FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20463 

Apri l 1, 2011 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

Patricia Carmona 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Joseph F. Stoltz 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 1 

Christopher Hughey A^ 

Acting General Counsel / 

Lawrence L. Calvert, Jr. •JJ^KN*-* / 

Associate General Coui^eT/ 

Genera] Law and Advice 

Lorenzo HoUoway \ 

Assistant General Counsel 

Public Finance and Audit Advice 

MargaretLForman '"YS(\AE ^ 

Attomey 0" 

SUBJECT: Interim Audit Report on the National Right to Live Political Action 

Committee (LRA# 812) 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Oflice of General Counsel C'OGC") has reviewed the Interim Audit Report 

CTroposed Report") on the National Right to Life Political Action Committee ("NRL 

PAC" or "Committee"). We concur with Finding 1 (Misstatement of Financial Activity) 

and Finding 2 (Disclosure of Occupation and Name of Employer) in the Proposed Report. 

In its cover memorandum, the Audit Division requested a legal analysis of Finding 3 

(Duplicate Filing of Independent Expenditure Notices). We analyze this issue below.' If 
Memorandum to Patricia Carmona 

National Right to Life Political Action Committee lAR 

Page 2 

you have any questions, please contact Margaret J. Forman, the attomey assigned to this 

audit. 

II. DUPLICATE FILING OF ITEMIZED INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES 

DOES NOT VIOLATE 24/48-HOUR NOTICE RULE 

The Committee filed duplicate itemized independent expenditures in its 24/48-

hour notices, resulting in 935 more independent expenditures disclosed than required 

pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 434(g) and 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.4(b)(2) and 104.4(c). By "duplicate," 

we mean, for the most part, two separate scenarios. First, we understand that in some 

instances, the Conunittee simply filed the same notice of a single independent 

expenditure at least twice, and sometimes more often. Second, in a number of other 

instances, the Committee would file a notice of an independent expenditure; then it would 

file a notice of that expenditure and a subsequent one; then it would file a notice of the 

first two and a third, later one; etc. None of the duplicate filings resulted in substantive 

changes. 

The Committee told the auditors that it filed the duplicate itemized independent 

expenditures in its 24/48-hour notices because it did not completely understand how the 

Committee's campaign software worked. 

Committees aggregating $10,000 or more in independent expenditures with 

respect to a given calendar year up to and including the 20^ day before an election must 

file a notice with the Commission within 48 hours. 2 U.S.C. § 434(g)(2)(A); 

11 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(2). For each subsequent time that a committee's independent 

expenditures aggregate $10,000, the committee must likewise file another "48-hour 

notice" disclosing the independent expenditures, up to and including the 20^** day before 

the election. 2 U.S.C. § 434(g)(2)(B); 11 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(2). Less than 20 days before 

the election, the committee must disclose independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 

within 24 hours, by filing similar notices. Each time the committee's independent 

expenditures aggregate $1,000, the committee must continue to file these **24-hour 

notices" up to 24 hours before the day of the election. 2 U.S.C. § 434(g)(l)(A)&(B): 

11 C.F.R.§ 104.4(c). 

All of the Act's reporting requirements share with these requirements for 24/48-

hour notices of independent expenditures two basic characteristics. First, required reports 

must be filed on time. 11 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(2)&(c). Second, they must be both accurate, 

and complete: accurate in the sense that the infonnation reported must be factually 

correct, and complete in the sense that no information required to be reported may be 

omitted. See 11 C.F.R. § 104.4(f) (itemized independent expenditures in 24/48-hour 

notices must be aggregated in a specific manner); 11 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(2)&(c) and 

§ 104.3(b)(3)(vii) (itemized independent expenditures in 24/48-hour notices must include 

specified information, including the date, purpose, and whether in support/opposition to a 

specific candidate). 
Memorandum to Patricia Carmona 

National Right to Life Political Action Committee JAR 

Page 3 

In this case, there is no indication that substantially any of the independent 

expenditures at issue were disclosed untimely. Nor are any of the individual notices filed 

inaccurate, in the sense that they contain statements that are not factually correct. They 

merely re-report information that the committee has already disclosed in the same type of 

report. 

The duplicate reports are problematic in that they create a confiised and cluttered 

public record. Someone who is not a careful reader of the Committee's 24/48 hour 

notices might well conclude that the total amount of independent expenditures it made 

during a cmcial period before the election was considerably more than it actually was -

as much as $3.4 million more. On the other hand, to the extent they were available prior 

to the election - and some, because of die statutory filing schedule, were not - each of the 

next regular reports filed by the Committee disclosed a lesser amount of independent 

expenditures, which would provide a means by which the public could discern that the 

independent expenditures itemized in the 24/48-hour notices were duplicates.^ 

Despite the confusion resulting from the Committee's reports, however, it appears 

that essentially all of its independent expenditures were disclosed on time and accurately. 

Therefore, we conclude that the Committee does not appear to have violated 

2 U.S.C. § 434(g) and 11 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(2) and 104.4(c). 

We note that the draft Finding 3, as presented to us, contains a recommendation 

that NRL PAC document procedures to ensure accurate filing of 24/48-hour independent 

expenditure notices in the future. NRL PAC may well akeady be doing this in fulfillment 

of its conciliation agreement in MUR 6266. See MUR 6266 Conciliation Agreement, 

signed July 12,2010; see abo Memorandum to David O'Steen, from Lisa Lisker, 

Huckaby Davis Lister, Inc., October 2, 2010 (Compliance Management Plan listing steps 

NRL PAC is taking to "accurately track and report all fmancial activity on its regularly 

scheduled FEC reports as well as on 24 and 48 hour notices"). Given these events, it is 

our understanding that the auditors will consider removing this portion of the 

We note that while RAD did not send the Conunittee an RFAI on this issue, it did send a letter 

informing the Committee that once an independent expenditure has been disclosed on a 24/48 hour notice, 

it need not be disclosed again on additional 24/48 hour notices. 

The Commission's electronic filing system has an issue tfiat can potentially resuU in duplicative 

independent expenditures when filing the 24/48-hour notices on Schedule E, Itemized Independent 

Expenditures, tliough we have no infonnation that the duplicative independent expenditures in this audit 

resulted from this issue. Cunently, when a committee wishes to amend a previously filed 24/48<hour 

notice using Schedule E, there is nothing on the schedule to indicate that the filing is an amendment (unlike 

regular reports that include a box to check). Many committees wishing to amend these notices do so by 

including a memo text with Schedule E, indicating that the filing is an amendment to a specified, 

previously filed Schedule E notice. NRL PAC filed some memo texts indicating an amendment to their 

Schedule E. See e.g., 10/8/2008 48-hour report, FEC Image #28933386932 ("Correcting report just filed, 

anti-Obama expenses mistake[n]ly 5ic reported as anti-Thompson"): 10/10/2008 48-hour repoit, FEC 

Image #28992385003 ("Correcting report just filed, 48 hour report required for Pres., WI8, NV3, FL24"). 

However, this does not appear to have a relation to the committee's filing of "duplicate" notices. 
Memorandum to Patricia Carmona 

National Right to Life Political Action Committee lAR 

Page 4 

recommendation and including in the finding a discussion of steps taken by NRL PAC in 

accordance with the conciliation agreement in MUR 6266.