,

•

o

7

•

{}

2

5

•

2

o

13

8

REPORT OF THE AUDIT DIVISION

ON

BOB BARR- CONGRESS

Appro"ed Fllbru•.,· 18. 1998

FEDERAL ELE<.TION COl\I1\IISSION

999 £ ~TREET. N.W.

\\'A.4iIII~GTON. D.C.
...... FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Febnaary 27, 1998

MEMQRANDUM

SUBJECT: Public Issuance ofthe Repon ofthe Audit Di\'ision on

Bob Barr - Congress

Auaehed please find a cop)' ofthe final audit report on Bob Barr- Congress

\\'hich \\'as appro\'ed b)' the Commission on F~' 18. 1998.

9

•

o

7

..

e

2

5

•

2

o

e

9

TO:

FROM:

Ron M. Harris

Press Officer

Press Office

Roben J. COIla

Assistant StafTDirector

Audit Division

Informational copies ofthe repon ha\'C been received b)' all panies involved and

the repon ma)' be released 10 the public.

c:c:: Office ofGeneral Counsel

Office of Public: Disclosure

Repons Anal)'sis Di\'ision

FEC Librar)'
TABLE OF COl\'TENTS

BOB BARR- CONGRESS

C;

Page

•0 Executi\'c SUJI1II1ar)· 7•0 Final Audit Repon

J

25 Background

3

•2 Findings

5

01 Transmittal to Committee 15 0

Chronolog)' 17
FEDERAL ELECTION CO~1MISSION

..

o

7

..

o

2

5

..

2

(1

1

1

FINAL AUDIT REPORT

ON

BOB BARR - CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE SUl\tMARY

The Committee registered \\ith the Clerk ofthe U.S. House ofRepresentatives on

January II. 1995 as the principal campaign committee ofRoben L. BarT. Republican

candidate for the U.S. House ofRepresentatives from the State of Georgi~ 7th District.

The audit ".as conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(b). \\'hich states that the

Commission may conduct audits of an~' political committee \\'hose repons fail to meet the

threshold le\'cl of compliance set by the Commission.

The findings ofthe audit \\'ere presented to the Committee at an exit conference

held at the end of audit field\\'ork (5123/97) and later in an interim audit report. The

Commith.":·S responses ha\'e been included in the findings set forth in this summary.

The tollo\\ing is an o\'en'ie\\' ofthe findings contained in the final audit report.

ApP:\REST EXC£SSI\'E CQ:STRlIL'TIO:SS - ISQI\'IDlfAl.5 -Section 441 a(a)( 1)(A)

ofTitle 2. The audit identified 72 contributors \\'ho exceeded their contribution limitation

by a total of $5·1.971. The Committee refunded $36.626 to contributors well beyond the 60

day period pro\'ided for making such refunds. h:a\'ing S18.345 ~solved,

In response to the interim audit repon. the Committee pro\'ided copies ofthe front

ofrefund checks for the remaining excessi\'c contributions, Committee representatives

stated that copies ofthe back ofthe refund checks "'ould be fOr\\wded upon receipt.

"t'SSTAI£:yENTOF F':SA:SCIAL ACX'\'IT)' - U.S.C. §434(b)(I).(2) and (4). The

Committee understated its 1996 disbursements by a total of $4.308, This net

understatement is the result ofS16.410 in o\,erstatements and 520.718 in understatements.

Ending cash on hand for 1995 "'as o\'erstated by a total of 53.434 due to minor

misstatements in receipts and disbursements as noted abo\'e. As a result ofthe

misstatement of 1996 disbursements and beginning cash on hand noted above. as well as

minor discrepancies in 1QQ6 receipts. the Commith.-c·5 reponed cash on hand at 12/31/96

ofS18.908 "'as o\'erstated by 58.326. The correct cash balance was S10.582.

Paqe 1
..

o

7

..

{1

2

5

•

2

o

1

2

2

The Committee responded by filing amended repons, which materially corrected

these misstatements.

DISCLOSURE Of Co~""Bl!TIO:SSFRO), POLITICAL CO~IMIUEES- 2 U.S.C.

§434(b)(3XB). The audit identified 82 contributions. totaling 553.417. \\'hich had not

been itemized. In addition. 26 contributions with a value of521.508 had been itemized

incorrectly. Also, testing indicated additional problems \\1th the disclosure of aggregate

year to date amounts.

In response to the interim audit repon. the Committee filed comprehensive

amended disclosure repons \\'hich materially corrected the disclosure problems noted

above.

DISCLOSL'RE Of CO:STRlBl~TIQ:SSfRO\II:SOI\"DtrAU -2 U.S.C.

§434(b)(3)(A). Testing conducted during field\\'ork sho\\'ed that the Committee had

misstated the contributor's aggregate year to date contributions in a material number of

cases,

The Committee indicated that it \\'35 a\\'are that the soft\\"are seemed unable to

handle aggregate year to date amounts com.-ctl~'. Amcnded Schedules A materially

corrected these disclosure problems.

Ruo.RTI:SC Of TBA:SSfEBS FRO\!.Al:D10Jl,IZ£D CO\I\IIUEES - 2 U.S.C. §434

(b)(3 )(C). The Committc=e recei\'cd a total ofS39.1:!8 from other committees authorized

by its candidate. It failed to report 51.S00 from authorized committees on line 12 ofits

Detailed Summal')' Pages and filed Schedules 1\ for only one $1.500 transfer.

In response to the interim audit report. an amended Detailed SummaJ)' Page and

Schedules A \\'cre filed.

48 IIol'8 NOTICES. I:SPI\'IDL'AL A:SP POLITICAL CO\I\IITTEES - 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(6), The Audit idcntifi"ad 19 primal)' election contributions. totaling 529.804. and

18 general election contributions totaling S~O.()OO for \\-hich the Committee failed to file

the required 48 hour notices,

The Committee responded that the candidate had ~acn unopposed for the primal)'

election and it assumed that notices "'en: not required,

Page 2
AR#l97-1

FEDERAL ELECTION COMI\.11SSION

REPORTOF THE AUDITDIVISION

ON

BOB BARR - CONGRESS

This report is based on an audit ofBob Barr - Congress (the Committee),

undenaken b)' the Audit Di\'ision ofthe Federal Election Commission in accordance with

the provisions ofthe Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. as amended (the Act), The

audit "'as conducted pursuant to Section 438(b) ofTitle 2 ofthe United States Code

\\'hich states. in pan. that the Commission may conduct audits and field investigations of

any political committee required to file a report under Section 434 ofthis title, Prior to

conducting any audit under this subsection. the Commission shall perfonn an internal

re\'ie"' ofreports filed b)' selected committees to determine ifthe reports filed by a

particular committee meet the threshold requirements for substantial compliance with the

Act.

..

o

7

..

1"'",

o

L

5

..

1"'",

l.

o

1

3

I. BACKGRQUND

A. AUDIT AVTHORln'

B. Al:DIT CO\'£RAGE

The audit co\'ered the period from the Comminee's initial deposit on

January 27. 1995 through December 31. 1996. The Committee reported a begiMing cash

balance ofSO; total receipts for the period ofS1.173.888: total disbursements for the

period ofSI,154.980: and an ending cash balance of518.908. 1

c. CA!\IPAICN ORCA~IZATIO~

The Committee registered \\ith the Clerk ofthe U.S. House of

Representati\'cs on Januar)' 11. 1995 as the principal campaign committee of Roben L.

Barr (the Candidate). Republican candidate for the U.S. House ofRepresentatives from

the State ofGeoraia. 7th District.

All amounts in thas rtpOft ha\'c been roundcd 10 thc ncarCSI dollar.

Pa<;Je 3
C}

•

o

7

•

()

2

5

•

2

o

1

4

2

The Treasurer ofthe Committee is Charles C. Black. who has served in

this position since the inception ofthe Committee. The Committee maintains its

headquarters in Austell. Georgia.

To manaae itsfmancial activity. the Committee used one bank account.

From this account. it made approximately 1.300 disbursements. The Committee received

about 5.070 contributions from individuals. totaling approximately $708.670. \\Ohich

represented about 60010 ofits total receipts. In addition. the Committee received about

5I0 contributions from political action committees and other committees. such as pany

committees and candidate committees. totaling approximatel~' 5420.648 (or 36% oftotal

receipts); and received interest ($4.090) and transfers from other authorized committees

($39.228).

D. AUDIT SCOPE AND PROCEDURES

The audit included testing ofthe follo\\;n8 aeneraJ categories:

1. The receipt ofcontributions or loans in excess ofthe statutory

limitations (sec Finding ItA.);

2. the receipt ofcontributions from prohibited sources; such as those

from corporations or labor OIJanizations:

3. proper disclosure ofcontributions from individuals. political

committees and other entities. to include the itemization of

contributions ,,"hen required. as well as, the completeness and

accuracy ofthe information disclosed (see FindingS II.C., 11.0. and

II.E.):

4. proper disclosure ofdisbursements including the itemization of

disbursements when required. as \\'ell as. the completeness and

accurac~~ ofthe infonnation disclosed:

S. proper disclosure ofCommittc:e debts and obligations;

6. the accuracy oftotal reponed receipts. disbursements and cash

balances as compan.-d to Comminee bank records (see Finding

II.B.):

7. adequate rccordkc:epin8 ofCommittee transactions. and

8. other audit procedures that \\-ere deemed necessary in the situation

(~-e Findinl:! II.F).

Page 4
3

Unless specifically discussed belo,,·. no material non-compliance was

detected. It should be noted that the Commission may pursue any ofthe matters

discussed in this report in an enforcement action.

II. AUDIT fiNDINGS AND RECQM&IENDATIONS

A. APPARENT EXCESSI\~ CO~"TIU.U110NS

Sections 44la(aXIXA) and (a)(2)(A) ofTitle 2 ofthe United States Code

state. that no person shall make contributions 10 an)· candidate and his authorized political

committees with respect to any election for Federal office ,,·hich. in the aggregate. exceed

St.ooo and that no multi-e:andidate political committee shall make contributions to any

candidate and his authorized political committees ,,;th respect to any election for Federal

office ,,"hich. in the aggregate. exceed S5.000.

Sections I10.I(b)(S)(i) and (ii) ofTitle JI ofthe Code ofFederal

Regulations state. in rele\"ant pan. that the treasurer ofan authorized political committee

m3)" request a "Titten redesignation ofa contribution b). the contributor for a different

c:lc:ction if:

•

o

2

5

•

1

5

o

o

•

•

the contribution \\"as designated in \\Titing for a panicular election and the

contribution. either on its face: or \\-hen asgregated with other contributions

from the same contributor for the same election. exceeds the limitation on

contributions set forth in II CFR 110.1(b)( I);

the contribution ""as dc..~ignatcd in \\Titina for a particular.~lection and the

contribution \\"as made aftc:r that election and the contribution cannot be .

accepted under the net dc:bts outstanding pro\'isions of II CFR

I I0.1(b)(3);

the contribution "'as not dcsi~naled in \\Titing for a panicular election. and

the contribution exceeds the limitaaion on contributions set forth in 11

CFR 110.I(b)(I):or

the contribution ,,-as not dc:signat......t in \\Titina: for a particular election. and

the contribution \\"as recei,"ed after the date ofan election for which there

arc net debts outstanding on the: dale the: contribution is received.

AdditionalI)"•a contribution shall be considered to be redesignated for

another election ifthe ucasurer ofthe: n.-cipimt authorized political committee requests

that the cordributor provide a "Titlen n:desi'niltion ofthe contribution and informs the

contributor that the contributor ma)" request the refund ofthe contribution as an

altemati,"C: to pro\'idina a "Tinen rcdc:sigrwion and ,,·ithin sixt)· da)"S from the date ofthe

Page 5
..

(1

7

..

{}

2

5

..

2

o

1

b

4

treasurer's receipt ofthe contribution. the contributor provides the treasurer with a written

redesignation ofthe contribution for another election. which is signed by the contributor.

Section IIO.1(k) ofTitle 11 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations states. any

contribution made by more than one person shall include the signature ofeach contributor

on the check. money order. or other negotiable instrument or in a separate writing.

Furthennore. a contribution made by more than one person that does not indicate the

amount to be attributed to each contributorshall be attributed equally to each contributor.

Ifa contribution to a candidate on its face or when aggregated \vith other

contributions from the same contributor exceeds the limitations on contributions set forth

in II CFR 11 0.1 (b) or (d). as appropriate. the treasurer may ask the contributor \vhether

the contribution \\'as intended to be a joint contribution by more than one person. A

contribution shall be considered to be reattributed to another contributor ifthe treasurer of

the recipient political committee asks the contributor \,'hether the contribution is intended

to be a joint contribution b)' more than one person. and informs the contributor that he or

she ma)' request a return ofthe excessi\'e portion ofthe contribution ifit is not intended

to be a joint contribution: and. \\ithin 60 cIa)'s from the date ofthe treasurer's receipt of

the contributi~n. the contributors pro\'ide a \\Titten reattribution ofthe contribution \\'hich

is signed b}' each contributor. and \\'hich indicates the amount to be attributed to each

contributor ifequal attribution is not intended.

Th~ Audit staff\\'as pro\'ided \\'ith a computer file to support contributions

received hy the Committee. In addition. deposit records \\'hich included copies of

contributor checks and/or deposit tickets \\'ith contributor names were available for the

majority of contributions. The copies ofcontributor checks were ordered by deposit for

the period ofJanuary 27.. 1995 (the date ofthe first deposit) through AugUst 31., 1996. and

the documentation a\'ailable for this time frame was 98% complete. For the period of

September). throu~h December 31. 1996. the checks were in no identifiable order. For

this period oftime. documentation \\'35 incomplete. Deposit tickets with supporting

check copies \Vefe found for 460/0 ($ 176.~03) ofreceipts and deposit tickets \vith

incomplete check copies \\'ere found for 41~. (5158.605), In addition. random check

copies totaling about $296.280 or 770/0 oftotal amounts for this period were available.

These checks \\'ere sorted alphabeticall~' to facilitate testing.

The receipts database and the contributor checks were utilized in a

combination ofrevie\\'S to detennine if contributions in excess ofthe limitation were

received. Based on these re\'ie\\'S. the Audit staffidentified 94 contributions from 72

indi\'iduals \\'hich exceed the limitations hy SS·t971.

Further I'e\'iew ofthesc excessive contributions revealed the following

reponing irregularities:

Page b

/-
o Twelve ofthe excessive contributions (from individuals) totaling 57,945

were not itemized on Schedules A although our testing did not indicate a

material overall failure to itemize contributions.

o Twenty-four contributions ""ere attributed to multiple account holders on

the Comminee's disclosure repons but the contribution documentation

contained the signature ofonl)' one contributor. No signed reattributions

were located in the Committee's files.

The Committee recei\'ed numerous inquiries from the Commission's

Repons Analysis Dh'ision concerning excessi\'e contributions. Its response \\'3$ to

amend Schedules A and disclose the contributions as attributed to another person or to

attribute part or all of a contribution to another election. The audit did not find the

requisite documentation to suppan these actions. Based upon the results ofthis revie"', it

appears t~t the Committee ""as internally reattributing and redesignating contributions

\\'ithout the required authorizations.

it

()

7

it

o

2

r;;

..,.;

it

2

o

1

7

o

o

Nineteen contributions \\'ere allocated between the primary and general

Elections on the Committee's disclosure reports or were disclosed as

general election contributions but dated before the primary. No signed

designations or redesignation correspondence was located in the

Committee'5 records.

Finall)', one 52,000 check \\'as itemized as a 51.000 contribution.

Pre\·iousl)'. the Commission conducted an audit ofCong~ssman Barr's

J993·1994 Committee, The repon "'hich presents the results ofthis audii was issued on·

April 19. 1996. During this audit. man)' ofthe same problems "'ere noted. As a result of

that audit. 6~ contributions from 47 contributors \\'ere identified that exceeded

contribution limitations by $40.804. Irregularities in the itemization and disclosure of

many ofthese: contributions were similar to the: reponing problems noted above. In

addition. in the earlier audit. notes \\'ere found on the photocopies ofthree excessive

contribution checks. These notes indicated that the Committee "'as aware that the

contributions \\'ere excessi\'e and either did not record them. or recorded them so that

they did not appear to be excessi\'e. Also. 1 contributors "'ho made excessive

contributions in the 1993-1994 election c~'cle also made excessive contributions in the

1995·1996 election cycle,

In September of 1996. the Committee \\TOte numerous contribution refund

checks. These checks were subsequentl~· \'oide:d2 and reissued in October of 1996. When

the Audit staffquestioned the voiding ofthe September refunds. a Committee

Thc Audit staff was not ablc 10 sec actual COPICS ofvoidcd checks because the Committee

treasurer did noI keep tMm. The Treasurer informed the Audit slIffthat he had disposed of

voided or spoiled checks.

Page 7
it

o

7

...

o

2

5

...

J"'l

L

{)

1

8

6

representative intimated that the Committee \\~ted to keep their cash on hand position

looking as strong as possible on their repons. Fifty-four refunds totaling 536.626 relating

to the excessive contributions noted above were made3

• At the time ofthe interim audit

report. 518.345 in unresolved excessive contributions remained. None ofthe refunds

made were within allowable time limits.

The Audit statrs review also identified apparent excessive contributions

from two registered political committees. The Committee received a 52,000 check dated

September 24. 1996. for the general election from the Carpet and Rug Institute. a nonqualified political committee. and three contributions totaling $10.000 ($500- 812/95,

$4.500· 11/8/95 and $S.OOO - 3127/96) from the Lockheed Martin Employees' Political

Action Committee for the primary election. The Committee refunded $5.000 to

Lockheed Martin on April 28. 1997. This refund \\"as untimely. The Committee had not

refunded an)' money to the Carpet and Rug Institute.

At the exit conference. the Committee \\"as supplied with \\·orkpapers

dOcumenting the excessi\'e contributions. Committee representatives indicated that they

"'ere surprised at the amount of unresol\'ed contributions. but agreed to review each one

carefull)'. They indicated that procedures "'ere being put into place to avoid any future

problems.

In the interim audit repone the Committee \\'as requested to provide

evidence demonstrating that the contributions in question \\'ere not excessive. Absent

such evidence. the Committee \\"35 to refund the remaining excessive contributions and

pro\'ide e\'idence ofsuch refunds (copies ofthe front and back ofthe canceled checks). If

sufficient funds \\'ere not 8\'ailable. tho~ contributions requiring refunds ~ould be

disclosed as debts on Schedule D (Debts and Obligations) until such time as funds

became available.

In response to the interim audit repone the Committee demonstrated that

1\\'0 contributions from one indh'idual. totaling $·tOOO. "'ere not excessive." The

remaining excessive contributions. totaling S16.3~S. "'en: refunded and copies ofthe

front ofthe checks \\'C1'e provided. In its "Tilten response the Committee stated that it

\\'ould ··submit copies ofthe fronl and back of negotiated checks ,,'hen available." To

date. the)' ha\'c: not done so.

J

..

As ofFcbruary 21. 1997. all but four (S~.350) oflhcsc refund checks have cleared the

Comminec's checkinl account The conlribuuons assocaated with these checks were included in

tOlaI excessive amoums and the Commmec fe-ISsued refund checks to the contributors,

The CommiRft supplied documcnwion silO"intt that contribulions thou.tllto be from one

contribulor "-ere in fact four separate In-Lind contribuuons ofS1.000 each. attributable to the

contributor and his spouse_This In fact cau~ a smaller excessive amount for the spouse. which

the Comminee refunded.

Vagc 8
"

q,

•

o

7

•

o

2

5

•

2

o

1

q,

7

In addition to refunding contributions to excessive contributors, the

Committee stated that:

the failure to detect these excessive contributions was due to a

data management that could not keep up \\ith the volume of

contributions. Any enors are ones ofomission rather than

commission. Although the committee made etTons to either

reattribute or redesignate the funds in question (as was the case in

the 1994 election cycle).' such effons did not strictly comply

\\ith the applicable regulations.

The Committee sent a COP)' ofa redesignation form it states \\'as used

during the 1996 election cycle. The Audit stafThad reviewed available redesignation and

reattribution letters during the audit and found only four that related to excessive

contributions, Ofthese, one redesignation letter \\'as signed by a person other than the

contributor. t\\'O letters redesignated contributions to the general election but the

contributor had also made excessive contributions for that election. and one letter

appropriatel)' redesignated the excessi\'e amount but the Committee refunded the

contribution an)'\\'a)'. No other redesign3tion or reattribution documentation has been

provided,

The Committee also filed c:omprehensi\'e amended disclosure reports for

>'cars 1995 and 1996 that materially corrected the disclosure errors noted above.

B. l\IISSTATE!\IENT OF FI~A~CIAL Acrl\'IT\'

Sections 434(b)( I). (2) and (4) ofTitle 2 ofthe United Staies Code state, "

in part. that a political committee shall disclose the amount ofcash on hand at the

beginning ofthe reponing period and the total amount ofall receipts and all

disbursements for the reponing period and calendar year,

The Audit staffreconciled the Committee·5 reponed financial activity to

bank activity for calendar )'ears 1995 and 1996. The Committee treasurer informed the

Audit staffthat unitemized amounts on n:pons ""ere derived by subtracting total itemized

amounts from bank figures. in essence usin~ unitemized amounts to reconcile to bank

acti\'it)" The Committee was unable to pro\'ide complete \\'orkpapers showing the

calculation ofthese derived figures, \\'hich pre\'ented the Audit staff from identifying all

differences.

In its wrincn rnponse. the Commince objectcd 10 the Audil saalrs stalement that nOles found on

three phOlocopan of checks Indicated thai the Commlncc "'as .,,'arc thai the contributions were

CXCesSIVC and cithcr did not record them or recorded them so that they did nOI appear to be

cxcessi,'c.
Page 10

Although il was not required 10 do so. th~ Comminte corrected 1995 items not~d in workpapers

pro\'ided 10 them.

In the interim audit repone the Audit Staffrecommended the Committee

file a comprehensi\'e amended report for calendar ~'ear 1996 correcting the misstatements

noted abo\'e.

As a result ofthe misstatement of J996. disbursements and beginning cash

on hand noted above. as well as minor discrepancies in 1996 receipts. the Committee's

reponed cash on hand at 12131/96 ofS18.908 \\'as O\'erstated by 58.326. The correct cash

balance was S10.582.

The Committee reported disbursements of$976.659 for 1996. Utilizing

the Committee's financial records.. the Audit staffdetermined that the Committee should

have reported disbursements totaling $980.967. Therefore. disbursements were

understated by $4.308. This misstatement was due to S14.327 in disbursements reponed

twice on Schedules B; reponing ofa $438 stop payment disbursement: in-kind

contributions not reponed totaling 56.946: t\\·o 1995 disbursements totaling 51.645

reponed in 1996; under-reporting ofdisbursements for the year by $11.124. and a

reconciling adjustment of52.649. Misstatements ofreceipts in 1996 \\'ere not material.

The Comminee reported a beginning cash on hand balance of

$175.524.48 as ofJanuary 1. 1996. This amount was over-stated by a total of53.434

which was caused by minor misstatements of 1995 receipts and disbursements.

C. DISCLOSURE OF COSTRlat'TIO~S FRO~I POLITICAL COI\II\IITrEES

Subsequent to the end offield\\'Ork. the Audit staffprovided the

Committee \\ith \\'orkpapers detailing the discrepancies noted. A Committee

representative indicated that .amended disclosure reports would be filed.

•

The Committee complied \\ith the Audit recommendation-by filing

amended repons for both 1995 and 1996. Those reports materially correct the problems

noted above.'

Section 434(b)(3)(B) ofTitle 2 ofthe United States Code states that each

repon under this section shall disclose the identification ofeach political committee

which makes a contribution to the reponing committee during the reporting period.

together with the date and the amount of an)' such contribution.

The Audit staffre\'ie\\'ed contributions from political committees to

determine ifthey were itemized as required_ Our re\'ie\\' identified 82 contributions.

totaling S53.417. which had not bec:n itemized. Ofthese contributions. 48 had not been

entered into the Committee'5 database.

•

"

•

{}

7

•

o

2

! 5

..

2

e

2

{}
•

o

7

..

o

2

5

•

2

{}

2

1

9

In additio~ 26 contributions with a value of521.508 had been itemized on

line 11(a)(i) (contributions from individuals), generally in the name ofthe person who

had signed the committeets conuibution check. or on line 11(c) under the name of

another political committee. Finally. our sample testing indicated additional problems

with the disclosure ofaggregate year to date amounts.

The Committee was provided \\ith schedules detailing the itemization and

disclosure problems noted above. A Committee representative responded by asking ifthe

contributions were on the database. and ifthe contributions might be on the disclosure

reports in different places. The Committee also indicated that amended Schedules A

would be filed.

In the interim audit repon. the Committee was requested to file. as part of

a comprehensive amended repon. Schedules A to correct the itemization and disclosure

problems noted above.

In response to the recommendation. the Committee filed the required

schedules. These amended schedules materially corrected the itemization and disclosure

problems noted above.

D. REPORTISC OF TRANSFERS FRO~I Al'TIlORIZED COJ\II\UITEES

Section 434 (b)(3)(C) ofTitle 2 ofthe United States Code states that each

repon under this sc..-ction shall disclose the identification of each authorized committee

\\'hich makes a transfer to the reponing Committee.

The Audit staffre\'ie\\·ed the: Committee·5 receipts records and detennined

that. in 1996. the Committee recei\'ed transfers from authorized committees totaling

539.228. Thc Committee rec:ei\'cd a total ofS36.7~8 from thc Candidate·s 1994

authorized committee "Bob Barr for Congress Q~... The remaining 52.500 came from

Georgians for Bob Barr. the Candidatc·s 1992 Senate committee. Ofthese amounts.

536.728 \\·as reponed on linc 12 ofthe Commith,~·s Detailed Summar)' Pages. but

supponing Schedules A ,,'ere filed for onl~' one SI.500 transfer.

Subsequent to the cnd offield\,·ork. the Committee \\'as supplied \\'ith

schedules detailing these transfers. Committ~-.: representatives indicated a willingness to

file amended repons.

As stated in the interim audit repone the Committee was required to file a

Schedule: A itemizing the transfers noted aOO\'c. and correct the total amount reponed on

line 12 ofthe amended Detailed Summar)' Pa~e to reflect the correct amount received

from authorized committees. The Committee·s amended repon for i996 included the

necesS3l)' cOlTCctions.

Page 11
E.

10

DISCLOSURE OF CONTRIBUTIONS FROl\IINDIVIDUALS

c;

CJ

•

o

7

•

(1

2

5

•

2

o

2

2

Section 434(bX3XA) ofTitle 2 afthe United States Code states that each

report under this section·shall disclose the identification ofeach person who makes a

contribution to the reponing comminee during the reporting period. whose contribution

or contributions have an aggregate amount or \'alue in excess of5200 within the calendar

year. or in any lesser amount ifthe reporting committee should so elect. together with the

date and amount ofany such contribution.

The Audit stafTtested the Committee·s reponing ofcontributions from

individuals to detennine compliance \\-ith the regulations. Our results indicate that the

Committee had misstated the contributor·s aggregate year to date contributions in a

material number ofcases. As noted in Finding II.C.• a similar deficiency was noted with

respect to the reporting ofcontributions from other committees_

When presented with the preliminary results ofthis review at the exit

conference. a Committee representati\'e responded that they were 8\\'Dre that the software

did not seem able to handle aggregate )'ear to date amounts accurately. No other

comments "-ere made regarding this problem.

In the interim audit report. it \\"35 recommended that the Committee file

amended Schedules A cOJTeCting the aggregate )'car to date figures for contributions from

indi\'iduals.

In response to this recommendation. the Comminee filed amended

Schedules A for both 1995 and 1996. correcting aggregate year to date figures for a

material number ofcontributors_ .

F. FAlLURE TO FILE FORn"·£ICIiT HOUR NOTICES

Section 434(a)(6) ofTitle 2 ofthe United States Code states. in relevant

pan. a principal campaign committee ofa candidate shall notify the Clerk, the Secretary.

or the Commission. and the Secretar)' ofSt4Ite. as appropriate. in \\Tiling. ofany

contribution ofS1.000 or more received b)" any authorized committee ofsuch candidate

after the 20th day. but more than 48 hours before. any election. This notification shall be

made \\ithin 48 hours after the receipt ofsuch contribution and shall include the name of

the candidate and the office sought by the candidate. the identification ofthe contributor.

and the date ofreceipt and amount ofthe contribution.

The Audit statrs re\'ie\\' identified 19 contributions. totaling $29.804.

deposited bet\\'c:en June 20. 1996 and Jul)' 6. 1996. requiring 48 hour notices for the

primaJ)' election. The Comminee failed to file the required notices for all ofthese

contributions. In addition. bet\\"een October 17. 1996 and November 2. t996. 60

contributions. totaling $74.000. required 48 hour notices to be filed for the general

election. The Committee: did not file notices for 18 contributions totaling 520.000,

Pa~ 12
q

."

..

o

7

..

o

2

5

....-;

t:-

O,...,

L

3

II

The Audit staffinfonned the Committee ofthis problem at the exit

conference and provided workpapers which identified these contributions. The

Committee representatives responded that the)' did not think notices were required for the

primary election because Congressman Barr \\'as unopposed in that election. As for the

notices required fi)r the general election. the Committee responded that they thought all

required notices had been filed.

The Audit stafT5 recommendation in the interim audit report requested

that the Committee submit evidence that all required notices were filed or submit any

"Tinen comments it felt would be rele\·ant to this issue.

In its response. the Committee conceded that it had failed to file all

required notices for the primary election and 18 notices for the general. The Committee

stated in rele\'ant part:

This failure \\-as due to a misunderstanding ofthe applicable

la\\·. Since the candidate \\"as unopposed in the primary. the

committee assumed that such notices "'ere rendered unnecessary.

As for the general election. the Audit establishes that the

Committee filed 48-hour notices for at least 42 of60

contributions requiring such notices (over t\\·o thirds). Despite

the Committee·s prior good faith beliefthat all required notices

had been filed. the committee concedes that 48-hour notices were

not filed for the remaining contributions.

Paae 13
Cj

..o7•o25•2o24
,,- flDfRAl llfCTI()' «)\'\U~SI()'

q

o

}

...

o

7

...

(1

2

5

...

2

(1

2

5

Febru3J')" 20. 1998

1\lr. Ch3rl~s BI3c~. Trcasurer

Bob 83fT - Conl!R:ss

'·.0. 1J1l:\ 43~3

tariena. GA 30061

lkar ~1r. Dlac~:

Atuch~d. please find th~ Reron of th~ t\udit DI\'ision on Dab Barr - Congress.

Th~ ("ommissilln ilJ'l'ro\'e:d the: l'epon on Fe:"I'U3r, IS. 1998.

nl~ Cummlsslun 3rrr"\'e:\I ..\uJIt R~""n \\ill he placed on the public record <.In

F~hrwr, ~-. 1tWX Should UU ~\ c: an~ quc:sllon~ r~l!3rdin~ the public release ofthe

rerun. J"Jea~e conbcllhc ('ummlsslon'~I·r~s~ unic~ at (~O~) :!19-1IS5 or toll free at (800)

.a:!.a·()5~(J :\n~ ~u('tu'n~ ~"u h;l\( r~lalcJ II' mallc:r~ cu\c:rc:cJ during the audit or in the:

rc:run ~h.,uIJ "'lr~~h:\I It' Rhunda Slmm,'n, ,'r Rus, Bruner ofthe f\udit Di\'ision at

I ~U~ J JI'. -:-~(J "r the: ahl'\ c: lull Ir~c: num~r

Slnccrc:l~ •

~~~ r\SSislant Sian" Director

:\uJII 1)1\'ision

I\ttachm~nt as slat~cJ

Page 15
Cj •

()7

.."25•2o2b

--"-..
CHRONOLOGY

BOB BARR - CONGRESS

•

e

7

•

o

§

•

i

2

7

Interim Audilt Repon to

the Committee

Response Recei\'ed to the

Interim Audit Repon

Final Audit Report Appro\"ed

Page 17

4128197-5/23197

10/6197

12124/97

2118/98
' .. ---'
eo

7

..

o

2

5

..

2

o

2

9