Draft Final Audit Report of the 

Audit Division on the Nebraska 

Democratic Party 

(Janugiiy 1, 2009 - December 31, 2010) 

Why the Audit Was 

Done 

Federal law permits the 

Commission to conduct 

audits and field 

investigations of any 

political committee that is 

required to file reports under 

the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act). 

The Commission generally 

conducts such audits when a 

committee appears not to 

have met the threshold 

requirements for substantial 

compliance with the Act.' 

The audit determines ^ 

whether the committee 

complied with the 

disclosure i 

the Act. -

ments o 

Future Action 

The Commission n ^ 

initiate an enforcement 

action, at a later time, wii 

respect to any of the matter^ 

discussed in this report. 

About the Committee (p 

The Nebraska Democratic Party i 

headquartered in Lincoln, Nel 

chart on the Committee Orga^ati 

Financial Acti]^ v ^ 2) 

• Receipts 

o Contributio 

Contributions 

Tr^sfers from A 

Trm^ljs from Non-: 

Othi 

committee 

more information, see the 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Total R( 

mmi 

ccounts 

I»l ' ..Ill, ^ 

<penditures 

pother Fede^^penditures 

Federal Elec^n Activity 

^mffiliates 

^ ^ Expenditures 

I iraendent Expenditures 

< ^ Disbursements 

I • I il Disbursements 

I'indings and Recommendations (p. 3) 

• Recordkeeping for Employees (Finding 1) 

• Reporting of Debts and OMigations (Finding 2) 

• Excessive Coordinated Party Expenditures (Finding 3) 

$ 218,270 

24,202 

1,682,699 

344,901 

185,066 

S 2,455,138 

$ 540,126 

129,323 

1,490,477 

138,967 

114,788 

12,475 

35,174 

$ 2,461,330 

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

the Audit Division on the 

Nebraska Democratic Party 

(January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2010) 

V •• 

4 
Table of Contents 

Page 

Part I. Background 

Authority for Audit 

Scope of Audit 

Commission Guidance 

Part II. Overview of Committee 

Committee Organization 

Overview of Financial Activity 

2 

2 

Part III. Summaries 

Findings and Recommendations 

Part IV. Findings and Recomnn 

Finding 1. Recordkeeping for Employees 

Finding 2. Reporting of Debts ai\^bligations 

Findings. ExcessiveCoordinatedT 

.It ioiia^ 

5 

6 

8 
Parti 

Background 

Authority for Audit 

This report is based on an audit of the Nebraska Democratic Party^ (NDP), imdertaken by 

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

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

Division conducted the audit pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(b), which permits the 

Commission to conduct audits and field investigations of any poli^al committee that is 

required to file a report under 2 U.S.C. §434. Prior to conductmaun^udit under this 

subsection, the Commission must perform an internal revicM^^jeports filed by selected 

committees to determine whether Ae reports filed by a p^cul^^mmittee meet the 

threshold requirements for substantial compliance wi|^th^ct. §438(b). 

Scope of Audit 

Following Commission-approved proced 

factors and as a result, this audit examined: 

1. the disclosure of individual contributors' occupat 

2. the disclosure of disbursements, d^hi^and 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

valuated v: 

the disclosure of expenses allocai 

the consistency between reported fi 

the disclosure of independent and cod 

the completeness of ije(S!a|ds; and 

other committe- ^^iti^^ecessary to 

Commission 

RequesUpi I 

the "Polii 

of US^^^estions by tlS 

question^^d during the 

under IICF^ 6.7(d)( 

name of employer; 

federal an'^^ggjFederal accounts; 

( nsideration of a Legal Question 

I Ji^lishing a Program for Requesting Consideration 

nmi^^," NDP requested early consideration of a legal 

it. NDP questioned whether the monthly time logs required 

splied to employees paid with 100 percent federal funds. 

The Commission Lud ly a vote of 5-1, that 11 CFR § 106.7(d)(l) does require 

committees to keep ^^nthly log for employees paid exclusively with federal funds. 

Exercising its prosecutorial discretion, however, Ae Conunission decided it will not 

pursue recordkeeping violations for the failure to keep time logs or to provide affidavits 

to account for employee salaries paid with 100 percent federal funds and reported as 

such. The Audit staff informed NDP Counsel of the Commission's decision on NDP's 

request. This audit report does not include any finding or recommendation with respect 

to NDP's employees paid with 100 percent federal funds and reported as such. 

^ The committee's name during the audit period was the Nebraska Democratic Sute Central Committee 

and was changed subsequently on April 4,2012. 
Part II 

Overview of Committee 

Committee Organization 

Important Dates 

• Date of Registration Decembers, 1975 

• Audit Coverage January 1,2009 - Djpember 31,2010 

Headquarters Lincoln, Nebrask#'^^ 

Bank Information 

• Bank Depositories One ^ 

• Bank Accounts Five and i-federal 

ChecJKjfiktAccounts 

Treasurer 

• Treasurer When Audit Was Conducted Finnbgan 

• Treasurer During Period Covered by Audit Gefe F' 

Management Information 

• Attended Commission Campaign Finan*"* Yes 

• Who Handled Accounting and Recordk 

Tasks 

ff 

of 

Audited 

ncialMctivity 

iounts) 

Receipts 

o ContributijgfnriiroiMnd^i 218,270 

o Contrih^i'ons from PoiilS 1 « 24,202 

o Tran^^^tom Affiliates 1,682,699 

o Transfers"lB^&i,Non-fedei unts' 344,901 

o Other Receipt'' 185,066 

Total Receipts ^ S 2,455,138 

Disbursements ^ 

o Operating Expenditui^^ 540,126 

o Other Federal Expendifures 129,323 

o Federal Election Activity 1,490,477 

o Transfers to Affiliates 138,967 

o Coordinated Expenditures 114,788 

o Independent Expenditures 12,475 

o Other Disbursements 35,174 

Total Disbursements $2,461330 

Cash-on-hand @ December 31,2010 S 57,003 
Part III 

Summaries 

Findings and Recommendations 

Finding 1. Recordkeeping for Employees 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff noted that NOP did not maintain any monthly 

payroll logs, as required, to document the percentage of time eagpanployee spent on 

federal election activity. For 2009 and 2010, the Audit staff id^ifiea payments to NDP 

employees totaling $293,439^ for which payroll logs wete^ro^intained. This amount 

consisted of payroll which was allocated between federai^nd n^^ al funds and 

payroll paid exclusively with non-federal funds. 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recoi 

established procedures to maintain contem] 

records for employees paid exclusively with 

federal and non-federal fimds. 

(For more detail, see p. S.) 

Finding 2. Reporting of Debt s 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff not 

debts and obligations tqital^^fl 20.447. 

; these exp 

s), NDP ami 

Al 

ion, NDP stated 

L documents to certify 

jr with an 

Ludit St 

lyroll 

bcation of 

>bli|',:il ions 

ailed to correctly disclose 

smmended that, absent 

)lif 

documentation demc 

Schedule D (Debt 

debts properly. In res feto 

amended renoEt-Ssto. materiS 

(Fori 

litures did not require reporting on 

disclosure reports to disclose these 

irt recommendation, NDP filed 

and obligations. 

Ebec 

During at^^eldwork, 

NDP for a H^^candi 

expenditure lirnM sy 

Coordinated Party Ebrpenditures 

udit Itaff identified coordinated party expenditures made by 

appeared to exceed the 2010 coordinated party 

,789. 

In response to the im Audit Report recommendation, NDP provided statements and 

documents to support its contention that two expenditures totaling $5,174 should not be 

considered excessive coordinated party expenditures. In addition, NDP acknowledged 

that it received $80,000 from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee 

(DCCC) prior to making expenditures on behalf of the House candidate. NDP provided a 

letter from DCCC in which DCCC further ceded, albeit untimely, $6,600 to NDP in 

^ This total does not include payroll for employees paid with 100 percent federal hinds and reported as 

such (see Part I, Background, Commission Guidance, Request for Early Commission Consideration of a 

Legal Question, page 1). 
2012. NDP argues that this amount remains unspent and therefore should reduce the 

amount of excessive expenditures. 

Lastly, NDP acknowledged that apparent Coordinated Expenditures totaling $29,615, 

identified by the Audit staff, were inadvertently and incorrectly classified GOTV ("Get 

Out the Vote") calls as generic GOTV calls due to a miscommunication with the 

candidate campaign. NDP materially amended its disclosure reports and included these 

expenditures on Schedule F (Coordinated Party Expenditures). 

Afier considering the Interirn Audit Report response, the Audit st^recalculated the 

excessive coordinated expenditures to be $29,615. The revise (mis^justs for the 

$4,596 which NDP claims as exempt under the volunteer mg> s exemption. 

(For more detail, see p. 8.) ^ 
Part IV 

Findings and Recommendations 

Finding 1. Recordkeeping for Employees 

Summary 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff noted that NDP did not maintain any monthly 

payroll logs, as required, to document the percentage of time eachj 

federal election activity. For 2009 and 2010, the Audit staff ide 

employees totaling $293,439^ for which payroll logs were 

consisted of payroll which was allocated between federal i 

payroll paid exclusively with non-federal funds. 

iployee spent on 

! payments to NDP 

itained. This amount 

leral funds and 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recomme 

established procedures to maintain contempor 

records for employees paid exclusively with i 

federal and non-federal funds. 

ation,>IDP state 

^us documents to certi 

fij^sor with an 

nas 

II 

ion of 

Legal Standard 

Maintenance of Monthly Logs. Pai 

percentage of time each employee spem 

Allocations of salaries, wages, and fringe 

• employees whpjSEi^^5% or less S. 

federal elect^^ctivP^^ust be pai 

allocated as?^ itrati^ costs. 

• employees wh* 

on 

I must 

with 

nbnthly log of the 

leral election, 

lertaken as follows: 

ieir comp^'nkted time in a given month on 

sither from the federal account or be 

lection activ 

106.70 

Facta ami >ii.iiysis 

I 

5% Qptheir compensated time in a given month 

:d only from a federal account; and, 

of their rampensated time in a given month on federal 

entirely with funds that comply with state law. 11 

A. Facts 

During fieldwork, th^udit staff reviewed disbursements NDP made to employees for 

payroll, totaling $300,708^, for which monthly logs were not provided to document the 

percentage of time the employee spent in connection with federal election activity. These 

logs are required to document proper allocation of federal and non-federal funds used to 

pay these workers. The total of $300,708 consisted of $282,882 for which payroll was 

* This total does not include payroll for employees paid with 100 percent federal funds and reported as 

such (see Part I, Background, Commission Guidance, request for Early Commission Consideration of a 

Legal Question, page I). 

Payroll is stated net of taxes. 
allocated between federal and non-federal funds and $17,826 that was paid exclusively 

with non-federal funds.® Of the $17,826, NOP paid $14,184 to 32 employees that were 

not reported on either Schedule H4 or Schedule B during the audit period. The remaining 

two individuals were rqjorted as receiving salary payments on either Schedules H4 or 

Schedule B during the report period. 

As part of fieldwork, the Audit staff provided NDP with a schedule of employees with an 

allocation of federal and non-federal funds for which a log was required. An NOP 

representative completed this schedule hy inserting the percentage of time each employee 

spent in connection with federal election activity and provided a s^ed affidavit in which 

a NDP representative attested to the accuracy of the informa i^yjed. 

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division Recomm 

At the exit conference, the Audit staff discussed the 

representatives. They asked whether the schedule 

would resolve the recordkeeping finding. The 

did not create and maintain these documents p^^:o the 

instead prepared them during fieldwork, the issuell^uld 

Report. 

II 

i sue with NDP 

davit ^^^^ad provided 

explained th^|fecause NDP 

[it notificatio^^^Efhut 

iuded in the ^^rim Audit 

For NDP employees that were paid 

allocation of federal and non-federal 

NDP provide and implement a plan to mil 

percentage of time each ee spends 

C. Committee Res] 

In response to th( 

already provided the di 

federal ele y, 

payroll aql 

ly with noi |rd funds or with an 

Audi^lirort recommended that 

I payr^logs to track the 

activity. 

m Audit ^ 

lit recom^^ation, NDP stated that, while it has 

iting much time employees spent on 

luch records contempoituieously with 

Auditsflff considers this matter resolved. 

Reporling ^Debts and Obligations 

Summary 

During audit fie Audit staff noted that NDP had failed to correctly disclose 

debts and ohligation^italing $120,447. The Audit staff recommended that, absent 

documentation demonstrating that these expenditures did not require reporting on 

Schedule D (Debts and Obligations), NDP amend its disclosure reports to disclose these 

debts properly. In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, NDP filed 

amended reports to materially disclose these debts and obligations. 

The total amount of payroll and payroll paid from non-federal funds figures were adjusted from the 

Interim Audit Report amounts of $293,439 and $10,SS7, respectively. 
Legal Standard 

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

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

2 U.S.C. §434(b)(8) and 11 CFR §§ 104.3(d) and 104.11(a). 

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

owed by and to the committee with a statement explaining the circumstances and 

conditions under which each debt and obligation was incurred or extinguished. 

11 CFR §104.11 (a). 

a debt of $500 or 

C. Itemizing Debts and Obligations. 

• Once it has been outstanding 60 days from the i 

less must be _ 

• A debt exceeding $500 must be disclosed that i js the date on 

which the debt was incurred, except reo^!imng administrative^^ such as 

rent) shall not be reported as a debt b|£i^ payment due date. 

11 CFR§104.11(b). 

Facts and Analysis ^ 

A. Facts 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff 

the accounts^ of NDP's t vendors! 

services such as officer e bank, 

The Audit staff rev 

and obligations, totali 

were payrnM^-

throughojl^i^ 

are rei le as debts 

iburseShient records to reconcile 

ovided NDP mainly with 

mpliance services. 

In add 

amounts o 

period.® 

unrepo 

e vei 

}rs' invoicedgmOunts and identified unreported debts 

; its vendors. Included in this balance 

that NDP made more than 30 days late 

larly reoccurring administrative expenses such as rent 

\ pt made by the due date. 

iebts^discussed above, NDP incorrectly reported debt 

The under-reported debts total $15,000 for the audit 

B. Interim Audit !<• i-ort & Audit Division Recommendation ^ 1 

The Audit staff presented this matter to NDP representatives at the exit conference and 

provided schedules detailing the unreported and under-reported debts for each reporting 

period for the audited cycle. NDP representatives objected to the inclusion of rent, a 

The reconciliation consisted of calculating invoiced and paid amounts for individual reporting periods in 

the 2009-2010 campaign cycle. The Audit staff then determined whether any outstanding debts were 

correctly disclosed on Schedule D. Each debt amount was counted once, even if it required disclosure 

over multiple reporting periods. 

The total amount of reportable debt to this vendor was S34,S00. NDP reported only S19,S00 on its 2009 

and 2010 disclosure reports. The underpayment was calculated as follows: $34,S00 - $19,500 = $15,000. 
regularly recurring obligation, appearing on the debt schedule. The Audit staff 

acknowledged that regularly occurring administrative expenses are not debt reportable as 

long as they are paid by the due date; however, NDP had consistently paid its rent more 

than 30 days after the payment was due. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended that NDP provide documentation demonstrating 

that these expenditures did not require reporting on Schedule D. Absent such 

documentation, the Interim Audit Report recommended that NDP amend its reports to 

disclose the outstanding debts. 

C. Committee Response to Interim Audit Report 

In response to the Interim Audit Report recommendation, T 

materially disclose these debts and obligations. 

Finding 3. Excessive Coordinate 

Summary ^ 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified iS^^I 

NDP for a House candidate that appear to exceed the 

limitation by $34,789. 

ed amended reports to 

liliires 

expend i made by 

coordinated party expenditure 

In response to the Interim Audit Repo 

documents to support its contention that 

considered excessive cog^^^ed party ex] 

that it received $80,0^^^^^pemocratij 

(DCCC) prior to msi^R expe^^ures on be! 

letter from DCCi 

2012. NDP ari 

amount of 

e> 

further I 

)vided statements and 

lading $5,174 should not be 

» ition, NDP acknowledged 

igressi^ial Campaign Committee 

'ofthe House candidate. NDP provided a 

ibeit untimely, $6,600 to NDP in 

Spent and therefore should reduce the 

)P acknowl 

identifi^i^ahe Audit 

Out the V^^^lls as g 

candidate cam^ign. NDP 

expenditures on 

It Coordinated Expenditures totaling $29,615, 

were ifi&dvertently and incorrectly classified GOTV ("Get 

ic GOTV calls due to a miscommunication with the 

iterially amended its disclosure reports and include these 

(Coordinated Party Expenditures). 

After considering th^Interim Audit Report response, the Audit staff recalculated the 

excessive coordinated expenditures to be $29,615. The revised figure adjusts for the 

$4,596 which NDP claims as exempt under the volunteer materials exemption. 

Legal Standard 

A. Coordinated Party Expenditures. National party committees and state party 

committees are permitted to purchase goods and services on behalf of candidates in the 

general election—over and above the contributions that are subject to contribution limits. 

Such purchases are referred to as "coordinated party expenditures." They are subject to 

the following rules: 
The amount spent on "coordinated party expenditures" is limited by statutory 

formulas that are based on the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) and the voting 

age population; 

Party committees are permitted to coordinate the spending with the candidate 

committees; 

The parties may make these expenditures only in connection with the general 

election; 

The party committees—^not the candidates—are responsible for reporting these 

expenditures; and 

If the party committee exceeds the limits on coordinated jpa^y expenditures, the 

excess amount is considered an in-kind contribution, suBaedT^the contribution 

limits. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d) and 11 CFR §§109.30 i 

B. Assignment of Coordinated Party Expenditure^iiiii. A 

assign its authority to make coordinated party expe#^tes to anothc 

committee. Such an assignment must be mad ^ting,^tate the amol 

authority assigned, and be received by the as^ 

expenditure is made pursuant to the assignment, 

assigned authority to make coordinated party expen 

assignment for at least three years. lIstCFR §§104.14 

party may 

itical party 

the 

commipse that is 

must maintain the written 

(3(a) and (c). 

C. Volunteer Activity. The payment 

of campaign materials (such as pins, t 

tabloids or newsletters 

volunteer activities oi 

provided that the f( 

1. Such pay 

newspaper, 

coi 

ing(s) 

portion 

3m contril 

It is n( 

on befit ^f a parti 

Such 

litical party of the costs 

1, brochures, posters, party 

ee in connection with 

i) of sucho^arty is not a contribution. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

ifinection with any broadcasting, 

il, or similar type of general public 

. The term direct mail means any 

vendor or any mailing(s) made from commercial lists, 

ials allocable to Federal candidates must be 

sublet to the limitations and prohibitions of the Act. 

ide from contributions designated by the donor to be spent 

: candidate for Federal office, 

istributed by volimteers and not by commercial or for-profit 

operations. 

If made by a^litical committee, such payments shall be reported by the political 

committee as a disbursement in accordance with 11 CFR §104.3 but need not be 

allocated to specific candidates in committee reports. 

The exemption is not applicable to campaign materials purchased by the national 

party committees. 11 CFR §100.87 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) and 11 CFR 

§100.147 (a), (b),(c),(d),(e) and (g). 

D. Limits on Contributions Made by State and Local Party Committees. 

State and local party committees must comply with the contribution limits below: 
10 

• $5,000 per election to a Federal campaign if the contributing committee has 

qualifled as a multicandidate committee; 

• $2,400 per election to a Federal campaign if the contributing committee has 

not qualified as a multicandidate committee; 

• $5,000 per year to a separate segregated fund (corporate or labor political 

action committee) or a non-connected committee; and 

• unlimited transfers to other party committees. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a). 

Facts and Analysis 

A. Facts 

The coordinated expenditure limit for the 2010 election ( 

the state of Nebraska was $43,500 each for the state and^ 

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reviewed the ^por 

the DCCC that addressed the coordinated expendi^ Dn^: 

transferred its entire coordinated spending limi^^DCCC. This permit 

make coordinated expenditures of $87,000 on^^^f of To^White, Demc 

candidate for the United States House of Represe^^es l^i^ebraska's: 

Congressional District (the candidate). Additional d^^^ntation indicated that DCCC 

authorized NDP to spend no more thai 10 of its c^i ed party spending limit on 

behalf of the candidate.^ 

L a House candidate in 

committees. 

I NDP and 

),NDP 

:cc to 

The Audit staffs review of disbursemeni 

coordinated expenditun ilfofthe 

below. ^ 

• NDP repoi 

expenditui 

media ad in o 

'•Appeared to make 

ed $114,789, as outlined 

candidal 

authorized 

iditures totaling $85,174 as coordinated 

ifically, NDP spent $80,000 on a 

opponent, $4,596 on production of a 

gn signage, 

limit was established, NDP reported two 

its,'f^^g $29,615, for "generic GOTV ("Get Out the 

elec,^ activity on its disclosure reports. The scripts 

ir seem to indicate there was possible coordination with the 

since the scripts contained the message to vote for the 

a disclaimer that the message was paid for by NDP and 

candidate. 

In addition to the expenditures discussed above, NDP spent $94,610 to produce a single 

mailer on behalf of die candidate. This amount consisted of the following components: 

layout and production ($92,610) and postage ($2,000). NDP considered the cost of the 

entire mailer to be an exempt activity under the volunteer materials exemption. To 

support its assertion, NDP provided vendor statements and invoices along with 

photographs of the volunteers participating in various duties such as reviewing, sorting, 

and packing the direct mail pieces. 

DCCC filings disclosed an additional candidate expenditure in the amount of $3S3, leaving DCCC with 

an unused coordinated limit of S6,647; ($87,000 - $80,000 - $333.) 
11 

The Commission has addressed the applicability of the volunteer materials exemption in 

the Final Audit Reports of the Democratic Executive Committee of Florida and the 

Tennessee Republican Party. In these reports, the Commission recognized a lack of 

clarity regarding the application of the volunteer materials exemption. In recognizing the ^ 

lack of clarity, the Commission has attempted to formulate a consensus policy regarding 

what constitutes substantial volunteer involvement for the purpose of applying the 

exemption.'" 

In view of the uncertainty regarding the amount of volunteer involvement needed to 

qualify for the volunteer materials exemption, as well as the amo^^of documentation 

required to support such an exemption, die expenditures for ^ibi;totaling $94,610 

have not been attributed to NDP's coordinated expenditure 

The Audit staff concluded that NDP spent $114,789 

exceeded its authorized coordinated party expendi 

these expenditures are considered an excessive i 

rdina 

p)y$34, 

contribution to 

ditures and 

" As a result, 

lidate. 

B. Interim Audit Report & Audit Division B men^tign ^ 

The Audit staff discussed this matter at the exit corilB^^^tod provided schedules 

detailing the possible excessive in-kind contributions ^^^made on behalf of the 

candidate. In response, NDP represe^^^s stated their^^fefthat some of the amounts 

reported on Schedule F might not actu^^^ n coordi^^i^penditures. 

The Interim Audit Report recommended 

demonstrating that it did^^ sd the 

candidate.'^ 

C. Committee Respo 

In response nm 

expenditu] ^ ^^174 

and ^^he unspent co^ n 

by tlK^ hould fun e( 

Iditional documentation 

expenditure limitation for the 

Ludit R^ort 

lendation, NDP argued that two 

and 2^below) do not represent coordinated activity 

^expenditure limitation of $6,600 (item 3), ceded 

me amount of the excessive expenditure. 

Regarding ^enditun d the Audit staffs calculation of amounts in excess of the 

coordinated ex^ re li NDP explained as follows: 

1. The paymi f $578 to an NDP vendor was merely for a sign that was placed in 

the window the party's field office during the 2010 general election period. 

The sign was not intended as a public communication; it was placed next to the 

sign of many other Nebraska candidates as is commonplace for party offices. 

10 

12 

Proposed Interim Enforcement Policy, Open Session Agenda document No. 10-16 dated March 10, 

2010, Drafts A through D. 

The amount over the limit was calculated as follows: Total spent by NDP less amount authorized by 

DCCC: SI 14,789 - S80,000=S34,789. NDP made and reported the maximum allowable contribution to 

the candidate during the 2010 election cycle. 

The authorized committee of Tom White was approved for administrative termination on May 10,2011. 

Therefore, a recommendation to seek refund from the candidate committee is not warranted. 
12 

2. NDP provided a declaration, signed and dated September 16,2013, from its 

Executive Director who oversaw all political and administrative operations of 

NDP during the 2009/2010 election cycle. In the document, the Executive 

Director attested that NDP paid for the printing of the postcards ($4,596) which 

advocated the election of the candidate. According to his recollection, the 

volunteers distributed, hand stamped, and placed the mailing labels on the 

postcards at the party headquarters. NDP incorrectly disclosed this payment on 

Schedule F and plans to amend its reports by disclosing the expenditures as 

Federal Election Activity (Line 30b). 

3. NDP acknowledged that it received $80,000, the coog^ated party expenditure 

limit, from the DCCC prior to making expenditure.sP^^hddition, NDP presented 

an unsigned letter from the DCCC dated April . ch DCCC 

designated NDP as its agent"... for the exclu^e^urpo! itog expenditures 

pursuant to 2 U.S.C441a(d) on behalf of Q^Candidate] up to^^QO." NDP 

acknowledged this authority was not cg^^Un a tiih^ fashion. N^^fedless. 

NDP urged the Conunission to acknowled^^at tl^qmount remai^^spent 

and should therefore reduce the amount of^^ e expenditure. 

Lastly, NDP acknowledged 

identified by the Audit staff wi 

("Get Out the Vote") calls as gehi 

with the candidate's campaign. 

Coordinated E^^n^^s on Sc! 

$13,928 re indi 

The Audii 

Based on 

campai 

co< 

ND: 

amend it^ 

in annarg^l^oordinated Expenditures 

ntly and m^fedStly classified GOTV 

duejm a miscommunication 

irts and disclosed 

totalin^l 5,687, however, a balance of 

expendi 

this 

August Mi 

viewed the submitted documentation, 

the nature and the location of the 

. , nent of $578 does not represent a 

not intended as a public communication. Since 

lule F, the Audit staff recommends that NDP 

trt to disclose this disbursement on Schedule E 

(Independen iituresMince the sign contains express advocacy. 

NDP's Executii attested to the volunteers' involvement with the printing of a 

candidate postcard (jp^96). As with the other expenditures noted above, totaling 

$94,610, for which NDP claims the volunteer materials exemptions, the Audit staff 

acknowledges the lack of clarity regarding the level of volunteer involvement needed to 

qualify for the volunteer materials exemption. As with the treatment of those 

expenditures, the Audit staff does no longer attributes the $4,596 expenditure toward 

NDP's coordinated limit. NDP is encouraged, however, to provide any further 

documentation such as photographs of the volunteers participating in the dissemination of 

the candidate postcard for the Commission's consideration of the matter. 

NDP used these iiinds to finance its broadcast television media buy and production and disclosed this 

expenditure on Schedule F of its 2010 Post-General disclosure reports. 
13 

Finally, by presenting the assignment authority letter from the DCCC, NDP demonstrated 

that it was granted additional spending authority ($6,600) beyond $80,000. The Audit 

staff notes that the letter was issued on April 24,2012, well after the November 2,2010, 

general election.. As noted in the legal standards above, 11 CFR § 109.33(a) requires that 

an assignment must be made in writing, state the amount of the authority assigned, and be 

received by the assignee before any coordinated party expenditure is m^e pursuant to 

the assignment. In similar cases, the Conunission has rejected assignments of spending 

authority after the fact. As a result, the Audit staff did not allow for the additional 

spending authority of $6,600. However, the Audit staff recogniz^^at the $6,600 

represents unspent funds under the combined spending authc "^qjlh committees. 

As a result of NDP's response to the Interim Audit Repoi 

the excessive coordinated expenditures to be $29,615. ^ 

$578 which does not represent a coordinated expenj 

as exempt from the definition of a contributioi 

it staff recalculated 

lerevfS ' figure adjusts for 

id $4,5! ^|ch NDP claims 

•xemption. 

Calculated as follows: S29.6IS = [(S114,789 - SS78 - S4.S96) - $80,000],