SANDLER, REIFF & YOUNG, RC. 

September 15, 2008 

Ms. Wanda Thomas 

Acting Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Dear Ms. Thomas: 

This letter, and attached exhibits will serve as the response of the Tennessee Democratic Party 

f TDP") to the Interim Audit Report ("Audit Report") of the Federal Election Commission's Audit 

Division ("the Audit Division") for the period covering the TDP's financial activities for 2005 and 

2006. 

The response to each of the Audit Division's two recommendations is as follows: 

Recommendation #1 

The Audit Report identifies various activities that were disclosed as "federal election 

activity" and requests documentation that the expenditures were, in fact, allocable federal election 

activity. This response will identify and discuss each activity in turn: 

Polls 

The interim audit report identifies two polls for a total cost of $24,500 that was disclosed on 

Schedule H6. The report indicates that the polls caimot be allocated because they identify a clearly 

identified federal candidate. 

In response to the Audit report, the committee acknowledges that the costs of these polls 

were incorrectly disclosed on Schedule H6. In fact, the polls did not qualify as a federal election 

300 M STREET, S.E., SUITE 1102 • WASHINGTON, DC 20003 • TEL: (202) 479-1111 • FAX: (202) 479-1115 
activity and should have been disclosed on Schedule H4 as an operating expense. A copy of the 

polls is attached as Exhibit I. 

These polls were for the sole purpose of tracking information regarding both federal and 

non-federal elections during the 2006 election campaign. The poll selected a small cross section of 

voters and was designed to give a sense of issues and voting trends based upon general polling 

principles. The polling information was not shared with any federal candidate and was used 

internally by the TDP. The polls did not promote, support, attack or oppose any federal candidate 

(11 C.F.R. § 100.24(b)(3)), the poll did not constitute generic campaign activity (11 C.F.R. § 

100.24(a)(3), the polls did not constitute voter registration activity (11 C.F.R. § 100.24(a)(2)), the 

polls did not constitute get-out-the-vote activity (11 C.F.R. § 100.24(a)(3), and most importantly, 

the polls did not constitute voter identification activity (11 C.F.R. § 100.24(a)(4)). Specifically, the 

poll was intended to get general information regarding the views and opinions of Tennessee voters 

for general planning purposes and none of the information collected was appended to any voter list 

or voter file maintained by the TDP as contemplated by sectioii 100.24(a)(4). Simply put, a general 

tracking poll undertaken by a state party committee does not qualify as a federal election activity. 

Therefore, the committee should have disclosed these polls on Schedule H4, Line 21(a). The TDP, 

at the request of the Commission, will amend its reports to properly reflect the polls on Schedule 

H4. 

Automated Phone Calls 

The TDP acknowledges that the automated phone calls in question include advocacy for 

Harold Ford, Jr. who was the candidate for United States Senate in Tennessee in 2006. The TDP 

will remove these expenses fi'om Schedule H6, and it is our belief that, despite their disclosure on 

Schedule H6, no allocation transfer was made in cormection with these expenditures. It should be 

noted that, in the case of the call from Grovemor Bredesen, only a portion of the call need be 

allocated to Harold Ford, Jr. To be sure, the script is read by Govemor Bredesen, who was himself 

a non-federal candidate in 2006. Furthermore, the call calls for listeners, to vote for Govemor 

Bredesen, Harold Ford and the rest of the Democratic Ticket. Utilizing the principles set forth in 

both FBC Advisory Opinion 2006-11, as well as 11 C.F.R. § 106.8, the committee intends to 

allocate 50% of the costs of this phone call to its 441a(d) authority and the remainder of the call to 

Schedule B, Line 30(b) as generic campaign activity. Although only a small portion of the Call by 

Govemor Clinton discusses Harold Ford, Jr., the committee will allocate the entire call to 441a(d) 

authority absent any further guidance from the Commission. The committee hopes that the 

Commission can clarify, through the final audit report or the final mles on its pending mlemaking 

regarding hybrid communications (72 Fed. Reg. 26569 (May 10,2007)) as to whether any portion 

of the Clinton call need not be allocated to the TDP's 441a(d) authority. 

Campaign Rallies 

The Interim Audit report questions the payment of twelve expenses paid for by the TDP for 

campaign rallies that appear to be expenses for activities on behalf of Harold Ford, Jr. for U.S. 

Senate. The report bases this position on the fact that the invoices either reference or are sent to the 

attention of the Ford campaign. The TDP has, and continues to assert, that these expenses were, in 

fact, for generic campaign activities. During a campaign, it is not unconunon for vendors to 
confuse a party organization for the campaign of a prominent candidate in the state. It is the TDP's 

belief that each of these invoices were for generic TDP activity and that each invoice, which 

reflects a very small percentage of the total number of invoices received by the TDP during the 

2006 campaign, were incorrectly invoiced to the Harold Ford campaign. Attached to this response 

is a signed affidavit from Randy Button (attached as Exhibit II) that reasserts, and demonstrates, the 

TDP's contention that, with one exception, the list of expenses provided by Commission were not 

expenditures for the benefit of the Ford campaign or for rallies featuring a federal candidate. 

The TDP will amend its report to move one invoice from Exodus Products to Schedule F, 

Line 25. Otherwise, the TDP believes that all other expenses questioned by the Commission were 

properly reported as generic get-out-the-vote activities. 

Reconmiendation #2 

The second recommendation of the Interim Audit Report requests that the TDP amend its 

reports to include missing addresses for several payees. These missing addresses generally relate to 

the payment of election day workers where the acquisition of such information proved to be quite 

difficult. The TDP has made extensive efforts to locate this missing information and will file 

amendments to its reports to include those addresses which it has located. The TDP will continue 

to search for any additional missing addresses and file amended reports as soon as possible. 

If you require any further information, or have any other questions, please call me at (202) 

479-1111. 

Sincerely, 

Neil Reiff 

Counsel to the Tennessee Democratic Party