c)(2)(i)

•
ftf;

!:i:il

riJ r,t!>p':

Patrick 1. Buchanan

Page 2

If you have any questions related to maners covered in this Notice, please contact

Dermie DeWitt Painter, the anorney assigned to this case. at (202) 694-1650. -

'ij;'fh' #,~ Kim Briglrt.eLf!!.

Associate General Counsel

Enclosure

Notice ofRq;ayment Determination (with anachments)

'.'

.... '!'J.c~ B

.f1l4C1l-..l&4-_ o~ C ;

..'
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In Lf}e Maner of

Patrick J. Buchanan and

Buchanan for President. Inc.

)

)

\ ... LRA# 512

::.::.1.2:

~.

I.

NOTICE OF REPAYMENT DETERMINATION

INTRODUcnON

On June 16, 1998. the Federal Election Commission ("the Commission") opened an

inquiry under 26 U.S.C. § 9039(b) and 11 C.F.R. § 9039.3 ("the 9039 inquiry") to determine

whether the reanribution of certain c6inributions to Patrick J. BueIiaDaD and Buchanan for

President. Inc:. (coUective1y "the Committee"} were proper and whether the Committee receivecl

any matching funds for non-matchable ~ontributioDS. B~ upon thisiDquiIy, ~D July 15, 1999;

1999. the Commission determined that Patrick 1. Buchanan lIDd Buchanan for Praident.1nC'.

must repay 563.i50 to the United States Treasury for matching funds received in excess ofthc

candidate's entitlement for awehed contributions later determined to have been non-awehable.

26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(I); II C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(I)(iii). Therefore. the Committee is ordered to

repay $63.750 to the United States Treasury within 90 calendar days after:service oftIWs

determination. 11 C.F.R. §§ 9038.2(c)(1) and (d)(l). This Notice ofRcpaymem Determination

sets forth the legalllDd factu.I1 basis for the repayment determination. &e 26 U.S.C.

I.§ 9038(b)(1), 11 C.F.R. §§ 9031.2(c)(1) and (t), 9039.3(a)(2) and (b)(4).

II~ BACKGROUND

Patrick J. BuchBnan was a candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination in

the 1996 primary elections. The Committee registered with the Commission 00 February 16,

1995. On May 31. 1995. the Commission determined that Mr. Buchanan was eligible to receive

•

....
·2·

matching funds under the Presidentiai Primary Matching Payment Account Act. 26 U.S.c.

§§ 9031·9042 ("Matching P:;yment Act"). The Committee received $10.983.475 in matching

fund payments from the United States Treasury.

. On January 14. 1999. the Commission considered the Report ofthe Audit Division on the

Com.'Ilittee and determined that the candidate and Committee must repay $44.791 to the United

States Treasury for non-qualified campaign expenses.' The repayment determination set forth in

this Notice is an additional repayment determination based on facts not used as the basis for the

previpus determination. See 11 C.F.R. §§ 9038.2(f); 9039.3(b)(4).

IlL SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION

During the Commission's audit ofthe Committee pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 9038. the

Commission condUCted a sample review ofthe Commi~~s matched contributions thatrevealed

potentially significant problems with reattributions.1 To determine the magnitude ofte

problem.. the Commission conducted an additional sample review. The Commission identified a

population of 7,220 matched contributions from all contributors who were associated with any

reattribution submitted for matching. From this universe. the Commission drewan additiorW

ThltAudll Repan also irIcIudecla paymelllofS17,431 forllllJe.dlled CoaImilMclltlcU. S.II C.F.1t.

§ 9038.6.

For eumpllt. die audii revealed reamibutions to numerous individual leIIII'ibutiona of..

entire amount ofcamribudaa dIecU and possible leIIII'ibutions to miaors. In Iddidaa, 1M l'eIIIributioa documentI

generally state 1bIItile reaIlrillllla"mIimaiII(s) equilablc owncnIIip oftblllCCQUllt'" IhIm wbidl the oriIinlIl

contribution wu drawn. S.AtIKbment Il 11Ie reamibution documents apparto be a fonD jNepaed by the

Committee tIw wu provided 10 dle contriburors widl. fonn Jeaer infonnina l!IIm Ibout the nwdIq ft.uId proc:eI

and dle $250 maximum nwehlbleamoum and suUeitinl tha iftheir"c:omritMioa can be JlIftiaIIy ItIriblnallD

your spllllSlt. or odler manber of yoIII' family. dle Committee can submit it for IdditiGaIlnwdIqftmds." S.

Arrachmem C. It is not clear why dle reatrribution swtments use dle term "equirlble ownersbip." whidl appem in

the regulations governina mare:hability of contributions drawn on an escrow ortnISt IICCOIUIt II C.F.R.

§ 9034.2(<<:)(2). .
-3-

random sample of 324 Items. forry-seven ofthese sample items appeared to have been

improperly reamibuted.l

To verify the contributions and reamibutions. the Commission sent surveys ,0

contributors who had reattributed all or a ponion of their contributions.· See Attachment A. The

survey asked the contributors to verify the amounts and dates ottheir contributions. state whether

the contribution checks were drawn on an escrow or II'USt account, and verify the amounts. dates

and name(s) ofthe reattribuxee(s) for each reattribution. ld. In addition, the survey asked each

con~butor to provide the current mailing address for euc:h reattributee. and indicate whether the

reanributee had the right to withdraw funds from the l:ontributor·s bank accounts and whetherthe

reattributec gave the contributor any money to make the contribution or reauributioD. Itt The

Corn.rnission received responsesfor 39 ofthe 47 sample.i~' Baudon the ~nses, eight of'

Origina.lly. die sample size was 325 items.1Ild 49 SImple items appeIIed impiC,,*1)/ raun~

However. as discussed infra II nace 7. one item was subscquC'lItIy deleted &om die SIIIlpIe because it was refilllded.

Moreover. one ofthe sample items wu nOC valid because nwould have t.nIII emil' in Ibe orilinal maa:llina fund

submission.

Surveys were sent III alOlll of 57 ~tributors. includinl43 comributors UIOI:ialIcl whtl the 47 IIlIIpJe

Items. one contributor associaled with alllllple item thar wassubsequently delelld, GGe COlIlributor associaled witlr

a sample Rem IIIaI wasIICll yeJkLthocomribualn widt nlllll_ reaaributiclIIIllld IIYCIt splUSII of~tribuun

who also reaariIluted COIllliblllia • 1lItsurveys requemd informllion abaul all ofad! illdividual's comributioaa

and reaaributioaL However. tt-c..missioa's repa)lIIC'l1tdelermillarioa is build oaJy upoa 1be4111l11pJe iIesaI,

not !he other reaariIIu1iclaL

11IeCommiudl cIld lICIt obtIiD infotnwioa conccmiDa dMIl'l11n1i1lia1 eipt-,.. iteaIIllec:ause two of

the samples were re1atld 10 c:amrilIlIran who _ now dccc:asId IIId sill sampJe ..UIIOCiated widI four

contributDrs who refused III respoad III the survey. includinl_ coatribufar who _wed some introductury

questions in a telephoac converwiOll but refused to continue. SIIIqIle itaIsfor which tIwn ...no respoose, orfor

which there wu III incomplete response to the survey were not 1reIIId..emn. Commislion statrcontaetad

several c:ontributors by relepllone III clarifY responses or obllin complete iIIfclrtu1ioa IIId also c:olltlCted • number

of reatU'ibutees to obtain additional information.
,.

r'7,

W

~1:r.

d

U=g

I'U1=:,

~.j

;:

ti;

=

f~ \!

the $a."l1ple itemS appea: to have b~en rItatc!l.able. and 31 of the sample items should not have

been matched and are consIdered "errors,'""

In addition. two contributors stated in a lener dated May Ii. 1999 that they requested

.

refunds of their contributions totaling $2.000 from t.1e Comminee after receiving correspondence

and a telephone ~a1l from Commission staff "because ofan apparent misunderstanding about a

form we were sent by the campaign after we made the contributions." Attachment D. The

contributors each made a SI.000 contribution and subsequently reattributed S750 ofthat

contribution to three reattributees in S250 amounts. Although the reattribution forms were

completed. it does not appear that the two contributors intended to reattribute their contributions.

The Commince refunded the contributions. with twO $1.000 checks made payable to the tWo

contributors rather to the reattributees and the chec:kI.~ lICCOmpaDied by a note stating"I

am sony about the misunderstanding." In addition to the nlpllyment amount calculated based on

the sample review. the matching funds approved totaling $1.634 based on these individual.s'

contributions and reattributioDS must be repaid because the contributions have been refunded.'

26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(1); 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(1)(ili).

• The survey J'eS1IClIIS8S for the 31 ~etron" indicmd dIIt die raaribula dlcIllOl have the rilltt to withdraw

funds from the conaibutor'$ bIIIk 1ICCOUIllS: thus. the conlributed funds appear to have belonged to the conlributor

rather than to the reaaribute& WIIile responses from conlributors of 10 ofthese SIIIIple itemllDCI telepboatt

converwions with several raIIrillutea IndicatectdIItsome ratlribulea may have &ivea conlributlln monlY III

make rite conaibutioal orreIIqibuIioas. if ilnoc clear dIIt dlest relllritlalioas _ proper becIusc the c:onrributon

and reatlributees provided no ldeIirional iDformalion and it IppeIIS dIItsoma ofdIae raaributions may have beeD

to minon. S. II C.F.R. § 110.1(i). Moreover. dependinl on the circumstances. these nnsM:tionI could have

resulted in non-mllChable contributioas ifdley involved a conlribution in !be name oflIICIIber. or die ratlributees

lacked the donative intetlt to mab a c:omribution because they givin. tbe COIIII'ibualr ftmds for some other

reason. such as a gift. S.2 U.s.c. § 441 f; II C.F.R. §§ 9034.3(e) and (i).

A reattribution of$150 ofone ofthese conlriburions was originally one ofthe ample items. Bec:e"'C it

has been refunded. this item is noc being treated IS an error ancIlw been de...tI'om the SIIIIple. In Idclition. one

reattribunee is not reflected in the Commiaee's dalabase IS a mltChed conlributioa. although a raaribution form for

S250 was filled OUI in her name. It appears thac this reattribution may have been attributed to one ofthe two

r

.,......J,~• ..., ..".•• _.B.'_fj_o_ It

P;.q:.,,: o:!"'&1 _ ...

,
·5·

IV. BASIS FOR REPAYMENT DETERMINATION

The Commission has determmed that Patrick J. Buchanan and the Committee mUSl repay

563.750 to the United States Treasury for matching funds received in excess of the candidate's

entitlement based on matched conuibutions later detennined to have been non-matchable.

26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)( 1); 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(I)(iii). The repayment amount includes $62.116 .

for matching funds related to improper reatttibutions and $1.634 for matched contributions that

were later refunded. The Commission calculated the percentage ofnon-matchable conttibutions

relate!! to improper reattributions in the total population ("errorratej and the lISSOCiated

repayment amount basc<t on the survey information concerning 47 sample items. The

Commission projected an errorrate of9.57% non-matchable itemsin the population with a

sampling error of:3.69%aneta confidence level of 95%.! .$aA""dmJem £ The CODJIIIissioa

calculated a repayment amount of562.116 for nOll-matchable contributions buedon theprojected error rate applied to the total population.· IlL The repaymeat ofSJ.634 forrefunded

conttibutions is based upon the total amount ofmatebing funds paid fortbe~

contributions (5 x 5250 x .928) + (2 x $250 l( .948).'0

original conlnbulors. Thus., \he conlribulioasIIIC1 rallribuliaas _ submillld for SI.7S0 ill lIIIICbinl ftmda,

than $2.000.

The popuiIDclD consiJIId017,220 lIlIIClIed camributions fraatCOlllribullln _il"" widllDY

reallribution sUbmiaeclfar men:t'in~ 1hSllllPlinIem. of t 3.~ is COIlIi_wilb dle lDlInbIIsaplial aror

of4% used in dur review o(merchialft!Jd lUbmiuiaaa.lIIId !beCommiaiao.......,...a 95'6c:oaIidIace level

in sample projectioas.

It is noc clear whtdMrthe eiPtsample iUlnlS far wIlicII tberawas DO IliIl n..ar _ iIIcaaq)_ rapoue..

to the survey were rela!ed 10 improper rallributiClllS.. Thus. it is possible t!IIt the Commillle recaiwd men

562.116 in muching funds based upon non-matchable conaibutions relatecllD imJll'lllMf reatlributiCllllL

,. The Comminee submineO die conlribulions and rutlributionsfor a rotaI ofSl.750 lD mllldlini fimds, 1250

for each ofthe two original conlribulOrS and S250 for each offiverallributas. .so. 26 U.S.C. § 9034(1). 11Hr

conll'ibutions were in two mardlinl fund submissions willi different error rates, based 011 die SlIIIIpIe review ofd!e
The use ofstatistical sampling to project cer..aJn components of a large universe is a

Il:gally acceptable technique. See, e.g., Georgia v. Cali/ana, 446 F. Supp. 404 at 409 (N.D. Ga.

1977) (use ofstatistical sampling 10 audit Medicaid overbilling was not arbitrary and capricious

where it was the "only feasible method of audit.·· review of individual claims would be a

"practical impossibility" and Georgia had the opportunity to challenge the statistical sample).

The "[p]rojection ofthe nature of a large population through review ofa relatively small number

ofits components has been recognized as a valid audit technique." Id Moreover. courts have

generally deferred to agency expertise in upholding the use ofstatistical sampling.II See. e.g..

Chaves County Home Health Service v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 914 (D.C. Cir. 1991). cerr. denied.

112 S.Ct 407 (1993) (upheld use ofsampling audit to recQup Medicaid overpaymentsto healtll

care providers).

Statistical sampling has generally been upheld when audits oftbe universe ofcases would

be "impossible-." Michigan Dep't ofEthIc. v. u.s. Dep't ofEduc.. 17SF.2d 1196. at 120!·1206

(6th Cir. 1989)(upheld use ofsample of259 out ofa total of66,368 payment.authorizationsto

determine amount ofdisallowed expenditures offederal funds by a vocational rehabilitation

submission; twO w-.matdIed Ita I'IlItof94.1% and five were matebechu I'IlIt of92.1%. nua.lIIetoWlIllOIIIlI

ofmatebina nlllduppnwed forthereftmded c:omribuUOlll_ 51.634 (5lt mOl(.921)+(2 xmex .941).

I. Couns have defenWet to IIaIC)' expertise in considerin&cba1IeftpIlO 18....,.'sICCCIUIIlinI nales lit

A. T &: T CO. Y. United SlQlG. the Supreme Coun swed that it could not overrule IIlIlalC)"S lCCOIIIItina system

unless it is "so entirely at odds with funcbiillenUII principles ofcorrect ICCOWItinJ ..to be lIIe expression ofa wbiat

rather than an exercise ofjud8lllem." 299 U,S. 232. 236-37 (1936). The Commission's use ofsamplina is

consistent with accepted accounting principles and would be enlit~ to judicial deferen=.

r
.7.

program). There IS "no case law chat scates how large a percentage ofthe entire unIverse mus, be

sampled." Id. at \205. In Ralanasen ~'. California. the court approved:

the use ofsa.rnpling and extrapolation as part of audits in connection with

Medicare and other similar programs provided the aggrieved parry has an

opponunity to rebut such evidence. To deny public agencies the use ofStatistical

and mathematical audit methods would be to deny them an effective means of

detecting abuses in the use of public funds. Public officials are responsible for

overseeing the expenditure of our increasingly scarce pul5tic resources and we

must give them appropriate tools to cany out the charge.

11 F.3d 1467 at 1471 (9th Cir. I993)(use ofrandom sample 00.4% to calculate Medi-Cal

overbilling by doctOl held valid). The Ratanasen court noted that other courts approving

sampling methods "made no mention of a statistical 'floor' which auditors must exceed" to

satisfy due process. Id. at 1472-

Statistical sampling is-necessary in this inquiry be('a..'I5e verification ofeach ofthe

thousands ofmatehcci contributions n:1alcd to raanbutions would be pnlgmerieally impossibllt.

Moreover. it is appropriate to calculate a rep&ymatbased on 1lOJM!!",,""'fe contributions using

the same statistical samplinS technique that is used to review marcbina fimd submissiou. TheCommission has used a dollar unit sampJin& method in itsreview ofmau:binl fimd submissions

since 1980 See 11 C.F.R. § 9036.4(b). Moreover. the Committee will have an opportunity to

seek administrative review ofthe repayment determination. 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2).

The Commission may determine that portions ofmatchiD8 fimd payments made to a

candidate were in excess ofthe IIJilCgaIe amount ofthe candidate's entitlement aDd mUll berepaid. 26 U.S.C § 9038(bXl); 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(1). Forexampl.. paymeDIS made on cbe

basis of matched contributions laterdetermined to have been non-mllChable an: subject to

repayment. II C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(I}(iii}. Conttibutions are not matchable ifthey ani'

reattributed to persons who did not own the coiitributed funds or lacked donative intent to

.lX~1.;'Ij\§'!T f3 i~_q...' _ c'! •a.q ..
contribute. See 11 CF.R. §§ 9034.2(a)(i); 9034.2(c)(l); 9034.3(i); GUidelinefor Presentation in

Good Order ("Guideline") (August! 991) at Chapter V Exception Code G.3 at page 65 and

Appendices 10. 11 and 21. Reanributed contributions made to presidential candidates who

. receive matching funds can be matched if the committee receives a \\/riting signed by each

contributor stating :hat the reattributed contribution constitutes the personal funds of the new

contributor. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(1 )(ii);I~ Guideline at Appendices 10, 11 and 21. The writing

should establish that the contribution is a gift ofmoney made for the purpose ofinfluencing the

resui;.of a primary election. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2(a)(I).

The Commission's regulations provide that ifa contribution. on its face or in the

aggregate. exceeds the contribution limitations. the committee treasurer may obtain a written

,

reattribution from the contributor within 60 ~ys. 11 C.F·.R. §§ 103.3(&)(3); 110.1 (k)(3). It

contribution is reattributed ifthe treasurer asks the contributorwhethcrtbe contribution is

intended to be ajoint contribution by more than one person. informsthe contributor that he or

she may request a refund ofthe excessive portion. and within 60 days. the .contributors provide a

written reattribution. signed by each contributor. which indicates the amount to be attributed to

each contributor ifequal attribution is not intended. 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(k)(3)(ii;.

The available informatioa indicatesthat theCommittee received matching funds for nonmatchable contributionL The contributions appeared to be matchable when they were submitted

for matching because the JeaUributees signed writings stating that the money was theirs and that

they intended to make a comributiorr. See II C.F.R. § 9034.2(c)(1Xii). The reanributions abo

generally appear to have been completed within 60 days. See II C.P.It. § 110.1(k)(3)(ii).

,: Section 9034.2(c:)( I) lplllies when it is not aJllWellt from the face orthe check thll each c:onaibulOr is I

joint tenant ofthe account from which the check is drawn.

,.
•

.Q.

>ievertheless. the responses to the survey indicate that many of the reattributiQns were Improper.

The funds were cont.~buted by checks drawn on the accounts of the original contributors. and the

checks did not list the names ofthe reattributees. See II C.F.R. §§ IIO.l(k); 9034.2(c)(I). Most

. of the original contributors stated that the reattributees did not have the right to withdraw funds

from their accounts. There is insufficient evidence to verify whether any ofthe reattributees

gave the: original contributors funds to make the contributiollS or reattributions.. Other possible

problems with the reattributions include that some ofthe reattributees may have been minors. the

contriQution or reattribution may have been made in the name of another. there is no evidence

that the treasurer intonned contributorS that they could request a reftmd ofthe excessive portion

oftheir contributions.'l and the reattributees may have lacked the donative inteDt to make 11

contribution even ifthey gave money to contributor ifthose t\mda were given to the

contributor for some purpose other than to conaibuut. &~ 2 U.s.c. § 44Jf. JI C.F.R.

§§ 110.1 (k)(3) and (i); 9034.3(e) and (i).

Moreover. the survey responses and contaCtS with contributorsfaiRquestions aboUl

whether the l:onaibutors and reanributees sufficiently und.as1oodthe DaSUrcofthe transactiOIlS to

make proper reattributions. For example.. the May 17. 1999leucr1iomtwo contributors statinsthat they requested refunds because ofa "misundemanclinI about a form wewere sent by the

campaign" indicatesthat they may not have understood the significance oftheirreattributionsto

six other individuals. Sce..Attaehment D. Several individuals who called SIaffofthis Office for

clarification ofthe survey did not appear to understaDd the meaniDa of'"reauributiOD." Othercontributors' statements to staffofthis OffiCI: raised questions about wbetber Committee.

11 The form letter apparently sent by the Committee docs noc notify comributan thIt they could requat I

refi.lnd. Sft Attachment C. .

A.1'1'A.ClDlEn~_ ;

P8ft II _or~... a •
i [~1

, f"-.."

i:"=..

!I"':

o

ru

il~ m.'

-10-

representatives gave comributors incorrect instructions about how to reanribu:e contribu:icns.

For example. one contribuwr. who reattributcd $8,000 to eight afros children. stated that after he

made the original contribution. the Committee called him and asked ifhe had children and

whether they had bank accounts, Although he told the Comminee representative that his

children did not ilave bank accounts. the Comminee sent him reatlribution fonns for his

children. '" Another contributor stated that Committee represenrativenold her that it was

acceptable to reattribute funds to anyone living in the same household. She reattributed funds to

her lUiult daughter who resides with her, and her daughter signed the fonn, although the money

'.

was not her daughter's money. Se~ 11 C.F.R. §§ 9034.2(a)(l) and (c)(1). Other contributors

stated that they reattributed a ponioo oftheir contributionsto minor c::bildreD, inc::luding ODe'

contributor's-seven-year-olCl JOD and another contributor~s.l3 yar-old daughter:· To the extent

that the reattributeeswere minor childtea. it is not clear whetherthe reattributions were proper."

See 11 C.f.R. § llO.l(i).

In addition. telephone contacts with a number ofreattributees support the ColllIllUsioo's

conclusion that the reattributions were improper and resulted in non-matehable contributions.

None ofthe reattribunees staled that he orshe bad the right to withdraw funds &om the original

contributor's account. Several bad DO recollection ofgiving the original contributor any ftmds to

make the conttibution or reaaributiom. One individual stated that herson-in-law paid the money

for her and told her about.! larer. Another did not recall giving the original contributor any of

.. This contriburor WIS not related CO one ofthe 47 sample irans.

,. Minor children may make contributions ifthe decision co contribute is IftIde knowinaIY IIId voluntarily by

the minor child.. the funds contributed are owned or contrOlled exclusively by the minor chik1 such u the child's

income. the proceeds of a lI'II5t for which the child is the beneficiary or a sampac:count opened and maintained

exclusively in the child's twne; and tile contribution is not the proceeds ofa gift for the JlIU1lOSC ofprovidina the

funds to be contributed and is not in any way contrOlled by any otlter individual. II C.F.R. § IIO.I(i}.
. I /.

the $350 arrributed to him. Those who indi(;:ated that they gave or may have given funds to the

anginal contributors slated that they gave cash. rather than checks.'· For example, one individual

stated that he gave cash :0 the local fundralser for the candidate. Another individual stated that

.

he is an auto technician who does work for the contributor. who in tum does things for him such

as donating the funds to the candidate. However, none ofthe reattributees had documentation or

other evidence to verify that funds were given to the original contributor to make the contribution

or reattribution.

Further. the use ofthe phrase "equitable ownership" in many ofthe rcatlribution

statements also raises questions. ~Use: it appears thin the Committee and contributors

incorrectly applied the marchability rule for conaibutions drawn on aD escrow ortrust acccunt to

conaibutions-that w~ not CInrwn on exrowortruSt ac::o~ s.. II C.F.R. § 9034.2(cX2~

Several conaibutors and reatlributees did not appearto tIIIdenuIDd themeanm, ofthe term..

Finally, the matching funds totaling $1.634 based on contributiouthat were subsequently

refunded must be repaid beca!!se die refundeclcODtributions are !lOt nundmblt 26 U.S.C.

§ 9038(b)(1); 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(bXl)(iii). ThaCommission'sreguJaticma provide that

committees mustsubmit a ua ofall rcfund.s with their threshold.submissiOll and with subsequent

matching fund submissions.. S..ll C.F.R. §f 9036.I(b)(6); 9036.2(bXI)(iv); GuitkiiIW. 14, 31.

The fact that the contributorsrequated the reftmd also negateS the dmIative intent necess''Y for

rnatehability. See. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.3(i) Thus. dieCommitteemUllrepay the $1.634 in marchinl

funds paid for the refimded con1ributions.

•• Ifthese indiYidlWs had aiv. cumney direcdy ro rile candida. lIw comributioas would not haw beeIt

matchable. Su II C.F.R. § 9034.3(j)' Moreover. cub ~lributioasin _ on100 WOIl1d have exceeded tbe

Iimiwions on cumncy contributions 112 U.S.C. § 441J.

.. ''''';II ;;:11: .-Ii- .-,. ;;;" / 3 o~.:~::L~
•

-12-

v. CONCLUSION

Therefore. the COlTtiTlission has determined that Patrick J. Buchanan and Buchanan for

President. Inc. (collectively "the Conuninee") must repay $63.750 to the United States Treasury

. for marching fund payments received in excess ofthe candidate's entitlement based on matched

contributions later determined to have been non-matchable, 26 U,S.C. § 9038(b)( 1); 11 c.F.R.

§ 9038 .2(b)(1 )(iii). The repayment amount includes $62.1 16 for matching funds related to

improper reattributions and $1,634 for matched contributions that wen: later refunded. Patrick J.

Buchanan and Buchanan for President, Inc. is ordered to repay $63.750 to the United States

//

Treasury. 11 C.F.R. §§ 9038,2(c)(1) and (d)(I).

Attacbments

A. Exampleofsilrvey-form (completed by DavidM. Drew)

B. Example ofreattributioD swement (completed by David M. Drew. et aJ.. dated

October21. 1995)

C. Buchanan for President. Inc:. form letter to contributors

D, Letter from Tara and Srepben Hamilton to [Delanie] Painter dated May 17. 1999

E. Memorandum from RobertJ. Costa to Lawrence M. Noble dated July 12. 1999

III
QUESTIONNAIRE

David M. Drew· LRA #466

Docwnents reviewed by the Federal Election.Commission indicate that you made

the following contribution to Buchanan for PreSident, Int. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential primary election campaign. and that all or a portion ofthis contribution

was reattributed to the individuals listed below.

Please answer the questions by checking the appropriate box:

1.

2.

I made the contribution listed above.

Ifyour UISwer is no. please list your contributions below by dale sua amoUllt.

The contribution wu made by a check dxawD OQ an escrow ortrust account.

IYES r, I

3. [ reanributed the foUowiDI amounts ofmy conuibutiOD to the foUowinl

individuals OIl tbe foUowiaa date:

Name ADIIOUDI Date Yea No

ClaudiaD..- S250 10121/95 ,,/'

PaulMubrll S250 10121195 .,./'

OweD MarilIdt S250 10121/95 v

Irany ofthe above information is incorrect. please note corrections.

....
2

[ist any other individual to whom you reattributed any portion of any contribution and

the amount and date ofthe reattribution.

Address---------------------- Name

Reattriburion Date -;- _

Amount Reattributed _

4. Please provide the current mailing address for Claudia Dr:w.

Pc4f, 7 J £;;-

Claudia Drew had the right to withdraw funds from any ofyour bank accounts.

Did Claudia Imw give you any money to make the contribution or reauribution?

S. Please provide the current mailing addressfor Paul Marb8c:b.

D . l , ~.).. 6.. ·t- L1- £i-_ r· (~

a:~. t"-- l~q7"

Paul Marbach had the right to withdraw ftmds from any ofyour bank accounts.

lYES I~ I

Did Paul Marbach live you any money to make the contribution orreattributionT

IYES I~ I

6. Please provide the curTent mailing address for Gwen Marbach.
Gwen Marbach had the light to ?ithdraw funds from any of your bank accounts.

Did Gwen Marbach give you any money to make the contribution or

reattribution?

{YES I~ I
108948

fJU t:!O:c 13~:Z

Ytlf>- ?A 17404

COIlc:unUllt!.hi: wnu:olltion ofS10DO. Cile.;.\;. 4'~811. clepa~tte.c1 into BlJ.Clwlan fer

Presl""t on 9105/95. r verify that:

I) S2S0 nf the abo". menrionad ",mribl.llion r~res~ my pcn;on&1 fund.5 and In)'

pcr3QnaI contribution to 8u.cnanan For f'rbic:lllllt, InC ttw I nWftwn tUjUilaOl' ownenNI'

ofrhe =utlt.

Emr>l~ ddf----·

2) S2S0 orth.liIDnve mc1Itioncd c:onttibuUon reprCllClU nay personal fimds and my

pcfJnn&1 c:onuibuloiOll to i~For Presicicnr., InO WIt J _mun equitable OWIl.CT.Ihip

ofrhe aet:l.NnL '

Sil~re ~44 ?JIL/k<L!

-U-'

%L~ t"'T"

PI_Pm orType Name Hn

Oc:eupluon 11z,4A:IWId' ~, c:;_e_i~~Iro' _

3) S2S0 ofthelbovc: menUolMIC! camributian rcpn:IIIIUIl'J!)' pmGftIIJ fimdI and my

per~1W c:onuihulion to Buchanan For Praidtftf. and CbaI I mairain ~uiWIIc ('lwncrsNp

of the KCOUrn

Si:naLUrc j!(J1...l..J- 0.. If). 2/-"f

::?ALe.1. :r AU-.c.fot

Pleue PrirU • Type Name Here

O~p&\um AhA 3ft".,'"."",

~) S:50 C'l,eN ..... eonmhlaicrct rcpraema my perscm.a' lUnda and my

pcnonal c:onuibution 10 lueMMa For Praidcnr. and Uw ZfIlIilWlin equitable ownership

ohhe K'count.

OCT 241995

~1L~ DIla--":"~-klll.l' __-...L,.... 5__

~..M=.eh~~__ PI....Pritrt 0" TYJ)C Name Here

Ifthe aDolie-satentem is not ~. plcase sa nl)lIt.
•

Dau

Name

Ad~1

Ada:

CSZ

Thank you (or your r:oncribuc.ons tcwiftl Sum. It LI &he SU1'PO" INI .ent1OlJry

orIftdivlclua.ls such as.YOUI"M.Itwiudl ""ill eftS\ft tM sue"" ofour AmenQ Flm

l:&mpalr-s.

Presaclemial CaIldia.n are lIuuled 10 tea.1Ot federal IIJAIdUnt funds from _

T .s Matchlftl Pa~'1IltIlI ACCOw\' .ft an lIftouat "'" '10 C!O ..contribulQr· Tms. 1ft

cIT":. doubles the n",*, of' your conznbwons tortit« tll'Jl S:JG. ' .' .

Ir~our comribuu. t:Ift be PItUIII!, Iftributed 10 .....arodwlftCft'lber·of'

our fa.mal~. 1M CCtIftftUttIe eaa IUbnUt d for nwctu"l fundI'. To ~Ie Uus.

m~ftCf; I haVlr enclosed tbe form neces...., and IuNity ..tills ~ou cornpi~ IIId rewm .t

10 u. as soon u pctUlbieEDclolal.s a poaqe.pud cavelope for yourCOIt\lCftleftCe.,

/IJIOIOfIJe for~' Ndtm and ."re:.... ~our coo...._ and conunutCt

SUPl'O"

em:loluru

hit"': &a", :-t,••t • ' ':1" •.'h.&...~ft \ .,.,ft.a ::•.., _.- ')t)r,

~H ••' , ,.. -. • at •• .,.,.."z.. 1''SW .... ••
STEPHEN AND TARA HAMILTON

30 DA.TER LANE

SADDLE RIVER. NJ 07458

-

-

•

Federal Election Commission

WashL'1gtOn. DC 20463

Attention: Bonnie DeWitt Painter

May 17, 1999

Bv Croified Mail

Re: LRA#S12

Stephen andTara Hamilton

•

ru

f~ .•

Dear Ms. Painter.

We have receivedcomspondalce and atelephonecallDonitheFEereprdi.ngcoDlributions:·

wemade to Buchanan '96.BeiDg unfamiliarwith thesemaueis.we referredthe1'D8liertOlIIlattomey

and the Buchanan campaign itself.

However. in the meantime (at our request) the BuchmaD campaip has refimdeci our

respectiveS1,000contributionsbecllUSeofIIIappIRDtmisuDdcmandinlabout a form wewere sent

by the campaign after we made the contributions. Copies ofthe refimd cbec1cs an: enclosed. We _

understand that the campaisn will be adjusting itll account with the FEC directly.

TlUSting this satisfiesthe FEC's request for informatioa,. we remain

Yours sincerely, .

JU4.~~k-~~ Tara and Stephen Hamilton

lnat:1M1llT _ f5-:::-:o:-

PIe- <i Q ot '1 .1 I

I
•

uchanan'2000-

rtl {l,., J~l,)

D:/."I" I .I,,:r~. \. \ :':J~4" .

. Hq 703.731f·c7DO

I..., 703 .131f· c1D5

11,,/..,,(' ..",",. gOll.tgoiDDD.0,.,

/ m.I:! hQ.golI.tgoi!DDO.o,.,

. "I' -,."I't4,.',.,OUrtJ"", ".",It \lMl..i'rvw. r".,nuwr
22~07~f025m~oa3.

\

,

\

/ •

'"

1026

1025

-.-..- . ..... r D V OOllI<RJLDIE5l."::'

PATE sf0/1 ?

_--,J $: l,ooJ), oQJ

._--~~ -_..

-l!"'I""""'I!

• • '1' ..

-~~ -''1l' .. ~~'

•

• uctMfMH ,-=:=.s~EflT, Ute· .. • auStREET."E.'1O ..,D....

......VA'..' . r;; ro / _ ....

\ DATE~~9-=-'l__ 'I=Of (dJ2d J. .ILAUIt-17JAt -J $:)~tJ~~.qv~J, I auif' M U:JAjJD • ri;, lXlLU.RS.JjJ~_::- ................... ~,~~.

FOR a,.(~~:;;t::05'DO?'Q"I: lOOQ'O~ /-'-~ _-,!

U Ii ¢ sa 14 ;; i i. -- ..- .

•, IS 14m. Ii g 4 4 ¢ i 0 II

~I ~~=PT.1lIl;. ",.,. o auavut.UI. '1f .. we I.EMf. .,to "Ill

i il=.. .5!-I'PH£AJ 'C. IIAMflT/JU

_________.

' a,~ (HIJU fA tV]) - __

• ......--. 1IMIr , .

*-..... .....,... fOfl ~.,,;. {il.pf!;::f _
FEDERAL ELECTIOf'< COM"-1ISSI0N

July 12. 1999

MemQrandum

•

To:

Througb:

From:

Subject:

Lawrence M. Noble

General Counsel

James A. Pehrkon N

StaffDirector ~,..

Robert1. COD*'

AssistaDt StaffDirector

Audit Diviaioo

Buc:hp· Cor Preliclcut.IDc. -Inquiry Punuat to 26U.s.C. 19039 (b) - .

to Request for AaiItIDCe (LRA~12~OIUW:TION

•

Attaebed is. comcted vasicm ofourJuly 2. 1999 mf!I!WdW 111m wbicb detailed

results ofyour _ discuaed tile projceud 2IOIHI2ISCbIb1e ""iiil ODe item. •

contribution reattributed to Jerome &we. should have beat cltelOti_ u '"would have

been error ill rep1Ir lUbmilliao"lIJd thus DOt included for PUlpa.a oftbiJ projection.

The lltaChed DlClIDOfIIIr.1um ccmtaiDI the conectedBam-. die projected amount

ofnon-m.rcbable CODIributioal clwnpd hill ~,618 to tbeCtllla:rat Bpre of162.116.

Ityou haveaay'~ please QQOIICt WIDda1'1xlmIIorRick HaltS' at 694-

1200.

Anaclgnllll: In :N...fiRPIwidrt. 1DI:. -lDquiIy PunuIDtto 26U.s.C. 19039 (b).

RtIIP J_to......far AAi....... (LRA .,12)-CORltECTION.

r........c:citec&ed MadailtI!QII'l cI: t2]

.1
FEDE.RA.L ELECTION COMM1SSiOl\,

July 12, 1999

Memor2gdum

To: LaW':'ence M. Noble

General Counsel

•

Through:

From:

Subject:

James A. PehrkoD

StaffDirector

RobertI. Costa

Assistant StaffOirector

Audit Division

Bucbanaa for President, Inc•• Inquity Pursuaat to 26 U.s.C. 19039 (b)-

Response to Request for AssisIance (lJlA NS12}CORREcnON

riJ

ru~

The Audit s1affreviewed the surveysretumecl to tile Office otGeDcral COUDleI ill

.response to the March 1999 mallin, ofsurveys to comributon who bid DDt responded to

the previous mailiDgs.The Auditstaftused the SlIDe pru:edwe • wu employeci in the

review ofresponses from the previous mAiliDp to determiuc wbetber c:omribwows were

properly reaaributed. We COIIIidered • reaaribwoa ifthe origi:sW

contributorindicated that the reaaributee did DOt have the nib! to withdraw fundi from

the contributor'll bank accoUDtl, reprdlesa ofwhetberthe respoDIe &om the original

contributor indicated the reattributee pvc the contributor mcmcy to DUIke the

contributiolt. In ita Me&DOtIDdum ofApril I, 1999, the CoUllle1'. office ...with this

approach. In Idditiem. tbeCouueI'. office wormed !be Audit Slafftllll aem-respcmaD

to the survey should DOt be coUDtecl u errorsinprajec:tiDa !be error rate. Sued CD Olar

review, we l'.I!ndmd that tbe projected dollar value oftbe errors is 562.116. This

projection is bIIICl on 31 c:oa&med errors out of471 idemi1ied in oursamplcl. The enor

l'lIte is 9.57% with umptin. error of±3.6!W.. .

1 lDitiaIly tbae _ 49. bo",ve _ item was deleled wba die CClIl1rilIaa RqUIIIId ad1ICIiVed.

refimd (or hcrCOlllribuliGa(_A"'c:hrnmt 2, illllD 4', Hamiltm T_J.)11III_ilImI ....deleiwi:Ded IIlJ

nOI be a valid samp. ltall(_ AftlL:tnnem 2, itall52, Sonemiao. R.icbaId).

, For a delliJed clesc:riptioD oldie SIIl2I'Iiq ~.pl_refer to die October 22. 1997 JDeIDOIUduID

10 Lawrmce M. Noble &om llobcn Colla.

t'
See Anachments I md.2 for a detaIled summary of the responses·from the

survevs. :\5 noted on Att..chmc:Tlt 2, page 2. there were 8 sample items for which no . - response or an mcomplete response was receIved. No response was receIved from 6

contributors. and for 2 contributors the response indicated that those indi....iduals were

deceased. Aithough Dot quantifiable for projection purposes. the 6 non-responses. in light

of 1.1'1: 31 exceptions. raise a question of whether those six items would have also resulted

in exceptions ifcompleted responses had beeh received.

The problem with unacceptable reattributions was further amplified when the

reattribution of 17 items that were not included in the sample review because they either

were or would have been errors in the original submissions were examined. The number

of unacceptable rcattributions increases to 48. indicating an error rate of 14.81% and a

sampling error of:!: 4.67 %.

It should be noted that based on advice from the Counsei'i office. neither the Title

2 nor the Title 26 aspects ofthis issue were addressed ill theAudit Report approved by

the Commission on January 14.1999.

Ifyou bave any questions CODCemina this matter. plea.CODSICl Wanda "I'boma

a1694-1200•

•

~I
1 Population (Buchanan.S99) - 7220 Contributions

2 Initial Sample

3 Less;

4 Sample contribution refunded

5 Sample item in regular'submission

G Would nave been errors in regular submission

l'\ 7 Not reattributed Contributions

\:1~ 8 Usable sample items

~, ..

Buchanan for Pres-ident, Inc.

(Assignment)

Revi'ew of Reattributed Contributions

Summary of Sample Review

(Subject)

9 Expanded Sample

10 Less: >

11 Selected in initial sample but did not meet criteria far review

12 Would have been errol'S in regular submiuion

13 Not reattributed Contributions

14 Usable sample items

15 Total Usable Sample·1tems

-16 Total Acceptable Reattributiona per initial review

17 Sample Errors:

18 Reattributlon of BusineU Check

19 ReattributlCln to person with d1ll'erMt surname20 Reittribution to person with...". surname but not tpOIIM

21 Total Errol'S from Initial Review (Excludes refunded sample contrlbutIon)

22 Combined Resulta from all MIllIngs.

23 Responses confirm errors (11& UallingY

24 Acceptable RNttributions Baled on Response to 11& Mailing

25 Revised TOWI Errors after RaponIo to 1st MaHlng ,

26 Responses confirm errors ( 2nd MailIng)

27 Acceptable Reattrltxltion8 BaNd on Respollse to 2nd Mailing

28 Non-responses or I*tiIIt response to either maiIlng (plII' OGC non-ermra)

29 Responses to follow up phone IUMtYS

30 ReVised Total

REVISED ATTACHMENTS.123 .

Attacnment 1

Page 1 of 1

No. of Sample Occurences

200

1

1

14'

124

60

125

3

5

55

52

112

65

2

22

25

47

20

5

42

9

3

8

2

31 1

Wit 07112/99 .

.

,"
~~~;~~~~donor.

f!!!~"~I1~!l fQ!.&ulct~ {A5\llpmcnf)

Review of R.spon... 10 OGC'. Mailings

(::;,,111" II

Q!!II!!l~ ~.l!I!J!'!Bf .ll!ml!I~lIftrll!ut"I

Vnllcc.plat>,* N.lIl1,lbullon,

I IBrown. Tom lorllWll. Carita

2. Brown. J () Brown. Palrlci< F.

f ••'·· ... ·., •. , ••••••. , ..

s. 0::-]

I'~e'

I"~

,.."".

~~~~~IIJCIi~~

I*~. 10 Shella and OilYld J

..!~~~~~ ''WM1Ion

NolWd 1tghIa; .....1IIIIMrllIl11lg1n11 donor.s-... ..... 11I nitItAIrIUbmltIloitIJuI nolllfl e"O(. See

R'" c:rillfll Illow dIaI1 MF 211 1211

......it...... eiater.Jn....:lIMed lIll""...Ibm naI~,~~t

e.nr.......-_. lor conhIJUlIlIll

m.~~ -'--'--~~.;ll'!!' __ -. . . _·~Ilon

. I"'" I=I~~ xl.ltt I. •

0lI/20Iis *.ttll t

oc,i fl'll6 iiXiliil t

01JlM8 too.(16 t

ii&i'1Niii ji).e t

'IMliii t

oi2ililS HlJiiii t

oviiiiiil Zii.iiii t

ii91i91ii5 HOllO t

oviHii 250m .t

OC,iit96 250.00 ;

09I1111l8 2SO 011 1

01121195 moo I

oitiillll8 ZSo iJiI 1

02l1ti196 moo I

ii711i8til6 its 00 i

O9I05IiIs 250 00 I

1i5m'il6, mi.OO • iiiitii5ril6 25ci oil i

O;Jiii/ii6 miMi i

jj4/i91ii6 ;2500 • ii5l2W1 iiiO.iiIi i

08t3iiiU5 25000 t

ii2J2i9ii 250.00 • iifI2Miii -Siliiii i

j illi:iJ9!i 22500 i

02t211illi 250.00 i

o5iii9i95 25000 i

iI4,i ililil 25000 t

il&'5IlI5 250 00 I

00t1S'l/5 200iio 1

OSIfJ8t96 5000 t

. 1500 3

Bush. Marie

Davis. Jane F.. DOeiiner: COnsI*- Fo~.R~J

Headlee. T_

,iiCisOri. Riibiitt

Holtman. Miei"",,

HumphreyS. Sluart

Jellrlt!ls. Calvin

.kines. Augus'a

t<alson. tlla,," l.

t<lfmse. Chrislina

t<remer. David

Marbach. "alA J.

McCoy. Mfchaei

Mclaughlin. Keals C

McMahOn. Jean

Iolapu;ana. liSa

Newlon. Andr_

Peltii. Emlii Ja~

Phlnlps. Joseph M

Shaw.Robeit

si.eerkl. ijr8ij

Shii'rln. Michael

Silva, PairiCl;i

Thomsen. David A.

Wal~ins. Wimam F

Walkins. WilHam F

Zaremb:o. Ann

1\Davis. Alene 0

Davis. Mary Frances PUtC61

5 romberg. Chrisline

6 Swanson. Erma l.

7 lIeadlce. Richard Ii

8 Cianllone. AM

9 IInnman. Frederic l

10 Ilumphreys. Alyssa ()

" Jeffries. Kalhleen

12 Jon,". O...en A

13 BertllS, David

14 f<lImse.,l'tJma l

15 Klemer. John W

16 Olew. David M

17 J.Il:Coy. Oennis

18 Mclaughlin. Richard A

HI Radecki. Calherlntt

"'fI McC"lchen. Sr . Joe

N....10n. Anna l.

l2 Pelhl. J, . Jamos A

23 Ilarhallgh. Kimb8riy S.

24 Jesl.<. (rma

25 Sheelln. 1t..:lfllaS

26 She'"n. Davit! k

21 C01I10\,l3. Partida

28 Thomsen. Shei'a M

29 Wa'~",s. Barbara l

30 Wal~.ns. Balhara l

J: S'lI;llI. f ran~.

TI)I.J' f.m.A50

',MMI ••• · .'

R[VIS~n ""ACIIMENTS 123

"'I01ll:m9

'Ii le)J iii
Acceptable RUlf,lbu"ooI

11/24195 2llo.CIO , J2IT'Bndl. AMB Autry. SlllIll*1 Y!! o. III

JJ Be'long9<. Geraldine Brown, TherOn OiiHiiili mOil , r!! r!!

Uenlel. RIChard 11Iliiz... Mall'- R. i.ilit. 230m t r!!! lID

U.btk. Jerome A Ke-n.laUia ll8i2Mi5 1SO.iiiJ t r!!

36 Jamevic. Donal P YOIIneWch. Mary Deb OiJi5lliii 2iiiiiiO j r!!

31 flllck. Susan 98de1.J~H. iiliIo2iliii i2500 t r!!

38 Nigro. MO. Samuel A Nigro. Jon A. iiiiiiirili i5l)Oil • P-!

39 lombc,o. Ch';s!ine Orasol. lucien 0iiIiiIliii 25000 . . t lID

Tnlal .. Incomptete Ot Non-,e.pon..

40 CocOlOS. GeorQe Col:oros, CD 03107195 2!OOO I ,.., N'

4' C'l!~y. Cla,k l. Cooll. i1,tniiI lM/i2iii5 ililloo t IlIi

U HI~c"erson. Cheryl Huich8isoo,:Elsie oim41iiii 25000 f iii ~. 43 Roedel. ~ary K Roedel. Clare 8. ttlO2195 ioooo , nia ~i H Siad. Etta Hanauer. larry Itiljii/95 25000 1 : ~i "'I 45 Siad. Ella Siad. Andrea jiltlii19S 25000 ; iii.

46 Siad. Elia Siad. Mrs Je,OOIlI c. 01/241i15 25000 j iri ~I 41 Tallanl. GoorQ8 Ollfkln. T R 07/i0Jil5 25000 i IlIi jiI. Tolal •

nll. I. Item ..... refunded to the COfltrlbutor.

Illamilton. Ta,,1i .. IHamiiton, Mark I 03/2'1951 250 0111 , . .. I m I nil

The.. nem. did 1\11' mee' the C:flterta 'Of review.

4TIIY~IJJl' C,alg - 9;ySOn, tlai~ -- IlIl1id1l1s 250CId • flO I 50 IIlllk. Susan Bedel. J,~i8 H. i212ii195 iooiiii t iii nil

51 n(~lil8. MaIY Oa fAyf,hier, Alina li9Iililii!i 25000 i !iii "'a 52 So"eolo"". RIchard 80W8, Je,ome I 05104195 ioooo i lID lID

•.••• I··

1..... ,'1 •. I •••• • "'","H·''''

~. .. AIach••• 2

-,., fl

I

I'~~I,

§i ,......

Is..__~IR"!!J!!iIMtaid __ IIIt:iinIIIIdlon"on 51101991 _ .

iii-::rlldn Niiii--- _ -- (c:ilIHn _ dlIIdl ".0001 _.

;~~l~: ~':=:~~~ed~;~ ,

1CIi:&J BO.iiO _.

tiO.ii6 fiChiwiI HinzII'i ian iIiUiii----·----- tI: ~.,.."~t,Donal.lA!rJ ,~.~,

.5000

250m

,..,.

Q!'lIml! £twJd!!l!.I!!r I~!L8n11ll!J!11ttI I=I~I& AI.lwl

!,!lj~I1!!fl.!!!1 t!rr- Pr"ld,nt~ IA .... "l"rnonIJ

RevillW 01 Responles '0 OGe', Mailing'

(S"r,well .

REVIS[O ~" '''IIMENiS 123

'17/12199
.-a:-

AIIdlmt

_... J~

I'd

11 .".

:t

~m:tI!!'1!!!1IQr!'.rW.lIfn1...lru;. fA~\'U",ncnl)

~,~~:.~;" 01 Rellponn, Co OGe', Mailing, I I

I Q!~I~C~lqr I~R~I I=I~ & Z .1•. 1

/

,nC<lmp,e,. nf Hon·R.,pon'•• NDtInvolvl"":t: 0tl1J~7 ~1' E~ ............tID

~J ~~~::;;.:.a= =;;~~"=:' .;~~~. !r;

It:coy. Dorothy McCoy. Dennis I!! .J!!

$6 Walsh. Howllfd J \Naish: fAaiy aiJd.t. .. . ...,. 51 Drown. Sa'dra - - -. •...-

58 COfdava. Wayne

59 lIamillan. Slephen

60 Nel~OII. Ernes.

61 powcn. Donald

62 PoweR. R"a

_._ .... 1" .- .••

......... 1 1•. ' .•• '

To/allisled above •

Names hsled alx.v", f110felhan once:

Hue•. Susan - lirms 31 and 50

Slad. Elta· hn.s 44 ·46

TO'RII.,". Chrisline lines 5 and 39

Walkins. Barbara L ·lines 29·30

Nunlbe. Queshonnaires maned

82

-t

·2

·1

·1

51 ,

RElilStn A' MENT3 1~3

'12J99

f,ll ~5! riJ "W'n ill ~s; ;~1! [Ji H; ,l~~: [B lR ;(~ 2
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

Patrick J. Buchanan and

Buchanan For President, Inc.

LRA 1* Sl2

•

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, N.W.

9th Floor Meeting Room

Washington, D.C. 20463

(202) 694-1650

Wednesday,

March 1. JOOO

The parties met, pursuant to notice at lO:08"a.m.

BEFORE: DARRYL"" R. WOLD,

ChairmaD'

APPEARANCES :

For the Commission:

Chairman Darryl R. wold

Commissioner David M. Mason

Commissioner Scott E. Thomas

Commissioner Karl J. Sandstrom

Jamea.A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

For the Office of General Counsel:

Lawrence ft. Noble, General Counsel

Rhonda J". Voedingh, Assistant General Counsel

Delania DeWitt Painter, Attorney

For th. Audit Diyision of the Federal El;ction

COmmi••ioDi

Robert J. Costa, Assistant Staff Director

Josepn F. Stoltz, Deputy Assistant Staff Director

Wanda J. Thomas, Audit Manager

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
summanly deemed Improper, when it should illU have been counted since it was unresponsIve.'"

John W. Kremer responded that he did not make the reanributions in question. yet his

reattributions were counted as errors.

27 Sheila M. Thomsen's reattribution to her husband dra",,, - . on their joint account, was counted as an error.

28 But by the FEC's definition, a reattribution to a

person holding ajoint account with a contributor is proper. The many erroneous determinations

revealed by the survey responses indicate that tills entire Repayment Determination is rife with

mistakes and cannot stand.

The FEC's refbsal to provide the Committee with more complete information

regarding its sampling method and the "survey" process preventsthe Committee from effectively

challenging the Repayment Determination. Moreover, a determination that employs methOds of

questionable validity and reliability, is characterized by ~e lUlnmely producticni ofrelevant

information. the outright refusal to produce such material. and is rife with errors. violatesthe

most fundamental principles ofdue process and fairness and cannot beaffirmed by the

Commission.

26S= Repayment Determination at 3, noS ("SlIJIll'le iteml forwbich th IS no

response. or for which there was an incomplete response to the survey were IlQl treated as

errors.") (emphasis added).

27 Survey Response ofJohn W. Kremer, LRA #466 at 2 (Exhibit E).

28 Survey Response ofSheila M. Thomsen, LRA #466 (Exhibit F).

- 9-

I'

...
Intel'Y1CWS conducted wah these contnbutors:"; As d result. the Committee is effectively

preciuded from challenging the detemunation of error for these contributors.

The survey response of Anna Newtop provides an example of why additional

infonnation should be made available to the Committee. Ms. Newton responded that she did not

understand the meaning of "reattribution" in the survey.lJ With no information aside from this.

the Committee can o~ly assume that Ms. Newton's lack of understanding persisted, rendering

her unable to provide informed responses to the FEC. It is clearly unfair to base an "error"

determination on an uninformed response. yet the FEC did so. Without additional information,

the Committee cannot devclop a complete undemanding ofwhether the conlributors

comprehended the meaning ofureauribution," and whether a contributor's lack ofknowlcClge

prompted survey responSes'that lead to an "crror"d~onby theFEe. wh~ in actuality.

:

the reattribution was proper.

Othersurvey responses reveal that the Commission's aror determinations arc

questionable or simply wrong. For example. Catherine Radecki indicates that herrealtributed

conlributions were drawn on an escrow or trust accollDt34 Yet. based on no'cth= information

that the ColJUDincc is awue o~ her attributions were deemed improper. This determination is

incorrect ifRadecki's account is held,in trust for any. ofthe reauributees;. butwe have no

information about this pouibility. For one ofJames A. Pettit.Jr:sreattributions. he failed to'

indicate whetherthe reattributee bad accesI to his bank account.25 Thisreanribution was.

22 s.= October 8, 1999 Letter from Joel Roessner to John DuftY all.

2J Survey Response ofAnna Newton. LRA #466 at2 (Exhibit B).

24 Survey Response ofCatherine Radecki. LRA #466 at 1 (Exhibit C)..

25 Survey Response ofJames A. Pettit, Jr., LRA #466 at2 (Exhibit D).

- 8-

'I
The FEC sImply concluded that lack of equitable ownership of a 113nk account

precluded a proper reattribution, failing to consider the possibility of equitable ownership of the

funds within the bank account· The Committee's r~view ofsurvey responses reveals that 10 of

the 28 "improper" reattributors, more than one-thjni reported receiving money from

reattributees, apparently contemporaneously with the reattribution-decision. to justify the

rl;attribution.zo

Stated differently, at least one-third of"improper" attributees were apparently the

equitable owners ofthe reattributed contribution. The Audit Staffstatesthat there is

"insufficient evidence to verify" whether the reattributees in fact gave money to the

contributors.1

\ other. ofcourse. than the statements ofthe respondents. which the Audit Division

is for this limited puzpose piepared to ignore or deem ~ijable: Alloftheirother statcm~

i&.. those that support the Audit Division's positicm. receive full credit. While the statements of

the contributon may be the only evidence that reauributes gave mouey to diecontributors to '.~

justify reattributions. there is. OD the otherhand. .lKl evidence that theydid net. In evideuce as in

life, something always prevails over nothing.

The "survey" proc:esa used by the FEC to '"verifYerrorsraises numerotw

questions as to validity, reliability, due process and fairness as well TheCommittee has been

given only the survey response forms forthe contributors whose rattributions were deemed

"improper." TheFEe to provide any ti.uthct infonnation n;gaading the additional

20 The survey ofcontributors specifically aslced ifthe contributorhad received any money

from the reattributee to make the contribution or reattribUtiOD in question. Ifequitable ownership

ofthe contribution money is irrelevant, however, the Committee is very curious about why the

FEe asked this question ofcontributors in the first place.

2\ Repayment Determination at 9.

A'1'TACiIWI!_' -

Pap R ri1J....J.," ..

-7-
the Commictee lacks sufficIent mformation to thoroughly evaluate whether such 2 method is

valid and reliable.

Moreover, the sampling error calcul~ted by the FEe casts doubt on the reliability

of its method. The "error rate" for reattributed contributions was determined to be 9.57%. with a

sampling error of± 3.69%. This sampling error amounts to nearly 33% ofthe error rate. Thus,

even accepting the Audit Division's approach. it is impossible to accept. consistent with the

requirements of due process. the application ofthe 9.57% error rate to "total population" to

determine the amount ofrepayment due. At best. the Audit Division can use no more t..'laD a ,

5.88% error figure (9.57% - 3.69%), since this is the largest figure that the Audit Division's

methods can truly establish.

In addition. the Audit Division has defined ~'~rs" u rcatttibutiona by & ..

contributorto a person who "did not have the right to withdraw fimds tiom the contributor'So

bank accounts," and refused to consider the n:=sponsaofcontributorsiDdieating that the

reattributee gave the contributor the money to make the doDldicm.IC This definition flatly

contradicts regulations providing that contributions are matchable ifrcattributed to persons who

owned the contributed fuDds who had the requisite donative intent, aDd bigblightsthe unfairness

ofthe Commission's determiDatioD.t9

Nonetheless. theCommitteedoesDOt c:oacede thaisucb material is"protec:ted ftom disc:losure."

and renews its request for.my documems-including memonmda, oral con~ questionnaires.

etc., that fOl1D the buiaoftheAuditstaff's faetuaJ conclusionsin the Repayment Determination:..

As explained abov-, the lack ofsucb information severely limitsthe Committee's ability to

meaningfWly rebut theRepayment Detennination.

18 S= Memorandum from RobertJ. Costa. Assistant StaffDirector; Audit Division, FEC,

to Lawrence M. Noble, General Counsel, FEC (July 1~ 1999) atl.

19 S= Repayment Determination at 7 (citations omitted)..

":"'l"~~"~''';'':'~_ _ _ E .. .. _ l'E.S5 1- "1. I Q

-6-
preliminary review of Repayment Determination documents raises questions regarding the

validity and reliability ofthe sampling method. IS

As an initial maner. the Repayment .Detennination referred to the method as the-

"dollar unit sampling" method. 16 The Committee has received no documentation. such as a

handbook or manual. explaining precisely the "dollar unit sampling" method. I

' Consequently.

overpayment." ~,49 F. Supp. 2a at 1123 (quoting Illinois Physicians Unjon y. MjIler. 675

F.2d 151. 156 (71~ Cir. 1982). The Committee has been effectively deprived ofsuch an

oppartunity. The Committee made repeated requests for information and materials related to the

Audit Staff's use ofstatistical sampling in the Repayment Determination. These requests were

refused. . -

Then. on Friday, October 8. \999, counsel for the Committee unexpectedly received a.

telephone call from the Commission indicating that some documents would be provided; the

documents arrived in our office at nearly 4.p.m. The documents were provided by the FEC to

counsel late in the afternoon on tbeeveofthe ~olumbwiDay holidayweek.mu: btWDC"da

before the Committee's response to the RePayment Determinationwu due. The Committee has

not been afforded a sufficient opportunity to closely review these documents. and moreov.er. has

been deprived ofa reasonable opportunity to review the documents with an expert in statistical

sampling. Consequently, the Committee's ability to effectively respond remains severely

limited. For this reason, the Committee requests the opportunity to supplement itsresponse to

the Repayment Determination ifnecessary, afterit has conducted a more.thqrough review ofthe

documents.

I S The methodology employed by the FEC to examine reattributcd contributions

consisted of a statistical sampling and contributorinvestigation/survey processthat wu used to

arrive at an "error rate" of9.S,.1o (:I: 3.69%) for reattributed contributions. The Commission then

extrapolated the "errorrate" to project a 562.116 "dollar value ofthe emm" for the entire

population ofcontributions.

16S= Repayment Detamination at 7; SlalaQ October22. 1997 Memorandum from

Robert Costa to Lawrence Noble 112 (explaining that "DUS" WQ used to select the 325 sample"

items). No other materiali provided to the Committee make mention of"DUS...

17 Indeed, the FECs production consisted oftwo memorauda aDd 28 survey respoIIS8

"related to the sample items which were considered (by the FEe] to be improperly reattributed...

s= Letter from Joel 1. Roessner. Attorney. FEC to Jolm 1. DuilY. Counsel for Bucbanan for

President. Inc. (dated Oct. 8. 1999) at 1 (Exhibit A). TheFEe continuel to refuse to produce any

additional materials related to its communications with contributors on the basis that such

communications are "protected from disclosure." Id. TheFEecites no authority for its asserted

protection from disclosure, making it difficult for the Committee to contest the assertion.

(Continued...)

·5-
the Slace Tax Commission become arbItrary and capricious and lack a rational basis."'O The

outcome was the same in Names in the News v New York Scate Tax Cqmmlssioner.'1 The

sampling method employed in Chanair, Mohawk, ~d Names in the News, calculating the

amount oftax due in a "test period" and extrapolating the test period amount to arrive at an

amount due over a period of years, is a.'1 exact analogue to the method used by the FEC. As the

court noted in Allen y. Coromn'r ofSocia! Smices, for example, aclcnowledging the holdings in

the tax cases. "[we] perceive(d] no reason to depan from sucb logic in the [Medicaid] case ...

The mere fact that (the] records are voluminous and that a review thcreofwould be time- ,

consuming for the Department doe:s DOt. in our view, justify !he use ofthe sampling method...12

Consequently, the Committee does not agree that sampling. as oppoacd to a more complete·

. - review, was warranted in its case..

Moreover, in the c:ases upholding statistical sampling. the courts have made clear

that sampling comports with due process only ifthe methoda used are"valid and reliable,."u and

the subject ofthe audit has had a full opportuDity to review the metboda used and the records and

information on which the determination has been based. Unfortunately, the Committee has

received so little infonnation about the method employed by the FEe that the Committee cannot

definitively address either the validity or reliability ofthe method.14 Yet, even the Committee's

10 429 N.Y.S.2d. 759. 760 (N.Y.Apv. Div. 1980}•

. II 429 N.V.S. 2d 755 (N.Y.App. Div. 1980).

IZ 500 N.Y.S. 2d 204. 206 (N.Y.App. Div. 1986)•

.13 Webb y, Shalal.. 49 F. Supp. 2a 1] ]4, ]]24 (N.D. Ark. ]999) (citing SllIDMen L

California. II F.3d 1467, 1472 (~ Cir. 1993) and MjchjiID Dcp't ofEduG.• 87S F.2d al1206).

14 Couns have stated that ..the use ofstatistical sampling and extrapolation" is not fair or

proper where the aggrieved party is not given an "opportunity to rebut" the "determination of

(Continued...)

-4-
thousands of claims submim:d ~ch month by each slalc,',5 (emphasis added), Similarlv, in

\1ichj~an DeD't ofEduc, v t: S D'1"t of Educ,,6 the U,S. Department of Education was faced

with examining a universe of66,368 claims, an ord~ ofmagnitude approximately 10 times the

7,220' contributions involved here,

mdeed, in the more analogous context oftaXation c~es, courts have repeatedly

disapproved the use ofstatistical sampling, rejecting arguments that complete audits ofbusiness

records spanning several years were burdensome, impractical or inconvenient. In Cbaaajr. I~,

v State Tax Comm'n. the court appea;ed to disapprove sampling as a matteroffaimess, staring

that an "honest. conscientious taxpayer who maintains comprehensive rec:ord5 as required bas a

right to expect that those records will be used in any audit t~-determine his ultimate ta

liability:" The court declaredthat sampling would be w~teci where a taxpayer's

inadequate recardkcepins made it impossible to conduct a complete audil9 SimiJarly, in

Mohawk Airlines y Tully. the court explained that "where. &I bere, rec:ord5 are readily available

from which the exact amount ofta due can be determined, the estimate procedures adopted by

, ld. at 409-10.

6 Micbisan D!;p't ofEdw;, y U 5, J)t::p't QfEduc;" 87S F.2d 1196,1999 (6dt Cir. 1989).

7 Repayment Determinaticm at 2. The Commission claimsthat the auditeci population

consisted of"7220 ml!CbcdCOIIIributions from all contributors who were associated with any

reattributioD submitted foc.matetring." This is inconsistent with the figure of7,278 identified as

the auditeci popu.laQon in an 0ct0tIer 22, 1997 memorandum from RobertJ. Costa to Lawmtc:e

M. Nobl~ MemoAildum from Robert J. Costa to Lawrence M. Noble (Oct. 22, 1997) at 2. M a

result ofthis inconsistency, the Committee cannot be sure ofexactly how the universe ofaudited

contributions was defined and why it changed between 1997 and 1999.

8 411 N.Y,S. 2d41, 43 (N.Y. App. Div 1978).

9ld. at 43.

·3- ....

+
f1J: .

received if the Audit DIvision ca.., show that particular discrete and identifiable contributions

were improperly reattributed.

The Audit Division has not. howeve~. made any such demonstration. Rather, It

has relied upon an investigation of only a small sample (324) ofthe universe ofreattributed

contributions (7.220). which amounts to approx.imately 4%. Its "investIgation" ofthis sample

led it to conclude that 31 ofthe sample items (9.57%) should not have been matched.3 It then

"calculated" a repayment amount of$62.116 for non-matchable contrij:lutions based on the

projected error rate applied to the total population. (The Committee has not been able to locate

in the limited material supplied to it an explanation ofthe calculation ofthe repayment amoUDt.)

The Audit Division's decision to use a "sampling" technique to justify oneroU&

repayment determinationS fails-to meet the requirements ofdueProcess. The CQ\I1U have madeclear that sampling comports with due process only in a smail number ofcases in which it is the

only feasible method ofaudit and where a full audit would be a practical impossibility.4 This is a

stringent test, and nowhere in the Notice ofRepaymcnt Determination does the Audit Division

attempt to demonstrate that it meets it.

The cases cited by the Audit Division have upheld the use ofstatistical sampling

in situations in which the UDivcnc ofcIaim&to be audit=d were farin excess ofthe universe

presented here. In Gcoi:Iia y. Califano, for example. the audited population consisted of"maux

J The Audit DivisiOn concedesthat 10 ofthe 31 contributions on which its errorrate ia

based may have been realtributed"io persons who did indeed provide ftmds to the contributor,

thus making them theowners- in law and equity - ofthe amounts attributed to them.

Nevertheless. in an extraordinary example ofadministrative anoganc:e. theAudit Division has

included these items as errors because it bad not done sufficient inyeJtjlDtion to determine ifthe

persons who Ilye the money to the contrjbytoJl had I dgnltatjve intent. although the Audit

Division had no apparent reason to conclude that they lacked such an intent

4 GeotKil y Califano, 446 F. Supp. 404, 409 (N.D. Ga. 1977).

- 2-

.L'l'l'A.-"IlllDo"1' f _

::age 3 ct-10-... ..

j
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )

)

Patrick J. Buchanan and )

Buchanan for President, Inc. )

)

RESPONSE TO

NOTICE OF REPAYMENT DETERMINATION

Buchanan for President, Inc. ("the Committee'') has received from the Audit

Division oflhe Federal Election Cotnmission a second Notice ofRepayment D=termination and

pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2), it submits this letter in response-I

The Committee also requests an oral hearing on this matter as permitted by 11

C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(ii).

The Audit Division recommends that the Committee repay $62.116 oftbe"

matching funds paid to the Committee. The Audit Division alleges that these matching funds

were paid in comection with contributions that were "improperly reattributed" to a pany other

than the original contributor.2 The Committee does not dispute that it must repay matching funds

I The Committee'srespoIUIC WU originally due on September27, 1999: TheCommittee

requested and received an extension until October 12. 1999.

2 The remaining 51,634 repayment is sought for matching funds paid in connection with

contributionsthItwere subsequently refunded to two specific contributors. The Committee does

not understaDd the basis ortbis ca1culation orthe rationale Cor requiriDg the repaymeDt ofonly a

ponion ofthe matc:bing fimds apparently received in c:cnmectioD widl tbae contributioaa.. The

Audit Division's calculation appears to be based. on itsrecopitioa that it bas previously redtu:ed

the amounts ofmatching funds received by the Committee for"pmjected etTOrS' baled on It

statistical analysis ofme Committee's submissions. TheCommitteecould UDderstaDd ifthe

Audit Division determined that no repayment was requiRd bee'''. tile presena. "errors" feD

within the number ofsubmission"errors" projected for the originalsubmission:. Itsees no

rationale for reducing the amount ofthe repayment by a figure that represents the projected error

rate that was applied to the initial submissions.

..&.1'7'J.CHliEl.1'--'F _ ?ae- ;:) of -.-JeLl-
ISTEPTOE 0: ]G. lNSON LLP I

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

L ..- 1-,-1 13-;-

1:138 CoII~ A_._

W_illfllln. DC 201l3li-l7!ll

T.......... ZG:!.C29.3QIlO

Flc.i",i1. 2'02.m.J9Q2

www..-t.,nae.ealA

Fo~

;~~~.-

I ••

John J. Duff,

202.429.802D

jduttylhtl~l ••.c.m

October 12, 1999

Via HAND PELIVERY

The Honorable Scott Thomas

Chairman

Feder.il Election Commission

999 E Street. N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20463

Re: Buchaaaa Cor Presfdeat. lae. : Kapoa.. to Nodce of Rep.ym~D*

DetermiDaUoa aad Request Cor Oral Hearial

Dear Chainnan Thoma:

On behalfofBuchanan for President.lnc. (the "Committee;, we submit hemvith its

response to the Audit Division's Notice ofRepayment Determination.

The Committee requests an oral hearing as pennitted by 11 c.F.Il § 9038.2(c)(2)(ij).

\i~.. \

I

I

! I

\.J

WASHINGTON PHOENIX LOSAN6ELES
John J. Duffy. Esquire

Buchanan for President. tnc. - Kcpayrnent ~termination (LRA .5(2)

Page 2

If you have any questions. please feel free to contact the attorney assigned to this maner.

DeJanie DeWitt Painter. at (202) 694-1650.

Sincerely.

P/#---r

Joel J. Roessner

Attorney

r,~

n

0

=i

, ,

~:

"'"

Lf~

f~

n

=

r-oc-=,

u ,..

::;

ru

ru

."
FEDERAL ElECT!O,'~ COM\lISSI0"-

OCcober 8, 1999

•

HAND DELIVERY

John 1. Duffy. Esquire

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington.. D.C. 20036

Re: Buchanan for President-Inc.• Repayment D~tion (LRA #S12)

Dear Mr. Duffy:

This is in response to your letter dated August 24, 1999,received by facsimile

transmission aD August 25. 1999. You requested documentsrelated to the Commission's

July 15, 1999 deteJ:miDaQon that your clients, Patrick J. '&cbaDaD aJ2d Buchanan ror Presid~

Inc. (collectively. "the Committee") musnepay S63.750' to the United States Treasury•

Se6 26 U.S.C. § 9038(b)(U. II C.F.R. § 9038.2(b)(I)(iii). Spccific:aIly. you requested: 1.) a

memoralldum dated October 22. 1998 ftom"Lawrence Noble toRobertCosta referenced in

footnote 2" ofAttachment E to the Notice ofRepayment DetamiDaticm; 2) & memonmdum datec!

April I. 1999 from the Office ofGeneral Co\lllSCl to RobertJ. Costa and 3) "any documents

including memoranda, om contacts, questionnaires, etc. that fonn the basis ofthe Audit Stairs

factual conclusionsthat certain ofthe 48 sample items appear to be 'imprOperly reattributed.·..

In respor.se to yourrequesl, this Office isforwarding the following documents:

Foomote 2 ofAttachment E to the Notice ofRepayment Determination refers to a

:nemorandum dated October 22, 1997 (not 1998) fiom Robert J. Costa to Lawrence M. Nobl~.

rather than from Mr. Noble to Mr. Costa. Since this appears to be the document you are

requesting, a copy ofit is: enclosed. Also enclosed is a memorandum from Kim-Bright Colemm

to Robert J. Costa dated Aprill. 1999. This Office has also enclosed copies ofthe surveys

completed by contributorsrelated to the sample items which were considered to be improperly

reaaributed.

This Office is not providing to you copies ofreports prepared by our investigators. which

are protected from disclosure. Likewise.. communications between the Audit staffand this

Office, to the extent that such communications might be within scope ofyour inquiry, are not

provided as they are also confidential and protected from disclosure. Copies ofthe contribution

checks or reattribution statements, which should be in the Committee's records, are not included.
I

STEPTOE L'\. rOt LL"JSON LL)' :

John J. Ouft~

10HZ9.8020

Idultyl!l".plo•.=o",

August 1-t IQQQ

Ms. Delanie DeWitt Painter

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street. N.W.

\\/ashington. D.C. 20463

IJ:III e-n.",__."'"

_- "l....--.CCll!l3.ll'!II

T.,.,•••• 2IlZ.l2SJIlllII

Fo_illlItC2lJlliZ

WW'W.cc;M' ee.

,

• Dear Ms. Painter:

In cOMcction with the Commission's recently approved Notice ofRepayment

Determination for Buchanan for President. Inc. (26 U.S.C. §9039(b)b).1 would appreciate it if

you could. send. me a copy pC~eruin material referenced inA~E ofAgenda Document .

99.78 and., in pirticular. the memorandum of411199 fiom the Counsel's offi"to RobertJ. Costa.

Assistant Director. as well asthc 10122'98 m,~o fiom Lawmtcc Noble ro Roberr Costa

referenced in footnote 2 to that document. I would also like to receive. copy ofmy documents.

inc:ludingmemoranda. oral contaCtS. questiQmWres. etC. that form the basis ofthe Audit Staff's

factual conclusions that cenain ofthe 48 sample items appear to'be "impropeiiy reaa:ribured.- I

believe this information is necessary for me to make m informed evaluation ofand responRto

this additional Notice ofRepayment Determination. Your prompt response to this request would

be appreciated.

If you have any questions COIlCcminI this matter:. please doD't hesitate to give me

acail.

Ooe. ~!l5 v 01 08f2~ 5 35 PM

WASHINGTON PHOENIX ~OSANGEW MOSCOW
-- APPEAP~CE (cont'd.l:

For the Buchanan For President. Inc

John J. Duffy, Esqui+e

Rhonda M. Rivens, Esquire

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Co~~ecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036~1795

(202) 429-8020

Angela B. Buchanan

Buchanan For President, Inc.

6862 Elm Street, Suite 210

McLean. Virginia 22101

(703) 848-1996

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

2
3

(10:08 a.m.l

WOLD: Gooq.morning. This special open -

'ederal Election Commission will please come

, the presence of the quorum - - all-.

ling present except for Vice Chairman

ommissioner Elliott. We'll announce their

is meeti~g.

II! Commissioners, however, will have the

;ranscript of this meeting, .a well as those

-esent.

- agenda today is an oral hearing requested

President, Inc., the authorized Committee'

:andidacy of Pat Buchanan for nomination for

! 1996 election cycle.

,mmittee has· requested this opportunity to

,is8ion in open session concerning the

nination contained in the Notice of Repayment

'Proved by the Commission on July 15, 1999.

~p.yment determination arose from the

~iry under its statutory authority in 26

and in § 9039.3 of the Commission's

~mmission conducted the inquiry to determine

~eritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1 whether the reattribution of certain contributions that had

2 been made to the Committee were proper, and if not, whether

3 the Committee had received any-matching funds for non4 matchable contributions.

5 Following the inquiry, the Commission determined

6 that the Committee had received matching f~ds in excess of

7 the candidate's entitlement, and that the Committee must,

8 therefore, repay $63,750 to the United States Treasury.

9 The repayment determination is made up of two

10 distinct portions: $1,634 for matched contributions that

11 were later refunded, and $62,116 for matching funds related

12 to improPer reactributions,' The repayment amount of $62,116

13 for improper reattributions was based on the examination of

14 a sample of contributions and a projection based on that

15 sample.

16 The repayme~t determination is an additional

17 repayment determination baaed on facts that were not used as

18 the basis of the Commission's previous and separate

19 determination that arose out of the report on the audit

20 conducted by the- commission under the authority of 26 U.S.C.

21 59038.

22 The sole purpose of this meeting is to give the

23 Committee an opportunity to address the Commission, and to

24 demonstrate that no repayment or a lesser repayment is

25 required.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
5

1 This is noe an adversarial or trial-like hearing.

2 The Committee will have 30 minutes to present its arguments.

3 At the conclusion of the Comm~tee's presentation, each

4 Commissioner will have an opportunity to ask questions.

5 I will then ask the General Counsel and the Audit

6 Division if they have any questions. Afte~ this hearing,

7 the Committee will have five days in which to submit

8

9

additional materials for the Commission's consideration.

The Commission will then make a repayment

10 determination following an administrative review, and issue

11 a statement of rea.ons in support of that dete%1lLi.nation.

12

14

~he Committee is.represe~~ed this morning by

Counsel John J. Duffy, azid his colleague, Rhonda M. Riven.,

and by Angela Bay Buchanan. Welcome.

15 I remind you that the presentation should not

16 exceed 30 minutes, and must be' lim.ted to those matters

17 raised in the Committee'. written response to the

18 Commission'. repayment determination.

19

20

Mr. Duffy, please begin.

MR. Dt1I'PY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to

21 first start off by thanking the Commission for its kind

22 accommodation of our expert's schedule by postponing this

23 meeting, which was preViously scheduled for an earlier time,

24 and I greatly appreciate that.

25 I also want to thank the Office of General

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

ot~C
1

.,

..

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

hJi 11

12

1:3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

Counsel. It's made a significant effort in the past several

weeks to accommodate many of our requests for additional

documents, which developed as a result of our expert's

analysis.

They have not given us all the documents we have

asked for, but they have been prompt in giving us those

documents that they did not object to giving us, and so I

appreciate that very much.

I want to basically address my remarks today to

the Commission's survey and the results of that survey, and

I want to start off by questioning. the use of a survey in

this situation at all.

In our written presentation, we made an argument

that the constitutional standards of due. process' do not

permit surveys except in extreme cases where the

extraordinar}' number of matters that need to be-examined are

so great that it would be completely impossible to do that.

That iSD't the case, here. Although there are

7,220 contributions -- matched contributiena in the universe

that. is identified t.o the FEC, in fact, theFEC has been

able in it. sample t.o quickly eliminate 85 percent. of those.

So, basically the universe that they have to surveyor -- is

somewhere around 1,000 items.

So, the question here is, whether or not -- where

you have 1,000 items, and what you are really doing is

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
7

1 sending Que a queseionnaire co various people, and geeeing

2 ie back as Co the nature of their understanding of the

3 reattribution process, and whe~her or not certain factual

4 matters are correct or incorrect. That isn't what I would

5 describe as a number that is so burdensome and onerous as to

6 justify sampling.

7 As a general rule in my 2S year. of working with

8

9

administrative agencies, I hesitate to make constitutional

arguments to the agency itself, but I think that from that

10 constitutional concept of due process comes a policy issue

11 that is, I think, very appropriate for the Commi••ion to

12 examine.

13 That ia the question of when is the Commi••ion

14 going to use sampling, and when is the Commission going to

15 use what we might describe .. the ordinary method of

16 actually auditing all of the matiere that it cl~ima are

17 inaccurate?

18 I think that's an important i.sue. and its a

19 particularly important i.sue for committees like ours, which

20 are in a deficit position.

21 There are I think issues which are raised in the

22 audit process. which require expertise. However. most

23 committee. have the expertise necessary to defend themselves

24 in an audit process, but few committees have available to

25 them, without outside consultants, expertise to defend

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202l 628~48e8
8

l themselves in a survey.

2 A survey basically is a method of producing

3 evidence, which is not -- does.-- depends upon a significant

4 amount of expertise in the process of surveying. I think

5 that the Commission ought to give consideration to when its

6 appropriate to do these surveys, and when its not

7 appropriate to do these surveys, and to give some guidance

8

9

10

11

12

on that.

I think tha~, in this situation, the Commission

has decided or·the staff has decided on an ad hoc basis,

that this is an appropriate survey -- appropriate situation

in which a sUrVey should be used, or sampling should be

13 used.

14 I don't agree with that, here, and I. don't I·

15 urge the Commission to give serious consideration to

16 instead of approaching these things on an ad hoc basis, to

17 approach it in a rulemaking basis -- to say to people, who

18 are subject to the Commission's authority, when is it

19 appropriate for us to use these techniques?

20 When is it not appropriate for ua to use these

21 t~cr..nique., and to make some determination aa to when the

22 audit staff shoul~ or should not use sampling techniques in

23 an effort to seek repayment of money?

24 Now, the Commission has in its regulations a

25 provision noting that when matching funds are being

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888

of Be
1

2

3

4

5

6

l~~~ 7

1:=f 8

9

'M- ?;H

ru 10

kd

11

Cd! 12

13

~1d~ 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

distributed in a first instance. it will use sampling as a

method of determining how much of the matching fund request

will be granted, but it has n~ similar regulations with

respect to audits, and I would suggest that in these

situations further guidance is needed.

Again, I would suggest thae as a policy matter in

a situation as we have here, where there is a limited number

~f -- truly limieed number of items that were of concern or

poeential concern, it ~ould have been subject to audit and

should have been subject to audit.

Now, pa••ing on to the next point, it. our view

and ~he vie",- of .our expert. that: the FEc'. method here is

fatally flawed, and that this sample doe. not -- ie not

reliable, and does not provide a basi. for mak~ng the

conclusion that the audit .taff reache••

TQ be valid,. a sample must be representative of

the entire population that is being sampled. So, we have

the entire population of matched contribution. and the

sample is drawn frolll that.

Random, the sample -- the method of doing this is

to create a randolll sampl&, and the reason ia that. randomness

is desirable, beccuse it produces a sample that is.

representative. That is, its a sample that represents the

totality of the universe that is being examined.

Now, while a sample of 324 items is large enough

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4688
MR. DUFFY: Ms. Buchanan wanted to know whether or

I see that your &Bsociate is going to show us some

you?

sample, it's not a random sample, and consequently, it is

will they be

MR. DUFFY: Yes..

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Are those charta

To the contrary, it is clear that if you test the

(Laughter. )

CHAIRMAN WOLD: She would make a good substitute.

10

according to our expert to be expected to be representative

of the population, this sample of 324 items is not

representative of the population.

MR. DUFFY: Yea -- anticipated me,. Exactly.

G:HAIRMAN WOLD: Thank you.

not a representative sample. One way of doing thi~ is to

examine the average contribution amount of the universe and

the sample.

CHAIRMAN WOW: Mr. Duffy, let me interrupt you.

information on the charts.

MR. DUFFY: Actually, we have copiee of these

charts for you -- for.each of you~ and you very cleverly

CHAIRMAN WOLD: That would be - - I anticipated

available to us for the record?

not she should flip the charts. She has this -- always had

this desire to be like Vanna White.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

=~~ 8

.;r;:i"" .J

" 9

~1 10 r~~,

b.-;;~ 11

12 ~:Ji

13 ~'" "

~dl

r~, I'" 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Heritage Reporting corporation

(2021 628-4888
11

stand.

of the univer.e .a a whole.

Because this method is demonstratively or the

that the Commission and information on the population the

What our expert did was, he took the population

MR. DUFFY: If you look ae the first chart here,

there's a cover page, "Summary Charts," and then there'S the

fi:t'se chart.

Commission provided us with, and he calculated the average

contribution amount for the population as a whole, and that

was $90, but when you calculate the average contribution

amount for the sample; you come up with $155.

Now, that by it••lf, ia an indication of bias in

the sample. If this sample was random and, therefore,

represent.ative, you would expect that the average in the

sample would be equal toer very close to $90, but it isn't.

It's significantly different.

our expert haa calculated that there'S only one in

10,000 chance that this sample ia random or representative.

It is established, I think, in II variety of cases -- and I

won't go through them individually here today, but it's in

our written presentation -- that in order for a sample to be

relied on as evidence, it must be random or representative

sample is invalid and unreliable, the entire analysis must

be thrown out, and in our view the repayment demand cannot

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

.:0." 10 Hd;

~j

.. 11

~':'"7':. 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
12

items.

Chairman.

conversations which were not made, as far as we can

MR. DtlFFY: Yes. There's a but, here, Mr.

-- we clear although this, I think, should be obvious co all

We are simply suggesting that-whatever method they

used, has produced an obviously unrepresentative sample, and

consequentiy this sample cannot be used as a basis for a

~epayment determination.

Now, our expert told me that this was all I needed

to say, and I then needed to pack up my material and leave.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Thank you for your presentation".

(Laughter. )

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

MR. DUFFY: "I indicated that I thought that I had

We do not suggest here -- and! want to make this

are not contending that the a~dit staff cherrypicked these

determine, pursuant to any list of written questions.

Nor were any detailed notes taken of the

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

30 minutes, and I love to hear myself talk, and I thought I

would take a few more minutes to explain some other issues

that we think are important, here.

One of them is, we believe that the survey proce~s

was also unfair and unreliable beeause it combined a written

survey instrument with follow-up phone calls and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 ~.Ji , !:

;~

' " 8

:t

• 9

~tL

nJ 10

E3 11

f'"~ 12

13

rl,j 14

lS

16

17

16

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

T1. 8 ~~

=~

31 9

~f~ 10 ru

.0 11

i~: 12 c=

U

I'll 14

15 -

16

17

18

B

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

responses. At least, none of that was in material that was

produced for us. This is very important because it's wellrecognized that in order to eqsure that no bias creeps into

a sample, if you have a follow-up phone call, that phone

call must be made very carefully pursuant to written

questions.

I'm reading now from the Guideline. here -- in

Manual §1282.S2. !t says that, "Clarity is essential.

Ambiguous questions reault in ambiguoua results and useless

data. The IRS also insists that whenever there is· -- and

this has been supported in a number of courts -- "whenever

there are. surveys, and there are or~l follow-ups, those

follow-ups must be made pUrsuant to sheets of written

questions, anel careful notes must be taken as to what the--

actual anewers.are."

This i8 another reason, I thinle, for-policy

determination by the COIIIIIIission on the sample purpose. The

Commission must recognize that there are certain situationa

where sampling is more appropriate than they are in other

situations.

This, in my view, is one of the situations where

sampling is inappropriate, because in order to determine the

facts the audit staff was required, in ita own mind, to have

contact with individuals and to obtain information from

them.

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
took.

Now, there are other anomalies in the Commission's

errors could have crept into this approach.

so obviously

form the

That might be appropriate in a Commission

investigation. and in fact. these people are always referred

to in the audit staff documents as inveetigators. We're not

the Commission obviously has an obligation to

investigate, but an investigation is different than creating

an evidentiary sample.

A sample must be done pursuant to strict

guidelines in order to avoid bias. Those guidelines were

simply not followed here in the approaches the audit staff

Let me -- let me now go beyond my expert's

analysis. I'm not going to detail ~hem, here. They are in

our written presentation, 'but those anomalies, I think, also

give uS concern because they -- they suggest that additional

basis of an appropriate repayment determination.

that the repayment determination must be reduced.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

recommendation. His recommendation is that the way the

sample was conducted is flawed -- so flawed

flawed that there'~ no way that it could be

I am nov going to venture into the area where I

assume that, in fact, the sample is appropriate and give you

reasons why even if the sample is appropriate -- shall I

repeat we don't think it is -- we still have an argument

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

b~ II

~~ 12 !"1:,.

=

k.¥, 13

:-,

i \"-..;; 14

15

16

17

16

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
1

2

3

4

5

6

tQ! 7

~~;~ 8

9 ii·

~1 10

r~

11

f\" 12

.. 13

ft~ 14

15

16

17

1B

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

Can we just draw co che Counter-Proposal area?

Yeah. Let's do Nu~ber 3, first.

If you'll turn to the chart we have given you __

Counter-Proposal #3. Counter-Proposal #1 is just the bold

assertion I've made several times, which is because of

sample bias we have -- no repayment obligation can be based

on this evidence.

No. 3 is a slightly different proposal. It ,

assumes both the representativeness of the sample and the /

appropriateness of the audit staff's determination of the

error rate. That is, the number of -- the number of

inappropriate reattributio~.

Even if we don' t '- - and I'm going to get to this

in a minute - - we do not agree that the.· error rate i •.

correctly calculated.

We have several reasons for reaching .that

conclusion, but even if the error rate were correctly

calculated so that even if the sample Will. not flawed, which

it is, and even if the error rate waa correctly calculated,

which .s I will say in a minute, it'. not, still the FEC's

decision to use 9.5 with ill margin of error .a 3.69t --

that's it. calculation -- to use the 9.57t figure seems to

me to be wrong -- completely wrong.

I have argued in my written presentation that the

FEC should, as a matter of policy, used the lower bound of

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

....."'..",'
- its error estimate, which is 5.88, which we calculate by

2 subtracting 3.69 from 9.57.

3 Now, the Commission ~n using these samples in

4 order to ask people to return money, the Commission has

5 basically calculated a range of potential errors. The high

6 range is 9.57 up to 3.69, which is the margin of e~ror, or

8 around 13.

9 The Commission audit staff haa no way of knowing

7

10

11

12

9.57 minus 3.69. The range is 5.88 plus something

where in that range the actual error rate falls. What it's

simply doing is taking the mid-peint.of the two extremes.

- That'·s its estimate, but· tt's got llO greater security that

13 it's not" fln"ther' this way than this way.

14 The only thing the audit staff can really tell ehe

15 Commission, and the only conclusion the Commission, in my

16 view, can really reach is that, a~ a minimum -~ based on

17 their L~alysi8 -- there are, at least, 5.88% errors. That

18 is, the lower end of the range is the only one that can be

19 firmly determined.

20 Statistically, it can be said that if those

21 calculations are correct, that it is -- that we are clear

22 that it i8 -- the-error rate is, at least, 5.88'.

23 Now, that -- we hear the polls and statistics have

24 now become a much greater part of our lives than they were

25 in the past. They are useful in a number of situations, and

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
NOW, I think that that's important. This is, and

which courts have considered the constitutionality of this

The Commission only know. that the error rate 1.

somewhere between 5.88-- the low r.ng& -- and approximately

""."..,,"

when these error ranges or

.-

It· doesn't know· which of these

we have not been able to find any cases in

You will always hear

they are appearing constantly now on television in the

assessments of the potential vote t~llies of various

candidates.

the margin of error overlap -- you will hear people say it's

a statistical dead heat. There's no way we can te!~ who's

in the lead, because the margins of error overlap.

That means that within that margin of error, they

don't know which number is correct for e:i,ther"candidate.

That's the same thing that is present here.

13 -- the high range;

numbers is correct.

" Therefore, it seema to me when asking for llIOney

back from people and ~ing ·a sampling method, t~e Commission

should be conservative. It ahould say, what we can know

from this survey i8 that at least 5.88' of these matches

were errors, and therefore, you should repay that amount,

because that werre confident of.

issue from a due process point of view.

I'm not sure that that'S really all that relevant

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

I'm -- I c1on't

1

2

3

4

5

6

~~ 7

ru

?~ 8

;;j-

=: 9

it1D: - 10 nJ

0 11 s

f,;..-;, 12

bj

s 13 r~

n~ 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
18

estimate.

categories.

of cost is based upon the Commission's conclusion that out

fairness

how many of ~hese matches were

today. What is relevant, I think, is fairne~s

to committees -- committees who are concluding their

business and who have limited junds.

The Commission should certainly get back all

matching funds that are not appropriately -- that were not

appropriately given to the committee. We don't deny that.

If there was a full audit, and we were able to

determine exactly how much

improper, then it would be clear to us exactly how much

money we had to repay, but I don't think that the Commission

repay what we're confident the. Committee owes, and what

we're confident the Committee owes is the lower end of this

range. We know that it must owe at leaat that.

If we use t~t, then we will reduce the repayment

to $38,174, using the lower bound of the FEC's error rate

should estimate how much we should repay.

I think it should say we .want the Committee to

have presented obviously -- they really fall into two

Finally, I want to talk about what we consider

errors in the calculation of the error rate. The error rate

of its sample, 31 errors were identified.

one of the Commission -- the documents that we

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

= 9

tth 10

tj II

12

13

14

15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

a

9

10

I k~ 11 -

~j; 12

13

r&J

14

lS

16

11

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

Cacegory 1 is, Che Commission senc ouc wriccen

forms·Co individuals co survey them and ask them questions

about the reattribuciona Chac ..chey had indicated had been

made or were appropriate to make.

Then, when these forms came back, a number of

these people -- approximately, I think, nine of them

indicated that they had actually given cash to the

contributor, and therefore, in their view, the reattr1bution

was appropriate.

They said, "Well, we gave chem money," not before

the contribution was mad., but when th. reattribution waa

made.

Now, the audit"staff has concluded that that's a

violation -- that that'. an error -- that that'. not an ..

appropriat. reattribution, and it has asked ua to

demonstrate all sorta. of tiUngs·in order to conclude that

that is appropriate, but with all due respect, I don't see

why that's not appropriate.

It'. not a contribution in the name· of another

because the reattributee is taking responsibility for this

contribution.

It is not a cash contribution, because the money

is being presented to the Commission in the form of a check.

Its only violation is that it doesn't fall neatly into some

category that has previously been recognized as appropriate.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1 Eacb. one of these produces a variation in the

20

2 error rate of about several thousands of dollars. So, one

3 of our concerns, here, is that. there are a number of points

4 here where the Commission has made a determination that

5 things are errors which we frankly don't believe are errors.

6 Now, if you took all of the individuals, who we

7 believe are -- reattributions are proper, and where the

8 Commission or the audit staff disagrees, there is a

9 reduction in the error rate to approximately 6.79', and a

10 reduction in the amount of the repayment determination by

11 $18,000.

12 That lrIClu.ld be "as"u.ming &11 of the other objections

13 that: I'Va made to the survey are are- diemssed by the

14 Commission. So, we're not -- we're talking about some15 significant concerna here.

16 In addition, and I reiterate, some of the

17 arguments we have made in our written presentation about

18 specific individuals on which the audit staff has responded

19 to are arguments which flow out of the survey process -- and

20 particularly the oral follow-up to the survey process that"

21 the commission used.

22 It sent-people out to ask people questions without

23 apparently -- and I'm going to say apparently because we've

24 asked for documents that haven't been produced -- apparently

25 any guidance as to what they were to say to these people.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1'nACJDQ:n

P.,. :2.0 _ ~~

---
21

conclusions.

Then those people came back and apparently reported their

results.

to put it of how these responses or how these conversations

were conducted.

there are no there'~ no paper trail, X guess, is the way

have biased the responses that are coming back to you.

We, as a Committee, have no way of knowing whether

those responses were biased or not. We dOR't have any --

That: !nay be an appr~riate investigation, but it's

not an appropriate sampling approach. So, when you have

asked these questions there's a high possibility that you

Now, I don't disagree that the Commi••ion -_. if ·it

was doing a full audit --·could go out and inveatigat& thee.

rnatters, because that's what a full audit i. about, but I do

object to the. idea that they have decided to avoid a full

audit and the burdens that it would place on them by using

ehe sampling method, but not following the rule.. that govern

this method of creating evidentiary base for their

so, for thase various reasons we think that the

repayment determination -- the Commission should vote to

no repayment i. required, or that there i. significant

reductions in that repayment that would be required.

Now, to the extent I can, I will respond to

questions. We do not have our expert here, and the reason

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

U~ 9

r~i 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

~=.

W 11

12 ~d

• 13

nJ., 14

15

H

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

is that our expert is in California. and we are a deficit

comm4ttee, and there's juSt no way we can afford that -- to

fly him in on the expectation.pr the possibility that there

will be a question and on the good possibility that I will

not be able to respond to, but he is available and will be

available to answer any of your questions in a written

presentation during the five-day follow-up.

Of course, if there is some need for him to be

examined, we would be ~repared to make him available in some

method ether than appearance, if po.aible -- that is, video

or teleconference, or something along those lines, because

this is ~- this is something that f+OW8 out of two issues.

When we .tarted'thi. -- and I'll be hon.at with

the Commission -- when we started on thia road, there was a

strong belief on the part of a number of people that we

should not make, an Obj~ction to this, becaue. it was just . .

too expensive to object, because we would need a statistical

expert on it.

But I think the Committee ultimately concluded

that we did need to make an objection, not only because of

our need to avoid a repayment determination, but also our

need to make sure that the law on this issue developed

appropriately.

I think that that's a problem here, and I think

that this type of approach is one that's very difficult for

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Cj

11

12

13

14

15

16

·17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

campaigns to respond to, and we thought that, what the hell,

We'r~ in a deficit position, anyway.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Wha~'s a few more dollars?

~R. DUFFY: What's a few more dollars? Thank you

so much.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Mr. Duffy, thanks very much. Your

timing is very good. It'S almost exactly 30 minutes. Thank

you. I appreciate your brevity.

We'll turn now to questions from the

Commissioners. I had one or two that I wanted to start

with.

Mr. Du~fy, in your original response to the Notice

of Repayment Determination, you made 80me issue about

whether you or the CollllDittee had been provided-with

sufficient information in which to -- as you .aid --

thoroughly evaluate whether the sampling method was valid or

reliable.

I understand that subsequent to that time,

additional information has been provided, but what is your

position now on whether you have sufficient information?

Are you still lacking information that you think the

Commission should-have provided to you, or where are we on

that? Is that presently an issue?

MR. DUFFY: Yes. If you'll just let me pause for

a minute to consult the actual brains behind the operation.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
24

1 (Counsel confers with Ms. Rivens.)

2 Let me just say that ini~ially we requested

3 information, and we did not g~~ the information we thought

4 we needed. Subsequently, I think we were able co pinpoint

5 the information becter after we got our expert on board.

6 He was able to ask for more defined documents.

9 don't have a computer/model that would allow us to get a

10 better understanding of how the Commission has actually

7 Then we did get many of those documents. We still don't

8 have I'm told by my associate, Ms. Rivens we still

11 conducted this survey.

12 Of course, we have not gotten any material about

13 the follow-up telephone calls.

14 CHAIRMAN WOLD: I understand. I should have

15 qualified that. I understand you don't have that.

16 MR. DUFFY: .We, again," the extent to" -- the more

17 information we have about how the audit staff has conducted

18 this, the easier it is for our statistician to examine the

19 issues.

20 So, I understand that we still have a need for a

21 model or a base which would provide us with a way of

22 CHAIRMAN WOLD: -- of how the sample was selected?

23 MR. DUFFY: Yeah, right. Is that the oh. I'm

24 told that what is needed is a manual of how the computer

25 program actually runs and some explanation of how the

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

25

computer program actually works that -- that selected their

sample.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: All .~ight. Thank you. And did

4 the Committee make any effort itself to contact these people

5 that were selected and were subject to the investigation by

6 the Commission?

9 reason for that is, that we -- when the Commission started

8 the audit, and we did not do that after the audit. The

7 MR ..DUFFY, We did not. We did not do that before

10 out on this, we received telephone calls from people who

11

12

were being contacted.

We attempted to ~void talking to them about this.

13 In fact, we wouldn't talk"to them about it. The reason that

14 we wouldn't talk to them about it is, we did not want to .

lS bias their answers that they were going to be giving;

16 We didn't want people to say to us, "Look. What

17 should we answer on this form?" because we thought that

18 would be inappropriate either because the Commission was

19 doing an investigation, or the Commission was doing the

20 sample.

21 In either case, it wouldn't have been appropriate

22 for us to intervene and give assistance to these

23 individuals. We wanted them to answer -- and in many cases

24 if you -- focus on -- the Committee's point of view, we sent

25 out material to these individuals in the first instance

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
26

because to be honest with you, theY'.e tired, exhausted,

wricten requests which they signed indicating that the

situation -- the factual situation was such that

reattribution was appropriate ..

We asked them if this was the factual -- and they

came back and said. yes, it is. So, we_had information from

them which was positive. We assumed that w~ would be better

off if they answered these things without prompting or

interference by us, which COUld, frankly, be indicated to be

.

a biasing of whatever,their answers were.

After, we didn't want to call them, either,

hostile. All- r-ight?

And the idea that' we would go to them and get

competing documents from them -- that is, documents which'.

basically said, "I didn't say that to the FEC· -- I was not

planning to touch that.. and my client was not pJ,.anning to do

that because it was not worth, frankly, the

-- the candle.

It was just going to be a situation where they

were going to be dragged into a contest, and we didn't want

to do that.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: I can understand there would be

good reasons either to do it or not to do it -- some

arguments on both sides of that question.

I just wanted to be clear on what the sources of

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888

l

2

3

4

5

6

7

a

9

10

11

12

:: 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

::~r otF eq
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6

i;, 9

10

~; 11

f'""J 12 ~d

13 rt~

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

information are that we have to go on here, and whether

if there was new information chat you had obtained, I wanted

to have that clearly identifie~. If there'S not, that's

fine. Then we go on with what we do have here.

Thank you. Mr. Thomas?

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, welcome again. Here we go. I wanted to, first of

all, to inform you that the face that you didn't bring what

you're describing as your expert doesn't suggest to us thae

we don't have an expert in front of u•.

You are an expert in the area of campaign finance

and ~e want to· a.s:knowledge that. I .rec:al1 going back .inany, . . many years on one of the early Reagan committee audits with

you when I wa. that 12-year-old in the Office of General

- Counsel. Ron Robertson, and you, and Bd Weinfeld, and I and

some others, we had some long go-arounda about what to do

about what looked like excessive contributions.

So, you hung in there all those year. a. have I.

MR~ DOFPY: Reasonable people can draw their own

conclusion of our sanity.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: We've had those questions arise.

(Laughter. )

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Well, I was just kind of

curious where your argument takes us in a sense that you

don't much care for the sampling approach that we applied.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1 -

You would have, ! guess, felt more ccnfident in

28

2 the results, if we had done a 100% review of these

3 transactions, but I'm sure you. appreciate that from Our

4 perspective that puts everyone in a rather awkward situation

5 because if we were to go out and actually investigate each

6 one of these contributions that appears to involve

8 into an awful lot of people's business and'while it might

10 sense than using some statistical sampling. It presents us

11 with an unacceptable approach in 80me areae, because it does

7

9

l2

13

reattribution that would have us as the government getting

turn out to be accurate in some sense, more certain in some

put us in the bUBine•• of asking hupdreds, perhaps, .'

thousands perhaps, of donors about som~ rather ancient

14 transaction.

15 So, if. we were to somehow buy your advice that

16 100% analysis would better and we're to decide that we

17 want to go back now, and talk to each and every one of these

18 donors, and all the reattributees, would we still find

19 ourselves being challenged by you for having changed course

20 this late in tha process?

21 MR. DUFFY: Well, I'm certainly not going to wai'le

22 any statute of limitations argument that I could possibly

23 create.

24 So, if you're talking about that as a challenge,

25 then I'm not prepared now to say no, but if you're talking

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

~::;,

f=.~

s 7

f-tt

8 Til

:f 9

~1 10

ry

Cd; 11 •

i'" 12 ~9; .",ai 13

lY

f11 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29

abou~ whe~her I would challenge it because of the method, I

would say that I would not challenge it because of the

method.

."

I mean, your -- obviously, as part of your duties

to ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act

of 1971 as amended, you have to ask people questions that

they may not want to answer and that they may be reluctant

to answer.

That's part,t:Jf your obligation. It may be

inconvenient for them to answer them, but the opposite of

that is to not do anything, to not audit the.e issues or to

address these is.ue. in some other fashion in termB of an

analysis when you're giving people money.

In other words, what you're saying -- what the

Commission is really saying here, is that reattributions

fall into a number of categories;

Some are obvious on their face as being proper or

likely to be proper -- husbands and wives who have the same

bank account even 1£ they don't have- the- same names.

When you start deviating from husbands and wives

with the same joint bank account, then you get into these

other areas of complication.

The Commission, in its initial analysis, did not

raise any issue about these other types of reattributions.

That would be one method of dealing with it.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
30

You could say whoa. These are a p=oblem and have

to be treated differently then other reattributions. You

could say we won't have any r~ttributions of this sort.

You could do all of these things by rulemaking.

Or you could do nothing, assuming that the problem

was not sufficient or that there were countervailing reasons

for you not to audit. But what has been done here is that

you created a survey process which basically is opaque.

I mean, it c~n't be. penetrated except with the

greatest difficulty by committees. There'S no -- it's not

transparent.

There's no basi$.-- there's no record of, how you

reached the conclusion that surveys were appropriate here,

or how, or what standards you'll apply to these surveys, or

- how these surveys will be conducted.

That's all something that you have decided -- that

the audit staff has decided in camera. I don't think that's

appropriate.

I think that what has to happen here -- and when

you use a survey process, remember what you're doing.

You're creating, as the courts have said repeatedly, a body

of evidence, which in order to be relied on must be -- in

order for the survey process to be relied on as evidence, it

must be conducted in a scientifically valid fashion to avoid

inaccuracies in the responses to the audit inquiry.

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

31

We either have to do that analysis up front, that

2 is, have a process which we all agree to initially, and then

3 we go ahead with it -- that's pow you would do that by

4 rulemaking -- or we have to pick apart these things each

5 time they come out, and that's a labor-intensive issue.

6

7

8

We don't know how they're done. We have to obtain

that by inductive reasoning from the documents we receive,

and it's very expensive to have experts come in and look at

9 the survey, and say it/shouldn't be done that way.

10

11

12

So, I don't think you can say we have an audit

obligation. It's too much of a prob~em to do the audit, so

- we'll just: guess, and then we'll tel;!. you to pay that'amount

13 of money.

14 Then, you have a choice -- you, the Committee.

15 - You can either get up on your high horse, spend a bunch of

16 money, and attack the ~urvey -- hey, that's the type of

17 people I represent -- or you can say, "Hey. The hell with

18 this. Pay the 66,000 and let's get this thing closed down."

19 We don't want to do that. It would be a prudent

20 course, but. we're not going to do that because we think that

21 would be wrong. We don't think it's correct to do that.

22 We don't think you can estimate -- we don't think

23 the law allows you to estimate how much we owe. You have to

24 prove how much we owe.

25 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: By that, you're not saying

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

f~l

=d! 8 ;: "

• 9

lt~

fli' 10

;=

11

~::.,", 12 A,

~:o:::i'

13 tV

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

we can't use the statistical sample that you give, if we

were to satisfy all the standards you --

MR. DUFFY: I'm not saying that. I mean, the

courts have said that there are -- there is a situation

there are situations where statistical sampling is

appropriate.

I'm saying that, one, this isn't an appropriate

situation because the universe that you would have to

actually send survey ~rms to, or you would have to contact

in some fashion, was only 1,000 people.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Could you explain that? I

want to make that distinction. We're talking about the

population being over 7,000. You've mentioned that it may be

in the 1,000 range.

MR. DUFFY: Right. We have - - maybe a - - let me

just get up here.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Excuse me, Mr. Duffy. Let me ask

our Commission Secretary, is that microphone over there

live, do you know, at the podium?

COMMISSION SECRETARY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: The one at the podium? Mr. Duffy?

MR. DUFFY: Yes?

CHAIRMAN WOLD: If you could use -- would it be

possible for you to use that microphone at the podium there?

MR. DUFFY: I think I can explain this without a

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
33

Commission, all right? That's page 26 of 29. You can see

I. mean, it looked at the matchable contributions,

demonstration. Let's see if I Can, okay?

What I've done here what we have here is, is

if you look on -- this is the oral hearing document

and excluded certain contributions from the sample

suggesting that those contributions, because they were

betwe~n husbands--- they were on accounts that their --

the Commission has a signific~nt number of contributions

that have been matched -- 7,220. All right?

Then it took a sample, which we don't think is

representative, but it's a sample of 324. Then it looked at

those -- that sample of 324, and started throwing out

contributions as being okay.

husband and wife accounts; or they were reattributions

between a husband and wife, whatever. They weren't going to

their

do anything further on those.

They were saying that from their point of view,

those were okay. So, they got themselves down.- and then

that was submitted to you -- Agenda Item -- right.

Attachment 1 to the Staff's Memorandum to the

what they did.

They started out with a population. They sampled,

they eliminated things from the population, they added an

additional sample, they eliminated from that sample, they

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

f~ 10 =>;:.

6f 11 -

!'--" - 12

W

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

.&.TTACRKENT --E...-

Pap 3S _ --.fiL
34

1 got down to "Toeal Errors from the Initial Review'; -- out of

2 47, which is 15% of where they started. Those are the

3 people they actually sent su~ey forms to.

4 So, what I'm saying is, you can do the same thing

5 with 7,220. I mean, you get rid of 85\ of that, and that's

6 where I get· my 1,000 figure.

7 You could look at them in in your office and

8

9

say, "No, these are okay. These are okay," and you only

have 1,000 where the reattributions are not the type of

10 reattributions that one would consider to be clearly

•

11

12

13

appropriate.

So, in that situation, I think then you would send

out a questionnaire or some device to all of them as part of

14 your investigation, and say, what's the issue here? You

15 might find some people respond, and some people not respond,

16 and I mean, you conduct investigations like this all the

17 time where -- it may not have to do with reattribution, it

18 has to do with some serious violations of law, but you do an

19 investigation, and from that investigation you decide

20 whether or not there's a problem. Then you proceed on that.

21 That's what I mean by full audit. You come up

22 with these answers by tracking down the issues, and

23 resolving them in your own mind, and then presenting that

24 evidence for the Committee to rebut, but you have concluded

25 based on the evidence in your own mind that the Committee

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
35

1 has done something wrong or that something wrong-has been

2 done.

3 Okay? Whether it's the Committee'S fault or the4 people reattributing it, someone has done it wrong. That is

5 an appropriate investigation, but you've sent out samples,

6 you've followed up.

7 You haven't you're using a method which is

8 easier for you. I don't deny that, but it's not valid.

9 You're not doing it in,a valid way, and I don'~ think it'S

10 appropriate because in my view, when you want money back

11 from somebody, you have to show that that money has been

12 inapp~opriately given to tpem.

13 I think we deserve to have that laid out for us in

14 cases where it can be. Now, the cases that have been cited

lS by the audit staff and the Office of the General Counsel are

16 cases where there'S 30,000 items "a month.

17 So, obviously, that's impossible to survey. We

18 all agree with that. That's not the case, here.

19

20

21

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thanks. If I could just --

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Certainly . GO ahead.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- as to sort of the

22 practical aspect of this, inquire from either one of you,

23 Ms. Buchanan you probably have a better sense for it in some

24 way, what was going on at the campaign in terms of giving

25 advice to donors about the option of reattribution?

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

.1'r'UCIKEN'l' __F:""-:-r-_

hce ?15 ot A4
36

1 It's kind of unclear to me whether there was some

2 . sort of standard advice that was given to donors where a

3 contribution had come in, and where there was a possibility~

4 perhaps, of reattributing some of what appeared to be

5 otherwise excessive contributions.

6

7

MR. DUFFY: Let me tell you what I learned because

I asked that question when this came up, ~~d they told me

8 that they basically sent things out to people -. forms out

9

10

to people.

They inquired whether there was -- that when

11 contributions came in that were thoug~t to be matchable

12 or not matchable_-- were thought to·be potentially

13 reattributable, forms were sent out.

14 Then those forms were returned. If people asked

15 questions about them, basically they were referred to the

16 it was told to me tha~ the form was -- they were referred

17 back to the form, and the lan~~age that appeared on the form

18 was -- that was used as part of the explanation of

19 matchability.

20 Now, no one provided me with a script of the --

21 not unlike the Commission on the other side of the coin

22 here. That campai~ did not have a script as to what it

23 allowed -- how these requests for further information were

24 to be answered.

25 Some people didn't ask questions. They got the

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
37

1 form or they got the letter suggesting that -- asking if

2 this was potentially -- asking if this contribution was, in

3 fact, suitable for reattribut~on, and they said yes, and

4 sent it in.

5 They didn't call us. They didn't ask a question.

6 They just sent it in. If questions were asked, I was told

7

8

9

10

11

12

. that they followed the form -- simply reiterated what the

standards were on the form.

I'm not sure who received these calls, and my

understanding -- I don't believe, and I don't know that

there was an actual mechanism set up for making sure that'

people said .. - "gave correct answers ..

13 So, I can't say'that because I don't we haven't

14 found any documents that would suggest that there was a

15 script, or that.people said, whenever questions are asked,

16 say the following, or probe into it, or whatever.

17 I'm not suggesting that I guess the question

18 here is, the Committee feels that it sent out requests to

19 intelligent people that asked questions that were ~- the

20 questions. we were supposed to ask under the guidance of FEC

21 regulations, and their answers were something that we could

22 rely on.

23

24

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Ms. Buchanan?

MS. BUCHANAN: What I can add to that is that the

25 -- the letters were sent as -- there was a computer with all

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
38

1 the information in it, when the contribution came in. I'm

2 sorry? This is the right mike -_

3

4

CHAIfu~ WOLD: Try to speak into those.

MS. BUCHANAN: All right. I'~ sorry. When the

5 contributions came in and they were put into a computer,

6 there was a code given of some type at some stage, which

7 would indicate that this would be a potential reattribution

8 contribution.

9 Then, twice month or so or whatever it was that

10 was determined, these letters just went out en masse. This

11 was not a, "Call up the contributor. 'What do you think? '

12 Could you contribute this?"

13 So, they just went out automa~ically, and then the

14 people sent them in. When We became aware of the prOblem, I

15 asked John personally to talk to different people on the

16 staff. These were people tha~ were on the Treasury staff,

17 so they did not work directly for me.

18 There was nothing that came back to him, I don't

19 believe -- certainly, not to me -- that would indicate

20 anything other than reaffirming what was on these forms.

21 That's the best knowledge that we have.

22 one other thing is, when we were -- when this

23 first came to us, I called John and asked if we should -- we

24 had a lot of phone calls from people who had received these

25 letters from you all -- as to what to do, and how should we

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~t~ 10

if: 11 .~

f--:, 12

61 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

. answer this and all, and his words for me is, you don't do

anything unless you wish to interfere in a Federal

investigation.

! said, "I understand, sir," and that was the end

of that. So, that is why we just didn't touch it. We

haven't talked to anybody, and I specifically instructed

everyone.

Of course, at the time we didn't pave an active

staff -- the people wh~ might get theBe calls -- to direct

them to one fellow, who was an attorney, who was working on

the helping someone to direct all calls to him that he

was to somehow just explai~ to them to do what you think is

right to fill it out honestly or whatever, and then to

give -- if there's any further questions, just send them to

Mr. Duffy.

So, we really haven't had anything to do with

these contributors. So,! don't really know what they would

have said as to, "This is what you said, first, or second,

or anything." I just don't know.

~. DUFFY: Right. We didn' t, as I explained

before, I didn't represent the Committee during the election

campaign. ! restrict my representation of Committee to the

maximum extent possible to the post-election period.

Having served once as a campaign counsel, I

decided that that was the fastest way to Federal prison I

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

~:~!: 7

8

9

10

11

r'=. - - 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

could imagine, and I decided to avoid it.

So, I only take campaigns in the post-election

period, so I had -- when I wa~ contacted by Ms. Buchanan

about these concerns, they derived from the FEC

investigation, okay?

I advised as she said. I told her that it's an

investigation, and when there'S an investigation ongoing,

you don't sit around crying to nobble the witnesses. That's

not the way you do it. ,

So, we didn't contact -- people contacted us, and

in fact in one case, people contacted us and demanded that

we refund their' oontribution, and th~ Committee was

concerned "about their concerns.

They were -- we attempted to explain ~o them the

situation, but they wanted their contribution back, and so

we gave it to them, and that brings me to another point.

I don't be~ieve that there -- there's something in

the document that has been supplied to you by the General

Counsel and the audit staff that on that issue, that

contribution was not matchable once the party asked for it

to be refunded, and I don't agree with that.

I mean, ~he question of whether a person has

donative intent or not has to take place when the donation

is made, and the Commission has been rigid on that else all

hell will break loose.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1 I mean, after the candidate has not won, lots of

41

2 . people would like their money back,_okay? And they call up.

3 That doesn't mean you can -- ~ou have to give them their

4 money back.

5 Once we give them their money back, I don't

6 disagree that the matching funds have to follow, but when we

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

-- just the mere fact that they've asked for it does not

negate their donative intent, and does not undercut the

appropriateness of matc~ing funds.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Thank you. Commissioner Thomas?

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No, that's fine.

CHA:IRMAN WOLD:· Okay. Thank you. CommJ.Bsioner

Mason?

COMMISSIONER MASON: Thank you. Just as a matter

15 - of record, the form you were referring to that requested the

16 reattributions, do we have that somewhere? Have we seen

17 that?

18

19

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Me. Thomas?

MS. THOMAS: Yes. In the agenda document,

20 attachment 1, page 19 to 29, there'S a copy of the letter

21 that the Committee sent to contributors asking whether or

22 not their contribution couldn't be attributed to someone

23 else.

24 Adjacent to that page is a copy of the form that

25 is returned by the contributor in which the reattributors

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202i 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

'!; 9

10

jbj

{d: 11

r::..." 12

:;: 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

and the original ~ontributor signed stating thac these are

reattributed contributions.

COMMISSIONER MASON: . Is that page to the left?

MS. THOMAS: The form is page 18.

COMMISSIONER MASON: Page 18 -- that's the

Buchanan committee form.

MR. DUFFY: Okay. Wait a minute.

COMMISSIONER MASON: Mr. Duffy, you're making a

lot of arguments in th~ alternative, here. I'll sort that

out later. I just want to make sure we had it, and ask for

it if we didn't.

You're-making a lot of al~ernative -- arguments in

the alternative here, and I understand why and'what you're

doing, but it bothers me a little bit in terms of the

process, because one of the things that Commissioner Thomas

was asking about and that is, we've had a lot of discussions

about when, under what circumstances, and what reasons we're

going to contact donors.

I think the Commission has been rightly reluctant

to contact donors without some specific need to do so. So,

when you say, well, we think it would be better to contact

them all, and yet ~ou've described to us the state of

confusion, the difficulty we're dealing hera with the year

or two at a minimum after the donations would have been

made, people who were -- even at the several-hundred-dollar

Heritage Reporting corporation

(:202) 628 -4688

.ufJ.CBHlI'@'_.:....F..,...,.,.._

,._i.....(j... __ ot @
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

...

=~=4l. 8

=-to;;:

~;.1

ii 9

!J1 10 ft~ '=-"",!,

~1 11

~";I 12 0

13

ru

r~ 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43

level -- relaCively small donors, and of course, a lot of

them are alarmed and bothered at having a federal agency

contact them.

They call you. At least one of them wants their

money back. These are the kinds of rea~ons that! think

drove us to the decision that, no, we didn'~ want to call

all 7,000 or all thousand, and I hope you realize that.

I understand your questions about how the sample

was put together and so on like that, but if you're going to

argue that the only way we ought properly to do this is to

contact everybody, I'm just not sure I can get there, no~

because we might not authority to do it, but because I think

the consequences for the campaigns involved, and for the

donors are -- it would need to be thrown into the balance

somewhere.

If you have ,a reaction'to that, I'd be happy to

hear it.

MR. DUFFY: Well, I don't -- I understand that --

that this i8 a difficult policy decision for you. I mean,

I'm sympathetic to the idea that being contacted by a

federal agency because you've made a campaign contribution

has a certain chilling effect on the exercise of your First

Amendment rights.

r think you were wise and to be commended for your

sensitivity to that. I'm not sure that the alternative is

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(20:2) 628-4888
44

to create a method of estimating the possibility ~hat there

are errors here.

! haven't given much thought to alternatives, butit seems to me that in a situation where what you have

initially done in a situation like this, we may have to fall

back on some method of examining these contributions. as !

said before, at the initial stage, when matching funds are

being given out. and giving greater guidance to the

committees as to what sort of evidence is going to be

required to give the Commission sufficient confidence so

that it does not have to look at these things in the audit

process.

In other words," you have two mechanisms for doing

it -- one is to do it up front, and the other is to do it at

- the audit process. I think you were wise to say, gee,

calling these people is just wrong, it's the wrong thing to

do. But then that moves me to the front of the process, not

-. to say, well, let's think about how we can view this up

front.

COMMISSIONER ~ASON: But if we tell you at the

front of the process that you have to wait another two or

three months to get your matching funds because you haven't

given us enough information in the initial submission, I

know we'll get screams about that as well.

MR. DUFFY: One of the joys of not being in a

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

tJJ 7

~L

8 .,

,,",,'~~

~L

d 9

I :~:

kn 10

f'""!:

'l:l:::; 11

::

12

Ci

13

riJ 14

lS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

federal agency is we get to scream, and I know because I've

served in the Federal Government that you never do it right

- from the point of view of the group that you're regula.tir,g _

no matter how much you try to de it, so.

COMMISSIONER MASON: Thank you. Let me move to

another question here. You were talking about the telephone

sur~ey follow-up.

MR. DUFFY: Right.

COMMISSIONER MASON: And I understand your bias

concerns about that, but looking at the sample attachment

attachment 1, page 26 of 29, there's.an indication that

follow-up phone surveys were made to only two -- if I read

it properly, it's at the.very bottom of that page -- of the

31 or 47, I suppose, that were cou.~ted aa errors, and I want

to see if that is accurate.

I mean, while I understa.~d your obj ections as to

phone surveys, if we're only talking about two follow-up

phone calls haVing been made, it seems that that ends up

being a not particularly substantial issue given the facts

here.

MR. DUFFY: Just a second.

(Counsel confers with Ms. Rivens.)

No, I don't -- I understand that that's correct,

although I-- well, I was under the impression that there

were a larger number of phone calls in order to get

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
46

1 clarification of certain issues.

2 So, I'm not sure I understand this the way you

8 So, I'm afraid I can't fully respond to that

10 staff of the phone calls they made throughout this process,

11 although I believe they did identify ;he -- either in their

12 document or to us -- the phone calls. that they maae, and the

13 people that were eonsidered to be errors.

3 understand it, but each of these -- each time you make a

4 follow-up phone call, you have a problem with biasing that

5 portion of the sample, and each portion of the sample,

6 because it ·is being multiplied by a very large number in the

7 universe, can introduc~ a considerable error.

9 because I we have n~t received a complete list from the

14 MR. DUFFY: Is that right? That's right. That's

15 right.

16 MS. RlVENS: . That's right.

17 CHAIRMAN WOLD: Go ahead.

18 COMMISSIONER MASON: Well, I wanted to move to

19 another topic, and that is on the issue of reattributions

20 when cash was given.

21 I guess I follow your legal argument as to why it

22 was, shall we say, not illegal. As a policy matter, maybe

23 it ought to be. I mean, this seems to me if we are blessing

24 a situation in which people are encouraged -- one person is

25 encouraged to write a check to a presidential campaign, and

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
47

1 then collect cash from ocher people, and send in things

2 after the fact, we're just getting into an area that I can

3 see lots of problems arising ~rom.

4 I understand chat it doesn't appear the campaign

5 encouraged chat or anything, but looking at the survey

6 results or responses, I don't want to -- no matter what we

7

8

do, I don't want to get into a situation where the

Commission says that's a good way of doing business, or even

9 perhaps a legal way of/doing business.

11 lOOt, okay? I think that the -- and I have told the

10

12

MR. DUFFY: I embrace your idea. I agree with you

- Committee that i~ they want my recommendation, they should

13 not seek matching funds for reattributions that are not, in

14 fact, between husbands and wives, who can be allsumed to have

15 a joint account.

16 And this ide~ of seeking reattributions from other

.17 people who have other accounts or potentially other accounts

18 or whatever, is fraught with danger to not be permitted,

19 okay?

20 Certainly, it should not be engaged in by the

21 campaign. My view is that it shouldn't be permitted by the

22 Federal Election Commission, but that wasn't the situation

23 in 1996, when this is being conducted.

24 As you know, being people involved with politics,

25 in a campaign every effort is made to try to act as

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
48

1 aggressively as you can within the bounds of the law. So, I

2 am in full agreement with you on that.

3 CHAIRY~ WOLD: Thank you. Commissioner

4 Sandstrom, do you have questions?

5 COMMISSIONER SANDSTROM: Thank you. Eventually,

6 1 ' m eventually going to follow up on that last poiat, and

13 shepherdized those cases,' I never see that as the standard.

8 just to question about your -- in the stat~ment you made

9 today on your first point about the use of sampling.

::

•

7

10

12

14

what the state of law was in 1996. Before that, I wanted

You said this has only been endorsed in extreme

cases. I understand that might be a little hyperbole on

your part, becau~e I -- in looking at che cases cited having

It's only in the extreme cases.

15 With respect to the constitutional challenge, let

16 me ask, do you know of. any federally reported case that's

17 found the use of the statistics -- statistical study the

18 one valid and reliable, leaving that question aside, in

19 which the court determined that it was a violation of due

20 process?

21 MR. DUFFY: I think we can say that we haven't

22 found any case that says that statistical samples, if

23 properly done, are not appropriate evidence in a federal

24 case.

25 When I was summarizing the case law as I

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
49

1 understood ie, I think I was extrapolating from the size of

2 the samples in those cases, and while the case may not have

3 said that it was extreme, the.size of the samples that we

4 have seen in these cases are large.

5 If you have seen small samples the size of a

6 thousand

7 COMMISSIONER SANDSTROM: Let me ask, was there any

8 case ·in which the size of the sample -- and it was

9 statistically reliable~-- was the basis for any federal

10 court decision you relied upon?

11

12

13

MR. DUFFY: No, not for -- not a federal court

decision, no.

COMMISSIONER SANDSTROM: It seems to me that most

14 of the cases, in fact, tend to endorse and particularly

lS relieves -- administrative agency a major burden, which may

16 be a cos.t burden, it may be a burden that it would be

17 imposing on the regulated community on the way of this sort

18 of question.

19 So, I can understand the second part aspect with

20 respect to whether this particular sample is reliable or

21 not. So, I think that's a separate and distinct argument.

22 The Charter Air, which is the tax case you relied

23 upon, and you referred to there being many cases of this

24 character. Now, let me aSK, Charter Air, which was in

25 Supreme Court in New York -- which isn't even Supreme in New

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

York

had aU

50

in that case as I understood the case, the taxpayer

in his possession -- all of the evidence

3 necessary to establish his ta~ liability.

4 Can you tell us today that you have, in your

5 possession, all the information to esta~ish that these

6 contributions were properly reattributed?

7 MR. DUFFY: Well, what the -- I don't -- what the

8 taxpayer had was, he had his records, and we have records,

9 too. We've given them-to the Federal Election Commission.

10

11

12

13

14

They are these statements which were signed by

individuals indicating that these reattributions were

proper. so, like the taxpayer in Charter Air, we have" the

records shoWing affirmatively that these individuals think

that these reattributions are factually correct.

15 Now, what the FEe is doing is creating rebuttal

16 evidence to that.

17 COMMISSIONER SANDSTROM: And with respect to our

18 rebuttal, you don't have, in your possession, conclusive

19 evidence with respect to that.

20 Let me ask you about the Regulation for a moment

21 9,034.2.

22

23

MR. DUFFY: Yes?

COMMISSIONER SANDSTROM: This lists all the

24 contributions, as I understand, that are matchable? Is that

25 your understanding?

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1 MR. DUFFY: Right. It gives guidance as to

51

2 match~ble contributions.

3 COMMISSIONER SANDSTROM: And with respect to the -

4 contributions that you're referring to that should have not

S been -- you claim were properly reattributed, do you know

6 under which section of this regulation that it would be

7

1

- properly reattributed?

MR. DUFFY: Well, we are talking here -- I believe

2 that the committee's view of this is that 90342 (c) (1) (2) and

3 (1) -- and let's see, (1) (ii) and (2) are probably relevant.

4 MR. SANDSTROM: Okay. If -- can I refer you to,

5 (2) (e) before going into the subsections there?

6

7

MR. DUFFY: Mm-hmrD.

MR. SANDSTROM: It says, "The written instrument' .....'

8 - shall be payable on demand and to the order of and, of

9 course, specifically endorsed without qualifica~ion to the

10 presidential candidate or his or her authorized committee.

11 The written instrument shall contain the full name,

12 signature of the contributors, the amount, and the date of

13 the contribution and the mailing address of the

14 contributors." Then it goes on, of course, to the joint

lS account. Did these contributions meet those requirements?

16

17

MR. DUFFY: Sure.

MR. SANDSTROM: They had the name of the

18 contributors and their addresses on it?

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

Ul 7

Uii

f>'1" 8 ~;:

9

F: i: 10 31l:a

r::~:

~:d!

11

r::~ 12

riJ 13

14

lS

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

MR. DUFFY: Well, there's -- correct. I mean, I

think that the commission's approach to this in the past, if

I understand it is, if I have a check that's drawn on a

joint checking account, and I submit a statement from the

parties that are -- share that joint checking account, that

the written document provides support for the -- the

reattribution of the contribution.

MR. SANDSTROM: And it may be correct that the

audit staff is more generous or even the past practice of

this commission is more generous than what I think the

regulation called for. But as I understand the regulation,

that the contributions you're referr~ng to are not of the

character that fall under' (e) (1), (c) (2), or (e) (3) and that

in some cases we're talking about equitable accounts, as I

understand your testimony. And certainly, an equitable

account is not a joint. account that falls under (c) (1).

MR. DUFFY: I believe that -- oh, I'm sorry.

MR. SANDSTROM: And that -- so we're looking at

checks which, you know, do not fit, in my mind, the

regulations; So with respect to Commissioner Mason's point

of view, I think, in fact, the way we avoid these sort of

phone calls is have people comply with the regulation. And

if we are -- been generous in the past, you know, we may

want to take that into consideration. But if you have an

argument that I'm misreading the regulation, what -- it

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
53

1 requires a matchable contribution, not that -- our gloss on

2 it or our addition to it or whether the actual language

3 employed by the regulation would make these matchable. It

4 would help me on it if you

5 MR. DUFFY: So can I -- and let me just -- if I

6 may, Commissioner, your view would be the unless my check

7 contains the full name of myself and my wife, the charming

8 Cynthia Wyatt, and our mailing address and -- that we have

9 to have that on the check in order for that check to be --

10

11 language.

12

MR. SANDSTROM: It is written in the mandatory

MR. DUFFY: Well, I

13

14

MR. SANDSTROM: 'And we understand that we may have

been, in seeking a repayment, somewhat liberal in that and

15 recognized different sort of instrument., but that comes --

16 MR. DUFFY: I think -- without trying 'to hold Ms.

17 Buchanan back here because she's about to -- her point is

18 going to be, if I can summarize it, that you have gone

19 beyond being generous. You have written the manuals and

20 instructions to campaigns that have suggested that this is

21 the way to obtain this.

22 Your matching fund manual, according to Ms.

23 Buchanan contains the very procedure, that is sending these

24 written documents and haVing them -- so I think that in

25 terms of your policy, you may be entirely correct, that this

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

..

5

6

7 i,[:,

T~! 8 ~:

9 ~n

10

11

1:;:

13

14

15

16

·17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

policy that has been adopted by the commission over time and

in - - and artic'ulated in various manuals and instructions to

candidates and committees is ~nappropriate and possibly even

illegal .

MR. SANDSTROM: That's fine, and I understand your

position there. And it may be, like I say, quite fortunate

for the committee that that's been the position. I'm just

trying to understand my -- explain my understanding of the

regulation today, and~'m not -- I'm not trying co send fear

out to all those who have been audited in the past that I

read the regulations in a way that I think would avoid the

problems thae Commissioner. Mason does.-

And -- but I think we do have a particular problem

here when we go so far as to refer to equitable ownership of

accounts and, you know, people making transfers into

accounts. And that takes the regulation in -- :1'11 have to

call upon the audit staff to probably instruct me a little

bit more about any manuals we have put out and to what

extent we wish they would rely upon a manual that seems not

in accord with our regulation with respect to matchability.

I have this concern and I think that's somewhat

Commissioner Maso~'s concern. So could the audit staff help

me in this respect?

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Ms. Thomas?

MS. THOMAS: The commission's presentation

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

9

U[ 10

:?=':o:,

'hi

:;: 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

Guidelines for Presentation in Good Order for matching fund

submissions does provide for commit~ees to seek

reattributions of contributions by allowing the committee to

present with the contribution a separate document that

identifies the contribution by the date, the amount -- and

to attest to the fact that a portion of it is to b~

attributed to some other individual.

MR. SANDSTROM: Other than a joint tenant on the

account?

.MS. THOMAS: I don't have the document in front of

me.

MR.- SA!IDSTROM: Yeah. That - -;,. .

MS. THOMAS: I believe it says, "Has ownership of

the funds," or something like that.

MR. SANDSTROM: See, I understiUld that.

CHAIRMAN WOLO: At this point, let me suggest,

Commissioner, this might be an appropriate line of inquiry

to pursue.

MR.. SANDSTROM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: I think you raised a good point,

but I'm not --

MR. SAND~TROM: Yeah, I just want to -- before I

pursue the questions of counsel, I want to know what our own

position was with respect to, you now, the regulation. You

know, if we allow people to do it -- the regulation

Heritage Keporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
56

1 contemplates where you're a joint tenant, and maybe the one

2 aspect, such as the address, was done. But I have trouble

3 where someone is not a joint tenant, and that may be just

4 clearly an internal problem that -- knowing it's this form

5 right now to work out, but at least make you aware that I

6 have some concern in that regard.

7

8

MR. DUFFY: Can I just -- Ms. Rivens haa suggested

to me, and I'm just suggesting this too. I'm not going to

9 argue it, that there's that guidance can be obtained also

10

II

12

13

14

15

from 110.1(kl of the commission'S regulations on this.

MR. SANDSTROM: Yeah. The reference to 110. (k)"

doesn't -- 110. (k) does the general attributes, but it

doesn't deal with attribution of matchable funds.

MR. DUFFY: Mm-hmm.

MR. SANDSTROM: And so I appreciate that

16 instruction, but I'll look for a 'greater instruction for my

17 audit staff on this particular point because this, to me, is

18 an important point and may be a practice that we should

19 reexamine.

20 But I do appreciate very much your time here

21 today, especially with sampling because I understand you can

22 make an argument about the reliability of our sample. The

23 question then is, do you believe our sample has introduced

24 such error that -- into this or the potential such error

25 into this that the numbers that we achieve with respect to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
57

1 repayment are totally unreliable within the larger mirror of

2 -- do· you have a number?

3 MR. DUFFY: Your sa~ple is completely unreliable -

4 because it is not representative of the population. That's

5 what my statistician tells me. He says_to me, "There's no

6 argument about that." He says that you cannot test on a

9 The -- if this was a representative sample, the

8 the term "non-biased mechanism for testing."

7

10

11

test like average contribution, which is -- I think he used

average contribution within the sample would have to be

close to the average contribution in the universe as a

12 whole. The average contribution, he. has told me, in the

13 universe as a whole, is $90. The average contribution in

14

lS

the sample is 155.

MR. SANDSTROM: What universe is he taking as a

~"~""

16 whole, just the ones w~ sampled or a sample of all

17 contributions.

18

19 universe.

20

21

22

MR. DUFFY: No, the whole -- 7,220. That's the

MR. SANDSTROM: But--

MR. DUFFY: That's because that --

MR. SANDSTROM: Well, let me ask this question

23 because it seems to me if we're -- some of these are being

24 attributed to more than one person, correct? Some of them

25 are like, children. Most of the universe is attributed to

Her~:age Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
58

MR. DUFFY: Right.

MR. SANDSTROM: If what's introduced -- these areMR. DUFFY: You are -- Commissioner, you are

being attributed in many cases to more than two, then we

:wo people, the spouse and the signee.

would -- that's actually a different universe we're talking

about. And the fact that they had a different size

contribution is quite reasonable to conclude that

contributions are being attributed to more people or are

larger in character th~ those attributed just to two

people.

very kind remarks earlier on, I venture into this morass

struggling here with a statistical concept that I hope" I'm

going to be able to explain to you. Despite Ms. Thomas's

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

~1;;~> 10

Bli

i=;i 11

12

13

n~

r~:,

15 - only with the greatest of trepidation.

16 MR. SANDSTROM: Plus; t didn't say that you were

17 an artist.

18 MR.. DUFFY: This is the total of matchable

19 contributions, is the universe that the commission has

20 selected.

21

22

23

CHAIRMAN WOLD: The 7,220, is that right?

MR.. DUFFY: Right, 7,220. Is that right?

MS. THOMAS: Mm- hmm .

24 MR. DUFFY: All right. So I'm on board at least.

25 What -- the total amount of those that they used at --

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6:28-4888
59

1 $649,000, all right. That's the universe. They talk a

2 sample of 324, okay? When you take the average contribution

3 in the 7,220, you get a $90 a~erage contribution. When you

4 cake the average here, you get 155, okay? If this was

5 representative of this

8 That meaning that there's a -- that this sample is not

9 representative. Once you make that statement, everything

10 else

6

7

11

12

13

14

MR. SANDSTROM: I understand you on that.

'MR. DUFFY: It would have to be (inaudible), okay?

is --

MR. SANDSTROM·: See, that '.S why my question .went

to -- with respect to what the universe was. Now I --

you've clarified for me what the universe what. I thought

15 we talk about and end your argument in that respect.

16 MR. DUFFY: ~d the reason -- the reason I'm

17 making this point so vehemently is that this is how they

18 calculated our repayment. They multiplied their error rate

19 times this number.

20

21

22

23

24

25

cHAIRMAN WOLD: Times the 649,000?

MR. DUFFY: Right. Right.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Or times the 7,220?

MR. DUFFY: Times the 649,000.

MR. SANDSTROM: All right. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Thank you, Commissioner Sandstrom.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

4.Tti.CB:KEHT _...:F:.....,~_

1'8I't 59 of '2A:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

6

9

10

:=" 11

r;·~: 12

13

14

15

16

17

16

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

One more question, Mr. DUffy, about the universe, sir.

MR. DUFFY: Yes.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: I understand that there are 7,220

contributions in that universe.

MR. DUFFY: Mm-hmm.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: But what is that universe

comprised of? Is that --

MR. DUFFY: We only have the commissions -- what

we understand from th~ir documents is it's all contributions

that were matched. all matched contributions. (Whispering)

I'm sorry. Right. They -- I'm corrected. They define this

as all matched contributions that had some reattribution

connected to them.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: All right.

MR. DUFFY: Okay. I apologize for that.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: I just want to make sure we're on

the same track here'and have the same understanding. Thank

you. From our general counsel's office, we have our general

counsel, Lawrence Noble and two staff attorneys, Delanie

Painter and Rhonda Vosdingh. Mr. Noble, do you have any

questions, or does your office have any questions?

MR. NOBLE: There's just a couple. Good morning,

Mr. Duffy.

MR. DUFFY: Good Morning.

MR. NOBLE: Ms. Buchanan. Just to get clear

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

;: . 10

ru 11 Wi

- 12

f:J 13

11 ii '!;;,E 14

f~

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

. information that you don't have -- you say you don't have at

this point -- when we're talking about the sampling, you're

saying that you have most of the information you requested

or all the information you requested except for the manual

with regard to how the sample is selected, correct?

MR. DUFFY: May I defer to Ms. Rivens, who'S had

actual, you know, discussion with it.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Mr. DUffy, if Ms. Rivens would

like to join you at the table there, that would be perfectly

appropriate to go up.

MS. RIVENS: Good morning.

CHA"!RMJl.N WOLD: Good morning. --

MS. RIVENS: According to 'our expert, what he

says, he still does not have -- it's some kind pf compute~

manual that would explain to him how the statistical model

worked. He has computer printouts, so, basically, he sees

what the inputs were, the input figures, and what the output

figures are. But he still doesn't have any kind of manual

to give him guidance of exactly how the model works.

And the upshot of that is that he is guessing that

he is accurately replicating exactly how the staff performed

its analysis. He', thinking that he'S replicating it, you

know, to find out whether there are errors, but he can never

be 100 percent sure of that because he doesn't have what he

describes as a computer manual that would explain to him

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

4

5

6

7 'i,; '='

~~ 8

=1

• 9

~.t!i

~~~ 10

U

11

f::..-..,

1'2

ill 13

Fd

Hi..L"t.. ..; 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

exactly how the model works and how it spits out -the output

that it does.

MR. NOBLE: So at this point, with regard to

selecting the sample, that's all that you believe you're

missing?

MS. RIVENS: That's what he believes he ~equires.

MR. NOBLE: Mr. Duffy.

MR. DUFFY: Yes.

MR. NOBLE: Or whoever. You made a statement

earlier on that all of these contributions would have been

matchable had they been given directly -- the reattributed

contributions -- had they been given directly to the

campaign. But we don't have any documentation that these

were given by check or any written instrument, do we?

MR. DUFFY: I don't recall saying that. It's

possible that I did, but I'm not ·sure I understand what

you're --

MR. NOBLE: Going to the reattributed part of the

contribution --

MR. DUFFY: Yeah.

MR. NOBLE: You said that you didn't see really a

problem with matching that part of it because this second

donor, if you will, gave the original contributor the money.

MR. DUFFY: Right.

MR. NOBLE: But we don't know how that money was

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4.888

ATTA.ClDlEIiT

Pace 6£ _ot -U.::l..-
63

g~ven, do we?

MS. BUCHANAN: Just in some instances.

MR. DUFFY, In some -- well, we can only rely onthe information that was obtained from the -- by the audit

staff. The information comes in two forms, one, the

responses to the questionnaires that the audit staff sent

out in which there were notations, it seems to me. Some

people said we gave money.

The other in;ormation we have is inf~rmation

contained in the audit report itself which explains that in

some situations people said they gave cash in response,

appar~ntly to some conversation between-them and the audit

staff.

So what we're saying here is, the commission has'

eliminated completely the idea that people could respond

that they had an equit~le interest in the account after

having given money to somebody who had the account, and I

don't see why that's the case.

It seems to me that I have an equitable interest

in money in Ms. Buchanan's account if I have given her

money, and she and either she has put her in the account

or I am giving it to her for the purpose of allowing a

reattribution of contribution that has been made on that

account. I'm just buying, in essence, a portion of her

contribution.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(2021 628-4888
64

The commission's regulations are silent on this

2 issue." I'm not suggesting, as I previously suggested, I

3 don't think this is something the commission wants to

4 encourage. I fully agree, but I'm saying that there's

5 nothing that makes it illegal.

6

7

MR. NOBLE: You've gotten into th~ other I want to

get into, is what your definition of equitable interest in

8 the account was. In citing the -- in the regulations, we

9 used equitable interest in account in a very specific area,

10 not just generally with anybody's account.

tta I;;;

~1=t'~f

11

12

13

14

So is your definition -- when you come back to

equit_able int;ere~t, you're. saying that -any time the second

contributor gave the first contributor money, that that then

created an equitable interest in the first contributor'S

lS account up to that amount?

16 MR. DUFFY: Well, it makes it a trus"e account

17 certainly.

18

19

MR. NOBLE: It makes it a legal trust account'?'

MR. DUFFY: Absolutely. I mean, r hold -- no

20 doubt that I hold that a person who has money that they're

21 holding for me for a particular purpose is a common law

22 trustee.

23 MR. NOBLE: And you say that that gives the second

24 giver a equitable interest in that checking account?

25 MR. DUFFY: Absolutely. If I gave Ms. Buchanan

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
65

1 money, all right, ~n order to take a portion of a

2 contribution that she had -- already been made, I'd better

3 get a portion of that contribution because I have an

4 equitable interest in the money in her account to the extent

5 that it is -- has been sent to the candidate as pare of a

6 contribution.

7

8

If that isn't done, if it's not accomplished in

that fashion, that's a violation, and I can sue under common

9 law to get that money>back. I mean -- but the law impresses

~o

~l

12

~3

14

a trust in a nu~~er of situations similar to that.

MR. NOBLE: In your view tl1at is what the

regu:l:.ation is ta_lking about when it talks about you ma'intain

an equitable interest in an' account?

MR. DUFFY: I'm saying that's what the committee

,..;, .

15 - interpreted it to mean.

16 MR. NOBLE: I see. Now but if that money -- if

17 that cash was given directly to the campaign, obviously,

18 that would be matchable, correct?

19

20

21

MR. DUFFY: We agree with that.

MR. NOBLE: All right_ Thank you.

CHAIRMAN WOLl): Thank you. AlSG joining us in

22 this hearing are our staff director, James Pehrkon and two

23 representatives of the audit division. Joseph Stoltz and

24 Wanda Thomas. Mr. Staff Director. do you or the audit

25 division have any questions?

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
66

him?

unbiased test -- "the mean was an unbiased test." was the

in a situation like this is or is not random and, therefore,

in this --

MR. r think we do. Again, good morning. ?EHRKON:

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888

MR. PEHRKON': Okay. And any further background on

MR. DUFFY: Good morning.

MS. RIVENS: His name is Patrick Goshtigian, and

he is with the Analysis GrOup/Economics in Los Angeles,

California.

MR. PEHRKON: And t~e only question that I have

is, I'm not familiar with your expert, so could you give

us -- give me a little background?

is or is not a representative of the universe as a whole.

MS. RIVENS: I don't have .his CV with me.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Ms. Rivens, is chat something you

could provide to us?

MS. RIVENS: Yes. certainly.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: That would be helpful. Thank you.

MR. PEHR1{ON: I guess the only other question I

had is, you talked about the average amount of thecontribution of this population. There were 7,220. What

about the median size of the contribution?

MR.. DUFFY: Hia - - he said that the. test. the.

checking whether or not a particular sample is

way he put it. that is generally accepted as a mechanism for

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

• 17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
1

2

3

..

5

6

7

8

9

~1 10

~:::::~

b:;;' 11 ;:

~:~":, 12 pw

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67

I've got the -- he did not mention -- you said the median?

MR. PEHRKON: Median, yeah.

MR. DuFFY: Median .. And -- but r will certainly

have him respond to that, as to why that wouldn't be

appropriate or what that calculation was if he made that

calculation.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Thank you. Mr. Stoltz?

MR. STOLTZ: Also, with respect to this

calculation over here ?- and I certainly have no reason to

doubt that it's accurate -- did your expert discuss how this

calculation might be affected, given that we are dealing

with a dollar unit sampling plan as .opposed to the more

traditional variables plan, where a particular transaction

is selected in the variables plan, where a particular --

unit of value is selected in the dollar unit: plan? Frankly,

under the dollar unit plan, I would be very surprised if

this is not the result that you got.

MS. RIVENS: That is not something that we

discussed, but, obviously, that:- is something that we could

have him address in our submission in five days, although he

is certainly aware -- I know that he' IT aware that what this

is is a dollar unit sampling method.

MR. STOLTZ: It would be almost impossible for

this to come out the same in a dollar unit· selection.

Anc~her question, you argue that we should be

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
68

,

..

2

4

5

6

7

using the lower er.d of - our

MR. DUFFY: I'm sorry?

M..~. STOLTZ: You were arguing that we should be .

using the lower end of the range.

!{R. DUFFY, Right.

MR. STOLTZ: Would you also then suggest that when

we're paying matching funds out, we should be doing the same

8 thing?

9 MR. Dt....FFY: ,That' s -- when you pay matching funds

10 out, you are protecting the fisc of the United States, and

11 you are balancing that against the possibility tha~ within

nJ ~" ...

- ~2

~3

the area of the" range that you're t~lking about, the -- that

there are areas in the matching fund submission.

That is, it seems to me, entirely a p.olicy

15 decision that you make depending on your- balance as to how

16 much you want to penalize individuals or restrict

17 individuals in giving out matching funds.

18 Certainly, an argument could be made that the most

19 conservative method and the most accurate method in terms of

20 your obligation to protect the Treasury from being asked to

21 match contributions that aren't matchable would be to use

22 the lowest end. That would be the most conservative method.

23 Whether or not you should do that is really a policy

24 determination based upon whether or not your goals of and

25 the Congress's goals -- of financing candidates is best

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
69

1 . achieved by using some other nUmber w~thin the range.

2 It seems to me you could arg~e as well that.

3 because of the importance of getting money to candidates,

4 you should use the end of the range that most support money.

S Or you could use the end of the range which most -- which

6 least supports money, okay? That's sort of a policy

7 decision.

8 But when you're asking me for money, my view is

9 ~hat you have goe to ask me only for the amount of money

10

11

that you have confidence that I have to return to you. I

think that -- right now, as I understand it, the commission

12 basic~lly uses t~e mid-poi~t. right?

13

14

"MR. STOLTZ: T~at's correct.

MR. DOFFY: Right. So -- but you could argue that

IS it would be better for you to assume that the -- in an error

16 range that the errors were very small, just as' we're

17 proposing. Perhaps. I'm confusing this. but are you you

18 would say use the lowest end of the range. of the error

19 range. right?

20 MR. STOLTZ:' Well, that' s what you're saying we

21 should be using her&.

22 MR. DUFFY: Right. Right. If you say there's a

23 range -- are you doing a range of errors in the matching

24 fund or just a range of matchable contributions?

25 MR. STOLTZ: It's the same calculation we are

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
70

1 doing here in the sampling plan.

2 MR. DUFFY: Righc. It was 92 percent matchable,

3 like an example of ours, righ~, plus or minus something?

4

5

MR. STOLTZ: That's correct.

MR. DUFFY: Right. So you could theoretically

6 adopt the idea that the highest end of the range was

7 matchable. That would that would advance the cause of

9 getting more money out to the candidates, okay, while still

9 being objectively -- -but that's a policy determination.

f'H

H:::

fu; '';"'J

10

II

12

13

14

Basically, you're saying what -- or you could say,

"I think we need to very, very careful that we not give a

single dollar of matching money," okay, "that isn't

appropriate," in which caSe, you ought to be using the low

end of the range, okay? But you're making that a policy

15 decision.

16 What you're doing here is, you're saying to me "I

17 want money from you." And we're saying, "You only have"

18 "You can only get the amount of money from us that you can

19 get -- absolutely demonstrate we owe you," and that's the

20 lowest end of the range.

21 MR. STOLTZ: And it just occurred to me that

22 before we were going to pay you on the mid-point, and we

23 then later decide that, because of information that we

24 weren't aware of at the time we paid you, that we paid you

25 too much. The mid-point would seem to be the consistent way

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
,- to calculate what we ove~paid, You may disagree, but

2 MR. DUFFY: Well -- but it seems to me that the

3 errors that you're talking ab~ut in your initial calculation

4 are not errors t~at you're talking about now. You're

5 talking about separate errors. I mean _

•

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

MR. STOLTZ: Oh, absolutely.

MR. DUFFY: The errors --

MR. STOLTZ: They're the same errors.

MR. DUFFY~ And what you said when you calculated

the first set of errors -- you calculated the first set of

errors based on errors that were obvious on the face of the

documents. And these are not, in your view -- and you've

explained that in your 'audit document -- obvious in the face

of the document. So I don't agree with that. It makes'no

15 sense.

16 MR. STOLTZ: Okay. Back a little bit to the forms

17 that were mailed out -- that you talked about. In some

18 cases -- but not every one, but in some cases, when the

19 forms were mailed out, the names of the reattributees were

20 already typed on the form. Was there some sort of contact

21 with folks before they went out?

22 I mean, one, for example, I have in front of me

23 were the Brysons, and they had made quite a few

24 contributions. And the form went out, and the contributions

25 of Kathleen and Craig were reattributed to what appears to

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
- be the~r 1C children. And when it went OUt, the names were

2 already typed on the form.

3

4

MR. DUFFY: I --

CHAI&~ WOLD: Excuse me, Mr. Stoltz. Is that

5 the dccument we have in the report that's __

6 MR. STOLTZ: It's not one that you have in your

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

report.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: All right.

MR. DUFFY ( Where is this? What document?

MR. STOLTZ: You may not have that one.

MR. DUFFY: Oh, okay.

MR. STOLTZ: It's one of the

MR. DUFFY: All I can respond on that is that -- 14 that there's -- that I have been told and I think Ms.

lS - Buchanan testified to it or spoken to it -- why exactly the

16 process that the committee followed was to send out the

17 letter and the form. And you have the letter and your form.

18 r can't really comment on this individual case

19 because I haven't personally investigated this individual

20 case. But. you know --

21

22

MS. BUCHANAN: If the -- if there's --

MR. DUFFY: Well. we have to see that. If you can

23 just give us a copy of the form, she might have some idea on

24 this. Okay. So this is the --

25 CHAIRMAN WOLD: Mr. Duffy, could you identify what

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
2

~~ac iocumenc 1S so ~c ~an be identified later?

MR. DUFFY: O~ay. It's Sheet B, and it is a

3 apparently, it's a printout t~ac's been supplied to me by

4 Mr. Stoltz. It's -- it doesn't seem to be further

5 identified except, it's entitled, "The review of

6 contributions from Craig and Kathleen Bryson. II And these

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

contributions are here.

MS. BUCHANAN: Is there a copy of the check?

MR. DUFFY: And I think there'S a copy of the

there'S not a copy of the check, but there'S a copy of the

document..

Why don't you do this? Why don't you look at this

and see if you have any 'thing to contribute,on it becaus& I

certainly don't want to

MS. BUCHANAN: My attorney is very nervous about

16 me, as you might notice.

17 MR. DUFFY: Well, I just want you to speak

18 accurately, and I don't think you can -- speaking off the

19 top of your head is not likely to guarantee accuracy.

20

21

MR. DUFFY: We'll strike that from the record.

MR. MASON: Can I just -- the issue that I think

22 Joe is trying to get is, were this -- was this all done on

23 paper, or was there phone solicitation. And I would say, in

24 addition to whatever is there, there's an indication in our

25 survey results where one of the contributors said this was

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
74

1 co be attributed to a seven year old, per phone solicicor's

2 suggestion.

3

4

MS. BUCHANAN: Well, the --

MR, t4ASON: So that's the kind of thing that makes

5 one wonder whether somebody was making phone calls to the

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

MS. BUCHANAN: This is the time when the phone

calls were made.

MR. MASON: Ms. Buchanan.

MS. BUCHANAN: ~~d is that -- if you receive a

contribution for $2000, obviously, we're just not going to

send a thousand back. We called them up, "Is this a joint

account." And we'd find o~t, and then we'd fill out the

form appropriately and put it in the computer appropriately~

Also, when you aggregate your contributions -"- and

15 so when one person comes in for $8,000, you know that they -

16 - obviously, it's been attributed wrong. An~ you may call

17 them and say, "How did you mean to give this? Is there

18 other people involved here," and you go from there.

19 As for the -- you know, what exactly the

20 conversation that might have been had, if there was some

21 aggressive young man or woman on the phone that said, "Do

22 you have a seven year old," that certainly was not policy.

23 That was certainly not acceptable. I know now, and people

24 ask me all the time, and I've very clear about that, as I

25 would have been then. What this one young man or woman may

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
'5

have done at one cime, I cannot address.

2 But that's -- we do not call people up and ask if

3 they'll give several contributions under several names. We

4 get checks, and these letters went out automatically. The

5 only time you would get on the phone is if you saw

6 automatically that it was over a thousand, and, obviously,

9 okay, counsel?

8 it's okay to reattribute and then send a letter. Was that

7

10

11

12

you're writing a refund, or you're going to find out that

MR. DUFFY: It's okay by me as long as it's

MR. STOLTZ: One last question if I could. The

- .

contribution thaf you referred to when people called and

13 wanted their money back -- how was that refunded? Was it

14 refunded to the reattributees, or to the Original

15 contributor.

16 MR. DUFFY: It was refunded to the original

17 contributor, and that was because they suggested in their

18 conversation that they wanted it refunded to the original

19 contributor. And I took that as some suggestion that there

20 was a problem with the reattribution, so I didn't see we

21 did not receive telephone calls from the reattributees. We

22 received a telephoRe call from the contributor, who said

23 that he had talked to somebody at the FEC and the FEC had

24 told him that getting a refund would be a good idea. Now

25 that's what they told me, they wanted a refund. We gave him

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
75

1 a rp.fund.

2

3

5

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Mr. Stoltz, is that it for you?

MR. STOLTZ: That's it for me.

CHAI~~ WOLD: Ms. Thomas?

MS. THOMAS: This question is for Ms. Buchanan.

6 You stated that you identified contributions that appear to

7

8

9

or seem like they could be reattributed, and you sent

letters to the contributors asking about that.

And your ~etter that's in the agenda document,

10 Attachment 1, page 19 -- and it says, "If your contribution

11

12

can be partially attributed to your spouse or other member

of your family, the committee can submit it for aaditional

13 matching funds.

14 And also, in the commission's guidelines, this

15 document, "Guideline for Presentation in Good Order," in

16 which we give you a provision to have reattributions

17 matched, and we even include an example of a form that you

18 can send to a contributor asking -- and on this form it

19 states, "Your contribution of $X dated (date) and drawn on

20 check number of the joint account identified as," and

21 there's a blank, "will qualify for matching only if the

22 follOWing statement set forth below is true and, if so, is

23 confirmed by your signature."

24 And the statement is, this is to certify that a

2S contribution of $X affected on the instrument described

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
.,..,

, ,

above sho~ld be acc~ibuced to me, The aCCOunt conca1ns my

personal funds. and my signacure appears below,"

If the committee Eo~lowed, I guess, what appears

to be your own policy or guidelines for seeking

reattributions of contributions, there were a number of

things that we considered very irregular when we reviewed,

which is what initiated this whole thing.

And I just want co give you an example of one that

is particularly egr~gious just to get your response to it.

One contributor, whose name is Mary Ellen Rogge, R-o-g-g-e,

gave 35 contributions to the committee totaling $9,325. And

And there were 30 different reattributions to'nine

different individuals. And none of the nine individuals is

named on the face of the instrument on which the

contributions were made, and none of the nine individuals

has the same surname as this person, and there isn't any

indication that there is joint accounts with these people or

that they own the money that is being used to make the

contributions.

And while I agree this is a really egregious case,

I can probably sit here for a while and go through a number

of others that we questioned. So I just wondered if you

would respond to that.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

78

MS. BUC~~AN: I have no information as to why

2 that \voman would have signed a letter reattributing all that

3 money. I have no idea. She's not a familiar name to me. r

4 have not discussed it with her, so I have no information to

'3 add to it.:.

6 MS. THO~~: I just wanted to mention that in the

7 case of the contributions that were refunded, contributions

8 from the Hamiltons -- they were initially two $1000

9 contributions that were reattributed to six different

10

11

12

13

14

individuals that also didn't have their names imprinted on

the face of the instruments, or there was no other

indication that the funds were owned by those individuals to

make the contributions.'

I'm just bringing this up because I'm just trying

15 to understand what the procedure might have been or how the

16 contributors were informed of what a proper reattribution

17 is.

18 MR. DUFFY: Well, I guess this is the difference

19 that we are having here, and this is where we seem to be

20 leaping from one mechanism to another.

21 If you're going to conduct an investigation of how

22 this occurred and a full audit of how it occurred, then we

23 be able because -- we will then be, it seems to me, able

24 to -- required to talk to these individuals and get

25 additional information as to how this occurred.

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
2

J

4

5

6

7

t"Ir.=:

~"';"T:

\:f.£ 8

if1

:;-"'" 9

;;,':il 10 hi .

UJ

= 11 W

f"=.; 12

U 13

r1~ 14 ~"WJ ..

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

We can't respond to each of these mechan~sms or

how things didn't get done the way we would have liked them

to get done. We have to sort of look at the question of

whether or net we owe this money, okay? My -- you know, if

what you're saying is that you feel that there were

reatcributions here that were done inappropriately or chat

the mechanism that the committee used of sending out these

documents led to a number of people who are not

sophisticated reattributing things, you may be correct.

But I don't see -- people who have the refund did

not contact me directly. Their attorney from Covington and

Burling called me. So this is not -- these are not people

who could be described ~s. three people sitting in a shack

unclear about what they were reading or what they were .

reattributing. I mean, these are sophisticated people with

high level attorneys.

So I don't know why people are signing these

things and making statements that are, apparently, in their

cases inconsistent. But -- but I guess we have to either

approach this in one of two ways. Either we can approach it

on the individual basis approach, or we can approach it from

the sample approach. But I don't think we can conveniently

mix the two, and I don't think that the errors in the sample

approach can be justified under your theory that you did, in

fact, in the universe of 7,220 incidents find some really

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
90

. stUpid examples of reattributicn.

2 r mean, I -- you may have been alerted to it by

3 this, by some of these issues, and, obviously, it's your

4 obligation to investigate things. That's why police don't

5 just sit in their cars eating donuts. They actually get out

6 and talk to people who look like they are suspicious or

7 unclear as to what they're doing. And that's appropriate,

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

and that's what your job is.

But you're,proceeding on a completely different

basis now, now proceeding on the basis of I am presenting an

objective scientific sample of the population, and in that

case, we think that's flaw~d.

CKAIRMAN WOLD:· Thank you. Any further questions?

Any commissioners have any follow-up questions?

15 Commissioner Sandstrom?

16 MR. SANDSTROM: Just a couple to tha auditors

17 because I'm not a statistician, and I haven't had the

18 opportunity to read your answer. And I gathered from the

19 question of our auditors that there are more than one way to

20 generate a sample. If I randomly generate just on all the

21 contributions that you received the 7,000, I would get one

22 number. But if r -- there may be statistically valid ways

23 of generating a sample that would not necessarily mean that

24 it has to -- would have to match the average contribution

25 MR. STOLTZ: That's correct. The sampling

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
1

2

3

..

5

6

7

;;:..::. 8 \J;

?'1: 9

10

U!i

r~ 11

\d

:; 1~

r:..~-;

W 13

f1J 14

r~~ 15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

:esh~~~~e we ~sed to paYout matching funds, and we also

used the audit process was recommended to us 20 years ago by

the then firm of Ernst & Whinney. The commission hired them

as consultants to come in and 'analyze the problem and

recommend a particular approach.

The approach they recommended is a commonly used

sampling technique known as dollar unit sampling. A couple

of other names too, but that's probably the most common,

What it does is, it selects contributions from -- or selects

sample items -- from the $649,210. Each dollar is a

separate unit in that population.

MR. SANDSTROM or MR. DUFFY: Rather than on the

item?

MR. STOLTZ: Yeah. and then, truth be known, it

doesn't really work in dollars. it works in pennies because

that way no one unit in the population can be contained part

within one transaction and part within another.

And drawing it that way, the more pennies are

accounted for by a given transaction, the more likely it is

to be selected. What we're evaluating is how many pennies

in there were not matching, not how many contributions. And

that's the way it works.

MR. SANDSTROM: That's my only question. I just

wanted to get that on the record.

MR. DUFFY: Well, I join Mr. Sandstrom in not

Heritage Reporting corporation

(202) 628-4888
82

1 being an expert in statistics. Our expert with, given :he

2 ~nformation he had is confident that this approach, that the

3 analysis he has done is -- shqws that the sample is not

4 random.

11 a number that is in a high range of contributions.

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

The the benefit that this approach has, in my

view, is that it it seems to me to comport with logic,

which is that it seems to me that the amount of -- he's

correct that if you just simply take the average

contributions, it appears that the sample that has been

selected by the commission is weighted, that is, it produces

Now perhaps that was a -useful and appropriateapproach recommended by Ernst • Whinney for doing your

matching fund analysis, which is where Ernst .-Whinney first

15 made this recommendation, if I'm correct.

MR. STOLTZ: That's correct.

17 MR. DUFFY: Right. But perhaps - - and I just say

18 perhaps -- the audit staff has incorrectly applied it in a

19 situation where theY'r~ asking for money back, okay, from

20 us. And it seeme: to me here that -- that we are going to

21 have to respond to the audit staff's view. And I don't know

22 -- and Rhonda'. teiling me that we were not -- that we

23 didn't have information. Is this correct, that we don't

24 have the information as to how the commission selected the

2S sample?

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
MS. RlvcNS: As to how the dollar unit sampling

2 method works. The explanation that_you gave, it was based

J on selecting pennies. \'le didn't have that information.

4 wh~ch is part of the reason why our expert was asking for

5 some kind of computer manual or something like that that

6 explained how the model worked.

7 MR. DUFFY: So we don't -- you know, it's entirely

8 possible and -- that there'S a problem here without

9 statistical analysis explanation. But with all due respect,

•

10

11

12

it does seem to me hard to suggest that a sample can be

random if a significant element in the sample is different.

I -- and that's just my -- you ~~ow, that's jUs~ my vision

13 as a non-statistician.- BUt I'm confident that I c~~ gee my

14

15

16

17

statistical expert to respond to it.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: Thank you. Any other questions?

A PARTICIPANT: No.

CHAIRMAN WOLD: If not. this hearing will be

18 concluded. and the meeting will be adjourned. Thank you

19 very much.

20 (Whereupon. at 12:12 p.m., the hearing in the

21 above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

22 II

23 II

24 II

2S II

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
,

..

2

3

4

5

6

1;..-..;

7 IlJi

nod!

::;:fol< S

"'i

; ,::~ 9

tH

F~ 10

W

11 r-.... ; .~:

a 12

•

ill 13

f:.iJ 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

84

REPORTER'S CERTIFICAT~

DOCKET NO. : LRA # 512

CASE TITLE: In the Matter of Buchanan for President, Inc.

HEARING DATE: March 1, 2000

LOCATION: washington, DC

r hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are

contained fully and accurately on the tapes and notes

reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the

Federal Elections Commission.

Date: March 1. 2000

June Smith

Official Reporter

Heritage Reporting Corporation

Suite 600

1220 L Street, N. W.

Washington. D. C. 20005

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888
• I

STEPTOE &: ]Of-IT\lSOr\" L:.P ' lJ:W C"U~.C\.lt;ltt Itn"UI, ~w

w....,,""•. OC lDG36·\1,S

T.'.'.... IIll.\l'.IOOQ

flel'lftl •• lQ2.UIJ.JI02

www.•te.fa•. cOM

Ri'\anel U. In,eft.

ZOHU 1i'95

. rrJ"nsl!'lIIDloualll

FGbrulUJ' 7. 2000

Vii FACSI:-.1ILE - (2112) 219-1043

Kim Leslie Bright, Esq,

Associate General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

• WashingTon. D.C. 20463

• >

at: Oral Hearine Oil Bebalf of Patrick J. Buchanan and the Such.un Cor

P....ide•• ComMittee, Inc.

(LRAli512)

Dear Ms. Bright

Patrick J. Bucluuwl :wi die BuchanU for President CommiuM, tno. (tn.

"Committeej are in r"~ipt ofyour letter advisina ofthe rescheduled heannl elate regardins: the

pending Repayment ~inatiOD- The COmmittee greatly apprecwes your cooperation in

rCS'hedulinllhc hearina.

tn preparation COl: the harin,. the staUati=1 exptn retained by the Committ~hu

identified certain infonnation and matcri3ls that would greatly the Committee's abiiity

10 make the most informative oral presentation to the Commission. These materialslire lUnong

the itemS that the Committee hasunsuccessfiilly requested in the pasLI As the,e materials are

essential to the Committee's developmcm ofaIllCCu~teand thorough undmtalldins ofthe

statistical methods employed by the FEC iJl arrivinr at il.S Repayment Detennination. lhIt

Committee renews itsrequest {orthis inf'omwioe.

Specifically, the Commiuce requcsts that the FEe procluce the file containini all

sample resW&r. a ponioA ofwhich was provided inthe RepaymentDetermination as Attachment

E. inc:luam,:

I To date. theCommittee has received a. smllJl subset ofthe materials that form TM basi~

ofthe RepaymCDC D~erminalion. The materials produced to the Committee are nor adequate to

aid the Committee in its effortto W1dClSWlc1 the FEC's statistical analysis.

G

WASKINGTQN PHOENIX las ANGELES

...-- ..... ~., .-,..,. Q .. - " ......!
.... ... '" ~::.... -..

f..::m ~cs;!e Br:ght. Es~.

February:. 2QOO

?lge .2

1\ the database cantOlining the popuLilian of 7120 observations;

:!) the: d~lo1bMC: or ,pre:a.d,hc:~ of 'Mlplc re:,ult3 contsinlng 32S observlltion,.

corresponding to that djs~us.led in Attachment E. page 4 af7;

The Committee requc= thex dlta bec&l&M I number of patontial emirs CAMot bo

investil:ated based on lhe infonnl1tton the Committee has obtained rqardina the Audit statrs

. ,tatistical anaiysis.2 For cxample. the Committee canno~ discem whether the FEe properly

cOl'l$ic1ereci the variiinc:ein the :unount ofeach alleae4 ermnco1.ll reamibution. {t appeals ti'om

the cUlTent infonnation thal the FEC implicitly wumed that each alleaed emr resulted iD a $250

plymen, ta th4r CommiUft. th. maximum amDlW ofavailable mllldUq ftmlU. This is clurl"

nor rhe casc. since every reamibutel1 eontribution did not result in a52'0 maLch. Indeed. thl:

Committee's initial analysis reflects that at least 1'-/0 ofthe obserYe4 -errors- resulted in ,....

.matcninl funds ofless than 5250. SU81csUna tIw the $62,116 repaymem ImOwn is clearly too

high. The Committee has no way ofconfinninc the presence or magnitude ofthis bias. howevft.

bocause the Commil'tM'dou not have the duabliH c:ant&iDin1 &11 altha _pl. rOlu!tlJ

•

3)

4)

the basis fot the calculation of the 3.69% marein of error referenced in

Attachment E. pase .: of7: and,

:In expl:utatiol'l for eacn aithe exc:iusions from the sample of 325 observations

that are noted in. Actlchment E at page 4 of 7. similar to whaJ is providel1.11 pages

5-7 ofAttaehment E.

Committee also has questioDi concerning the method by which the Audit

Staffdefined its populaQOQ aDd drewa sample therefrom. The Audit StaffapJWently bepn its

analysis by definiaa a population of 7220 "mate~ contributions from all contributors

associated with any reanributioD for awchiDa:,) The Audit statrthen excluded more than half

ofthis samp!ebecl1U5e the ilemS were "nol reattribuled contributions." The Committee does nat'

I The FEe hu deDiecl theCommirttt's requests tor additional information on the gtOwcl

that cenaiD information prepared by FEC investiaacors is "protected from disclosLft." s.u L~er

from Jeal J. Roeuner. Aouam.", Flfder:Il EI,ction Commission, to loba 1. Duffy. Cowuel for me

Committee (October"~ 1999)II I. Alrhour:b the Committee does not concede that then: is any

b:uis (orFEC's privi1qe defease, the materials now bein, requested are purely empirical in

nature and not the procfuct ofany investiptive or deliberative process; conscqucntly. they

cannot credibly "protected from disclosure" under any theory ofprivilege.

l Repayment Detennination at 2.

Repayment Determination., Attachment Eat 4 of 7.

Ci: . 'Jl.,' ._ "'rTJl.Cll.W!iA. --_. .,. .,

P

.._ ::J of .. _.~- ue- "'<.
iii "'.

Kim :"'~sh~ 3ngnt. £Ss.

F~br..lJ.r) 7. 2GOO

PJge 3

cr.derstand ....h)· con~tibU:tlons that were "not ,e.:l:tnbut~d ccntnbutions" were ever included in the

sample. given the FEC'soriginal popul:ltion definition. Thus, the Commiuee needs information

regarding the basis 0 f the FEe's calculation of a sampling error rate as w::ll as definitions of

excluded item3.

The information receIved by the Committee thus far has been sufficient Lo

conduct an mitial analYsis thaI cam doubt on core aspects ofthe FEC' 5 analysis: the 1l0llulation

ll1d sample definitions, and the rep~yment amount derived from the FEC's alUlysis. As several

courts have observed. use ofsU!istical sampling CaMot comport with due process unless the

methods employed are "valid and reliable'" and the o£.posing plU'Iy has a full "opponunity to

rebut" :1 government "dctmninaLion ofQverpaymenL The requested information is necessary

to enable the Committee 10 condjlct an analysis of the validity and reliability ofthe FEe's

st31istical methods; without this information. the Committee is effectively deprived ofthe

"oppnnunity to rebul" the Repayment Determination. Therefore, the Committee respectfully

requests that the FEC produce the file containing all statistical !ilUnple resWts includin~

specifically, the mlltCrials described herein.

IY Submitted.' r ..

, ~~rc--

Rhonda M. Rivou

s Webb v Sbalala. 49 F. Supp.:lei 1114, 1124 (N.D. Ark. 1(99) (citinS Rapwsen v.

Califomia. 11 F.3cll467. 14'n (9th Cir. 1993) and Michis!IJ\ Oep't ofEduc. v. M'S. Om'l of

875 F.2c11196. 1206 (6th Cir. 1989».

Webb, 49 F. Supp.2d at 1123 (citing Illinois PhY~iciw Union v. Miller, 675 F.2d 151,

IS6 (7th Cir. 19112».

37%
FEDERAL ELECTiO~~ COMMISSION

Februacy 16, 2000

•

HAND DELIVERY

Rhonda M. Rivens, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson

1330 COMecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-1795

Re: Request for Documents- Buchanan for

President Committee, Inc. (LRA #512)

Dear Ms. Rivens:

This is in response to your letter to Kim Leslie Bright dated February 7, 2000, in which

you requested certain documents. You state that these materials will enable you and your

statistical expert to better prepare for the oral hearing on bebalfofyour clients, Patrick Buchanan

and the Buchanan for President Committee, Inc. (the "Committee"), pursuant to 11 C.F.R.

§ 9038.2(c)(2)(ii), scheduled for March 1, 2000. Speci1kany, you reque!ted: .

1) the database c:omaining the population of7220 observations; 2) the database·

or spreadsheet ofsample results containing 325 observations, corresponding to

that discussed in [the Notice ofRepayment Determination] Attachment E, page 4

of7; 3) the basis for the calculation ofthe 3.69010 margin ofmor referenced in

Attachment E, page 2 of7; and, 4) an explanation for each ofthe exclusions from

the sample of32S observations that are noted in Attachment E at page 4 of7,

similar to what is provided at pages 5-7 ofAttachment E.

Materials responsive to your request are enclosed, including a computer diskette

containing the information requested in item 1.

Enclosure

.-

Sincerely,

{kb tD (fatilLADelanie DeWitt Painter

Attorney
• .. _ • M" M::_ :_... !.I:

! STEPTOE &0 J0I-fNSON LLPl

UTCRHflS AT l).W

Aha"'•• M. A;.....a

202.421.5416

tti...ntiltl,I...CII.,"

february 18.2000

Via FACSl.\1ILE - (202) 219-1043

1D6 ConNe:tJCUt bUUI. WN

w••ht.,..•. DC ~1711i

T........... IllZ.CZt1eoo

'.0;.IMII.IDl.4a.)tOt

WY!IW, etllltftll.CMa

Delanie DeWitt Painter, Esq.

Anomey

Federal Election Commission

Washington, D.C. 20463

Re: Oral He:al'illg on Debslf of Patrick J. BuchaDaD aad the BucbaDan for

President Committee, IDC.

(LRA 11512)

Dear Ms. PlPnter:

Mr. Duffy and I appreciate your Ilrompt'assistance in the providing m:atariaIa

recently reque.sted by the Commiaee to enable u.s to prepare for the oral hearing regarding the

Repayment Determination.

After reviewing the materials provided to date. however, the statistical expert

retained by the Ccmmitt:e has identified cenain infomwion 2nd materil1& that were previoUlly

requested in the Committee's Febnwy 7, 2000 letter to Kim Leslie Brigl:lt, but were not

provided by the FEC in it! February 16.2000 production. Specifically, the Committee does not

have an explanation for eacb ofthe exclusions from the sample of325 observations that are

noted in Attachment E at page 4 of 7, similar to the explanation provided at pases s-7 of

Attachment E.

The informanon thallhe Committee has received to date SUiIest5 that the seunple

utilized by the FEC is biueci and. not random since there appears to be 4 significant difference

between the size oethe average contribution in the population and in the sample. [nformation

regarding the method used to exclude observations trom the sample may shed light Oft potential

sample biu. Currently, however. the Committee is UNble to discern what method was used to

exclude observations.' -

WASHINGTON PHOENIX

ATUCJ'::~ J:_ . PaBEt. . ~Z _£<._

LOS ANGELES

37 ',:

• I
.......... "'::- =-•• Z:Z42ill:Z .::-;:~ ,

Deiante ~eWm Pa:nter, Esq.

February 18, ':;000

Page 2

- As noted In OUI previous requests. severa) courts have observed that the use of-

;latistical ~~pling cannot comport with due process unless the methods employed are "valid

and teliable'" J!ld the opposing party has a full "opportunity to rebut" a government

"determination of overpayment.'" The: requested infonn3tion is nee:essary to enable ,he

Committee to conduct an analysis ofthe validiry and reliability ofthe FEC's stiltistical methods;

WIthOut thIS mformation. the Committee is effcctively deprived of the "opponunity to rebut" the

Repayment Determination. Therefore. the Com:'l'Iittee respectfully requests that tile FEe pro,;id~

an explanation for e;1.ch of the exclusions from the sample of 325 observations.

Respectfully submitted. .

2~~/(?s Rhonda M. RjvC1U

.-

I Webb v. Shall!" 49 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1124 (N.D. Ark. 1999) (citing Ratanasen v.

Caljfomi~ 11 F.3d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1993) and Michjgan Dep't ofEduc.v. [J.S. Dep't of

Educ., 815 F.ld 1196, 1206 (6th Cir. (989».

2 Webb, 49 F. Supp.2d at! 123 (citing Illinois Phvsjcjan:s Union V Mjllc:r. 675 F.2d 151,

156 (7th Cir. 1982».

37% P.Q3
R.,~onda M Rj,·ens

Page .2

, Sirrulariy, the spreadsheet for the extended sample of 1::5 additional items indicates that

three had already been selected in the imtial sample of ::00 sample items and did not meet the

criteria for review (blue). 5 would have been an error in a regular submission (tan), and 6S were

not reattributed contributions (red) The phrase "did not meet the criteria for review" in the

spreadsheet means that when the item was selected in the initial sample, it was excluded for one of

the reasons listed in the legend. Gfthe three items in the extended sample that had been

previously selected in the initial sample and did not meet the criteria for review, two were not

reattributed contributions and one would have been an error in the regular matching fund

submission.

Sincerely,

j~.. ;}/V .-

fUt.YU..IJ

Dclanic DeWitt Painter /

Attorney

-,

.A.T'!'ACIDlEl:'l' _ T

PB4fll eX -:;.r2
FEDERAL ELECTIO~ COM,\~ISSIOI'<

February 25, 2000

VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

Rhonda M. Rivens, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

~ashington, D.C. 20036-1795

Re: Request for Documents - Buchanan for

President Committee, Inc. (LRA #512)

Dear Ms. Rivens:

This is in response to your letter sent by facsimile transmission on Friday eve~&

February 18,2000, in which you requested certain documents on behalfofyout'clients, Patrick

Buchanan and the Buchanan for President Committee, Inc. (the "Committee"). In a telephone

conversation late Friday afternoon, you told me that the Committee might send another request

for information because your statistical expert needs an explanation ofthe phrase "did not meet

criteria for review" and the reasons why certain observations were excluded from the sample. .- ..

Your letter states that in response to your February 7,2000 request for documents, this Office did

not provide "an explanation for each ofthe exclusions from the sample of32S observations that

are noted in Attachment E [ofthe Notice ofRepayment Determinationlat page 4 of7, similar to

the explanation provided at pages 5-7 ofAttachment E." You request that this Office "provide an

explanation for each ofthe exclusions from the sample of325 observations."

This Office tUlly complied with your February 1, 2000 request for documents. The two

Lotus spreadSheets ofthe sample items, provided in both electronic and paper format, list each of

the sample items and include an explanation for each ofthe exclusions from the sample of

observations. The spreadsheets are color-coded and include a legend explaining why certain

sample items were excluded as non-usable items. The spreadsheet ofthe initial sample of2oo

items indicatesthat 14 SlPlPle items were excluded from review because they would have been an

error in a regular matchins fund submission (items coded tan), and one was an error in a regular

submission (green); therefore, the matchability ofthese IS items has already been accounted for

during the initial review ofthe matching fund submissions. In addition, the spreadsheet indicates

that 124 sample items were excluded from review because they were not reattributed

contributions (red). Finally, one contribution was refunded (blue) on May 10, 1999. Since

refunded contributions are not matchable, this contribution was not included for purposes of

evaluating the sample results and projecting the dollar value ofthe errors. A separate repayment

amount ofSl,634 was determined for the refunded contributions based on the match rate for the

matching fund submissions in which the refunded contributions were included.

J.TT.A.C:fa~T _.-:r ... ~~.

Pace d __~_
i

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LL? I

llI"uda LA lIi",_"_

Z02.4ZI.I4U

March 1,2000

Via FACSIMILE - £2021219·1043

Delanie DeWitt Painter, Esq.

Federal Election Conunission

Washington, D.C. 20463

'. ~. .. .101.

n31 C~tlec:tlu••",nd. NW

w".uunlNft. ::Ie laaJE,,"!!j

hIIllOIl... m2.4ZI J40a

f'CJI:tlWI az.\lZI..IWI

'iJr/"NW.nlllll••.lO'Gnli

.'

d, ,

•

:1"d

Hdi

f~ -

at: Suchalla. for Pruidelll Committee. IDe.

(LRA "51%)

Dear Delanie:

I received yOW' leucr authorizin{: Budwlanfor PresidentCommittee. Inc. to

obtain an expedited copy oC the oral hearinl trUlseript in preparation for OW' written sUbmissioD .

to the FEe. 1gre:my appreciate your ptompl usi~.e. .

To aid tit. FEe in idanlif'yinl the additional docunsalu we m:cd. to re.sponcllO

questions raised by theCommissioaersIDIi Audit Staffdurilll the oral hearing, we have.

-consulted further ",ith our expert. From my discussions with you and Kim LeslieBright

yesterday aft« the hearing, 1W1Clerst.2cd _ dIere is no "manual" or othClfsimilar document

describinI the oper3tion ofthe computer program l.ISCd by the Audit Staffto condllCt its

statistical analyses, but tlw there is a h3DC1book, n".Mual or otbu material that clcscribeslhe

Dollar Unit S:unplinll method employed by the Audit Staffin this Repayment Determination.

We rcquC31 Uuu the FEe procSuce this or any other mllerW describiq the DollarUnit Samplina

melhod used by the Audit SW£ In addition. we also need any internal insuuctions or materials

issued. to the Audit Staffthat provide &uidaDcc rqardin& how to conduct Dollar Unit Samplini

analysis. Finally, we request my dacwnnu or material, prc:pa:cd. by Enut and \Vhinncy tlW

recommend use ofDoUar Unit Sampling or describe the purpose orl:oaIs ofthe method.

As the Commissionm aDd Audit Staffraised a number ofquestions about thlt

effect ofthe Dollar U1W.Sampling mcthoci en our expcrl's aDAlysis, the requested material is

essentialto our abililYtG respond in the most meaningfully possible fashion to these inquiries.

WASHINGTON PHOENIX

=.ill
DelJ..'lIC: DeWitt P:unter, ESQ.

:-'1arch ~. ::000 .

?a'gc: ::

z:zm;::z

•

..

ftin~rc:ly.

( ,'/ UVlPJ!.J--·..)

Rhonda M. Rivens
,', ,~ ... ". " .,,-

•

March 3. 2000

VIA HA.ND DELIVERY

Rhonda M. Rivens, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson

,1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20036.1795,

Re: Request for Documents - Buchanan for

President Committee, Inc. (LRA #S 12)

Dear Ms. Rivens:

This is in response to your lener ~t by fatsimile'transmission on Thursday evening.

March 2, 2000, in which you requested certain doc:uincnu on behalfofyour clients. Patrick

Buchanan and the Buchanan for President Comminee, Inc. (the "Committee"). You stltfr.

I understand that there is no "manual" or other similar document describing the

operation ofthe computer program used by the Audit Staffto conduct its

statistical analyses, but that there is a handbook, rrwnW or other material that

describes the Dollar Unit Sampling methocl employed by the Audit Staffin this

Repayment Determination. We request that the FEe produce this or any other

material describing the Dollar Unit Sampling method used by the Audit Staff. In

addition, we also need any internal instNctions or materialsissued to the Audit

Staft'that provide guidlnce regarding how to conduct Dollar Unit Sampling

analysis. Finally, we request any documents or materials prepared by Ernst &

WbiMey that recommend use ofDollar Unit Sampling or describe the purpose or

goals ofthe method.

While there is I!O imemal handbook or manual describing the computer program or the

doUar unit SlUDPIiDs procedures. we are providing materials that explain doDar unit sampling.

SpeciDcally. we are providing two reports prepared by Ernst & Wbinney in 1979 concerning the

Commissioa's sampliq program, entitled "Report on Study of Selected Samplina Procedure.

Federal Election Commission" (Sept. 1979) and "PPS Sampling Implementation Guide. Federal

Election Commission" (Sept. 1979). In addition we are providing an excerpt from JOM R

McCray, Dollar Unit Sampling for Auditoa (1978).. We are also providing an excerpt from .f

Donald M. Robetts' book, Starjsricaj Auditing (1978). Finally, we are providing computer code

from the original computer program used for dollar unit samPIinB ofmatching fund submissions at

the Commission; the current program is based on this program, but it hu been changed over the

years to update the program and change the random number generator.

~_L_

:r.,....:k-- =:; ..
PJlond.1 :-. t RJ \ ens

We are con:Inulng to examme our flies for documents that are responsive to \01';, request,

and will forv.'ard any additional materials to \OU on \Ionday, \1arch 6, ::000 Please comact me

at (:!O:) 694-1650 if you have any questions

Sincerely,

I

I J i - - -

,

I' /

-I,

, - -,

•

Enclosures (5)

...

Delanie DeWitt Painter

Attomey
,', ',~., I', " '-

On March 3, 2000, this Office provided documents in response to your letter dated

March 2, 2000, in which you requested certain documents on behalfofyoUT clients, Patrick

Bucharaan and the Buchanan for President Committee, Inc. (the "Committee"). We informed you

that we were continuing to examine our files for additiOnal responsive documetlU. We have

examined our files further, and are encloSing additiolVl1 documents.

E' ....J

VIA HAI....D DELIVERY

Rhonda M. Rivens, Esq.

Steptoe & Johnson

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-1795

Dear Ms. Rivens:

March 10, 2000

Re: Request for Documents - Buchanan for

President Committee, Inc. (LRA #512)

. Your facsimile transmission dated March 2, 2000 requested:

a handbook, manual or other material that describes the DollarUnit Sampling

method employed by the Audit Staffin this Repayment Determination. We

request that the FEe produce this or any other material describing the Dollar Unit

Sampling method used by the Audit Staff. Cn addition, we also need any intenW

insuuctionsor materials issued to the Audit Staffthat provide guidance regarding

how to conduct DoUar Unit Sampling analysis. Finally, we request any documents

or materials prepared by Ernst &. Whinney that recommend use ofDollar Unit

Sampling or describe the purpose or goals ofthe method.

In addition, in • facsimjle trIJISmission dated March 6, 2000, you requested:

that the FEe attempt to locate a specific document, a "PPS Sampling Operations

Mam..... Among the materials produced by the FEC this put Friday was the

"PPS Sampling Implementation Guide" prepared by Ernst et Wbinney in

September 1979.' Page two ofthe Ernst et Whinney document makes reference to

preparation by the FEC ofthis "PPS Sampling Operations Manual" . .. (Plicae

let us know whether a "PPS Sampling Operations Manual" or other similar

document wu ever prepared by the FEC. Ifsuch a document wu prepared,

please produce it.
Rhonda:l<l Rn ens

Page:

In ,esponse to these requests. we are provloim! a document entltled "Procedures for

Reviewing .\'1atchmg Fur.d SubmIssion 99 I, Sub99),' ~ith several attachments, including a flow

chart of the revll~w process This document. prepared by Audit staff, describes the procedures

used to draw and review the sampie that IS the baSIS of the repayment determination. Surveys

'''' ere subsequently sen! to comnbutors assocIated WIth the sample items identified as errors

through this process. Please note that this is an unafficiaJ imernaJ audit staff document that

includes preliminary figures~ the correct numbers were previously provided to the Committee in

the Notice ofRepayment Determination and other documents. .

The same dollar unit sampling review process that is used to review matching fund

submiSSIons was used to draw the sample that is the basIS ofthe repayment determination.

Therefore, we are providing the computer code for the current dollar unit sampling computer

program used for review of matching fund submissions and for the sample projection that is the

basis ofthe repayment determination. The computer code has been redacted to delete file names

and access logicals. Moreover, we are provicling examples ofmatching fund submission review

forms, which describe the procedural steps In the use ofdollar unit sampling to review matching

fund submissions. Further, to demonstrate the use of dollar unit sampling to review contributions

for matchability, we are providing iL complete package ofthe doc:uments used in the revi~ of one

ofthe Committee's 1996 matching fum1 submissions (Submission 7).

Finally. we have been unable to locate any d~titled "PPS Slmp'ling Operations

Manual." However, we are provicling two related doc:Wnents prepared by the CcmmiuioD: a.

copy ofthe 1979 GuiiM!inefor Presentation in GoodOriM" which wu based on the dollar unit

sampling system recommended by Ernst &. Wbinney, and a copy ofthe 1988 matc:bing fund

submission review procedures. The 1988 matching fimcl submission procedures are similar to the

1979 procedures, which are no longer available.

We have completed our review ofour tiles and do not plmto provide any additional

documents. Please contact me at (202) 694-1650 ifyou have any questions.

Sincerely.

wed, [lJt

De1anie DeWitt Painter

Attorney .

.

Enclosures (6)
STEPTOE & J0H1'JSor---; LLP ;

133C Ca"nllc=geut Awuu. "",

W"'lll~". 'JC 2C4J1.",-s

r ''II'' &h lOt. 421 UIOG

~1II"1"11. N',...u;naz

oN'M't/JJI.!1"10C1.'Q~

A.,"d. II.•1,•••

202.42U&l1

f ri Itlftljtt'Plat.CIUI

\.1arch 6. 2000

Dear Delmie:

Re: POIl.He.riDISublllissiollBuchua. tor PresideD' COlllmittM.lac. (LRA M5U)

-- , ... -: ',":

<=

=

Via FACSIMILE

Defame DeWitt Painter. Esq.

Federal Election Commission Washin~ton. D.C. 20463

•

ru

r~"""t'"'''"

1received the FEC's response to the request oftbe Bucbanaft for Presidenl

CClmminee, Inc:. (''the Commi~") for mmrials R!~ed to the DollartIDi.,SampUna methaci

employed by the FEC to conductstatistical ana1y~ Your efforts to address this requesz ala

appreciated. Aloq wilh tha cloc:wrumll praou* to \II by the FEe OIl Friday evenlnr. Marcb 3.

2000. you noted that the FEC is "c:oDtinuina to examine [irs)61esfor documentS tIult

responsive to [the Committee's) request" and will forward any materials to us on Monday.

Mouch6,2000:

As yOIl are aware. tM Committee', po't·h~ wri1r= submission is c1ue on

Wednesd3y, March 1,2000. Since the FEe has yer to determine whether it has fully complied

with oW' rcq\lCSl (or documentS. the COlMUrtee mpeetfully requesu a shan eXWlSion oftime ro

file irs posr-hearin& writteD submission.

The UIInIion is nee_CAry 10 allow the FEe to produce Illy addiliOll31 docwneJllS

and to permit the Committee'sswistical expms to :eview those documents 3S well OIS th.

mueriab pIOliucccl by the PEC on Frlc13y evening. [t is ofparamount importllftCe that Oil&'

expcrll be abla to ~Iyreview these documents, as they 3ftR!lated to the FECI Dollar t.:nil

SamplinJ metbacl. S~the Audit St:lffquestioned our expert's c:onc:lusions rtllarding th~

FEC's SWislical analysis ID4 asked ~bollt the relationship ofthe Dollar Unit Samplinl method to

our c:oaclusioas, thcextensiOIl will pennit us to lNP i1ft informative response to lhe Audit

Staif', ilU1.uiries

WASHINliTOH LOSANGiLES

.

-.lI.';::' ..-
Jelanie Je ~V:rT P3:r.!~r. Esq.

\fa.rch 6. :000

?age 1

As .....e do not know whilt the scope or nature of the additional document

production will be, we cannot reliably predict how much ildditional time Oil: expert; WQuid need

to review these doc:wnenrs. Ac:cordinily, I suggest that we confer on allew submission deadline

after the FEe produces the rtm3ininl documents.

The Comminee also requests that the FEC attempt to lOcale a specific document,

a "PPS Sampling Operiltions Mmual:' Among the mllttrials produced by the FEC this past

Friday was the "PPS Sampling Implementation Guide" prepllCCl by Emst 4. WhiMey in

September 1979. Page ",,0 ofthe Ernst" \Vhinncy document mllkel re{emlce to prepar:mon by

the FEC ofthis "PPS Samplinl O!lcf3lions Manual" Althaup I undel1Wld (rem your March 3.

2000 lctte:t to me that '"there is n((internal handbook or manual describiftl the computer program

or the dollar unit slImJ:l1ing procedures." please let us know whetbe a "PPS Samplinl Operations

Mmual" or othersimilar document was ever prepared by the FEe. Ifsuch. a clccummt was

prepared. please produce it.

Thllnk you (or yOI&f consideratioll oftJIlsrcquat.

'37-:
ATTO.IIFtS IT lJ,W

".1111" •• M. Ai".". ~C~ .•2I.«·5

rrl'i'IM;jnt,tol.cD;n

Marcn 7, 2000

Via FACSIMILE - (202) 219.1043

h~R B 6" 5 l;i1 '00

lJJ1~A_ •. _

W..al...... OC:llIII3Ii'17SS

T IlI1.UlIJ1l11l

e. tI:1,ug..-ra

www ",n•.QOM

tu

~~"".".I'/

DeJanie DeWitt Painter, Esq.

Federal Election CommisSion

W3ShinlltQn, D.C. 20463

Re: Buchanan for President Commiltte. be--

R.epayment Detlrfminatioll (LM11512)

Dear Dc13l1ie:

Thank you tor responding to the Buchanan (or PresidentCommittee, Inc:s

request for a briefexrension oftime in which to liIe its written. post.heannl submiuiol'L I

understand from ourtclephone discllS.t;ion today thal you·~ a propou! of definite filma dale

in order to consider the QleDSion rcquui;' Accordingly, the Committee proposes to tile its

written submission five business days .fter: I) the Commietet receives any additional

inforritarion the l;EC may produce in ~polt'le to theCommittee's MlIIdl2. 2000 requtst for

production ofdocuments; or 2) lhC"Commiuee iuotiJied in writinsthat theFEe roU no

additional materia.lsro pmdl/Ce;

Pleau aive me a caU ifyou have questions aboUllhis J'fOposai.

Rhonda M. Riven..

{) - ~-o!:r. P.ceWASHINGTON

.•.:.::_...-_-..,....... '.=: c:"~'"

PHOENIX LO$ANGEW

=.c:<
...rrORIIEY$ 4r LAW

JOhn J.'Ouff,

202.429.8020

IdutfyjjlslIgtouom

\ larch 17. 2000

Via HAND DELIVERY

The Honorable Darryl R. Wold

Chairman

Federal Election Commission

999£ Street. N.W.

Washington. D.C. 20463

Re: Buchanan for President. Incorporated (LRA #;512)

Post-bearinl SubmissioD

1:1:11 c..-C"_.NW

W"'i~ DC2llltlf-17" '

lol'1'llono llI2.42!.3000

~.c"l"uht .ta1.C2!...1!aZ

~.st."D •.CQ'"

Dear Chairman Wold:

..'

On behalfofBuchanan foF'Presicieru. Incorporared (the "Committee;. we submit

he~with its post-hearin& written submissioD.

This submission is bema tiled today pumwU to theCommiaee's qreemeDt witb

the Office ofGeneral Counsel thai the Committee'ssubmission would be due'five business days

after the FEC confirmed thai it had completed its production ofdocuments to the Comminee.

The Comminee received the FEe's confmnalion on March 10.200&.

Sincerely.

~~~~/mIlL JohnS, Duffy --'-'0

Enclosure

A,TUCB,lIEll'r PLT'i"'~' Pr.&ot ....1__ of .-:J." -

WASHINGTON PHOENIX LOSANGEUS
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOl"

In the \-!aiCer of

Patrick J, Buchanan and

Buchanan for President. Inc.

LRA #512

rJ

PJ .-

POST-HEARING SUBMISSION

A Notice ofRepayment Detennination was issued by the Audit Division of the

,

Federal Election Commission to Buchanan for President, Inc. (the "Committee") on July 23,

1999. The Notice soug.'1trepayment ofS62.116 ofthe federll1 matching funds paid to the

Committee in connection with allege4 "improper reattributions" ofconaibutionS'to psrties other . ' ,

than original contributors. I This Notice'ofRepayment Determination was the subject ofan oral.

hearing before the Commissioners on March ). 2000. To te3pond to questions raised by th~

Commissioners and Audit Staffduring the hearing, and to address information the Audit Staff

provided to the Committee after the oral hearing. the Committee files this post-hearing

submission.

,"

I An additional repayment ofSI,634 is souglu for mau:biq fimds paid in connection with

contributions that were subsequently refunded to two specifi~coatributors.

ATTACllw::::NT J _ _.

Page /1.. l)f _1TI__
l. . The Cse of Statistical Sampling in this Case is Inconsistent With Due Process

Courts have made clear thaI use of the resu~s ofstatistical sampling methods as

evidence by the federal government does not comport with due process unless the statistical

sampling methods employed are "valid and reliable:,2 and the sUbject ofthe audit has had a full

opportunity to review the methods used and the records and intbrmation upon which the

determination has been basecl.J Based upon the information provided to the Colt'.mjaee by the

FEC. the validity and reliability ofthe FEC Auditor's sampling analysis has not been established

in this case, and the Committee still has not received the documents nccess8ry to allow it to .. .

check and rebut the FEC's statistical analysis. For these reasons. the use ofsampling violateS the

Committcc's right to due process. and the Repayment ~oncannot stand.

n. VaUdlty oltbe FE~s ~tatildcalADalysii Canot Be Eitablisbecl

As the Committee explained durina the oral hearina on tbis matter. the suitistical

expert retained by the Committee concluded from his initial review ofthe FEes statistical

analysis that the sample used by the FEe appeared to be biased, and therefore. an invalid basis

for reaching conclusions about the errorrate in the population ofmltched contributions as a

whole. The expert arrived at this conclusion based upon an examination ofa bias indicator,

specifically, a comparison ofthe mean contribution amount in the population versus the mean

2 Webby, Shal",49 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1124 (N.D. Ark. 1999) (citing SIeMS!! v,

California. 11 F.3cll467, 1472 (9* Cir. 1993) and MicNSg Dep's ofEduc' v. u.s. Dep's of

fubL 875 F.2d 11%.1206 (6* Cir. 1989».

J 49 F. Supp. 2d at 1123 ("the use ofstatisticalsampq and extrapOlation" is not

fair or proper where the agarieved party is not given an "oppommUy to rebut" the "detennination

ofoverpayment") (quotinl IIIjnojs Physicians Union v. Mjllet;. 675 F.2cllSI, 1S6 (7* Cir,

(982».

·2-
conti-tbulion amount In ,he sample..-\n unbiased sample .... ould be expected to have an a\ er;:\~e

contribution amounc !1earl~ the same as that in the population. The average contribution amount

or' the population '''''as approximately $90. while that of the sample was approximately $155. The

sample taken by the Audit Staff. therefore. appeared to be biased or weighted toward larger

;:ontribution amounts.

The Audit Staff asked during the oral hearing whether the fact that the FEe

utilized a particular type ofsampling, which it described as the "Dollar Unit Sampling" ('"DUS")

method.. affected this conclusion.1 As the Audit Stafffailed to respond to the Comminee's

numeroUS requests for information concerning its sampling method. the Committee lacked

sufficient information at the time ofthe hearing to determine whether the sampling method use4

could produce an unbiased samph: despite the appeataJ.lCe ofbias noted initially by theCommittee.6

After the hearing the Audit Staff'pl'Ovided materials prepared by the accounting

finn formerly known as Ernst &, Whinney that describe in general the sampling method it

recommended for use by the FEC.7 According to these documents. Ernst &:. Whinney

J Notice ofRepayment Deter:mirwion (LRA #512) (July 23.(999) at 7.

, Oral Hearing.Transcript at 67.

6 sa Respome tl>Notice ofRepayment Determination (Oct. 12. 1999) at S (pointing out

that in response to itsrequesa for information about the basis ofthe Repayment Detennination.

the Committee "hal received no documentation. such as a handbook ormanual. explaining

precisely the 'dollu unitsampling.' method" used hcre~.

7 Letter from Delanie Painter, Office ofGeneral Counsel. Federal Election

Commission. to Rhonda M. Rivens. Counsel for the Buchanan for President, Inc. (March 6,

2000).

- 3·

ATTAc,rl'.l: P.

Pap ot3L
i', ,

iecommended that the FEe use a "PPS sampling plan...8 Emst & \\!'hinney described its

recommended plan as "involli[ingJ the use of two methods. namely. the DUS method and the

CAV method:·qFrom these documents. the Comroittee'sstatistical experts. Professor Dennis J.

.~igner and Patrick G. Goshtigian. have determined that DUS. if oroperly implemented. could

produce an unbiased sample. The experts also determined that the apparent anomalous disparity

between the average contribution amounts in the population and in the sample could be

explained as a manifestation ofthe DUS method.

If DUS was not correctly implemented., the sample would be invalid. The Audit

Staffhas failed to provide. however. the infonnation that is I!CCessar)' for the Committee to

determine whether DUS was correctly implemented by the.Audit SJa1fin this case. Without

information concerning the selection of~«: sample in thi$ case. the validity and therefo~, the.

legality ofthe FEe's snalysis here remains in question.

As Professor Aigner and Mr. Goshtigian explain in the att.Iched Joint Statemerlt

(hereinafter, "J.S."), propersample design and execution is critical to. proper implementation

of DUS. IO Specifically, the sample must be designed to assign probability weights to each item

in the population according to the fraaion that their dollar value is relative to total dollar value.

The sample must theD be drawn taking into account the probability weight ofeach item.

.- • PPS SampliDl Implementation Guide;. prepared by Ernst cI: Whitmey (Sept. 1979)

at 2.

9 UI. at S.

10 J.S. at 2 (attached hereto as Exhibit A).

-4·
fw

t§j,..',t"..-

- The COlilmmee has sought to obtain information from the Audit Staff that r~\ cals

\' hether the sample was properly desl!;med and executed. The Audit Staff has not produced this

informaticn. ",Vhat the Committee has received fro.m the Audit Stafffalls into three categories.

first. ehere is general intormation on what sampling method the FEe should implement. i.e..

Ernst & \Vhinney's recommendation. ThiS information tells us nothing about whether the Audit

Staff correctly implemented Ernst & Whinney's recommendation in this case. Second. there is

information on the sampling analysis the FEC conducts in other contexts. i.£., several documents

related to the initial matching submission review process. Again. this material does not tell us ,

whether the sample was properly designed and executed in our case; it simply is not relevant to

what the Audit Staff actually did in Repayment Determination. Finally. the Audit!?tatf

recently provided an Undated documet1t entitled "Proc:~!JRS for Reviewing Matching Fund

Submission 99 (Sub99)" with three attachments. which it characterized as describing "the

procedures used to draw and review the sample that is the basis oftbe repayment

determination.,,11 However. these materials do not provide information on the critical issues of

sample design and execution. 12

The documents produced by the Audit Staffdo not answer the pivotal question of

whether DUS was properly implemented here. To demonstrate proper implementation. the

II Letterftom.Delanie Painter, Office ofGeneral Counsel. Federal Election

Commission, to RhondaM. Rivens. Counsel for the BuchaDmfor President, Inc. (March 10,

2000) at 2.

/2 The "Sub99" documem only addresses how the Audit Statflabeled sample itemS as

errors; and the "Sub99" attachments supply no other helpful infonnation about sample design

and execution. namely. whether probabilitY weights were calculated for eacb item in the

population and whether the sample was then drawn accounting for these weights.

·5·
f111

Commlttce needs materials showing that probability we,!,:;hts were calculated for each item in trle

population and that the sample was then drawn accounting for these weights. t) In the absence of

these materials. the Audit Staff cannot demonstrat~, and the Comminee does not have a fair

opporYunity to rebut.l-l the appropriateness of the Audit Staffs reliance on the sample: and the

conclusions about the population that it has drawn from the sample. Since the statistical

sampling method cannot be used as evidence under these circumstances. the Audit Staff has not

shown the existence of errors to justify the Repayment Detennination it has recommended to the

Commission. /

B. The Audit Staff's Error Estimate is UnreliablelUld ThereCore is (Dcouitteat

With Due Process

Statistical szmpling m~ !'e reliable to "comport with due process.tS Evenif.

Audit Staff's analysis was accepted as correct, ProfessorAiperIIDd Mr. Gosbtigjaa have

observed that the analysis is highly impRc:ise. This imprecision callsinto question the reliability

ofthe results ofthe analysis.

The Audit Staffestimated a 9.570,4 error rate and +1- 3.69% margin of error at a

95% confidence level.If As the Committee's expertS explain. this cstimare's margin oferror.

13 Specifically. ProfessorAigner and Mr. Goshtigjaa state that we need materials such as

the input data files in additioo to the program executioD lop (or other evidence that the FEe's

computer proaruus were lUllwith the proper inputs) aII4 program outpUt files. 1.S. at 3.

14 As discuacd courts have heJd that the use ofstatisticalsamplins methods by the

federal govemJDall comporlS with due process only ifthe subject ofan audit has bad a full

opportunity to review themetbods used and the records and information upon which the

determination has been based; Webb- 49 F. S~ 2d II Illl_

I' Stt cases citedmm81 note 2-

16 Notice ofRepayment Determination at 5.

·6-
"hlch IS one-third the Size of the estimate. is ··qulte ImpreCise by stattsllcal norms.'" Due

process requires a more reliable estimate. hO\\t:\"er. and cannot be satisfied by a margin of error

thil! is one-third the size of the error rate.

\lillile an acceptable level of precision is a matter of opinion or policy..such an

opinion or policy must t3ke into account the purpose of the estimate. Here the purpose of the

estimate is to detennine an amoWlt that the Conuninee must repay to the government.

Panicularly in this instance. in the interest of fairness the Audit Staffshould develop a more

precise estimate - one that didn't produce a large range ofpossible estimates. The Audit Staff ,

states that its desired level of precision for the error rate is less than 4 percentage points. whicb it

obtained with this sample. While a +1- 4% margin oferror may be ~eptable for relatively larg~

error rates (u. 50%). it creates WIde ranges surrounding low estimates such as 10%. or lower. . ,". .

For example. ifthe Audit Staffhad estimated aD error rate of2% with a +/- 4% margin oferror.

the uncertainty is so large as to render the estimate essentially useless.I

'

To increase the precision ofthe estimate and satisfy the requirements ofdue process. the

Audit Staffwould need to expaDd the sample as described by Professor Aigner and Mr.

Goshtigian.19 Alternatively. as the Committee suggested in the oral hearing. the Commission

could request repayment ofthe lower bound ofthe estimate. The Commission would be

conservative in requestin& 541,295 as the repayment determination (ifthere w~3) errors in the

sample) because-this is the"amount that the Commission is reasonably confident does not exceed

11 1.5. at 4.

·,

·7·

A'l'r!~····.. ......, ..:::Aa ....... : __£n

Page_~ '-f: ~Rr.~-
the: true population value.'Q The !ntern3.1 Re\enue Service employs this conservative approach

"hen uSing statiscical sampling as 3!l audit technique. \Iv"hen the IRS determines an amount to be

:epaid to the government based on a sample. it us~s the lower bound of its of its confidence

in<~r,"ai to compute the repayment amount.' I The FEC argues that statistical sampling.-

guessing - is the best it can do in a situation where individual verification ofthe repayment

amount is "pragmatically impossible."u However. if the FEC is going to guess about how much

money is owed to the government. the FEe should be conservative.

During the hearing1he Audit Staff asked whether it would be more consistent to

seek repayment based on the midpoint ofthe Audit Staff's elTOr estimate rather than the lower

bound. since matching ~~ are paid to committees based on ~e midpoint.23 Such a policy .

mixes apples and oranges. The purpose .for.which matefling funds are paid is unrelated to the

purpose ofrepayment determinations. In the payour context. the FECs purpose is to promote

congressional intent to publicly finance campaip. Arguments can be made for using either en4

ofthe range oferror estimates in the payout conteXt. For example. ifthe FEe desired to promote

congressional intent to the fullest extent possible. the FEe could disbUtse matching funds based

on the lower bound ofthe: error estimate.1L payout the greatest possible amount ofmatching

funds.

20 I.!L

2\ til.(ciq StatisbcaJ Sampling Report (Attachment I to IRS Memorandum Re: IRS

Statistical Sampling System) (attached as Exhibit A-3».

22 Notice ofRepayment Determination at 7.

~J Oral Hearing Transcript at 67-68.

.- "f -~

- 8·
.\

In the repayment context. In contrast, the FEes purpose IS completely Jifferent

The f-'EC is taking away money to which a campaign lnltl,:lly was entitled. Taking away money

IS <l corrective measure that requires that the FEe demonstrate error on the part of the campaign.

:\s explained above. where the FEC cannot demonstrate error with an acceptable degree of

precision and reliability, use of the lower bound of the error estimate is warranted,

C. The Survey Process Was Unfair, Unreliable, and Inconsistent With Due

Process

The Repayment Determination was based on the results ofwrinen surveys and

oral "interviews" oCcer.ain contril:!utors who were part aCthe sampie selected by the Audit Staff.

Since sampling comports with due process only where the subject ofthl: audit has had full

opportunity to review the methods used and the records ~d infonnation on which the

determination has been ba:sed.24 the Committee made .atedrequests to review any DOtes or

other information memorializing what took place during these "interviews." As noted during the

oral hearing. the FEe has reNsed to the Committee's requests, in effect preventing the

Comminee from reviewing a critical pillarsupporting the Repayment Determination.25

The result is that although the Committee knows that certain "erroneous"

reattributions were based 00 these "interviews." the Committee cannot rebut the FEC's findings

because the Committee has no knowledge ofwhat was said in the interviews. Moreover. the

24 s.a note 3.ma.

2S The FEe has produced only wrinen survey response forms for the contributors whose

reattributions were deemed "improper." s.a Lener from Joel Roessner; Attorney. Federal

Election Commission. to lohn J. Duffy (October S. 1999) at I (appended to the Staff's

Memorandum to the Commission for Meeting ofMarch I. 2000 (Agenda Document No. 00-23)

as AttaChment 3).

·9- ~!4·J."'~.

Pace 10

'P . ._.

o:t-t:U-
i;

Committee IS unable to determme ",helher the interViews were even conducted properl~ The

information the Committee has gleaned thus far about the interviews leads to oniy one

conclusion however - the interviews were not properly conducted and thus were inconsistent

with due process.

To be statistically valid. survey and interview techniques must be employed

which are neither improperly suggestive or coercive. 26 The Committee has no information

regarding whether the interviewers were properly trained to conduct the interviews in a fashion

tlult would avoid introducing erro~ or bias into the sample analysis by making improper

suggestions or coercing re3pOndents into giving responses favorable to the FECP Moreover. the

26 "Ifquestions are unfairly worded to SU8gest lII1SWCfS favorable to the party sponsoriJlc,-

the survey. the element oftrustWorthiness in .the [survey] would be lackina- The same result

would follow ifinterViewers asked fair questions in a 1e8dina mamer.Zig Mig. Co. v, Rogers

Imports. Inc.. 216 f, Supp. 670, 684 (S,D.N,V, 1963)(citatioDS omitted)•

.21 A court described the characteristics ofa competent,.scientificaJly and acceptably

conducted survey interview as follows: there was evidence clearly describiDa "the principles and

procedures by which the surveys were conceived and conducted... which was important because

"it is well settled that the weight to be given a survey. , . depends on the procedures by which

the survey was created and conducted." ZiEmsl. 216 F. Supp. at 681 (citations omitted). The

court noted that further indicia ofthe reliability ofthe survey were the fact that "[t]he procedures

used to avoid sampling mors and errors arising from othersources. the methods ofprocessing.

[and] the instructions for the interviewers •. , were also described. Two ofthe interVicwas

testified that they were experieDCed in interviewing. explained the manner in which the

interviews were conducted. aDd swed that they did no\ know the purpose ofthe surveys [which

prevents interViewers from biasina the survey by improperly suqestina a desired t'ClSpOn5e]. All

ofthe original responsesto the questions as ~rted by these interViewers were made available."

rd, at 681·82.

. None oftbis ac:curred in the Committee's case. While tbe FEC may argue that theZhum

case is applicele here bee."se i\ dealt with use ofa consumersurvey to demon.strate trademark

confusion. the fact is thalthe case is relevan\ bee.llse the survey proponenl in did the same

thing the FEC attempu to do here - it seeksto use survey respoDSes at lepl evidence. The court

in Zimzg instructed that ifsurvey data ale to be u.tcd at evi~the data must be'1rustworthy."

that is reliable. None ofthe indicia ofreliability described in Ire present here. therefore.

the use ofsurvey data by the FEC is inconsistent with due process.

- 10·
•

i1J

rb1- -'''1#'

[3.et lh3.t the FEC hJ.d to contact se\ eral respondents for purpos!:s of "claIlfication" 'iuggests that

the sur."ey i!seff was no! well-designed. !.&.. not designed to reduce the incidence of amOtgult: In

both questions "and responses.:'

.~t least two of the 3I "errors" the Audit Staff enumerated were apparently

established solely by means of these telephone mterviews. No WTlttcn survey responses were

produced by the FEC for these two reanributions - they simply appear as errors in the Audit

Staffs computer print-outs. These items are: Carlita Brown and Roderick Fox. The Committee

strongly protests the inclusion of these items as errors because the Committee has had absolutely /

no opponunity to rebut these determinations of error. To characterize these items as errors while

depriving the Committee of an opponunity to review them viol~ the Committee's right to due

process. These items should not be counted. ...

The written surveys produced by the FEC also reveal that the FEC was arbitrary

in counting certain items as errors based on those wrinen responses. Two examples. contributors

Anna Newton and Sheila Thomsen. were cited by the Committee in its Response to the

Repayment Determination. Although the FEC recently provided additional information that it

supposedly relied upon in counting these items as errors, this additional information fails to

21 The guideline for devising survey questions followed by me IRS instructs that

"questions should be careNJIy consuucted in written form. even wileD they willtle used in

interviews. _•. Clarity is cesena" ... ambiguous questions result in ambiguous answers and

useless data... I.R.S. Manual § 1282.52 (IRM 1282)(July 18. 1990)(available 21 Westiaw at

IRM 1282). To the Committee's knowledge, the FEC did not consuuct written interView

questions; ifsuch questions exist, they were never produced to the Committee, despite its

request for such infonnation. -S.=.Lener from Joel J. Roessner toJohn J. Duffy (Oct. 8, 1999) at

1. To the extent that the interViews were not conducted KCOrding to written questions prepared

in advance. it is probable that the interview process introduced a bias into the FEe's analysis.

especially since the interViews were not conducted by trained.. impartial interViewers.

- 11 -
dembnstrate that these items were "errors'" even accepting the FEes parameters for '... hat It

deemed "proper" reattributions.

Ms. !'<ev.10n responded in the v.Titu.n survey that she did not understand the

meaning of "reattribution" in the survey.:9 With no information aside from this. the Committee

was initially forced 10 conclude Ihat Ms. Newton's lack of understanding rendered her unable to

provide informed responses to the FEC. Uninformed responses, of course, cannot fairly and

reasonably form the basis of any determination oferror. The Committee was recently informed

that the meaning of "reattribution" was explained to Ms. Newton in a telephone interview anel

that because ofthis explanation and the fact that Ms. Newton also responded "no" to:he wrinen

survey question ofwhether her reattributee had the right to withdraw from her bank. she was . .

counted as an error,lO However, Ms. Newt~n also indicated on her survey that she didn't recall

whether her reattributee had given her funds for the conttibution. The FEe makes no reference

to this ambiguity in Ms. Newton's written responses. Consequently. although the Statfmade the

effort to explain the meaning of "reatlribUtiOD" to her. it appears that no effort was made to

clarify whethershe received funds from her reattributee. To clarify one point and not the other is

unfair: Ms. Newton's response remains ambiguous despite the interview and her reattribution

should have been excluded as non-responsive rather thaD counted as an error.

lrJ another example ofarbitrariness. the wrllteftsurvey response ofSheilaM.

Thomsen reflected thatsba I!Ulde a reattribution to her husbaDd, DavicU. Thomsen, drawn OD

29 Survey Response ofAnna Newton. LRA #466 atz.

30 Staft"s Memorandum to the Commission for MeetiDa ofMarcb 1,2000 (Agenda

Document No. 00(23) at 1.

- 12 -
r~='

~UJ ....

(h~lt JOint account. ,. The Staff claims that in a "telephone contact:' it was able to "cianI;" thJt

the re:HT.rlbUlion "as instead made to her son. David .-\. Thomsen.': Yel this is in direcI conflict

\\ Ilh elerything l\Tinen by Ms. Thomsen in her survey response. on which she crossed OUI Ihe

pre.printed reference 10 "David A. Thomsen" more than once. indicating Ihat it was a

typographical error. and repeatedly indicated that her reattribution was [0 her spouse. David 1.

Thomsen; she wrote nothing about a reattribution to a son. There is no evidence of a

reattribution to her son other than the Staffs notation ofthe "telephone contact."

In Ilone ofthe aforementioned instances were notes ortranseripts ofthe telephone

interviews made available to the Committee. Yet. this information is ofparticular importance in

situations where. as here. "errors'·were established solely by means ofthese interviews. This

lack ofinformation demonstrates that the Committee not been given an adequate opponunity

to rebut the FEe's sampling a..u1ysis. Thus. the contributions ofCarlita Brown. Roderick Fox.

Anna: Newton and Sheila Thomsen should n«>t be counted as an errotS. Accordingly. the amount

ofthe Repayment Determination should be reduced to S34.532.47.lJ>

31 Survey Rcspons&ofSheila M. Thomsen. LRA #466-.

32 Staff's Memorandum to the Commission for Meeting ofMarcb 1.2000 (Agenda

Document No. 00-23) at 7.

J3 This amount was calculated by the Committee's experts using a "T factor" of 1.96

(based on 324 observations and a Normal distribution) and the lower bound ofthe 95%

confidence interval. sm 1.S. at 3. n.2.

• 13 •
II. The Repayment Determination is Improper Because the FEe Has (ncorrecth'

Defined "Erroneous" Reattributions '

The :\udit Division has defined "errors" as reattributions by a contributor to a

person who "did not have the right to withdraw funds from the contributor's bank acc()unt.~:'

refusing to consider the responses of contributors indicating that the reattributee gave the

contributor the moriey to make the donation.34 This definition contradicts regulations providing

that contributions arc matchable ifreattributed to persons who owned the contributed funds and

possessed the requisite: donative intent.

The: FEC appears to'eonclude that only reattributioDS that comply with II C.F.R.

§ 9034.2(c)(2) arc: matchable:. that is. it simply concluded that laclt ofequitable ownership ofa

barilc account precluded a proper rc:attributiol1, failina to consider the possibility ofc:quitable

ownership ofthe: funds within the hAnk aCcOUQt. The!1UlgWIIC ofthe reguJatioDS do not support'

such a requirement. II C.F.lt. § IIO.l(k) provides for rc:auributions lIIId contaiDs no reqUirement

that the reamibutc:c: share the reattributor's bank account. Also. 11 C.F.R. § 9034.2 and 9034.3

describe: IT'.atchable: and non-matchable: contributions and contain no reqWrement that the

reattributions be: rnadesmlx between spouses orjoint tenants ofbank accounts. Section

9034.2(b) requires only that a check be written "on a personal. C:!ICtOwor ttust account

representina or sontainina the contributor's personal funds." An account, whether it is a

personal. escrow ortrust accoWII.l;ontains a reattributee's personal fimds where-. as here. the

-

34 Memorandum from Robert 1. Costa. Assistant StatfDirector. Audit Division. FEe.

to Lawrence M. Noble. General Counsel. FEC (1uly 12, 1999) all.

• 14-
r~J([rlburee paid tunds :nto the reJI:rJbutor" 5 personal aCCClum for the purpose of effecting J !Oln!

comribunon or realtribulionJ

;

This transaction is not an un.rnatchable contribulion in the name of another

because the realtributee's name is submitted 10 the FEe in connection wilh the reattribution...\s

e:<plained by the Audit Division, the FEes o....n guidelines provide for acceptance of a separate

\\Titing as sufficient 10 comply wilh the writing required by § 9034,2:16

The Committee's review ofsurvey responses reveals that 9 ofthe 3i "improper"

reattributors. more than one·fourt!}, reported receiving money from reanributees. apparently

contemporaneously with the reattribution decision. to justifY the reattribution.37 Stated

differently. at least one·f~W't;h of "improper" reanributees were ~e equitable owners ofthe

reattributed contribution. The FEC states tbat there is ~'insufficient evideDce to verify" whether .". .

the reattributees in fact gave money to the contributon.JI other, ofcourse. thaD the statements of

3$ As the Committee explained during the oral hearing. UDder well settled legal principles

such a transaction also creates a trUSt in which the reattribuue bu equitable ownership ofthe

money he orshe pays to the reattributor for the purpose ofeffectiDa a joint contribution or

reattriburion. 89C.l.S. TrustS § 2 (1955) at p. 712 (the tenD "trust." describes the

relationship in which one. person holds "an equitable right. title. orinterest in property. real or

personal. distinct from the legal ownership thereof."). Additionally. such transactions result in

matchable reattrlbutions even ifthe reattributee gave the reattribulor cash because the

reattributed contribution isJmlsubmitted to the Committee in the form ofcash.

36 Oral He8rin1Transcript at S4 (Ms. Thomas: "1'hc commission's... Guidelines

for Presentation in Good Orderfor matching fund submissions does provide for committeesto

seek reanributions ofcontributions by allowing the committee to present with the contribution a

separate document that identifies!he contribution by date-- and to attest to the fact that a portion

of it is to be reattributed to some other individual.;

37 The FECs written survey of contributors specifically asked ifthe contributor had

received any money from the reattributee to make the contribution orreattribution in question. If

equitable ownership ofthe contribution money is irrelevant. however. the Committee is very

curious about why the FEe asked this question ofcontributOrs in the first place.

31 Notice ofRepayment Detennination at 9.

- 15 -
Ihe respondents. whIch the FEe. for thIS limited purpose, IS prepared to ignore or deem

unreliable..~.lj of the contributors' other statements. Ie.. those that support the Audit Division's

position. receive full credit. While the statements !Jfthe contributors may be the only evidencethat r~anributees gave money to the contributors to justify reatt.ributions. there is. on the other

hand,!lQ evidence that they did not. 39 These items should be counted as proper reattributions,~"

III. Conclusion

The use ofsratistical sampling in this case is inconsistent with due process

because the validity ofthe Audit Staff"s sampling in the case has not been established and cannot

39 The FEC also lWumes that the Committee must bear the burden ofprovina that each of

the sample items is in fact aproper reattribu.tion in order'to reduce the repayment determination.

Staff's Memorandum to the CommiSsion for Meeting ofMarch 1.2000 (Aaenda Doc:ummt

No. 00-23) at 6 ("Because the repayment amount is based on a sampq teebniq~ che-' .

Committee may provide sufficient evidence that any or all ofthe 31 sample items considered to

be errors arc related to properly reattribUlCd. matchable contributionsin.orderto support its

contention that the Commission should reduce the repayment amount." The FEC cites no

regulation for its assertion that the Committee bears this burden in this fC1)ayment determination;

neither could the Committee fmel such a requirement. The repayment determination regulations

state only that a candidate may submit "materials demonstratiDa that no repayment. or a lesser

rep2....ment. is required." 11 C.F.R. § 9038.2(c)(2)(i). The Commiuec hudone precisely this by .

demonstrating that the Audit Stafrs statistical analysis is WIRliabl~ CoDtl'lly to the FEC's

sugg:stiO'1., the Committee does not bear the burden ofcollecting "documentation .. such as a

copy ofa check or odler nqotiable instrUment made payable to the original contributor at the

time ofthe reaaribution for die amoum reaaributed.. for cadi purponccl en'lW. Stairs

Memorandum to tbe CommiuioD for Meeting ofMarch 1. 2000 (Allenda DocumentNo. 00(23)

at 6-7. The FECenoncously assumes that the burden on a committee is die same in a repayment

context as it is in aD initial-submission context. The two situalioDSdiffer. however. because in.

the repayment COIIIeXf. a committee has already been given the marchin& funds. thus repayment

is predicated on tbe FECdemonstrating error on the commiuee's put. A committee is not

required to prove a neptiVIt. tbaa is. that it hasn't not done sometbirIB.

40 Equitable ownas ofreattributed funds because the reattributee gave money to the

reattributor for the contribution arc: Patrick Brown. Calvin Jeffries. Augusta Jones. Michael

McCoy. Joseph Phillips. Michael Shefrin. Patricia Silva. William Watkins. and Ann Zaremba.

• 16-
h~ r-ebutled by the CommlClee Fer :hls reason. the Commission should find [hat no repa: men! IS

due.

Alternatively. even If the Commlss.ion accepts the Audit's Staffs :malysis. due

process warrants that any repayment be computed based on the lower bound of the Audit Staff 5

error estimate. because the estimate is highly unreliable. Accordingly. assuming 3 i errors in the

sample. the Repayment Determination should be reduced to $41.295.

The Repayment Determination should be funher reduced. however. because the

Audit Staffincorrectiy determined that there were 31 errors. Four ofthese "errors" should nOI be

counted because the FEe's survey process was arbitrary, unreliable and inconsistent with due

process, reducing the repayment amount to $34,532.47. An additional nine "errors" should not

be counted because the FEe incorrectly defined "erroneous" reat1ributions. resulting in a total • < '. .'

repayment amount for 18 remaining errors (31-4-9" 18) 0($19.849.44.

Respec:tfiilly submitted.

~~John J. DufiY

Rhonda M. Rivens

Steptoe & 1ohnson. LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washinaton. D.C. 20036

(202) 429-3000

March 17, 2()()()

<'

• 17·
ExhibIt '"

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

.,

in the Matter of

Patrick J. Buchanan and

Buchanan for President. Inc.

)

)

)

)

)

)

LRA #512

We are Denais J. Aigner, Professor ofMaDaacmclit ancl £c:01lOlbics, Gracluate School of

Management, University ofCalifomia..;Irvine. aDd ASsociate Oem for BuiDeS! Maaagemenr..

University ofCalifomia- San1a Barbara, aDd Patrick G. Oosbti~ Vice President, ADalysis

I.

Joiat Statemellt of

Professor Dennis J. Aiper aDd Patrick G. Gosbtiliaa

latroductioD

Group( Economics, Los Angeles, California. Our curriculum vitae are aaached to this statement

as Exhibits A-I and A-2. We have been asked by Buchanan for President, Incorporated (the

"Committee") to review the swistical analysis conducted by the Federai Elec:tioa Commission

("FECj in coanectioa withRepayment DeterminatiOD LRA #.512. We have concluded tbal the .'

FEC'5 Audit Staffhas not pmvided the informatiOD necessary for the Committee to detmniDe

whether the Audit StaB's Slalistica1 analysis wu properly implemented. It is also our opinion

.-

that the Audit Stl1rs enor estimate, if accepted u comet, is too imprecise for the purpose of

making a repayment determination. Our tindiDgs are set forth in greater detail below.
.,

(l. The A.udic Staff Has Failed to Provide tbe Information that is Necessarv for che

Committee to Determine if the Sa~ple was Properly Selected .

In making: the Repayment Deterrntnation at issue here. the Audit Staff relied on a

statistical sample of matched reanributions. Base~ on this sample. the Audit Staff conducted an

:ludit of the reanributions and ultimately conciuded that 31 of 324 were in error. They then

estimated the dollar amount of reanributions in error in the population of matched reattributions

by multiplying the error rate (31/324) by the total dollar amount ofcontributions. $649.2\ 0.52.

This gives a "dollar value projection ofthe errors' of $62.115,82.

In general, this method will produce a biased estimate ofthe dollar amount of

reanributions in error ifsimple random sampling is unless all contribution amounts ue

equal, which they are not An indicator ofpotential bias in this in5taDce comes from ~omp~..

the sample mean contribution ofapproximatCly $155 to the population mean of'approximately .' ,

$90. The sample is clearly weighted toward larger contributions.

Recently, the Audit Staffprovided us with additional material on sampling and a general

description oftheir sampling method. the "Dollar Unit Sampling" ("DUS") method.

After reviewing the additional information. we have concluded that DUS, ifproperly

implemented. will produce an unbiased estimate. and that the apparently anomalous disparity

between the average contribution amounts in the population and the sample can be explained ms a

manifestation ofthe DUS method.

However, a propenample design is critical to properimplementatioll ofDUS.

S~ifically, DUS~ ifused comedy, first assigns probability weights to each item in the

population according to the fraction that their dollar value is relative to total dollar value. The

sample must then be drawn taking into account the probability weight ofeach item. Ifthe

sample design is not executed properly, then the sample should not be relied upon to draw

• 2 • iTT1;'ljii. --:P. _. .b«8 aCL,,= ,_-4L
inferences about the population in the way :\udit Staff has done, Although the Audit Staff has

pro\lced documents and ccmpLl£er programs to the Comminee that address in general the

procedures used to draw the sample. these docume.nts do not demonstrate. and do not ailo"\' the

Committee to confirm. that the sample design was properly executed in this particular case. To

demonstrate that the sample design was properly executed. we need materials such as the input

data files in addition to the program execution logs (or other evidence that the programs were run

with the proper inputs) and program output files. I In the absence ofthese materials. the question

remains whether DUS was properly implemented here.

ilL Tbll Audit Staft's Error Estimate is Too laap~for tile hrpoM ofMaldaa a

Repaymeat DetermiDatio.

Even ifthe Audit Staff's appli~on ofDUS were accepted as correci.'the estimated

dollar value ofreattributions in error is too imprecise for its present purpose in our opinion.

From a sample of324 matched contributions. the Audit Staff'determined that 3t ofthese

contributions were improperly reattributed. The Audit Staff'estimated an error rate 0£9.57% and

made a repayment determination of$62,11 5.8J. The dollar value ofsampling error was

calculated as $21,660.t7. A 95% confidence interval for the repaymau detmnination was

established as having a lower bound ofS40,4SS.6S and an upper bound ofSS3,77S.99.l

I The Audit Staffprovided an Excel spreadsheet containiDa the population ofmatched

contributions.. This file doet not appearto be the data input file requin:d by the programs

subsequently provided bytfle Audit Staff. Additionally, the Audit Staffprovided the printed

output from a proaram that ex1rIpOJares the results ofthe audited sample to the popuWion dollar

val~

2 The Audit Staff'has improperly calculated the margin of error for the estimate by

utilizing a "T factor" of 2.039. The proper value to use is 1.96 (buecl OD 324 observations and a

Normal disttibution). Thus. the acnaal dollar margin of error for the estimate is $20,820.89. The

95% confidence interval surroundin& the estimaIc shouldranp fromS41,294.92 to 582,936.70.

.,-...

- 3 •
';;henev,:r an es,imate of a population '.. aiue is made from a sample. there will b::

unct::rtamty associated ',>,Ith Ii, l-iere, the A.udit Staff has estimated that the population of

contributions contams $62,115,8 I in Improper reat:tributions. Given that it is an estimate of the

unknown actual population value. we must consider the precision ofthe estimate. This

estimate's margin of error is one-third the size of the estimate. This is quite imprecise by

statistical norms. Wbile an acceptable level of precision is a matter of opinion/policy. such an

opinion or policy must take into account the purpose ofthe estimate. Here the purpose ofthe

estimate is to determine an amo~t that the Committee must repay to the government. In the

interest offairness, one would expect the necessity of a V'U'J precise estimate - one that dicln't

produce a large range ofpossible values. The Audit Staffstates that its desired level ofprecisioD .. for the error rate is less than 4 percentage.points, which. ,t obtained with this sample. While a +1-

4% margin of error may be acceptable for relatively large error rates (u. SOOAt), it creates wide

ranges surrounding low estimates such as lOOAt, or lower. For example. ifthe Audit Statfhad

estimated an mor rate of2% with a +/- 4% margin of error, the uncertllinty is so large as to

render the estimate essentially useless.

To increase the precision oftbe estimate, the Audit Staffwould need to expand the

sample. An expanded sample would necessarily improve the precision ofestimation for the mol

rate and hence for the dollar amount ofimproper reattributions. Altema!ively, the Commission

could request repayment tJfthe lower boWld ofthe 95% confideDce interVal. The Commission

would be conservative in requesting 541,295 as the repayment determination (assuming 31 errors

in the sample). This is the amount that the Commission is reasonably confident does not exceed

the trUe population value. We are familiar with the practices oftbcIntema1 Revenue Service and

it employs this conservative approach when using statistical sampling as an audit technique.

-4.
\\'hen the IRS determines an amount to be repaid to the goverl1lTlent based on a sample. It uses

[he lower bound of iis confldence interval to compute the repayment amount.J

3 u.. Statistical Sampling Report (Attachmentl to IRS Memorandum Re: IRS

StatisticaJ Sampling System), attached hereto as Exhibit A-3.

-5-
Patrick G. GoshtiJian

Los Angeles, Califomia

:

r~

rJ ,.. '- . Date Submitted: March 17, 2000

·6·
September 1999

\1TA

DE~~IS J. AIG~ER

Relevant Work Esperience:

tIC Berkeley 1958.63:(1) AgriculNral Economics, B.S. (19S9); (2)

Statistics. M.A. (1962); (3) AgriculturaiEcanomics. Ph.D. (1963).

Educ2tion:

UCLA 1955.58. Engineering·Mathematics, no degree

Professor of \ianagement and Economics. Graduate School of

Management. t:niversity ofCalifornia, Irvine

Assoctate Dean for Business ~1anagement. Bren School of

Environmental Science and Management. University ofCalifornia.

Santa Barbara

Present Position:

1960-62. Malhcmatical Statistician. USDA. Forest Service. Bericefey

1962-66. A.s5i5tant Professor ofEconomics, Uni~crsity ofIllinoia

1964-66. Director, Computer Lab, Colleae ofBusinaa Adminisuation,

University ofUlinois

1966-67, Associau: Professor ofEconomics. University ofDIiraois

1967.70. Associate Professor ofEconomica. University ofW'1JC01JSin..

Madison

1967·73, Director,Programming and Computation Service. Dataan4

Compuwion Ccncer far the Social Sciences, University of

Wisconsin·Madison

1970-76, Professor ofEconomics, University ofW'IJCOnsin-Madisoa.

1970'.. SunuMI;.VlIiti.. Professor ofEconomics, University ofHawaii

1970-71.. VlSidDaProfessor, Center for Operatians Resardl aad

Econometrics(CORE), Universite Catholique de LouvaiD

(Belp,m)

1971·76, Chairman, Social Systems Researth Institute, University ofW'JSCOnsinMadison

1976, Spring. Resident Consultant, The Rand Corporation, SaNa Monica. California

1976-88, Professor ofEconomics. University ofSouthern California
i -1-6- 79. Co-Director. \\odelling Research Group. esc

1':17$.79, Acting Chairman. Department of Econorrucs. esc

19'79·8;. Chairman. Department of Econorrucs. liSC

I ':18:. Fail. Visiting Professor. Department ofEconomics. liniversity of Wisconsin-

\tadison .

1985. Spnng, Visiting Professor. Departments of Econometncs, Universll',' of

Amsterdam and University ofGeneva .

1986. Fall. Visiting Professor, Depanment ofEconomeuics, University of Sydney

1988-97, Dean, Graduate School ofManagement, University ofCalifornia, Irvine

!988-present, Professor ofManagement and Economics, Graduate Schaol of

Management, University ofCalifornia, frvine

1997, Fall. Faculty Associate, Harvard Institute for Inccmational Development,

Harvard University.

1998-present Associate Dean fcit BusinessManapment. Donalcl Bren School of

Envirorunental Science and Management, University ofCalifornia, Santa

Barbara.

Teacbinl Areas:

Econo~cs, Statistics, Mic:roeconomic Theory. Operations Researc:h

Bonon:

Fulbright Scholar. Beillium. 1970-71

Fellow. Econometric: Society (elected 1972)

H.t Romnes Faculty Fellow, University ofWISCO~ 1976-

American SWistical As'OciatiODVisiting Lecbuer in Sratistics" 1980-1983

FuJbrigbl Scholar. Israel. May 1983

Cited in: Who'sWho in Economics (MIT Press) 1982. 1984~ (Edwarci Elgar)

1 Who's Who in America (Marquia Who'sWho, Inc.) 1984-.

A1beft S. Raubenhcimer Award for Excellence in Scholarship,

Tead1in1 and Service. USC. 1985.

AWlI'd forTachin,.ExcelIence. Division ofSocial Sciences and.

Communications, USC. 1986.

Studies in Econometrics in HOntJI' ofDennis1. A.i",.,.. a special issue ofthe

Journal ofEconomernt:.J. 1993.

Daniel G. Aldrich, Jr. Award for University Service. Ua. 1996.

Bren Fellow, UC Santa Barbara. 1998-

2
'Publications:

BOOKS. YIONOGR.:\PHS. REPORTS

Principles ofSiallSlIcai DeclSlon-iv/alang. Macmi!lan. 1968

Basic [conometrlcs. Prentice·Hall. 1971 Prentice-Hall series in International

\lal1agemem and series 10 \tathematical Economics.

[alem Variables In SocioeconomIc .\1odels. edited (with AS Goldberger). ~orth.

Holland Publishing Co.. 1977

.\-fodeJling and Forecasting Time-of-Day and Seasonal Electricity Demands. edited (with

A. Lawrence). Journal ofEconomel7lcs (Annals /979-/). Nonh-HoUand Publishing Co.

January 1979.

ExperlmllntaJ Design in Econometrics. edited (with C. Monis). Journal ofEconometrics

(A.nnals /979-2), North-Holland Publishing Co.• September 1979.

MOiU/ling andAnalySiS ofElectricity Demand by n",.-o/-Day. edited. Report EPIU EA1304. Electric: Power Research lMtitute. Palo Alto. CA. December 1979.

Electricity DeIfflJltd and Consumption ~y nme-oi..(J.: A Survey (with D. Poirier). Reporc

EPIU EA-1294. Electric: Power ReSean:b InstiNte. Palo Ako, CA. December 1979.

SpecijicaJion andEstimation ofF'onti., Prodw:tion., Profit andC(J# Functions, edited

(with P. Schmidt), JoumaJ ofEconometrics (Annals J98(}'2J. North-Hollarui Publishing - Co.• May 1980.

We/fan &OIft1IMtrics ofPeak-Load Pricingfor EJet:tl'ic:ity, edited. JOIII7fQ/ Of

Eco1lOmetrics (Annals /984-3). North-Ho:tand Publishing Co.,'September 1984.

TopiCS in Applied R6greSSion and nm~ Series Analysis, ecliced, JoumaJ of&o1lOmetrlc.s

(Annals /987), North-Holland Publishing Co., May 1981.

Causality, edited (widt A. Zellner). JoumaJ ojE&fJIttJIfttltrics (Anntzls J988). NorthHolland PubliJbiDs Co;, SeptemberJO<:to_198..

Latent YarilJlJluModi~ edited (with M. Deistler). JOfII'7tIlI ojEt:onrNtwtrics (Annals

/ 989), N~HoIJanclPublishinS Co.• May 1989:

- ContrilnuiQll$ to Ecoitometric: Methodology in Honoro/T. Jv. Anduson. edited. Jour"al

ofE&OIIQIfICtric:s (A1JIIQb J990). North-HoUand PubtisIlin& Co.• ApriIIMay 1990.

3
A.RT!CLES

'~.-\r, Estimation Procedure fo~ Range Composltlcn Problems." Journal oj eht! Amurco.JlI

jjortsllc:1I.·bsoclallon, 1,01 bO I~!arch i965) pp 308-i9

"Errcrs of \leasuremem and Least Squares Es.tlmation in a Simple Recursive \lodel of

Dynal11Jc Equlhbr.um." Economerrrca. Vol. J4 (April 1966). pp 424-32.

"..;.n InterpretIve Input Routine for Linear Programl1'Jng," CommumcallOns of eho'

Asso~'latIonfor COmpllll!r .'vfachcnery, Vol. \0 (January \967), pp. 23.16 .

"On the Determinants of Income Equality" (with AJ. Heins), American EconomeL' RI!VII! ....

Vol. LVll (March 1967), pp. 12·:5.

"On the Measurement ofIncome Equality" (with A.J. Heins), Revil!W ofincome alld

Wealrh, Series 13 (March 1967), pp. 12-25.

"A Simple Model ofInfonnarlon and Lending" (with C.M. Sprenlde), JoumaJ ofFinance.

Vol. xxnr (March 1968). pp. 1S 1·66.

"On Estimating the Industry Production Fune:tion" (with.S. Chu), AmeriCfUI Economic

Revil!W. Vol. Lvm (September 1968), pp. 826-39.

"A Linear Approximater for the Class Maries of a'(jroupecl Frequency D,istribution with

Especial Reference to the UnequaHnierval Case," TeclinontItrics. VallO (November

1968). pp. 793·809.

"The Determinants ofMember Bank Borrowins: '" Critique- (widlW.R. Bryan), JoumaJ

ofFinanc•• Vol. XXIII (December 1968), pp. 832-7.

"Problems in Making Inferences &om th~Coleman Report: Commena: Am/lrtcan

SocIologIcal ReVIew. Vol. 3S (April 1970). pp. 249-52-

"Estimation ofParera's Law from GroupeclObservuioQ- (with A.S. Goldberger),

Journal of,htlAmertcQII SUUUtlcaJ AssociGIiOlt'; VoL 6S (June 1970), pp. 341·51.

"Cross-Section and Time Series Tests ofthe Permanent Income Hypothesis" (with J.

Simon), Ammain E&0If0IIfiC&vi....,. Vol LX (June 1970). p~712·23.

"TheEstimation ofMaments for a Pareto Disuibution Subject to Both Sampling and

Grouping EtTors,- ... of1M[ntcmcuiontJl StQli.JticaA lnstilll••Vol 31. No.2 (1970),

pp.210-2«)'

"A Spec:ific:adon BiD wetpretation ofCross-Section.vs. Time Series Parameter

Estimates" (with 1. Simon), Western £Cono"",: JounttJA, VoL 8 (June 1970). pp. 144-61.

"On the Leg.Quadratic: law ofProdue:tioft" (with S.F. Cbuana.M. Frankel), Southern

Economic JoumaJ. Vol. XXXVI (July 1970), pp. 32·9.

"On the Specification Bias for k·C1ass Estimators" (with S.F. Chu)., EcOl7Oln4tnC Annual

of the Indian Economic Journal. Vol. 17 (1970), pp. 671·89.

p~:CBZi _8 • {J.J,J._ oty_'4L'
".-\ .\!odel of Shorr-Run Bank Beha\Jor' Iv.llh W R Bryan). QlIarrt!r(\' Journal 0/

EconomICs, \'01 85 (February 1971). pp 97·118

"Safety \fargins and Profit \1a.'(unization in the Theory of the Finn" (with R.H. Dav and

K. R Srruth), }ollrnal ofPoill/{:al Economy. .Vol 79 ()IovemberlDecember 1971) pp.

1:93-1301 '

"A Compendium on Estimation of the Autoregressive.Moving Average Model fr~m Time

Senes Data." lmernallonal Economic ReView. Vol 11 (October 1971). pp 348.j71

"Bounding Constraints in Certain Linear Programming Problems and the Principle of

Safety First.," European EconomIc ReVIew, Vol 3 (April 1972), pp. 71.81

"A Note on Verification ofComputer Simulation Models," Management SCI/mcl!: Theory.

Vol. 18 (July 1972), pp. 615-19

"An Errors-in-Variables Model in Which Leau Squares is ConaistenL" Inl/lrnallOntU

Economic Review, Vol. 14 (FebNary 1973), pp. 256-7.

"Simulation and Aggregation: A Rec:onsidemion" (with S.M. Goklfe1d), R."i.,., oj Economics and Sumslics. Vol. LV (Febnwy 1973); pp. 49-60.

"Regression witb A Binary IndependClll VariableSubjea 10 .EnorsorOb!CI'Vation.-

Journal a/Econometrics. Vol. I (March 1973). pp. 49-60.

"On the Estimation ofan Ec:onomettic Model ofShon·Rua BukBebaviot.."JoumaJ 0/

Econom.lTies, Vol. 1(Septemba 1973). pp. 201-2010:

"On Optimal F"UWlcinl ofCycfical Cub Needs.- (withC.M. SprenkIe),./ountQJ 0/ Financ~. Vol. 28 (Dec~ 1973), PI'. 1249-53.

"Estimation ana Prediction &om Aggregate DIla when Agrepces ate Measured More

ACcurately Thaa TheirComponems" (witb S." Golc1feld), Ect:JnonteITiCll. Vol. 42

(January 1974), pp. 113-1)4.

WParameter EstimaUon &om Cross-Scan Observationson aD Elementary Queueing

System." 0puati0llS RI~. Vol. 22 (March-April 1974). pp. 422-21.

•Aft Appropriate Economeuic Framework forEsbnw.int• Labor' Supply Func:Uon &om

the SEO Fd~- /lII~onaJ EconomIC R,vir-, Vol. IS (February 1974). pp. 59-61.

- "Asympcotic MiJlimum..MSE Prediction in theCobb-DougIuModel witb • MuJtiplicative DisturbanceT~" Et:ontJ_ITica. Vol. 42 (JuJy 1974), pp. 737-4a.

"MSE Dominance ofleast Squares with Errors ofObsavalioa: JOfII7tQJ 0/

[canom.trres. Vol. 2 (December (974). PI'- 365-72.

"Identification and NormalizaUon: A Not." (witb T. Sawa).Joumal 0/EcCJI'I()IMtries.

Vol. 2 (December 1974). pp. 389-92.
"On the =~pianator. Po\\oer of Dur.1f:1v \ amble Regression" (With .-\5 Goldber.er :;r:G

G KaIIOn). [llIl1rnCIlOllal Economic Rt!VfI1 .... \'oi \6 dune 1975), pp 50;-10 -

"On :he ESlimatlon of ProdUCllon Frontiers" ('" ilh T\melT'.iva and D J Poirieq

ffl!ernatlonal cwnom/c Rt!Ylf!W, \'01 16 (h:~e 1975), PI'. 377-96 '

"rdenlifi~allo~ and E~rima:ion of Dynamic: Shock·Error Models" (wirh A. Maravall). in

Lalent t Qnaolt!s In Socioeconomic Models. DJ. Aigner and A.S. Goldberger (eds l. ~onh·Holland Publishing Co. 1977. PI'. 349·63

"Statistical Theories of Discrimination In Labor Markets" (with G. Cain),lndusmai and

Labor Relallons ReView. Vol. 30 (January 1977), PI'. 175·87. (Reprinted in O.

Ashenfelter and K. Hallock (eds.), 'DIe IntemationaJ Library ofCritiCal Writmgs In

Economics: Labor Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1995.)

"Application of Pre·Test and Stein Estimators to Economic Data- (with G. Judge).

Econometrtca. Vol. 45 (July 1977). pp. 1279-88.

"Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic: Frontier Production Functions· (with C.A.l<..

Lovell and P. Schmidt). JournaJ ofEconometrics. Vol 6 (July 1977). pp. 21·38. ,

"Bayesian Analysis ofOptimal Sample Size and a Best DeCision Rule for Experiments in

Direct Load Control.- JounraJ ofECOflOllfllTiCS fAnnals J97fJ..J), Vol. 9 (January 1979).

pp.209.21.'

"A Brieflntroducrion to the Methodology ofOptimal Experimental Desip." JournaJ ul

Econometrics (Annals /979-2). Vol. 11 (September 1979), PIJ. 7·26, .

"Sample Design for Electricity Pricing Experiments: Anticipated Precision for a Time-ofDay Pricing Experiment,.. Journal ofEconometrics (Annab J97f}..IJ. Vol 11 (September

1979). pp. 19S·205.

"Correcting for Truncation Bias in the Analysis ofExperimeau in Tune-of-Day Pricing of

Electricity" (with Jerry A Hau.tman), T1w B~n JoumoJ 0/Economics, Vol. 11 (Spring

1980). pp. 131-42. (Reprinted in E. Srromsdorfer and G. Farkas (ecb.), EvaJualion

Studies Revi.- AIIIIIUJl, Vol. 5, Sage Publications, Inc., 191O~ ,

"lndU5ttW and Commercial Demand for Electricity by LlI1Ie-Of·Day: ACalifornia Case

Study" (withe. Cbun&).17w EncrgyJoumaJ; Vat. 2 (July 1911), PIt. 91-110.

"Testin& the Joint 8iJIina ~ft"ect Hypothesis· (with D. Keane), T1w EMrgyJoumaJ, Vol 3

(July 1982), pp. 113-21. .

"Southern California Edison's Domestic: Time-of-Use Expetunent" (with L. Lillard),

AwardPap6TS in Public Utility Economics and R,gvlalion, Institute ofPublic: Utilities,

Michigan State University. 1982. pp. 181·231.

.. An Analysis ofCommerc:ial and Industria! Response to Time-of·Use Rates" (with J.

Hirschberg), The Energy Journal. Vol. 4 (1983), pp. 103·26.
"Econometric ~1odel1ing wirh ,-atem \',lnables' Iwith A. Kaptevn. C HSiao. and T

Wansbeekl. Handhook ojEcoflomt!lT!G. Vol ::. edited by lvi Griliches and '\1ichael

[mnl!gator, :-;onh-Holland Publtshmg Co . \98-1. pp 43:: [.93

"Time-of·Day Elecmcity Consumption Response to Temperature and the O",nership oi .~r Condltlcnmg .~ppliances" (with L Lillard), Journal of BUSIIl~S5 and Ei:OIlOml~'

Stalisllcs. \'01 :: (January 198-1). pp. -10-53.

"\leasuring Peak-Load Response from Experimental Data" (with L. Lillard), JOllrnaJ oj

Busmess and EconomIC Stallsllcs, Voi. 2 (January 1984), pp. 21.39 _

"Conditional Dema.'1d Analysis fur Estimating Residential End-Use Load Profiles: A

Preliminary Analysis" (with C. Sorooshian and P. Kerwin), The Entrgy JoumaJ. Vol. 5

(July !984), pp. 81-98.

"Estimation ofTime-of.Use P'ricing Response in the Absence ofExperimental Data: An

Application ofthe Methodology ofDiU& Tran5ferability" (with E. Leamer), JoumoJ of

Econometrics (Annals 1984-3), Vol. 26 (September/October 1984). pp. 205-28.

"The Welfare Econometrics ofPeak-Load Pricing for Electricity.- Jolll7llll of

&onomerncs(AnnaJ.s 1984-3), Vol. 26 (September/Oe:tobet 1984). pp. 1-16.

"The Residential Time-of·Use Priemg ExperimentS: What Have We Learned?- Chapw I

in SociaJ ExpuilllflllJalion, ediled by Jerry A Hausman ana David Wise,. University of

Chicago Press,. 1985. pp. 11-41. .

"Commerc:iallIndusuial CUSIOm« Response to Tune-of-UseElectricity Prices: Some

Experimemal Raults- (with 1.G. Hirschberg). TIw RmtdJOIIIfItIl ofEconolfllcs, Vol. 16

(Auwmn 1985), pp. 341-55.

"On· Studem E.....uation ofTeaching Ability" (with F. Thum). JowrnaJ ofEconomic

Educaliort, Vol 17 {Fall 1986). pp. 243-66.

"OptimAl Experimeatal Design fot Error Componems Model$" (with P. Balestra).

Economemca. VoL 56 (July 1981), pp. 955-71.

"Me and My Shadow: Saimatinathe Size oCme U.S. Und.erp'cund Economy from Time

Series DaIa'" (with f. Schneider Ind D. Ghosh), Chapter 14 in W. Barnett. et al (eds.).

Dynamit: F.I:t/ntJIrNtrieM_Uinr.Cambridae Universicy 1988, pp. 297-334.

"On Econometric ~Iogy anQthe Sean::h for Causal Laws·, 1M Economic Rflco,d.

Vol. 64 (December 1981). pp. 32)-26.

"Self-Selection in the Residential Eleclricity Tune-of-Use Pricing Experiments- (with K.

Ghali), Jounrt:U ofApplied Econometrics, Vol. 4 (December 1989), pp. S13 I-S 144.

"Latent Variables-, in J. EatWeIJ. ef aI. (eds.). 1M NN Palgrave: Economflll'lcs.

Macmillan, 1990, pp. 1181-122.
"SampieDesign Consideratio~,s for Telephone Time-of-Cse Pricing Ex.penmems with an

.~pplicatlon to OCT-.-\ustralla (u,lth D Fiebig), In A deFontenay. et aI. (eds.).

7"lticommumcauoflS D"mand ,\'fweillng, :--iorth-Hol\and Publishina Co 1990 pp ~-;9. 298 :>' ,. _.

"Expenmental Design for Direct ~etering of Residential Electricity End-Uses" (with P

Schonfeid), Chapter [4 in J Gabsze'..vicz. et aI. (eds.). EconoMIC DeCISIon-Making'

Games. Economemcs and Oprrmr:allon. Elsevier ~;orth-Holland. 1990. pp. 303.3:5

"A. Random Coefficient Approach to the Estimation ofResidential End-Use Load

Profiles" (with D Fiebig and R. Bartels), Journal ofEconometrics, Vol. 50 (December

1991), pp. 297-327

"Data Pooling and Self-Selection: A Mixed Effects Hierarchical Approach" (with K.

Ghali). Chapter Sin W.E. Griffiths. et al. (eds.). Readingsin £COl1OmeiTIC Theory and

Practice, North-Holland Publishing Co., 1992, pp. 103-42.

"The Response of Small and Medium-Size Business Customers to Time-of-Use (TOU)

Rates in Israel" (with J. Newman and A Tishler). JOUl7ItJ1 ofApplied EcoTfomemcs. VoL

9 (1994). pp. 283-304.

"The Response to Residential Time-of-Usc Electricity Rates in wad- (witli M Amit awl

A Tishler). Chapter 35 in D. Berry, et aI. (eds.)~BQ)WStan Ana6'su In StatIStics aid

Econometrics: E.ssays in Honor ojArnold ZeilMr. JaM Wiley It Sons, 1996. pp. 409-2%.

FORTHCOMING:

"Statistical Sampling and Analysis in LitiptioB''' to appear in.D. Slottje (ed.). 1M Role of

/hl Academic Economist in Litigation Support. Elsevier Science .l'ublishers. 1999.

Graat History

NSF "The Computation and Data Library Capabilities for Research in the

Social Sciences- (with Richard Day). April t. 1968 to March JJ.

1970. S2J2,9OO.

NSF •An Econometric Investigation of Shon-Run Bank Behavior." FebNary

I. 1910 to lJ.aly 31. 19n. 562.500.

NSF -Computation and Data Libnt)' Capabilities for Social Science . Researcb.- January 1. 1971 to December 31. 1912.5110.000.

NSF "StNe:tuRJ Modelling with Unobserved Variables- (with Arthur S.

Goldberger). September 1. 1973 to August 31,1916.5146,000.

NSF "The Role afLinar Hierarchica.l Models itt Applied EconometriC$"

(with Yael Haitovsky). July 1. 1979 to Apri130. 1981. 5115.951.
"·SF'~e\e!oprirenr.of a Gerre!'c Econ<?m~tne ~ode! for AsseSSing the

." e!tare Implications or Tlme-at-Dav Pnclng for Households." :-'larch

i.198-ltoFebruary:S, 1936575.(87 Ex:tensiontoAugust31.

1986 519,-154

EPA "Workshop on Capital ~Iarkets and En"ironmental Performance". September t.

1998 to AUg1Jst J 1. 1999 $18.020 _El\."tension to August 31. :;000

Conferences & Presen~tion5 (recent)

"Demography and Distl"'..Ist: The Latino Challenge to Civil~ghts and Immigration Pohey

in the 1990s and Beyond," 3ti Annual Symposium, La Raza Law Journal and

ChicanoJ1.atino Policy Project, UC Berlceley, March 1994 (presented paper)

"[mmigration and the American Mosaic." The M.1nIuttan Institute and. The Pacific

Research Institute. San Francisco, April 1994 (presented paper).

"California Immigration 1994," California Policy Seminar, Sacramento, April 1994-

(presented paper).

"Reengineering UC Depanmenu-A Cue Presentation· (with R. Owens), UC

Manasemenllnstitute. July 1994. .

"Immismion: Put, Present aacl Fuw..e."Graduate- School ofBuainea AdminisuatiOft

and Leadership. Monterrey Instinne ofTechnololY (Mexico), February 1995.

"Information Technology and Iu Impact on HipEducation in the Year 2000: Taiwan

National University, May 1995.

"Information TechnololY and Its Impact on Higher Education in the Year 2000," Hong

Kong Baptist University, May 1995.

"Making Effective Use ofFKUlry in Developing a Strategic: P1aa." AACSB Annual

Meeting,. Loa ADpIa. April 1996 (session co-Iader);

"MeuuriJla Pcrformanc:e in Higher Education," UC Management InsUtule, July 1996.

"The Elusive Notion ofLeadership," Graduace School ofBus... Administration and

Leadership;MolUerrey Institute ofTec:hnololY (Mexico). Match 1997.

"Businessllld the Environment: Toward a New RelaIionship." Ondua&e School of

Business Adminisu'ation and Leadership, Monterrey Institute ofTechnololY

(Mexico), May 1999.

"Business and the Environment: Toward a New Reiadonship.." Cenrrat American Institute

ofBusiness Adminisuuion (Costa Rica), May 1999.-

9
Professional Service (recent)

CommJttee en tl~e :"ationaJ Energy \lodeiling System. Energy Engineering Beard.

;'-.·atlonal Research Councl!. 1990.9:

Amencan Assembly of Collegiate Schools of BUSiness. Business AccreditatIon Commmee,

1993-95 (Accreditation Site Visl! Teams CniverSlty of Virginia (Darden).

Wash.in~'ton L'niversity (St Louis)), "1996·97 Nominating Committee, 1995-97

.-\cademic Program Review Team. College ofBusiness. Arizona State University. 1996

Panel to Study the Research Program of the Economic Research Service, Committee on

National Statistics. National Research Counca, 1997-1998.

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools ofBusiness, Accreditation Site Visit Team

(Chair), Simon School ofBusiness. University ofRochester, 1998.

Study Co-Director, Orange County Executive Survey, University ofCalifcmia Irvine,

1994-98; Director, 1999-present.

Otba' Service (receat)

Workers' Compensation Rate Study Commission (Chair), Swe ofCalifomia, 1990-92.

U.S. Servic:e Academy Review Board., 1992.

Southern California Edison Company, Research Policy Board, 199%·9S.

Design Team, California Vtrtual University lnitiative, 1991-91.

CommuDity Service (recent).

Industrial League ofOrange CountY. Board ofDirec:tors, 1989-950 (Chair. ace.Tax

Equity Subco~ 1992 & 1993.)

Jr. Achievement ofSouthern California, Board ofGovemon, I991-I99S:'

International Forum for Corporate Directors, AdWory 1993·199S.

Assoc:iatiOD for Corporate Growth, Advisory Board, 1992-1997."

Board ofTRISlea,. Worfel AfWn Council ofOrmgeCoumy. 1995-~

Board ofTRlSlell.-scum.Coast Repertory. 19%-1999,

10
Exhibit A-2

Patrick G. Goshtigian

Vice President. AnalysIs Group/EconomIcs

601 S. flgueroa. Suite 300; Los Angel~s. CA 90017

(~;J) 8964541

Pllo.-thtlgJan'o :l.g.. !nc.com

'J.'V/W .~g:·iflc.com

Education

M.B.A.. The A.'lderson School at UCLA

B.S.• Economics. Massachusetu Institute ofTechnology

Chanered Financiai Analyst

Professional Experience

March 97 - present Vice PresidCllt; Analysis GrouplEccnomics. Los Angeles. CA

July 95 - March 97 Sr. Associate, Analysis GrouplEcanomics. Los Angeles, CA

Dec 92 - July 95 Associate, Analysis GrouplEcOJ?Omics, Los Angeles. CA

July 91 - Dec 92 Sr. Researcb Analyst; Analysis GrouplEcoDomics.1.oI Angeles, CA

June 89 - July 91 Research Anaiyst; Analysis 0r0upIEc0D0mics, Los ADpJes, CA

Selected CoasuJdDI Alsipmea..

Statistical Analysjl

Mr. Gosim!p1D has applied sopbisticated ecoaommc teehDiqua in numerous cases.. In addition

be has sismficant expcrieuce in sample de:sip mG impletnClltabon.

CJ FOrtuM JOfJSItippUw CiNrrptDIy: Leclme team Ihalsampled anclaalyzcd iboUSlDds of

invoices 10 estim • te !he toW impCostS clwied to a panic:u1lr customer.

CJ /.0$ AnplaCoumy /JqItIrIIfwu 0/Health: {JsinW smrrpl~ aNI databal. tI1UU:VSU. evaluated

timeliDaa ofmedKal durina vario..time perioda

CJ Scudutm CfIlifont/tJ qa eo"'pGIr)1: ConstrW:tectstatistical modelto evaluate the impact of

coDlJDCl'Cial c!anlncl"side IIlIDagelllCllt programs. .

Product Ljabjljry

Mr. Ciosbtigian has combined statistical techniques witb cash flow modelinS to construct

corr.~~'!hensive models OfpotCDtw damages resulting from product liability.

CJ Fortune 500 Chemical Manufactunr. Developed a financial model ofpotential liability

incorporating disease incidence and prevalence rates giVCII various scnlcmCllt alternatives and

continued litigation.
_._.

_. _. 

-----------10------....-

Parncic G C"Shflglan Page:

:)' 4sbesios .Hanu./a':lUrer· Deveioped >CJ[ls[lcal model tu forecast continued claims JQalr.st a

company gIven mformatlOn concerlllng the current claIm e:>:penence. -

::J International Chemic'll .'vf'lnujaclUrer. Deveioped financial model of potential liability at a

carget company to advise the board of ditectors of acquirer.

Entertainment

Mr. Goshtigian has significant experience applying economic and financial concepts m the'

entertammem industry.

Q MGMIDANJAQ v. Sony Corp.. er. at,: Evaluated performanceofMGM lPO given Sony

announcement regarding James Bond film production. Conducted valuation of the lames

Bond franchise.

.Q Garry Shandling \I. Brad Grey. er. af.: Calculated value ofseveral television production deals.

Evalwued the economiCJS oft~ television syndication market.

Securities

Mr. Goshtigian has evaluated and critiqued damage claims in numerous securities litigation eateS

. under SEC Rule lOb-So Through event stUdy analyses, he baI'ReSIed the materiality of

allegations offraud and re-consuuc:ted appropriate val~~ineL

CJ Meris LaboNltories Securities Litigation: EvaluatecllOb-S claimsinvolviDS failed acquisitiOtr

and alleged accounting improprieties. Applied lollS causaUOII priDciples aDd won case tHrough

summaryjudgement.

CJ AHIHeaithctUfl Securities Litigation: Evaluated IOb-5 aDd SectiOll 11 d.lmege claims.

Applied principle ofloss causatiOD to assess effects offailed acquiai1ion on stock price.

C1 TriTI#J LidgtUimr. Fora software mamafic1urer. appliedlOSl causaUOII principlesto

Section II damage claims.

CJ SoftwQl'fl Toolworla S«uritiG Litigatiofl: Evaluated damaps presemed by the SEC forselect

members ofrile board ofdiIectorI based on alleged impropct revCDue recolJllitiOD •

C1 Newpon P1umruII:eIIliI:G/$ S«w'ities Litigation: EvaluatedlOb-S damage claim for ..

pbamlaceu1ical coJDPIDY tbat failed in late stage drug trials.

C1 XidexlANl&omp llUi1/6 Trodi"g: Performed event stUdies to evaluate the statistical

significance ofstock price movements for both the wget aD4 ac:quirer in a mel'Jt

Investment Suitability and Risk AnaIYSil

Mr. Goshtigian bas assessed the suitability of a variety of complex financial instrUments and

consulted extensively OD the evaluation of invesunent risk..

~~'1Itt. ,..,. Iir
::J Call/erma 51ale Audiwr: Exammed all charactenstlcs ofOranl!e Counrv's multi·blllion de liar

InveSlm~nt portfolio, Assessed the ex·an!p. nskmess of the pon:foliO and the suitability of

vanous compiex fmancla! mstruments gIven the funds' objectives,

::l Hawaiian Insurance CommissIOner: Evaluated-a failed denvative Investment stTatellv used in

the large fixed income portfolio of an Insurance company, Detennined the viabilirY~f the

strategy and the eifectiveness of lIS Implementation by examining the dramatic increase in the

portfolio's nsk profile over ume,

::l Cif}' Colleges ofChicago 11 Westcap Securities: Assessed suitability of mortgage sccunlles

investments for the colleges' operallng fund. Evaluated perfonnance and calculated damages.

:l Ward v. Hem'ngto": Evaluated suitability and calculated damages ofinvestments made by 3

broker for a high net worth couple.

.Valuitjon

Mr. Goshtigian has applied a wide range of valuation methods in a variety ofindustries.

:J Local Telephone Company. ConstrUcted an extensive finmcia1 model ofcash flows associated

with the local phone service market to evaluate the impact ofllCW competition.

o AgriculjlD'al Comptmy. ~eloped an inmate cash flow model to value aD agritultu:al

concern under different operating scenarios aDd detf:n.Dine the safety ofa leader's col1aleraL

::I Utility Project: Evaluated and critiqued'investment bank valuatioa of. utility project. AsseslJ'

project viabilily.

o Majo,. Commm:iIJ/ Bank: In the context ofdetmni:2iDa the fair acquilidoD pricefor seven!

savings and loan branches by a bauJc. consu!ted reprdiDa valuarioa aDd the estimation of core

deposit levels.

o Savings IVld l.oo:uI: Appli= option pricing theory to value diecoUatcral ofaoa-rec:ourse loans

to determine ifthe loans were fairly priced.

o Life J1ISIIJ'GIf&. Company. Applied option pric:inll tbcory aDd trIdiIioaal comparable analysis to

value mongaae bcmds purchased by the company.

o Casino: Quantified losa ofvalue due to breach of merger conttaCl

o ["temet Stan-WIT. Developect pro-rorma valtWion model of. plll!l!lld intcmet compmy thal

was c:lcDied ftmdinl by a venture capiJal finn. (co-authoml expen report with R. Sbawin)

ContrlC! DisputeS pM Clam_cal Linariog

Mr. GosbIipa bas exteIIIive exPerience cODSauetins"but for'" modeIa to cvaluue damages

arisinS from comrac:t disputes and commen:iallitigatioD.

o ACQ Holdings v. Dynamic Circuits. Inc.: Analyzed potential mefFsynersies and performed

valuation of a high tech company.

Lapine Technology v, Kyocua. I"c.: Analymi the profitability and viability ofa computer

peripheral manufacmrer and the likelihood of conductina IIJl initial public offering.
. . . . .....,. ~. '., . . '.-' .

ID~------"--

Rbi Estate and Envlrcnmenral

\1r. Goshtiglan has extensive e.'(penence applYing 'Gpll1S[JC.lted valuanon techniques to real estate.

:l For several engagements, Mr. Goshllglan has assessed aiieged damages incurred through the

presence of asbestos amI Dlher environmental hazards in commercial properties.

:l Commercial Bank: Evaluated and critiqued opposing expert's damage model based on a .

valuation of a large real estate development project.

Other Consulting

Q Stare ofWisconsin Investment Board: Provide monthly and qlWteriy analysis of general

petfonnance characteristics ofsevera! portfolios.

Q First Interstau Bancorp: Devel~ an innovative method to evaluate fund

perfot'!lllDCa.

Q RegioruU Stod:Exclump: Workiq closely with an academic affiIiar.. coasulted with the .

board ofdirectors c:oaccrDiq tbe cbanpacompetitive en'riroluDealfaced by tile excbanae.

..
r-~,

•

I;xnIC¢A~

(Redacted to protect

taxpayer privacy]

rNTERHAL REVENUE SERVICE

'1'0:

rRO~: J3~es C. En~. CAS IRS ~~4 Anseles

Sl1BJI£CT: -IRS Sta':istt-:31 SalD"lina Systellr. VERSION 3.0

(!n$ SSS Ver 3.0).

The IaS SSS V3.0 "3e desicned for us. by IRS p.~sonnel in the

perfor=anee of their d~ti•• durin~ an ••"iaatioD La wbien

aeat1at1aal .aaplift~ i. beLa« us.d •• aD audit t.cna1qu•• The

eyse•• cODtains proar... uhiab aid ift ~h. de.elop.eat of ~h.ir

statistical s..pline .,plications.

The 8yat•• consiste o~ prou... 'to c.ent. rudo. nabersets 1ft sorted and uu.o.rted sequence. sild co e:elude .pitcilic randollr a~Oer rSD.... and to apptai•• the au41~ re.ult. o~

the stan.Ue.l .a.pl••·.Bedo. auabel' .eed. Call 1» !lell-SQe~.~ 01." pl'O.id~ b~ the u.e... Aa uuple o~ th.

rando. aWlDeI'. repon _.era,," fo.. tJle audi•. o~ tile lepa1r•• Lin. 14 .avle 18 .ttachecl.

·Apprd••l .ethoda .9'a~l.bl.1Dclucl'" 1A til••&Ql1q' •.,rce.

are Dean. differeDe-. coabiDed r.tio. aa4 co.biD_ r••r•••ion

a.thode. Separate r.'1~ and recre••1oD·coalQtat10Da ~aA also

be obtain~ oa a .;ec1f1c requ••t ba.ta. The .yste. 1s d.si~n~d ?~ aut4..~~.llw ••l~~ ~h. opt1au. (~.~ pree1Ael ec'tJ.III~. lft,"••er. th1s Call be 0 ••r1ca.~-.rtft.. ·u.er Gun••

.... lftforll.tJ.OD collcenine Mother ••t1Uto~. Varb"'l.

S&IIDlJ.D4J .... useel 1A olar &1»v11oa.10D. ;

The variableI "'Vl~ 0"t10D 1. us" create data f1l•• contaalq tho report_ .utlle data aJld the f1Dd1.D8.. fro. o~r

exuJJlaUo•• TIle .)"It•• _111 e••luate (a"pn1••) til. f1Jadinca

icput: _4 I'l'O,1d•• naber o~ repone re••ri1Da the Undia,s. bo~ tile O»1:,1oD••v.U.bl. CSur1q the .""1'.1••1 proc... is • s...t. aua.clatenlDa.ioD to .how th....,,1••u •• th., would.

be r8q.Qlncll~ • fill... prec1.loa (s..Uer ."pUna uror) 1..

d••t.&,,_ (fo~ • coat/.udit t1ae bellefi1: aaa1)"81.).

I have attacbed copi.. ot the SuaaarF report. produced by the

ISS SSS Va&" 3.0 includinc rando. n~ber s.ta••"prai••1

reSults. e.ti••t~r cOllp.risons. c::oaPQte4 preeislon. and. eva.

and sallpl••i~. d.terainatloD table tor lAcr••••d preel.ioc.

Plea•• call ~e if 1~U have any que.tiona recard1nc our

statistical sa.pli~.
'. ...

~.'I la'I' : :;

....-" .. "~": .en; . j\ .~ I

,.

i(1

~..., • • ......

(l)

..

'"

I ...

It'

.. ...

.. xl

.-

Ii

,

, I.

' Ii .. D ' , L ' .. 0 L • .. :I L III ' :J .... IIIL • - ~. 11

Ot• :J

I

c '0 .... ... 'I ... ... c

9>" ...

0

u

..,

e ltl

u

¥

u ..

.- '" 0 'II L. I 0.

tl ,~.~~ \, .: 1~~""~" ;

.....

.a

...

.~ l(•

c:

...!I•"G

...••

cp. C

...

1JC

...

... i•J

..

.5

..1

D.•3..

'tI

...•

o. 6

III"

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

. ..... ,<,'j!"r,l ;---;,11•.-. •.

• If,. ...f .....•. .,.

.t···· •. 'u .J'·"i~·"~· '. •.• -~"; .•.., .'" .1" ...

..

•• \J• 'i

" • . ~-\ 'J .." ,\ l~' p '~I •

"" .... • \ j,- 't,· . (, l_'f:. r I I ~",

)

.. :}'.

.=. '."

·.

••••••••••

fi

·t

....

...i

t.••

J•..•:I

...

..

:-

'I

... u•... L0U

• I ••,•••••

'.•••••••••

..

!l

..... m

fit

II•

'1

•c

r.:...

..

ft

,,

L- ..,. ,,0'"

...,

o .., r'0• ";.••

, L...P E'" It' .. ...:t 0 w i'~~ - &fflrlOO' .15~~ • ., • ..,~ L ~U. .~ c ,>. 0

III (>-P .:. of ('I) II: .." pt• 'f to:: -f , ....,. .. ,:"0 n If.. .. :311 l'h"II'''' L.ct ... ,. iii "'.0 ... " 00 JI .. 0''' of 0 .. U~ ~~~ ... .. ~.~ ...

~- "'I~~O ca~Y •• r:J "...... ..0 "~.n , S•I L

lCtc ••it

~h~md .~~.aQ• ,... ./J <t- n .... C J: • '. ••••• ti .0.... .

" 'ot.;,.·.......C0u• '- .,.. o-UIIQ-4 Y.U". . ,; III _.f! wI ". ... " • .ff r. • " L :;>I~t ...... n n -4 ......... " • IU .f E "'O'fflf'lr-f C 0.. • II '0 ,a. '",rt:'r,"fO" .OD'e.... • o ".) n r t '" ,,, It .... C :t QI •

'U 'U 'fL' 1I&;·...·."c:•

It:

lOU

u· "'"C•£• :I 1- 1) •

·f • •c .'

o .-( \,41- .., .....

c;~0 .1) ., It! -. ..• C.,.

III

.•I O:J C~ O~'J""I~ •••••

0

1·4~.' II t! ...

&C

1

! ~~ m4.~~~ u~o~o ... .J ".I.~ I I ,., 00 0 ,.' e "... 0

d '= ·f·, Q" ,."toD .. ":J.u• ., .. .-, ,.. ... n fIJ " ... II II . I III ~. t) It- .1) r~ ... '0 U 0 I:. CIt .. 00 'I·OOoto •·.. cl .. ·.. '" 0 '" I- ~-••:' I... ... ... ... 0 . • &

.'".•( .:. -, I, 'I otC """0'"" IJ •.04" • til .... C 41 :: .... 4 ., ""'.;1. .. " ':l ."CL" .. ", ,. L • 0 U. ... .~ ~"YO.~ U C a ... II. '" 11 I) "t "i N ~\ •• 0 _.f • 0 " ., '0, •. I . 0- " 0 1I .... .. D. fll oJ. It n .1) .. t: tJ " .t ... c ,,. " •• ........ :1 ... JJ °t' • 0 .. ' " II U" 11 'll...... J: .. .n ":l III -, /·1. 1:"'" c: " ., \,. '0 0 .•• _ •• II ... 0 ~u 0 • •• C.»~ • .," C '0 L· " 0 :s o. 0

,"J 'I O. ...L "";j 9'1l O. ".~t e"

•

" ." 'II 'I UC .... LO ::J

o 'J .• 1'1 -::- .~••~. t-lIJ .,.• It0 1I• ...

, ·f 0" ."toJ"''''' ..:t .. t." 'a,..C" '.: t;:-f .. 4 P •• 41 C'l :> :1 '. ,n U -., '1t L ......

" .1 ~-tI ... C.C It SIU

-. III III

u

.~~~". ,., .. ill

" ..*

,c .~OE~:SL .i '1', .'i'" -t • lOt ..... 0 0 " ''..! •• I I I',',. 1,' ;III ...... _I' 0 e a. .... .) ... .1: " " " 0 II • '. ... I.. II) 1-'.'1.'." 0:

'h'h ;;::;.~'11"S ;1:::;: 0'" ,';~: in'" ~:~ ;i::~
...

=+=

Attachments:

l. St3tisti~al Sampl~n. Report.

Z. Stati«tical Appr31a~1 R~port - Summary of Population and

Sa=ple Information. ~. S~tistieal Appra1aal R.por~ - Suamarp of 1.~laator•.

4 .. M - Sa.ple 51=e Determine To

.' Iepro•• Preci.ioD (Ditf esti.ator is typical for all

eatL1latora) . 5. $aa»l. T..latlnc.

8. sa Re;alr8 Line 1. - Proposed Adj I'or t.vr. 8.Z.

7. RaDde. Saaple S.lectlOIl (V3. 0) • 8. DR 'rrUl••ct1oa. Rudoa.1,. Selected ·o~ L1Ile- 14 1.,.11'••

....
FEDERAL ELECTIO,'i CO;\\,\IISSION

October 22. 1997

MEMORANDUM

i.

To:

Throap:

From:

Sabjed: Buchanan'forPresident, 1DI:.-Rdmalbi'sed OIlRevicwof~

Coatri~Submitted for'Matching

B.clgp'gn*

During tbo DoUar UDitSemp!e (nUS)revicwofCOIdribudaDJl)fBuclvmu far

Presidellt.lnI:.(tt.CoauDiUee).1baAuditStlffDOted asipificw""""-ofitemawhida

were reauributicnaofaU«apxtioQ ofa~tD......iI:IdiYidaa Some 0&.

these reauributioDs wereto 1J'S*iea4DllIHelaIedpades IIIIdod!er1IllIHpO'-' fiImily

mem.bas. 1'beraaribulicmwere o8Ialllldeto IDlftdlaoaaiadtillaiiL IIIthe~

staff"s opinioa. the0 ...111;,*'. con clJicn1eDce withtheCIJldli1Ju&aadid DOt ftdIy

disclos8tbede6 nUmof.l':cejAllblaraaribadaallllitblOWl8s1dl'COJdIoiofftmds

(seeAnarb....I).. lkO·.'·il_....tobavepcdJ6Lldlll"'lD"ilitwfoltl-.

PurpolaollCClUiJiDaI'Jt:Iitbg' m ....m. fbadL·

.' GewaIJy.tbIta'!liJmfedcoaa:i!KldoI..Wlft Ie cl"III"'iedbJ JWWirionU. '

docum""",*-lipidb1tbIcaaU'ibulllnwbidt"AII'i-'tbltiIowiDa"'leU'O'*'

reprdinatbeleIUrifKdedfiaIfc:

lbeAuditStdIlqIICtIto iDdudI ill tbe Exit CoafereDca M..............fbtinp far Receiptol

Excesaive ClIftIIIC)',lllmizldcD ofCoalributiolll, IIId 0IIliIIl0II ofDbc:Joue IDCclnDaIioD far

COlllributioaL

r

..

..'
2

'\Sxxx.XX) of the above mentioned contribution represents my

personal funds and my personal contribution to Buchanan For

President, and that I maintain equitable ownership of the

aCCOU!1t."

Tne word "account" above refers to the'bank account upon which the contribution

instrUment was drawn.

Upon evaluation ofthese documents, questions were raised about the validity of

reattributions made to apparent non-related individuals and non-spousal family members;

specifically, donative intent and ownership/control offunds. For example. a cashier's

check for 58,000 was reattributed to eight members ofthe same family. All eight

reattributed contributions were submitted for 5250 in matcbinl funds. In another case, an

individual made 3S contributions totaling 59,325; $1,300 was refUIided ($1,125 to the

contributor and $175 directly to the U.S. Treasury) and $7,225 wasrcattributed to nine

different individuals. The Committee submitted m!ltcbing1i1Dd requesta totaling $3,125

for the original contributor and the nine reattributecs. Eva. iftile reattributicms were:

acceptable, the amom submitted was $625 in m:ess oftbe meximtllD anov..d (10

contributors at $250 each.. $2,500).

ldntfflcetlqg qtPgpg..... ....

Due to the situltions noted above. the Audit staffped"Oi'IDIlld Idditicmal testiDI of

reauributed COIdributioas to detenDiDe the extat of1IIe PIObItm. Usiqmultiple audit

steps. the Audit staff'icfcDDfied III coatributors wbo went ilMtlvedwith,.",."hJticHa

All CODtributioas rec:cmIed ill the Committee's dada bile for 1baeiDdividuaJs were

comparedto theMucbinlFasubnrissionsto dcCamiDawbidICOIIIribUdoaam.

Committee submitteci bmetebina This compaisoa jde",jRed.1.%71'coaaibudoD

totalial 5910,501wbichwae submitted tor S6S0,961 ill mlC¥:hina tiPMh;

ID IIIeftbrttD~.doUIrwlaaoftb8coambudauwbicbrDll'J!IaYebeea

impaopealym....hect" tt.AudiI.....DUS ""'P'ia1pRl__to aeleca32SSIlIlp8

itemsfrom tbispopulldo& Oltbo sampleitlems.lu.... l32CC1111rit+·,ioN...

reauributecl10 otMriadividuaIIlDd were reviewed lbrtberbyAuditsaaft N"meteea (19)

ofthaeftIlIriINfIld iteaII ~wereorwoulclhave......iatill0Ii&iDM:

submissioatI11III wereaatnYieMclfUrdw. Themnabrint 113 -".oIeiteml waetbea

reviewed to de" i iiii_accepu.bi1ity oftbe redribudoa. n.AuditlIdidentiW4&r

unacceptable rauributioas which we:e classified asfollows:

Nq.qfErmn

2 ReattributiOD ofa busiDeSl check (not• corporation)• unable to

verify ownership offtmds.

~-~--a i;;~ !'- . ---~- ot --...."Ic _
•

The following errors were unacceptable reattributions to individuals not named as

an account holder on the face of the written instrument:

22 Reattribution to an individual with a different surname.

24 Reattribution to an individual "'ith the same surname but

apparently not a spouse.

The evaluation ofthe 48 sample errors indicated a 14.9% error rate and a tolerable

sampling error of:: 4.0%. Based on the achieved error rate, the projected dollar value of

the errors in the population would be $97,238 (:t: $26.064).

Apparent IlDacccptablc RClttribuUQDI tJrmpccUyc oCMltch.bilitV

The problem is further aMplified wIleD the reattriburioD oftbe lJirJeteeD (19) items

noted above (that were not included in the sample review because tb8y eitherwere or

would have beeD errors in the originalsubmi.uions) were munincd l'be number of

~lendribptiQIIS to 64. indieati"lID tmlf ndIl of 19.~ aDd a

samplinPrrorof=4.5%.:

Docamcngdpft

Finally. the Audit Statfperformcda l~ rmewofthe c:outribIid~

~butiODS aDd matching fimd submisaicms oftha oriaiDM "P"Cieted witIa

the 48 emns nOted above. Also iDdudecl in this lOOK review. Ml8UwotberI'C1cmlt

individuals whose c:ontributiODS aod reatlributioDS Vo"lft illusuIItive ofdie problem.

Complete histories werePiepllled for SO contributors wbich detailed an coD1ributioDs.

reauributioDS aod IIIIlOUIdS submitted for pratclJinc (Exbibib 1- SO). RadribuDons Wile

identified u acceptable or \m":tet'fable aDd c:oD1ributioas sutmitted formntclrina wereidentified u ml!tc:bable atDOIHDItChabJe. Thae iDdividuais 1CCll"'''Iteclfor COIttributiolls

totaling S106,417, ofwhicb "5,005 wu impcope:rly reauribuIed to otbas. TIte

Committee submitted $33,045 of1heseUDICCeptable raIIribuIioDa farml!tc:bina (see

Attac:bment2).

Rccqmmndatlppa _

GiWDdillthe Ibcwe described aetivitiesltw,sl!:tilJlllnile scrio\\t questioas of

nOD<ODlpliIDceuDded 1CPR. 1110.1 (i) _ (k) aod possibly 2 U.S.CO §4M1(f) we feel.

referral to YO\U' office is wllnoted at thistime. InadditioD. the SCItId impecton die

Matchina Fund program SDd resulting repaymentraises questions uodet 11 CPR §9034.3

Forty-five (45) COIIlributoft. iDc1udilli 0lIl COlllribuUlr widl2 'm- cepllbla l'IIIlI'ibutiollDd_

conlributor with J lIlI-=cpcable reaIlribuuOilL
•

4

ee) md (i). Consideration must be given to developing tl1C evidence for tIlis-by use of a

ccn.t1rmation procedure targeted at the appropriate population.

Further. given that the repayment aspect of this-question could be presented in the

audit report. we feel that agreement should be reached with your office as to our approach -

as soon as possible. and certainly before any presentation to the Commissioners. We

expect to conduct the end offieldwork conference in the near future.

The Audit staffis available to provide assistance or answer any questions you

may have regarding these fIndings. Please contact Gary Hache or Wanda Thomas at 219-

3720 as needed. -

Attachment No. 1-Committee Form Letter Sent to ContributorsR.egarclins

ReattributiOD ofContribution

AttacbmentNo.2 - SlImmlllY OfContributor Historiesfor Re&rra1 to OOC

Exhibits NQ&. 1 - SO

/
,', \~., 'I .,"..... ..'

May 15.2000

SUBJECT:

.\-lEMORANDmt

TO: Lawrence Noble

General Counsel

THROUGH: James A. Pehrlcon \).~ StaffDirectof 0

FROM: Robert J. Costa "

Assistant StaffDirector

Audit Division

Rick Halter U- ~"l""'­

Dep. Aut. statrDUector

WUldaJ.

Audit Manapt Tho.m::.,.,..

L

LCldAuditor1'J

Gary Hache ,F

BucbaaaD for Pmident.lDc.· ADalysiJ ofRapoase to theCommjssion's

Repaymeaa Dehmmjnarioo an4 OralHearina(LRA #512)

The Audit SId!Jaa reviewed theCommittee"s.......dIIedOcu»ber11. 1999

to the Notice ofRepaymeat cfefeI i1iin~ the MIn:IIl. 2000 OralHeIriaa trIDICript lIDIt

related providedlDdlll&aJita tbiI ma1yIia oftbeCC"ibi"Loat mel coacl1laic»s

presentedby die Coi""Ii~.COUlIAlIDIImtisric:al expea..,

S.iDpUq,... l00%.......

In its 0ct0IMr I%, 1999"tespO..to theCOiDiiIiuioo'. Repa)1DllltDetetmiutiem.

the Committee objected to tile Auditstairs use ofsampliDa to teYiew tile contributions at

issue. The Committee at"'4"Themere fact tba& tbe teeorda arevohmriMl'l aDd. that a

review thcn=ofwould be time consuminl tortbe DepIrtmeIltdoes.inourview; justifY

the use ofthe sampling metbocL"' At the oral hearing. Mr. argucQ tbal..Altbougla

there are 7,220 contributions•..the FEC has been able in itssample10 quickly eliminate

I Response to Notice ofRepaymelll Detenni!latiOD and Request for Oral Hcariq; ~ifachment _g......__

PaP_'....r
S~·cer;:ent G[those, So, DlSleal,! the Clniler;e trat lhe~ r.a\e to survey IS ;ome'·' here

Jro'lnd l.0iJO Ilems.. ,Tlut Isn't "hat i "ould de~cnbe as a number th:!.t lS so burdensome

and onerous as to J~5tlfy sampling,'" 'vIr DUlrY does not understand the magnnude of

such an undertakIng. For a i00% revIew. ,he ,-\Ilon staffwou!d have to perform the

[ollowlng audit steps: .

J.) T~e original documentation (check copy) for each matched contribution

would have to be retrieved for review. (Submissions t.7 were paper copy;'

submissions 8 and above were submitted on a col·- , . b) Each matched contribution would have to be checked against matching fund

records to determine if the anginal contribution was reattributed to another

prior to submission for matching;

c) lfthe matched contribution was a reattnbution. the reattribution form would

have to be retrieved for review;

d) A matching fund history for each contributor identified in step c would have

to be obtained for review~

e) The workpapcr tiles for the submission in which the i:Ontribution was

submitted for matching would have to be reviewed to determine ifthe

matched contribution was a sample item; .

t) Ifthe marched i:OntributiOl1 wasnot a sample item, the matched CQIltributioo

would be reviewed to determino ifit would'liave been ID CltOl' in an original

submission;

g) The reattribution documelltllion wou1cl have to be reviewed to determine it,

the rea11ributiOil waa valid accotding to our estabJisbcd criteria.

11) Any mora resultint from this proc:aawou1cl thal bave to be verified by a

mail survey.

n.SampUllaProce.

First. the Committee's expacs concede that a properly executed DUS sample

coulcl produce a reliable teIWtaDd that in• DUS sample compariDsthe maD vaiuea of

the sample and the popod"'lIIllfinctinl tbaa diffetwao is DOt iadicadveofa bialcd

sample. tile)'say. it is.manjfemriOlloftbe DUS m.ed»d It is DOted thatme fIct that

this wu a DUS sampleWllIIGI new to tbeCommiu. At die beIriqMr. I>utfjfs

assistant aaawerecl in the ai!Irmative wheD asked iftbeir e'JqMItmew that he

considerina • DUS sample:. AppamtIy therewu a miKomnnmicatioD between tbe

Committee lUllits expert befixe the IleIriq. It is still DOC poaible to kDow whit

information bII belli p.aecl to the expeIli aDd bow that iDfarmatioD hu been fi1tenld.

Mr. Duffy concludea t1W the validity ofthe fECsstatistical analysis ClIIIDOt be

establisbed because the Auditstaffbll not procluced informatiOQ.whichrevealawhedJer

the sample was properly designed or executed... To demonatra.te proper implementltiem.

Counsel states thal "the Committee needs materials showing that probability weights

'TranKriptoftbe March 1. 20000nl HeariDI; pp.6-7.

2

Attachment----.l&

Page a. of -1..-.

I
..-ere c::dc'.llated :or each I!em In the populatIOn and that the sample was drawn accounting

:'or these we:ghts."

The Comrniltee's experts. :Vlessrs..\igner Jnd Go~htigian. correctly point out that

a properly executed DUS sample must o.?ply p~obabiiity weights to each population item.

They contend that information has not been provided that establishes that the population

items have been properly weighted. The Committee is mistaken. To begin with. the'

expert's initial conclusion that the sample was hiased was based on the fact that the mean

value oflhe sample was $155. while the mean value ofthe population was only 590,

This difference is due precisely to the weighting that the Committee now states is not

demonstrated. T11.e·larger dollar values were more likely to have been selected because of

the weighting. The: Committee demonstrated the weighting in its presentation at the oral

hearing. M the Committee states in the response each population item must be weighted

in proportion to its share ofthe population value. Hence the generic name ofthe

sampling technique. Probability iJI·Proportion to Size (PPS)~ That maIlS thac the larger

the share ofthe population a particular transaction represents the more likely it is to be

selected in the samplC". This "weightinS" is accomplished very simply in the Audit

Division software. The dOllar value ofthe population is C9I1Vertecl to pcami_ That

~omplished by simply multiplying the population va.luct by 100. The sample is

selected from thc.numbai ofpemdesin the populatioo.,,Following tbistamique. the

more permiesthat.specific transaetioD:accoUDtl for. the more likely it isto beseleered or

the more "w~gbl" it illSlipeeL Eacb trIIISIdion's probabilityofbeiqselectedis

determined by the number ofpamiestbat it accounts farcompared to the total numberof

penniesin the entire populatioa. This procedun: can be detcrmiDed·1iom thecomputer

code that was provided to the Commiuea 11luI.uuleatheCommitteedaes DOt believe

that the program listing provided isthe one in u-. thewei~questiortbaa beer! dealt

with.

Messrs. Ai~ IDliGosl1tiaim tbatlDItCriallsuch.iupurdata ft.

programexecution fiIa.. aDd propllll output filesliealto needed to demonsbare that the

sampledesignwas propertyeltIlCUled 1TdIintbnIwioa was provided totheCommittett

in the fonn ofaD ExcelsprIl'MfIheiIt c:oarajujlllthe sample popuJaIioa Theactual data

input file required by the pIOpIIII a fite saved in.l032 tbmaI8 lIII1ea tileCommitteebad accesato al03%, wauIdIIavebeer! oflittleU18to the tbeD. The file is a

subset or saved file inthoMlfCbins Funds DatIba-. Iu tbr pa...._ omput.tbiainformaUOII was also liveDto theCommitteein the fonD oflllExcel.....sbeet

containinl the sample iteua The sample evaIuIdoa raWta....c:opied &om.1032..

pasted to a Worcl cklc:umeDlwbicb was given to theCommitta. M-. Ai...lid

Attachment _...,lR-~ __

3 Page '3 of 1

Althoup Ibis wei....is DCCm"y for t!Ia DUSIIIItIIacf, it CIII lad litfiZUiWOUI aauIliIl_

c:ua. For "unphr, apopWadaIl ofIDIIlY SIIIIIl QiUlllCliaa wiIb I ftnr yay Iaap ilCiill CClIII4c

lead to faIa cosluliaa becauM die few larp ilCiill 'NGUId ICCOIIiI& fae IIIIlItofdie SllilPII illiDS.

[a such I sillWiaD lbIJlClP".rjon is bat dividecl iDlo • sample SCllIIId a lOCM aeview set, or into

multiple SllilPIl _ Tb& computllfsoftware ill use in the Audit Divisial baa die Ibility to select

out vr:ry larp lnDSac1iODS into. 100% review set. [11 die malCbiq fImd situatioa, Ibis is norI

problem since the \aIJest UI\OIIIli is 5250.
4

GOSl1ugl:Jn .::ciillowledge re~e;\Ir.g the pr~r,:out ol"lhe sample evaluatIon In theIr JOInt

;ilatement: "the AudIt St~ffpro"lded the pnnted uutput from a prograrn that extrapolates

the results of the audited sample to the popu:atlon doliar ;'alue,"

:\!though not discussed In the text of the Committee's response. the second

footnote 10 Messrs. Aigner and Goshtigian's sta'tement mentions the use of an erroneous

"r factor", That conclusion is apparently based on a table found in the Emst and

\Vllinney study (PPS Sampling Implementation Guide. 1979. page 52) which

recommends aT-factor of!.96 for 30 or more degrees offreedom. In this case degrees of

freedom can be equated to the number of differences observed in the sample. The factor

of 1.96 is the mUltiplier that relates to a 95% reliability if a normal distnbution is

assumed. That is. in a nonnal distribution, if one moves 1.96 standard dev1alions to

either side ofthe mean. 95% ofthe area under the bell curve that defines the items will be

accounted for. The DUS model that the Audit Division software is based on uses the

Student'sT distribution, not the n~distribution. Unlike the normal distribution, the

Student's T distribution produces larger factors when smaller numbers ofdiff'cnmces are

observed. However. as the number ofobserved differencea iDcteua the two

distributions approximate one lUlOther. The table concludes d1Il the two ant

approximately the same at 30 observed dUf'erences. Howeverdie ample evaluatiOll

software c2termiDeI theTfacttlr usiD& formula built iDto tbitsoftware adt3k.es a

sligbdy more conservative appIOIICIr. M is poinred oid inMesa. AigDll' _

Goshtigiaa's_Item_ usina die &elora iom die table sugatlihIlthepRCiJiooof.

estimate issomewhat better tbm noted in the doc1uD!!!Dis. '

TheCommittee aIIo contenda that the tue ofa pnciaioa oldie -amate of+/·4"1.

is too imprc:eile to base a on. or the repaymcatshouldbe bated only on the

lower end ofthe range. The Committee goes on to explain that although precision ofthe

estimate is a matter ofpolicy, usiDg 4% it Cor example, the cmJr rate were 2% woul4

render the eamnlte UICllela. In the 2"1.14% example tha l'IIIpofdie estimatewould be

"«weeDsomethjqpaterthan 0%1DIl6%; liiiilteit thm0% siDco tba would soma

errorsin the sample 10 tbI popuJatioQ coulclnac be completely devoidofCftW. Billthe

same istrUe ifthe cmIIwtnl%IDIlthopncisioa.2%. orthe ermr.$% IDIl the precisioa

IlYe. To follow dieiop;ofdieIfI:IPOIII8, tbe tow. the errorrGI illa popuIIDGa. tbe

larger the simple needa10 be; \bit..tha lela libly the oc:cunIIICIofa material aror. the

more time tbIllbouklbe spapIOVina that fiIct. TbItloP:is COUIIteiintuitive.' Fortbia.

very preciJiGa ilsetby policy. TbaCommigjoa decided dillit could livewith

the precisioG tbIlisuecl in.t6e ml'CbiIIl f\md procelL IntereIIiDalY. die pncisioD ofthe

sample resultsin tba IRS application submitted II pIItofthe lapaaN is narty 5.8~

To Nlly understmd the question ofpRCisiOIl ofthe sample estimates used in the

matching fund proc~ some history is necessary and ..clmUDdcntmding ofbow the

sample at issue fits into the matching fund process.. When the SIID1Jle procedureused in

the matching timd process wu instituted, the precision ofthe estiml!tf!.l needed to be

established. The consultants from Ernst and Wbinney felt that S% would be sufficient.

That recommendation was a balance between reasonable accuracy and reasonable sample

Attachment :R__ Page J.l of _1 _
51zes.. These d~cIslons a.re by :1eCessItv a cor.-tpramlse..·\!thaugh lhat degree of possIble

,anallon w~<; conSloerc:-O SlgTllflcallt. It was k.nown that each candidate would make

multip!e matching fund reques:s and that most would be evaluated via sample.

Therefore, the sample procedure would be repeated a number oftimes for each candidate.

Since it is equally likely that any gi'len matching fund payment will contain an

understatement as it is that it will contain overst'atement. it is very likely that over a

'~ampalgn's matchIng fund history, both overstatements and understatements Will occur.

In the end. due to the repetition of the sampling process, the overall result would be a

projection that would be more precise than the 5% established-for each sample. There

was no way to determine mathematically how much better. but it was a near certamty that

it would be better than 5%. In subsequent years, the matching fund process changed and

each candidate now makes fewer submissions. When that occurred, the Staffdetennined

that it would be appropriate to specify a more stringent precision in recognition offewer

repetitions ofthe sampling process. and the precision specified was reduced to 40/0. As is

explained below, the sample analYsis at issue is nothing more thaD another repetition in

the overall matChing fund sampling procas.

The Committee also argues that at most the repaymem sboul4 be based onu.:

lower end ofthe umpleenorrange~eacknowledgiq that.P&)'OUtl are based on tbe

mid-point ofthe sample range and that the Commissi~ is fi:ee to makethe policy

determination OD bow the payourawillbe made. 1'hcCommittee stata:

During the bcariDg the Auditswrasked whetherit would. bemont

consistent to seek ~ymeal basecl oa themidpoiDt of1beAudit Stairserror estimate ratherthan the lowerboUDd. sirlce metrJrin&8mlfaliepUt

to committees based OD the midpoiDt(ti:loaIote omitted). Sudl.Policymixes apples and oranges. The purpoIe ftlrwhich mlt(:bjq ftmda are paid

is unrelated to the PurpoM ofrepayment determinaliems. In tile payout.

context, the FEC's purpose isto promoteconpessicmal inteatto publiclY

finaDCe campaipL Arpments can be made for usin&ei.-eDd ofdierange oferror esriml!ell inthe payout context. For examp~ iftheFEe

desired.to promote c:oaanaiOlll1 iDteDt to the fWJat atImtpoaible, the

FEe could diIbune mlt(:binlf\mdI baled on the Iowcr1JcMIDIti.I. payout

the Iftl*ItpoaibIe8lllOUDt ofmlt(:'ring ftmds.

.'

Attachment_R _ 5 Page 6 of 1

IIIita... ... dlaOc I ..'.1IIbmita two sbntI dill..Ii IRS....

delE*"" .'M. fa lfIIt~ .1dj1lA....m,639,3<Q.$6 ••popu wIIidl......

5141.011.109.36 ill rnFalld. wid..peciJioD ofSl,145,446,D Ill 5.&%. 1'bIa.. ..is

made lIIiDIastrIli&4l'1Dlioa1l1Dlpli1 ofi1IeIIII ill dIa populatiae lIIiDIaCombiIIId

estimlllar. 1'bIreliability ofdIa et" • is 95% 0Da sidIlL 1'tIaIit, .,..95116 cadIiIIm.

the misstaIEmeDt WU It leal $50,639,343.56 (poi:ar"",,,,-of""714,790.04 ...tlMpnciIiaa

of58.145,446.23). SiDce lhI uaJ)'IiI is OIII-sided. itmaJt.• cam....·Ibuatbow !up!be

misl1lmJIcIIl could be. The sample sizIi appears 10 Iiave bceD 150ItIDOl&.. No exp'lnatjog ofthe

purpose ofthe sample or tbe policy decisioallbla weill iJIto tbe dell PI! iil'ring 10 \IIll tile lower ead

ofthe rID" is liVeD. III genetUlmIII, the Audit Divisiolt's &IIa1ysi1 ill lhI9uchlnm cue is more

rigorous.

•
Ii. :>le ,eOJ~.me~t COflle.XL ::1 contrast. the FEe; /Jurflose IS comple~el'i

different. The FEe :5 t"ki~g 1\\ay money (0 which a campaIgn Inltlaily

.... as entitled. T?king away money IS a Corrective meas'~re that requires

that the fEC demonstrate error on ~he part of the campaign. As explained

above. where tile fEC cannot demonstrate error with an acceptable degree

of precision and reliability. use of the iower bound ofthe error estimate is

warr:mted.

First, each time an amount is withheld from a matching fund request based on the

midpoint of a sample estimation, the process is very similar to the situation at hand.

Money is withheld in one case and recovered for the same reasons in the other using the

same analytical tools. Rather than apples and oranges, at best. the apt analogy is between

two varieties of apples and varieties ofred apples at that. The Conunittee also misstates

the purpose ofthe analysis. It is not to "take away money to which a campaign initially

was entitled", rather as the regulaJory sections cited in the analysis suggests (11 CPR

§9038.2 (b)(1) Payments in excess of:ntitlement), it is to recapture fimda to which the

Committee was never entitled. Had the information now available been available at the

time ofthe initial review ofthe mau:hing fimci submissi01ll. the sample e:rror rates in the

affected submisaioD.ll would have been higher aDd the reduction to the amount requested.

based on die midpoint ofthe sample error!'IDp. would have been peatar. The curreat

anaI}'!is is simply an exteIIIioll ofthat proce.a. and inorderto appIox;m1te the n:stI1cs oC

the regular mbmisaion process. the estimate is bued on the midpointolthe errorI'IDI&

Second. as part oftbeoveraU sample aDI1ysia ofmlltdiiD,11mdsrequated aDd

paid to theCommiueo. the c:u:mm malYlia is included inthe amp" repmtion that

assures that the total amoUDl paid to Committee is UDdentatId oroverstatedby le:sa than

4%. Therefore. althoughIII)' givm c::alculaQoa of1'JOlloolDatCbable IIDOunts. including the

one at issue. could be overstated or by • mudI as 4%. tile total paid to the

Committee is overswecl or by a lesser peII:eIltq&..

n.58""PI...ucllcleaUfrcadH ofS..,..EITCIIS

Mr.DuflIIJ COIICWdeI that die survey proceu WIll UDfiliraDd umeliabl& Therefore

at least 2 01tho31 emu(CarlitaBtowa aDd FRlCferick Fox) wbicb be...were

establisbecllOlelyby1JleIImoftelepboM surveys:should not be coamtftl as emm. The

Auditsta1fia DOC pcnuedM bx the Couuscl's argument. Mr. DutIYalso stated tbal two

other emn fiwwflidl a wriUea rapoase WIIrcceivell(AlmaNewton and Sheila

Thomsen)sbauI4DOt be cooatted as errors. Thae emn b&ve alreIdy been addnuecl in

your Agenda DocumeurNo. oo-n. Oral Hearin~- Such...for Praidcnt..1Dc:. (LRA

#512). dated February 2%. 2000: However. additional clarificalioD is neceauy with

respect to tho DavidA Tbomsatsample exceptioD. Tbe Committee stated"'nle.re is no

evidence ofa reaaribution to her SOD otherthan the Stairs notation ofthe 'telephone

contact'." The Committee is mistalceu;. Evi~o exiJts in the form ofadclitionaL

documentation included with the Committee'ssubmission for matebinlJ funds. The

documentation consists ofa statement signed by David A. Thomsen. (Oc:cupation.

Attachment Q..

--- 6 Page~of--L
s::oJent) [hat 5 i .IJOO 0f the -:olltnbuuon !Idenel {ied as a St. 000, check:: 11 ..8 recel ved

\) from Sheila Thomsen) repr~sents his personal funds and that he maIntains equllable

ownership of the account. The statement is also signed by Sheila M. Thomsen. The

survey results indicate that the amount should have beelJ reattributed to Sheila Thomsen's

spouse, David J. Thomsen. A follow-up telephone call to Sheila Thomsen <;:larified that

the .eattribution in question was to her son Dav(d A. Thomsen and that she and her son

do not have a joint account. Furthermore. the Audit staff understands that David J.

Thomsen was contacted and indicated that he. not Sheila Thomsen, filled out the survey

form. Therefore the Audit staff concludes that the reatuibution is an error.

Finally, the Corrumttee states that 9 errors should not be counted as such because

the Audit staffhas erroneously defined "errors" as "reattributions by a contributor to a

person who 'did not have the right to withdraw funds from the contributor's bank

accounts'. The issue ofownership ofthe funds used to make reaaributions was dealt with

in the Notice ofRepayment Determination. dated July 23, 1999..

CommluiOD'S GgideUDe for PmegWlog ig Good Order

In the oral hearing there waa some·discussion about the Commission's Qj.lideling

for Presentation in Good Order (Guideline) possibly being mote lenientmaD tJUr'

regulations with regard to matching reaim'buted contributioas.' Thereis nothing in.-

Guideline that specifically stata or indicates a me f«atU'ibutioa orreaaributiOll&.

Rather~ the Guideline at ChapterV, "StaDdIrd ExceptionCodel for Rcvtew of

Submissions", addresses exceptions to me metebsbility requiremeDta f'ouDd III 11 CFR

§9034.2. Problems with reattributed con1ribubOlllsubmitted for m·tebms wouldbe

addressed in the Guideline's Exception Coda D, 0.2 and G-3. ExceptionCode D.

SignatUre Discrepancies On Fersoaa1 Accounts diSCUSIeI signature ~ancies whea

the writteD instrument is sipecl by someone otherthaD the account bolder orsigned by lUI.

individual not ideDtifiecl U aD account holder or not silJ1Cd by the individual to whom the

contribution hal been atU'ibuted. ExceptionCodes G-2 aDd G-3 discua problems with

written insttumeDIS whicb do DOC supporttho coatribution forwbicb a matebiDg amoUDt

is requested or caIIDOt be ueociared with die 1iJlecI CODtriImtar. Appendices 17-19 aDd

21 provide cumplel oldieMditioaal dOClnnentarion requiIecl to atablilh tt.

matcbability oftheleCClIJIriIJudClDl. In ach cue. in eidlertho dMtiption oftlut

exception code orill tbe related lppCQdix, there isIII indication thattbe listed contributor

is an ac:c:oUlll bolder ofthe accoUlll onwhich the written iasUument is dl'awIL

This C01DllOItSwith the reauWiOIll at 11 CFR. §9034.2(c)(l) whicb speab to

checks drawn on joint checking accounts.

Ifyou have any questions. please contact Gary Hache or Wanda Thomas.

, Ttazl.KriJlt of Marth 1. 2000 0ta.I Hearing, p. 52.

7

Attachment :&......~_

Page --L-of-...1--
•

DAVID J THOMSIJI

8HI!Jl.A ... 1 HOlIISVl _M.~ -.....E ~"'I 7"'"Jl>l""

.......""_

_01 r~ ... -

1ft

Ul-N.

1588303

te, J'.2~ ------...._-

11'.8

19 q:.. --

I

J

Attachment_S _

Page .1- of :110.--.
Cc nce:r:ung tile .:on~bu!Jon of'S I000 OG, ~heck ::t I 148, deposited !mo Buchana.-": For

PresIdent on .:,; j L~6, I verii;-' that

so 00 of the above mention<:d contr.bmlon re~reser.ts my personal r.,mds IlJld my penorW

contribution to Suchll'1an For President, and that I maintil1n ec;ultable ownership of the

account

w. - -' . SignatlJre_...;....:::,::::·~'~.o.;C::....! ~'l:oC ~m.l..O.' _!"'J~.j.,'-I-! ..c....W............ ' ...._d'£....__Date__~_,_-...;L..."...~_9'-i~l::- _ Sheila M, ThOJNel:l

SI000,00 ofthe abow mentioned comribution represenu my personal Nncls aM my

personal contribution to Buchanan For President. and. that I maintain equiuble ownmhip

ofthe accoum.

l.t I .~ ,- Occupation .mAl J i /I.W'i I.

•

Occupation Sr.! Dr:y:r

Employer 'i4,., L,."". ,....i

Due<Lt., ,. ,:;t; l.

'/

I

...

EmpJoycr;-:-- _

Ifthe above statement is noe trUe. please so ncee.

Batch/Seq 1S883·03

•

JUN 091996

Attachment __5"_-

Page of 2>
1138f6

. c.)'1c~;-:'1ln~ tho: :orHrltlUl,<Jn cr' Si 00 C-O ::1~:''; :: \ 0:0. d:::ooSlt~d Into 8u:::-::l~.:ln i'J~

Pr~sldent on;: 16 <)6. ( \ ~nf\ that·

SO.OO cfthe :lbo\e m~ntloned conmbtHion reOfc:'sent.; m: personal iun":s an": m: ::'~r$on:ll

contribution to 8uch:ln:1n For President. olnc!.th:ll J m:'Jnt:lin equJl:lblc:' ownershl!=, -;:>1' the

Olccounl.

SIgn:lIUre-=:J:..1.j~nw;~.::::· ~1&-...fjh11....L-t.-I.)1:.... ...!..iL1rM~:.....:..:lo=!oc{~D:lle___3,o..;-;;...i~-_-.:....9Cell:..-__ SMed~ .\!. T~omstn

OCCup01thJn ~'-J.' d • ~e. Employef _

S100.00 of lh~ abo\" entionecl cOl'luibu -on representS my J)erSOnal funds :lna my

l'ersonal cont' tion hanan F: sident. :w1 that I maintain eql.licble 0\\ nership

Oflhe accou

Sign4ture~~;..;.~,.olI:;~_--====---- D~e j - 2c ...

Occu~tion i -I G i • ,:?",:,- L Emplo'.'er .~_ £?p.7~

If the! 'lbo\ e s~temcnt is not tNe. plt2SC so nole'•

•

~13 '\996

Attachment _ S _

Pap 3 of~Zz_
-- .... -- .. -_..... rCt~ ....."'...

ru

ru.",

QUESTIONNAllU:

J.D. BtoWll- LIlA ifSU

The artachcd dcx:umentl by dlc Fedcrall!llIIdion Cnmmi!IRinn indiQI(:

that you made: tbe followinB contributionsto Buchanan for President. Inc:. (the

"Committee") durinl the .,1996 presidential pMluy election campii.... and tfult all or a '

ponion ofthese conlritMiOllS ruttributai to the individualli!ltt::d helow:

DIlle Amount

031201fJ' SIOO.UO

06102195 W.OQ . 06I30M5 SIOO.oo _'_a-- 01124195 , 5:1'.00

O9IOtm SIOO.OD

09mJft ~00.00

02J0!J96 SIOO••

02I'2lW6 IStoo.. . 03mI96 S2OO.00

0Ut1,w , $100.00 ::

SIOO.OO

It]*' f

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

1

m J~ I

Attachment_I__

Page I of AD

TOO III
2

J. . . 1 reallributC!ld !,he followi1'lZ amount of my eQntribut'o~to Ihe toi111~n I

IndiVidual an rhe mllowlQ' r.fa~: g

tte

['alril:lt s~~:

4. Please provide t!'le ClImId mai1inl 8ddreu for Puriek Brown.

~£~ --':'_S_~Ul_ ;M'>JTL};t -~O~;;:.\J~. . §A...-z;t ._ ..

Patrick Brown bed tbD riabIfa witWIaw funds ftam any of)"OUr baI'llllCCOuMl..

., .' I~r~ I

25 "AlC" 199'

To AII"nlt THE AIOY. aUUTla.. - I VA. IOTIPII•• ay- TM.

CO"MITTlf.QF TM! LIMIT AID TH! S100.00 CaITIIIUTIO. WA.

C.IDlT!D TO PATRICK BROW•• 1 I&LIIY'~ HE HAa SUPPORTED

TN! CA....aU. II THE PUT UD HE ReIM.UISED "I[ "Olr THI! S100.00

-WHICH I THOUIMT "".THE SI"'LIST wa~ OF CLEARI•• THIS UP.

Attachment _--:.1 _

Page :J of--NJ

tit. Cit 01. I91 .I:LO a&L "liZ/CO
,

Attachmn-_·_1 -\

Page of ao

Kathleen Jeffiies

I57 Gillete Street

Ranchester, WY 82839

RE: LRA#S12

Dear Ms. leffiies:

PleueCOldlll:tIIlOCI'DeI1IatK.RfasbJIIt{201} 694-1650ar _.C.ommissiOll'stoll

free mUD'-. 1·800-424-9530,if,.....,quad...

ill ..,'
r~

=

•

Q{;"ESTIONNALlU:

Kathleen Jeffries· LRA 1#466

:Joc~entS reviewed by the Federal Election commission inclicate that you made _.

the following contributions to Buchanan for President, me:. (the "Committee") during tl1e

i 996 presidential prizr.ary ~1ec:tioD campaigu.'.a.ud thai all or a portion of these

contributions were reattribute<! to the individuals listec1 below.

Date AmOUDt

09105/95 Sloo

11106195 SSOO

05/13/96 SI.000

09/17/96 S600

/

. .j

1.

A....

Attachment__'___.

Pag& q of & -
2

. List wy other :.o.dividua! to whom you reanributed any poroon of:ul.y contribution and

the amount and date oftile rea.ttnbuuon.

~am.e :- _

Address Reannbuu-:-:-·o-n"";:O:.-ate:-----------.,...----------

Amount Reattributed _

DfclCllvfllJdlWp,..,...,1D malIa_~or~

.- .

~~. [

Attachment

Page 5

I __

of 0...0
QUESTIONNAIRE

Owen A. JODes • LRA #512

The at-.ached documents reviewed by the Federal Election Cormnission indicate

that you made the following contributions to Buchanan for President. Inc. (the

"Committee") during the 1996 presidential primary election campaign. and that all or a

portion ofthese contributions were reattributed to the individual listed below.

Date : Amount

03/10/9.5 j Sl,OOO

07127/9,5 r$1,000

Please answer the questions by checkina the appropriate box:

1.

I...Yi",zlIl:O t-No---l

-

"-

3. 1reaaribulld 1111CoIIawiaI'lJDOImIofmy COldributiODS to the tbUowma

individual OIltbI ~cfIIII:.

r=a-.,..---H~.im~'.E==~[~2m

If..,of_...fnfftnrWfoD iIiDcomet. p.... DOte coaectio-.

Attachment T

Page --l2..- of ....,;9..::;.,;;o~
"

4. Flease provid~ the current maJiing address for Augusta Jones.

1,),0 C. h .... .,Ic.-~i d 54- "ii, <-<J

Augusta Jones had the right to withdraw funds from any of yoW' bank accounts.

Did Augusta Jones give you any money to,make the contribution or reatttibution?

Attachment

Page 7

I __

of 8.0
QtJESTIONNAlRE

Dennis McCoy - LRA #466

Documents reviewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate that you made

the following contributions to Buchanan for P,resident, Inc. (the "Committee") dwing the

1996 presidential primary election campaign. and that all or a portion ofthese

contributions were reattributed to the individual listed below. '

Date Amount

02109/96 $200

03129196 $200

05/09/96 5200

Please answer the questions by~~hecking the appropriate box:

1. I made the contributions listed above.

rw]NO I ....

Ifyour aDSwer is DO, please list your contribuDODS belowby dire IIId IIDOUIlt.

2. The contributions wen= made by checks dxawD OD In CSCIQW or 1IUSt lM:COUDt.

3. I reattribut1lcl the foUowiJia lIIIlOUDII ofmy CODtributioDs to the followiD8

individUll OIlme foUawiD&daIe:

I

-

Ifany ofthe above iDformaIiOD is inc:omlct, please IIOte correetioas.

Attachment __. T..:.-_

• Page B of -"""fNJ--.-
cist any oilier mdividual [0 whom you reartributed any portion of any contribution and

[he amount and date of the reattributictl.

Name _

Address -:--= '- _ Reattribution Date ':- _

Amour'!: Reanributed _

4. Please provide the current mailing address for Michael McCoy.

Michael McCoy had the right to withdraw fUnds from any ofyour bank accounts.

IYES pg I

Did Micbael McCoy Jive you any DIOIlflYto miketile CODIributioD CIa"

raaribution? .

f~=r° I

Attachment ...........;.T _

Page~of a..o
QUESTIONNAIRE

Kimberly S. Harbaugh. LRA #512

The attached documents revIewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate

t.hat you made the following contribution to Buchana., for President, Inc. (the

"Committee') during the 1996 presidential primary election campaign. and that all or 3.

portion ofthis contribution was reattributed to the individual listed below.

Please answer the questions by checkin; the appropriUt: box:

I made the contribution listed above.

.-~ INO 3

.'..

IYES I~ I

3. I ralUibutedme !oUowiD& IIDOUDl ofmy CODUibutiOll to the foUowiq iDdividual

011 the foUowiq datil:

I

If8IJ'foftbe abaftin""''';QII is incouectt please note COlliec:dCllllL

Attachment__I...!--_

Page \0 of ¢p
i!i

4. Ple:s.se provide the CUITent r:1ailing address for Joseph Phillips. t:~., t'"'1.,o(Lr..~\ r~<'\'tt" .... t\...,V'~·

Joseph Phillips had the right to withdraw funds from any of your bank accounts.

Did Joseph Phillips give you any money to make the contribution or

reattribution?

Attachment r_-

Page.-1L- of aD
10· 212 2111 1.43

QUi:STtONNAJRF.

I>."id K. Sl\efria· LlU.lf511

Tho: 'lIlac!lf.:u documenu n:vi~_d by me Fcdcnl F.lectioft c.:nmJni~ion indil.:illl:

(hal )'UIJ m;uJc Lhc followiog CDnnibutioniIII Buebanin for Praidc.mt. Illc. (1111:

"Curnmillw") durin.: the 1996 JIlOIidentW primury ejection cllRlpailln. ,,11I.I th:\t ollllr iI

(lUl1ion Ol' lhl:$l: ctlnlrilN1ions ruuributed 10 Ihc: individl.lllliistcd hcluw. .

Date AmoWl&

11/01/95 SHU

02J21196 SI.100

l.

3. I n:auri1Mcllllle roUowi.1IIMIUIIl orID.J anrIbalioDa ID the rutluwina

individlllll an *lb1Iowiaadllle:

.. .,......

I

Attachment T

Page ----lLof go
...... .-'--

2

<I. Plea.w provide the e:tIITeftt mai1ina addraJ for Michad Shcfrin.

~COQ LV ~a./LMic:bacl Shefrin hili the riglll to wt1bdraw tIulds from any of your bank ou:&:uunlS.

Did Micbaet ShdriIl pft yQQ IDJ IIIOIICJ to maIre tbc c:opcribulilln or

lellnrilNliol\?

Attachment_T__

Page '2 of fJ..D
/"",,,,",-'... ,---."-

QUESTIONNAIRE

Patricill Cordova - LRA #512

l4u \5 3 36 fK '99

The attached documents reviewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate

that you made the following contribution to Buchanan for President. Inc. (the

"Committee") during the 1996 presidential prim"ary election campaign, and that all or a

portion of this contribution was reattributed to the individual listed below:

1.

2.

l~i"':::'~:s~_~::-::8:/9:S::_::::::j-':~~1.~~un~O.~~::----l

Please aaswa-the questions by check.ini the appropriate box:

I made the contribution liSted above.

Ifyour aDIWII' is DOt pl_list-your colltribudo. below by data_ IIDOUI&

$'2.S-0.~ 5'".'1- 9SAttachment T

Page '9_of~

3. I radIIibuIed.tbllllIowfDi IIIIOUDIofmy c:aa1ribudGe to • faBowiq iDdiWlual

on tbe foDowia&dill:.
•

2

4, ?iease provide the <;:l.i.lTent mailmg address for Patricia Silva.

Patricia Silva had the tight to withdraw'funds from any of your bank accounts.

Did Patricia Silva give you any money to make the contribution or reattribution?

Attachment __'.1..---__ Page ,~5_ of aD
.I

\

)

1

; '" 1 ~~ i!

/

QUESTIONNAIRE ,A,'

"< .:J

Barbara L. Watkins - LRA #4'56 .j' ., ." . (,; '2a

Documents reviewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate that you made

the following contributions to BucnarJan for President, Inc. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential primary election campaign. :md that all or a portion ofthese

contributions were reattributed to the individuals listed below.

Date Amoum

06/15/95 Sl,OOO

08121/95 S25

04122196 S100

06111/96 $100 . 07/16196 $100

09123/96 $100

Please an:swa'the qumions by checking the appropriate box:

1. I made the contributions listed above. . ,

..". l~g~::INO 1

Ifyour answeris no, please list your contributioDabelowby date and amo\lDt.

2. The CODtributiODS were made by checks drawn CD aa escrow ortrust account.

3. (rauributecl die foUowing amounts ormy coD1libutioasto the fonowing

iDdividuals 011 tbefoUowinl dates:

Nilme' Amount Date Yes No

Patrick Watkins $250 07/07195 )j

William Watkins $250 07/07195

David Watkins $250 08108195 )(

Attachment .,-

Page~of
3. ,9 P.I~e provide the current mailing address for William Watkins.

/l23~ 'V2 G WpN:>

1.5Au.<'9<Z4 K""/M' 6476//

William Watkins had the right to withdraw funds from any of your bank accounts.

Did William Watkins give you any money to make the contribution or

reattribution?

..

Attachment _-.:T:......-__

Page --Ll- of ~o
QUESTIONNAIRE

Frank Siclari· LRA #466 JUL .:..1

DocUments reviewp.d by the Federal Election Commission indicate that you made

the following contributions to Buchanan for President. Inc. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential primary election campaign. and that all or a portion ofthese

contributions we~ reattnbuted to the individuals listed ~low.

Date Amount - 04/17195 $SO

06/19/95 SSO -

08/04195 SSO

09/20195 S75

101f7/95 52S

11/22/95 Sl00

12113/95 525

12119/95 SSO

12129195 SSO

01122196 SSO - 02116196 Sl00 .. 0212BJ96 .. Sl00

03/09196 5100

03127196 575

04124196 S50

OSI08196 SSO

06107196 SSO

08105/96 SSO

Please answerthe quesDODI by ........!rinatbe .PlItopdare box:

1.

IfyourIUlwer is DO,pi_list your coDttibutioDs belowby dim IDd IIDOUDL

Attachment

Page Ie>

T

of
2

2, The contributions were made by checks drawn on an escrow or trust account.

f YES i_N

_

O

__

3. [ reattributed the following amounts ofmy contributions to the following

ind.ividuals on the following dates:

Name Amount Date Yes No

Ann Zaremba $50 07/04/96 L.,...-'

Mary Anne Messina $50 07/14/96

Ifany ofthe above information is incorrect. please note corrections.

List any other individual to whom you reattributed any portion ofany contribution and

the amount and date ofthe reattributioa.

Name -...;,........ _

ReattributioD Address ~~------------_---- Date AmountReaaributed--------_....:..._------_

4.

Ann Zaremba had the riabtto withdraw fUDds from my ofyour bank 1lCCOunts.

Attachment __'.:..-__

Page ,q of f)..p
~ary Anne Messina had the right to WIthdraw fu!'lds from any of your bank

accounts.

Did Mary Anne Messina give you any money to make the contribution or

,eattribution?

(J\

p-"::

r~

:t

•

Ul

tJ

Q

flL<,,:",,:

F" ,-

r~

;0;"

iidl

Attachment __T.::..-_

Page 9lJ of RO
•

QUESTIONNAIRE

Anna L. Newton - LRA #466

Documents reviewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate that you made

the following contributions to Buchanan for President. Inc. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential primary election campaign, and that all or a portion ofthese

contributions were reattributed to the individuals listed below.

Date Amount

03/07/95 $296

OS/24/95 $50

06/21195 5150

06121195 Sloo

07114195 Sloo

09/05/95 S296

11124195 S300

05128/96 5100

Please aaswer questions by chcckJn,a appI'OJlri8te box:

1.

AttaChment-:-U..

Page.. .1.Of 3

-
3,

individ

2

Name Amount Date Yes No i

James Ne\1l1on $300 Ifl29/95 IVI fr IV 'fir

Andrew Newton I S100 07/03196 fV/1r )J ,ttI

If any ofthe above information is incorrect, please note corrections.

List any other individual to whom you reattributed any portion ofany contribution and

the amount and date ofthe reattributioD.

Name _

Address

Reattribut1~·o-n-:D:-ate------:---------------

AmOUllt Reattributeei _

4. Please provide the curreat mamal address for James Newtoa. (;!# ttwt.cO£/Nf: I'kJE

James Newton bad the right to witbdn.w funds from my ofyourbank lICCOUDIS.

-I

Did James NewtoD pve you any money to make the conuibutioa orreauributioll?

IYPS Ix f
..=

=i:-..='
QUESTIONNAIRE

Catherine Radecki - LRA #466 ... -- ......

Documents reviewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate that you made

the following contributions to-Buchanan for P<esident, Inc. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential primary election campaign. and that all or a portion ofthese

contributions were reattributed to the individuals listed below.

Date Amount

07/11/95 $25

09/14/95 $38

11115/95 $20

01130/96 $25

02119/96 $1,000

03/12196" $25

Please answer the questions by checking the apptopriatc box: - - . . .-

1.

Ifyour answer is no, please list your contributions below by date and amount.

.,

•• The contributions were made by checks drawn OD an esc:mwS?f ~COunt.

. 'l~ .. I:~ INO

3. I reattributed the fon~1Dl0ums ofmy contributiousto the foUowiq

individualson tbe foUowiq date:

Name Amount Date Yes No

Jean McMahon $250 0312S196

Mary Strain $250 0312S196

""

Cornelius Strain $250 03125196 L

'0 ., ...... _ ... _ .....

Atta~hment=\1_'__ Page .i of 3
2

-.

If any of the above information is incorrect, piease note corrections.

- List any othc:r individual to whom you rcattributed any portion of any contribution and

the amount and date ofthe reattribution.

Name \. Addres-s------~S~--------------

Reattribution Date -;- ------ __...... ;;.. _

Amount Reattributed _

4.

Jean McMahon had the right to withdraw ftmds from any ofyOUl bank accounts.

I,

Did Jean Mo:Mahon give you any money tomake the contribution or

reattribution? .

[YES~ ]

s. Please provide the curn:nt mailiDa address for May Strain.

13·1Q~.;71.· M.~cA Ri.

Mary Strain h8d the right to withdraw fimds from any ofyour bank accounts.

!YES IV< I

Did MIIy stram P you lIlY IDODeY to make the COD1ribution or reattribution?

IYES Ix I

6. Please provide the aurent mailina address for Cornelius StraiD..

I ~70, - p. /I (#1,*,,4 Wd.

Attachment LI

Page ,;2 -o-f-3-.. -
•

3

Cornelius Strain had the right to withdraw funds from any of your bank accounts.

fYES 1&

I

Did Cornelius Stra.!'!l give you any money to make the contribution or

reattribution?

!VES @ft.]

-

-
QUESTIONNAIRE

James A. Pettit, Jr.• LRA #466

Documents reviewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate that you made

the following contributions to Buchanan for President. Inc. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential primary election campaign, and that all or a portion of these

contributions were reattributed to the individuals listed below.

Date Amount

05/19195 S50

08/30/95 $900

09120195 $100 .J- ,

05128/96 $200

Please answer the questions by checking the appropriate box:

1. I made tM contribudons li!ted abow. i

_ -._ . IYCv1~~O-'(

Ifyour lIII5WeI' is DO. please list your contributions belowby date and amount. .

2. The contributiOllS were made by cbecb drawnon lID e9CIOW «trust1ICCOUDt.

3. I nlIItIribmed1Mfbircwi:al1lDOUlltJ otmyCOIItribatiouto tile tbJl~

individuals 011 die f'oUowiDa dI&iIl=

NlIDUt AmoUD& Date Yes No

Julia Pettit $200 09/12195 fII"

Emily Pettit- $250' 09/1219S V/

James Doscher 5250 09/12195 II'

If any ofthe above information is incorrect, please note correctiODL

Attachment

Page d W

_of_ 3 -
~jst any oLl,er individual to whom you reattributed any portion of any contribution and

the amount a.'1d date of'.he reattribution.

Name -:-------------;:--,~f-7't'-----­ ~::~u-::lio:::-:n~D~at::-e--------/-fff...,I,.:.Z--:i:::..~-f?-------- Amount Reattributed 1"- =

4. Please provide the current mailing address for Julia Pettit.

Julia Pettit had the right to withdraw funds from any ofyour bank accounts.

~.::.~1W IN~ I

Did Julia Pettit give you my money to make the ccntritmtion 01 reauribution'l'

s. Please provide the cum:Dtmamna Iddress for Emily Pettit.

.7-310 toa ..,... .. Emily Pettit bidtheri&bt~~lIy ofyourbakaccoums.

----------------~~.. -.'JO 9750 lOath ::;CHER

RICHMOND HILL NSJ'1l419

Attachment tv

Page ,;1 -J4JOf'----3-_-
3

lames Doscher had lfte right to 'Nithdraw funds from any of your bank accounts.

Did James Doscher give you any money to make the contribution or reattribution?

Wi

01)

rWi

'"•

iJl

:r=..

1"-",

Q

;1 '.

r~

rH."

IYES

Attachment W

Page 3 --Of~3--
QUESTIONNAIRE

John W. Kremer - LRA #466

Documents reviewed by the Federal Eiection C(fmmis,'lion indicate that you made

the following contributions to Buchanan far President, Inc. (the "Canunittee") during the

1996 presidential prima.oy elettion campaign. and that all or a portion ofthese

contributions were reattributed to the individuais listed below.

Date Amount

03/31195 $30

06/30/95 $25

08il4/95 $30

09126195 $50

Il1l7195 / $75

01115196 $50

02109196 $50

02117196 $112

03/05196 SI00 • 03123196 SilO

04125196 ,,' SUS

05/13196 S50

07/08196 SUS

08106196 5100

Please answer the questions by checking the appIopIWe box:

1. I made the contributions listed above.l!JNO I

Ityour asweris..pleue list yourCOIIIributioasbelow by dale and amount.

2. The contributions were made by checks drawn on an escrow or trust account.

l

Attachment )(

Page --d...- of--i'
2

3. . r reattributed the following amounts of my contributions to the following

individual on the following dates:

Name Amount Date Yes No

David Kremer $115 09103/96 )(

David Kremer $100 09;26/96 )(

,

If any ofthe above information is incorrect, please note corrections.

List any other individual to whom you reattributed any portion of any contribution and

the amount and date ofthe reattribution.

Name _

Address ---:~ _

ReattributiOD Date _

Amount Reattributed _

4. Please provide_ _

the current mailing addressfor David 1CmDar. _ 7l

David Kremer had the right to withdraw funds ftom. any ofyour bank accounts.

IYES Ix (

Did David Kremer give you any money to make the contribution 01'

reattributiOM?

IYa If t

Attachment X

Page (~ 01
QUESTIONNAIRE

Shelia M. Thomsen - LRA #466 .< -J

Docwnents reviewed by the Federal Election Colnmission indicate that you made

the following contributions to Buchanan for Pre~ident, Inc. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential primary election campaign, and that all or a portion ofthese

contributions were reattributed to the individuals listed below.

Date Amount

01130/95 $20 V

03/17/95 $250 V

06127195 $200

OBn1l95 SSO

10/23/95 S50

11102195 ' $25

1l/l719S $400 V

01122196 Sl00

01131196 SSG.

O2Il6196 $100 - 04111/96 $1.000 .'

09/il3196 S7S

Please IIDSwer the questions by c:heclrinlthe lppIoprWe box:

1. I made the con1ributionsliated abcmt. '-';;~~:=-'--r

I!your answeris Do, p!cuelist yourcomribwODS beJowby..aDd amount.

2.

Attachment .......y _ Pall ..1- of
2

3: I reattributed the following amounts of my contributions to the following

individuals on the following dates:

7

If any ofthe above information is incorrect, please note corrections.

List any other individual to whom you reattributed any

the amoWlt and date ofthe reattribution.

Na.-ne -..".... _

Address -'?..c.... _

Reattribution Date --:1"'.::;,...----------------- AmOUDt Reattribu

Name Amount Date Yes No

David 1, Thomsen S100 03120/96

::,~vid N Thomsen : S1,OOO 06/06/96

.'"

4.

Attachment ---,0V_'__

Page;;2 of 3

any ofyour banIc

/ ••0

J.-Hr~y..;;.f~~.,/

DavidA.1boJ:_

accounts.

David J. ThomseD bad the right to withdraw fimds &om any ofyour bank

=0..... 0 1~zt!J

5.
3

Attachment Y-'-

Page 3-of _.3,
QUESTIONNAIRE . . ~"

Alyssa D. Humphreyes • LRA #466

- Documenl.l reviewed by the Federal Election Commission indicate that )<'ou made=

the following contributions to Buchanan for President, Inc. (the "Committee") during the

1996 presidential prin'wy election campaign, and that all or a portion ofthese

contributions were reattributed to the individuals listed below.

•

Date Amount

05125/95 S100

08124195 $200

09121/95 $200

11124195 $400

03/151M' $100

04119/96 $300

Please IDS'Mlr tbe quatiOllS by checkiDIthe appropriate box:

1. 1'malethecoutributiODl~above. ~'.:~-.).

I~(JNO }

3. I ,..........die fbUowina IIIlOUIlIS ofmy contributions to die fOllowinl

indivictuaIaaa...foUowiDa da1a:

I

Please provide the dale ofthe S50 fCl1uribulion to OWly Humphreys.

Name Amount Data Yo No

Danny HumDtnys S50u; 'v' '). /,41: a f,

Snwt Humphreys 5250 r-/IJ~741.. r

Attachment Z. Pag&~of
~f my of the above information is incorrect, please note corrections.

List any other individual to whom you reattributed any portion of any contribution ar.d

me amount and date of the reattribution.

~::.ss .~__--<~ A cas i (,....... 5...;;..&_·--- Reattribution DOlt: V

Amount Reattribute"7d ----'I.---------------