FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20463 

October 31/ 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

Patricia C. Orrock 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Thomas Hintermister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Deputy General Counsel - Law 

Lorenzo Holloway '/y^— ' 

Assistant General Counsel 

Compliance Advice 

Joshua Blume ZJP^ 

Attomey 

SUBJECT: Draft Final Audit Report - Democratic Party of South Carolina (LRA 886) 

The Office of General Counsel has reviewed the Draft Final Audit Report ("DFAR") on 

the Democratic Party of South Carolina (the "Committee"). We concur with Finding 1 in the 

DFAR (Recordkeeping for Employees). 

With respect to Finding 2 (Coordinated Party Expenditures), we recommend that the 

Audit Division raise one issue related to this finding in the cover memorandum that forwards this 

report to the Commission. 

The Audit Division appears to agree with the Committee that expenses for door hangers, 

originally thought to be excessive coordinated party expenditures, are properly regarded as 

exempt slate cards according to the standards set forth in 2 U.S.C. § 43 l(8)(B)(v), (9)(B)(iv); 

11 C.F.R. §§ 100.80, 100.140. In our comments on the Interim Audit Report, we concluded that 

the sample door hanger provided by the Committee met the threshold requirements for 

qualification as a slate card and recommended that the Audit Division raise two issues coimected 

with application of the exemption in its cover memorandum accompanying the Interim Audit 

Report. The first such issue was that the door hanger appeared to contain messages that 

potentially went beyond simple slate card information. Upon further reflection, we no longer 

consider it necessary for the Audit Division to raise this first issue in the cover memorandum 
accompanying the report. In our initial comments, we concluded that the additional messages 

appeared to do no more than encourage straight party voting and therefore did not disqualify the 

door hanger from classification as a slate card, but nevertheless recommended highlighting the 

issue to the Commissioners. Based on further legal research, we have concluded that the urging 

of the election of the depicted candidates does appear to be within the parameters of the slate 

card exemption. See Advisory Opinion 1978-89 (Withers) (both a pamphlet urging election of 

candidates for statewide and local office and a separate letter were disqualified from the slate 

card exemption because: (1) they contained biographical information on the candidates other 

than that allowed under the exemption; (2) they outlined the candidates' positions on specific 

issues, and (3) they included statements of party philosophy). In Withers, the fact that the 

pamphlet urged the election of depicted party candidates, as is the case here, was not one of the 

stated reasons for disqualifying the pamphlet from the slate card exemption. As such, we no 

longer consider it necessary for the Audit Division to raise this issue in the cover memorandum 

accompanying the audit report. 

The second such issue was the presence of photographs of apparently unequal size on the 

slate card. As cited in our comments on the lAR, a statement in the Conference Report 

accompanying the legislative provision governing slate cards suggested that the names of all 

candidates should appear on slate cards vnXh equal prominence. Because Commission 

regulations and guidance are silent on this issue, however, we recommended that Audit raise this 

issue in its cover memorandum. We would recommend that the Audit Division continue to raise 

this issue in its cover memorandum accompanying the DFAR for the Commission's 

consideration. If you have any questions, please contact Joshua Blume, the attomey assigned to 

this audit.' 

' The Office of General Counsel recommends that the Commission consider this document in open session 

because the DFAR does not include matters exempt from public disclosure. 11 C.F.R. § 2.4(a).