SANDLER, REIFF, LAMB, ROSENSTEBV & 

BIRKENSTOCK, P.C. 

June 24,2014 

Mr. Thomas Hinteimeister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Dear Mr. Hintermeister: 

This letter will serve as the response of the South Dakota Democratic Party ("SDDP") to the 

Interim Audit Report ("lAR") of the Federal Election Commission's Audit Division ("the Audit 

Division") for the period covering the NDP's financial activities for 2009 and 2010. 

The response to each of the Audit Division's three findings is as follows: 

Findinp #1 

The lAR's first finding involves the misstatement of committee activities for the calendar 

years 2009 and 2010. The committee had previously filed comprehensive amendments to the 2009 

reports. In response to the lA^ the SDDP has filed comprehensive amendments to its 2010 

reports. Please note that the amended reports will vary fixrm the Audit Report based upon our recent 

communication regarding a few srhall discrepancies noted between our research and the numbers 

provided in the lAR. 

Finding #2 

The lAR's second finding involved recordkeeping for payroll. The corrunittee has amended 

its reports to disclose all payroll expenses on Line 30b. Based upon these amoidments, it is our 

understanding that there is no further action required and the Audit Division considers this issue to 

be resolved. 

1025 VERMONT AVE., N.W., SUITE 300, WASHINGTON, DC 20005 • TEL: (202) 479-lin • FAX: (202)479-1115 
Finding #3 

The lAR's third finding involves an apparent excessive coordinated party expenditure on 

behalf of the SDDF's nominee for House of Representatives, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. As the 

SDDP stated during the exit conference, the committee did not exceed the coordinated expenditure 

limit. The SDDP inadvertently disclosed a volunteer exempt mailing on Line 25 of its reports. The 

mailing, in the amount of $19,529, should have been disclosed on Line 30b. During the Audit field 

work, the SDDP provided photographs that it believes were related to the mailing in question. In 

response to the Audit Division's recommendation, the SDDP is also providing a declaration from 

its former Executive Director (Attached as Exhibit A) that confirms that all exempt mail (including 

the mailing that was misrepoiW on Line 25) was undertaken with significant volunteer activity. In 

addition, the SDDP has amended its reports to move this payment to Line 30b. 

p 

Based upon the uncertainty of the amount of volunteer involvement required to satisfy the 

exemption, and based upon the information provided to the Audit Division by the SDDP, the Audit 

Division should consid^ this matter resolved. 

Finding #4 

The lAR's fourth finding involves the apparent receipt of contributions and receipts of 

$9,940 from non-political committees. The lAR recommended that the SDDP demonstrate that the 

contributions or payments were firom permissible sources, or refund the remaining amount to the 

U.S. Treasury. 

In response to the lAR, the committee has obtained letters fiem donors certifying that 

$3,440 of the contributions were fiem permissible sources (Attached as Exhibit B) (One of those 

contributions was for $1,300. Therefore the SDDP intends to refund the amount in excess of 

$1,000). In addition, the committee is attaching an invoice to demonstrate that the $5,000 receipt 

fiom Hediprim for Governor was intended to pay for the door hangers (the invoice for the door 

hangers are attached as Exhibit C) and the payment was not intended as a contribution. In addition, 

the SDDP has obtained a certification that the funds received by the Heidprim campaign to pay for 

the door hangers were from permissible sources. Based upon the above, foe SDDP will refbnd 

$1,800 to foe United States Treasury (attached as Exhibit D), which consists of two contributions 

totaling $1,500 where foe donors could not be reached to confirm that foe contributions consisted of 

permissible funds and an additioiud $300 for a contribution which exceeded foe $1,000 registration 

threshold by that amount. 

Finding #5 

The lAR's fifth finding involves foe reporting of occupation and employer for contributions 

received by the SDDP. The lAR states that foe SDDP, during foe audit period, had taken corrective 

action to materially correct any deficiencies in its disclosure of occupation and employers of SDDP 

donors and that no additional action was necessary. In addition, the SDDP has no further comment 

on this issue at this time. 
If you require any further information, or have any other questions, please call me at (202) 

479-1111. 

Neil Reiff 

Counsel to the South Dakota Democratic Party