Lisa J. Stevenson, Acting General Counsel (lstevenson@fec.gov) 

Kevin Deeley, Associate General Counsel (kdeeley@fec.gov) 

Harry J. Summers, Assistant General Counsel (hsummers@fec.gov) 

Jacob S. Siler, Attorney (jsiler@fec.gov) 

Tara J. Kilfoyle, Attorney (tkilfoyle@fec.gov) 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) 

 ) Case No. 2:15-cv-00439-DB 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) PLAINTIFF FEDERAL ELECTION

 v. ) COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR

 ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

JEREMY JOHNSON, ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) District Judge Dee Benson 

 ) Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 53
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT ................................................................................. 1

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ............................................................. 2

I. The Parties .......................................................................................................................... 2

II. Federal Investigations into Johnson’s Businesses .............................................................. 4

III. Johnson’s Efforts to Influence Elected Officials to Help His Businesses .......................... 7

IV. Johnson’s Contributions to the Federal Campaigns of Mark Shurtleff, Mike Lee, 

and Harry Reid .................................................................................................................... 8

V. The FEC’s Administrative Enforcement Proceedings against Johnson ........................... 18

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 19

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD......................................................................... 19

II. JOHNSON VIOLATED FECA BY MAKING EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS 

AND CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE NAMES OF OTHERS ............................................. 19

A. FECA’s Prohibition on Making an Excessive Contribution and on Making 

a Contribution in the Name of Another ................................................................ 19

1. Section 30116(a)(1)(A)’s Contribution Limit ........................................... 20

2. Section 30122’s Prohibition of Contributions in the 

Name of Another....................................................................................... 21

B. Johnson’s Unrecanted Admissions and Other Evidence Clearly 

Establishes That in 2010 He Made Approximately $70,000 in Conduit 

Contributions, in Violation of Sections 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122 ..................... 22

1. Johnson Admitted Making the Unlawful Contributions at Issue .............. 23

2. Substantial Other Evidence Shows That Johnson Made 

Excessive Conduit Contributions .............................................................. 26

III. THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER A CIVIL PENALTY AS WELL AS 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ............................................................ 34

A. This Court Should Order Johnson to Pay a Substantial Civil Penalty .................. 34

1. Johnson’s Violations Were Knowing and Willful .................................... 35

2. Johnson’s Violations Injured the Public ................................................... 37

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 53
ii 

3. The Necessity of Vindicating the FEC’s Authority and the 

Deterrent Effect of a Penalty ..................................................................... 38

4. Johnson’s Ability to Pay ........................................................................... 39

B. This Court Should Declare That Johnson Violated 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122, and Enjoin Johnson from 

Committing Future Violations of These Provisions ............................................. 39

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 40

 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 53
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s)

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................................... 19, 33 

Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 887 (10th Cir. 1991) ................................... 19 

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ............................................................................ 20, 21-22, 38 

Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village, 739 F.3d 451 (10th Cir. 2013) ............................................. 19 

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ............................................................................... 21 

Clifton v. Craig, 924 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1991) ........................................................................... 33 

FEC v. Comm. of 100 Democrats, 844 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993) .................................... 35, 38, 40 

FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate, 70 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D.D.C. 2014) ..................................... 35, 38, 39 

FEC v. Friends of Jane Harman, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ..................................... 35 

FEC v. Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................. 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 

FEC v. Nat’l Rifle Ass'n of Am., 553 F. Supp. 1331 (D.D.C. 1983) ............................................. 39 

FEC v. O'Donnell, 15-cv-17, 2017 WL 1404387 

(D. Del. Apr. 19, 2017) (unpublished) ............................................................ 35, 38, 39, 40 

FEC v. Rivera, 333 F.R.D. 282 (S.D. Fla. 2019) .......................................................................... 22 

FEC v. Swallow, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1113 (D. Utah 2018) ................................................... 22, 24, 30 

FEC v. Toledano, 317 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................... 33 

Holmes v. FEC, 875 F.3d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 20 

Mariani v. United States, 212 F.3d 761 (3d Cir. 2000) .......................................................... 21, 38 

McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) ............................................................................. 20, 38 

Murphy v. Facet 58, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (D. Utah 2004) ........................................... 25, 33 

Park Lake Res. Ltd. Liab. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agr., 378 F.3d 1132 (10th Cir. 2004)........................ 30 

Siemens Med. Sys., Inc. v. Nuclear Cardiology Sys., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1421 

(D. Colo. 1996) ................................................................................................................. 31 

United States v. Boender, 649 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2011) ............................................................... 29 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 53
iv 

United States v. Danielczyk, 788 F. Supp. 2d 472 (E.D. Va. 2011) ............................................. 36 

United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207 (5th Cir. 1990) ............................................................... 37 

United States v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (1975)................................................. 38-39 

United States v. Johnson, 732 F. App’x 638 (10th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) .......................... 3, 39 

United States v. O’Donnell, 608 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................... 21, 22 

United States v. Whittemore, 776 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................. 24, 26 

United States v. Whittemore, 944 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (D. Nev. 2013) ............................................ 36 

Statutes and Regulations

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, 

§ 315, 116 Stat. 81, 108 .................................................................................................... 22 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 

codified at 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101-30146 ............................................................................... 2 

18 U.S.C. § 2 ................................................................................................................................. 15 

18 U.S.C. § 1014 ............................................................................................................................. 3 

31 U.S.C. § 5361 ............................................................................................................................. 5 

52 U.S.C. § 30101(1) .................................................................................................................... 20 

52 U.S.C. § 30101(5) .................................................................................................................. 2, 3 

52 U.S.C. § 30102(e)(1) .................................................................................................................. 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30104 ......................................................................................................................... 20 

52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(3)(A) ...................................................................................................... 3, 21 

52 U.S.C. § 30106(b)(1) ................................................................................................................. 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30107(a)(8) .................................................................................................................. 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30109 ........................................................................................................................... 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1)-(6) .......................................................................................................... 19 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B) .......................................................................................................... 34 

52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(C) .................................................................................................... 34, 35 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 53
v 

52 U.S.C. § 30111(a)(8) .................................................................................................................. 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30111(d) ...................................................................................................................... 2 

52 U.S.C. § 30116(a) .................................................................................................................... 20 

52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) ................................................................................................ 2, 20, 40 

52 U.S.C. § 30122 ........................................................................................................... 2, 3, 21, 40 

UT Code § 20A-9-403; 406 .......................................................................................................... 21 

11 C.F.R. § 111.24(a)(1) (2010) ................................................................................................... 34 

11 C.F.R. § 111.24(a)(2)(i) (2010) ......................................................................................... 34, 35 

Miscellaneous

Dist. Utah Civ. R. 56-1 ................................................................................................................... 1 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ............................................................................................................................ 1 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................................... 19 

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2) ................................................................................................................... 8 

Fed. R. Evid. 804(a)(3) ................................................................................................................. 15 

Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3)(A) ........................................................................................................... 15 

122 Cong. Rec. 12, 197 (May 3, 1976) .................................................................................... 35-36

Department of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 

(8th ed. Dec. 2017)............................................................................................................ 22 

Price Index Increases for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations 

and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 

74 Fed. Reg. 7435 (Feb. 17, 2009) ............................................................................ 2-3, 21 

Restatement of Judgments (Second) § 13 (1982) ......................................................................... 31 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 53
1 

INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

Plaintiff Federal Election Commission (“Commission” or “FEC”) hereby moves for 

summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and District of Utah Civil 

Rule 56-1. During the 2009-2010 federal election cycle, defendant Jeremy Johnson knowingly 

and willfully violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) by using the names of other 

persons to make contributions far in excess of FECA’s then-applicable $2,400 per-election limit 

to the United States Senate campaigns of Mike Lee and Harry Reid. In total, Johnson 

contributed about $50,000 to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign and about $20,000 to Harry Reid’s 

Senate campaign by routing the money through third-party conduits. 

Johnson was aware of FECA’s contribution limit and its ban on contributions in the name 

of another because of discussions with former Utah Attorney General John Swallow, but Johnson 

chose to violate the law in the hope of receiving political favors from elected officials. 

Specifically, during the relevant time period, Johnson’s internet marketing business iWorks was 

under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). Johnson also owned companies 

that were involved with the processing of online poker transactions, at a time when other such 

entities were being investigated and shut down by federal authorities, with their assets seized. 

Due to discussions with Swallow and individuals involved in the online poker industry, Johnson 

believed that political donations could influence federal candidates and office holders to help 

stave off these legal threats to Johnson’s business activities. 

This Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the Commission and impose 

appropriate remedies on Johnson. FECA authorizes a penalty of up to $840,000 for the 

violations at issue. The Commission respectfully requests that this Court order Johnson to pay a 

civil penalty of $280,000, because his violations were knowing and willful, and a substantial 

penalty would vindicate the Commission’s authority and strengthen its ability to enforce FECA 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 53
2 

in the future. The Commission’s requested penalty is also appropriate because Johnson’s 

violations of FECA harmed the public by depriving the electorate of accurate information 

regarding the true source of campaign contributions and increased the risk and appearance of 

corruption of elected officials. The Commission further requests that this Court declare that 

Johnson knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122, and issue a 

permanent injunction to prevent future similar violations. 

STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 

I. The Parties 

1. The FEC is an independent agency of the United States with exclusive jurisdiction 

over the administration, interpretation, and civil enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (“FECA”), 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101-46. FECA empowers the Commission to formulate policy 

(id. § 30106(b)(1)); to make necessary rules and regulations (id. §§ 30107(a)(8), 30111(a)(8), 

30111(d)); and to civilly enforce the Act and the Commission’s implementing regulations (id.

§§ 30106(b)(1), 30109).1

2. FECA sets dollar limits on the amount any individual may contribute to a 

candidate for federal office or a candidate’s authorized political committee per election. See 

generally 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A). A candidate’s “principal campaign committee” is a type 

of authorized political committee to which individual contributions are limited. 52 U.S.C. 

§ 30101(5); id. § 30102(e)(1). During the 2009-2010 election cycle, the maximum amount an 

individual could contribute to a candidate or authorized political committee was $2,400 per 

election. Price Index Increases for Contribution and Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist 

 1

 Effective September 1, 2014, the provisions of FECA that were codified in Title 2 of the 

United States Code were recodified in a new title, Title 52. See Editorial Reclassification Table, 

http://uscode.house.gov/editorialreclassification/t52/Reclassifications_Title_52.html. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 53
3 

Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 74 Fed. Reg. 7435, 7437 (Feb. 17, 2009). 

3. FECA also requires federal campaigns to identify publicly each person who 

contributes in excess of $200 in any two-year election cycle. 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(3)(A). 

4. To enforce FECA’s disclosure requirements and to prevent circumvention of the 

source and amount limits on contributions, FECA further prohibits contributions made in the 

name of another person. 52 U.S.C. § 30122. Under that provision, “[n]o person shall make a 

contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect 

such a contribution and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in 

the name of another person.” Id.

5. Johnson is currently incarcerated in a federal prison after being convicted of 

violating 18 U.S.C. § 1014 by knowingly providing a material false statement to a bank for the 

purpose of influencing the bank’s action. United States v. Johnson, 732 F. App’x 638, 642 (10th 

Cir. 2018) (unpublished); see Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 12:4-7. 

6. Friends of Mike Lee, Inc., was the principal campaign committee of Mike Lee 

during his candidacy to represent Utah in the U.S. Senate during the 2010 election cycle. See 52 

U.S.C. § 30101(5); Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. Exh. 7, at 1. 

7. Friends for Harry Reid was the principal campaign committee of Harry Reid 

during his candidacy to represent Nevada in the U.S. Senate during the 2010 election cycle. See 

52 U.S.C. § 30101(5); Exh. 3, Johnson Dep. Exh. 10, at 1. 

8. Prior to his incarceration, Johnson was a wealthy businessman operating in 

southwest Utah. Johnson owned “[a]t least a dozen” businesses in various sectors, including 

manufacturing, retail, and service. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 15:8-14.) At their peak 

Johnson’s businesses had an income of approximately $20 million per year and employed over 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 53
4 

one thousand workers. (Id. at 15:15-16:6.) 

II. Federal Investigations into Johnson’s Businesses 

9. In late 2009 and early 2010, two of Johnson’s businesses came to the attention of 

federal authorities: Johnson’s poker transaction processing business and iWorks. iWorks was a 

software-based marketing company that relied on so-called negative options to offer various 

software and information products to customers. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 16:15-

18:4.) Under that strategy, iWorks offered customers access to information about government 

grants and other money-making opportunities in exchange for an upfront nominal shipping fee, 

but then charged recurring monthly fees until the customer affirmatively canceled the service. 

(See id. at 16:20-17:4.) 

10. In early 2010, Johnson became aware that the FTC was investigating whether 

iWorks’s use of negative options violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. (Exh. 1, Johnson 

Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 170:21-171:17; Exh. 4, Johnson Dep. Exh. 11.) Over the course of 2010, 

Johnson and iWorks participated in the FTC’s investigation into the company by producing 

documents. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 173:17-174:3.) 

11. The FTC ultimately filed a civil enforcement lawsuit in Nevada District Court 

against Johnson, iWorks, and other affiliated individuals and companies for violating the Federal 

Trade Commission Act by making various misrepresentations about iWorks products and failing 

to disclose adequately that customers would incur monthly charges unless they affirmatively 

canceled their service. Exh. 5, Compl. ¶¶ 4-10 (Docket No. 1), FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev. Dec. 21, 2010); see Exh, 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 171:6-14. 

12. Several other businesses Johnson owned or controlled were also under federal 

scrutiny between 2009 and 2010 in connection with investigations into the legality of online 

poker transaction processing in the United States. At that time, several international companies 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 53
5 

permitted customers in the United States to play online poker for real money, although it was at 

best uncertain whether that activity would be considered illegal gambling under federal law. See 

Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 191:19-192:7; see generally 31 U.S.C. § 5361 et seq. The 

online poker companies offering this service made money by charging a “rake,” or fee, for 

hosting poker games and tournaments. See generally Exh. 6, Nathan Vardi, PokerStars: Online 

Gambling’s Quiet Giant, Forbes, Feb. 10, 2010, https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/10/internetgambling-pokerstars-business-beltway-pokerstars.html. Because of the legal risk involved, U.S. 

credit card companies refused to process credit card transactions related to online poker. (Exh. 1, 

Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 193:8-20.) To get around this problem, online poker companies 

needed to affiliate with domestic payment companies to process financial transactions from 

customers’ bank accounts directly. (Id.) 

13. Johnson owned or was affiliated with numerous companies that offered this 

transaction processing service to two of the most prominent international poker sites: PokerStars 

and Full Tilt Poker (“Full Tilt”). (Exh, 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 192:8-17; see id. at 201:1-

5 (explaining that PokerStars and Full Tilt were “the only two companies that we ever dealt with 

for poker”).) PokerStars was founded by Isai Scheinberg, and Full Tilt Poker was founded by 

Raymond Bitar and others. (See id. at 82:10-19.) 

14. Johnson owned a company called “Elite Debit” which began processing online 

poker transactions in 2009 for PokerStars and Full Tilt after other processing entities had been 

shut down by federal authorities. Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 48:8-49:17; see generally

Exh. 7, Superseding Indictment, 21-24 (Docket No. 20), United States v. Scheinberg, et al., 10-

cr-336 (S.D.N.Y. filed April 14, 2011); Exh. 8, “Group Says Poker Winnings are Frozen,” Las 

Vegas Sun (June 12, 2009), https://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jun/12/group-says-pokerCase 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 11 of 53
6 

winnings-are-frozen/. 

15. Elite Debit’s role was to collect online poker players’ banking account 

information so that the amount of funds the players wished to use for play could be deposited in 

the players’ online playing account. Elite Debit would then compare that information to a 

database of known bad check writers, and assuming the customer did not appear on that list, the 

poker company would give an instant credit so that the customer could begin playing poker 

immediately. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 210:6-211:8.) 

16. Elite Debit would then send the transaction information to SunFirst Bank, a 

regional bank headquartered in St. George, Utah, and in which Johnson also held an ownership 

interest. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 16:12-14; id. at 211:12-18.) SunFirst would then 

transmit the transaction information to the Federal Reserve, which would debit the customer’s 

banking account by the specified amount and transfer the funds to a bank account at SunFirst. 

(Id. at 211:12-18.) 

17. One of the SunFirst bank accounts that received money in this fashion was owned 

by a company Johnson controlled called Triple Seven. Elite Debit would then recoup its fees 

from the funds deposited in Triple Seven’s account. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 

211:12-212:21.) 

18. Because neither PokerStars nor Full Tilt were U.S. companies, Johnson’s 

processing entities had difficulties transferring online poker proceeds back to those entities. 

Johnson’s solution to this problem was to recruit two brothers, Jason and Todd Vowell, to assist 

in transferring money overseas through the creation of Triple Seven. Todd Vowell was an 

accountant who had previously worked with Jason Vowell and Johnson on other business deals. 

Johnson worked with the Vowells and SunFirst bank to set up Triple Seven. (Exh. 1, Johnson 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 12 of 53
7 

Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 200:19-204:15; Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 22:9-14, 25:16-22.) 

19. Like the prior processing entities that had been shut down, Johnson’s poker 

processing operation quickly came under scrutiny by federal prosecutors. In March and April of 

2010, SunFirst Bank received subpoenas related to its poker processing from the United States 

Attorneys of Maryland and New York. Exh. 10, Utah House of Representatives, Report of the 

Special Investigative Committee 51 (Mar. 11, 2014). 

20. In November 2010, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ordered SunFirst 

Bank to stop all third-party payment processing transactions with Johnson-related poker 

processing entities. Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶ 15; Exh. 12, Consent Order, In re Sunfirst 

Bank St. George, Utah, FDIC-10-845b (Nov. 9, 2010), https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/ 

enforcement/2010-11-23.pdf. That action ended Johnson’s poker processing business. (Exh. 1, 

Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 196:3-14.) 

III. Johnson’s Efforts to Influence Elected Officials to Help His Businesses 

21. John Swallow was the Utah Attorney General from January 2013 through 

December 2013, when he resigned. See Exh. 13, History of the Utah Attorney General’s Office, 

Utah Office of the Attorney General (Nov. 19, 2018), https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/about/ 

history/. Johnson’s relationship with Swallow dates back to the 2000s, after Johnson had made a 

sizeable donation to Mark Shurtleff’s 2008 reelection campaign for Utah Attorney General. 

(Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 88:20-89:6.) Swallow at that time served as Chief Deputy 

Attorney General and as a fundraiser for that campaign. (FEC’s Am. Compl. ¶ 12 (Docket No. 

36); Def. John Swallow’s Answer to Am. Compl. (“Answer”) ¶ 12 (Docket No. 45).) 

22. In the midst of the federal investigations into Johnson’s business interests with 

iWorks and poker processing, Johnson conferred with John Swallow about how to seek the 

assistance of federal elected officials. In August 2010, Johnson spoke with Swallow about 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 13 of 53
8 

having then-U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch offer help with the FTC’s investigation into iWorks. (Exh. 

14, Johnson Dep. Exh. 12; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 177:11-22.) Johnson eventually 

met with Senator Hatch about that matter. (Id. at 178:1-22.) 

23. In September 2010, Swallow also connected Johnson to Richard Rawle, through 

whom Johnson sought to have then-U.S. Senator Harry Reid assist iWorks with the FTC’s 

investigation. (See Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 179:7-180:5; Exh. 15, Johnson Dep. 

Exh. 13.) Johnson and another iWorks employee eventually paid Rawle’s company $250,000 for 

assistance in lobbying for Senator Reid’s assistance with the FTC. (See Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. 

(Vol. 1) Tr. at 174:16-175:19; 181:1-183:8.) In a follow-up communication, Johnson explained 

to Rawle that iWorks would “do whatever it take [sic] to get Senator Reid on our side” regarding 

the FTC. (Exh. 16, Johnson Dep. Exh. 14; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 183:12-22.) 

IV. Johnson’s Contributions to the Federal Campaigns of Mark Shurtleff, Mike Lee, 

and Harry Reid 

24. In addition to securing meetings with elected officials, Johnson also made 

campaign contributions to federal candidates in the 2009-2010 election cycle as part of a strategy 

to protect his business interests. 

25. The first federal campaign to receive a contribution from Johnson was Shurtleff’s 

campaign for U.S. Senate.2

 In 2009, Johnson was responsible for approximately $100,000 in 

contributions to Shurtleff’s campaign. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 42:8-19 (Jan 9, 2014); 

see Exh. 18, Johnson Interview Tr. at 5:9-8:11 (Aug. 14, 2013).) Johnson initially attempted to 

write a $100,000 check to Shurtleff’s campaign, but he was told that it “has to come from . . . 

 2

 Johnson’s contributions to Shurtleff are outside the statute of limitations. Even so, these 

facts are relevant to the Commission’s claims because they establish Johnson’s knowledge of the 

relevant contribution limits and ability to evade those limits using conduit contributions, see Fed. 

R. Evid. 404(b)(2), and because they support issuance of the requested equitable relief. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 14 of 53
9 

different people” because a single person could give only $2,400 per election. (Exh. 19, Johnson 

Interview Tr. at 38:10-20 (Feb. 3, 2014); Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 61:5-21.) This was 

a problem for Johnson because he did not “know that many people who can write . . . checks” in 

that amount. (Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 38:16-17 (Feb. 3, 2014).) In response, Swallow 

told him that Johnson could “give them a gift, and they could donate that if they want.” (Id. at 

38:18-20; see Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 61:18-21.) 

26. On June 18, 2009, Johnson emailed Swallow to tell him that he had 

“commitments for $113,600” in contributions to Mark Shurtleff “with no 1 person donating more 

than $7200.” (Exh. 20, Johnson Dep. Exh. 3.) Johnson was aware at that time that there was a 

limit on the amount any one person could contribute to a federal candidate. (Exh. 1, Johnson 

Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 97:5-19.) The $7,200 figure reflected the potential for one individual to 

contribute to a single federal candidate in Utah in three elections during a two-year election 

cycle. See infra p. 21. 

27. After Shurtleff exited the race in late 2009, Johnson then decided to make 

contributions to Mike Lee’s campaign. (See Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Transcript at 24:20-

25:13 (Jan. 9, 2014); Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 45:10-47:2.) Johnson did so to “make 

Mike Lee our guy” who could “help make it so that” Johnson didn’t “have problems with [his] 

business.” (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 46:7-19.) Johnson’s strategy, developed in 

conversations with Swallow, was that if Lee was elected to the U.S. Senate, Lee would be 

involved in selecting the next U.S. Attorney in Utah. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Transcript at 

25:3-13, 34:6-18 (Jan. 9, 2014); see Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 47:15-48:12.) Having 

influence with the Utah U.S. Attorney, in Johnson’s view, would have made it more difficult for 

the U.S. Attorneys in other districts to “come in and cause mischief” with his poker processing. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 15 of 53
10 

(Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Transcript at 34:6-18 (Jan. 9, 2014); see also Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. 

(Vol. 1) Tr. at 46:16-19 (stating that Lee could “help make it so that” Johnson wouldn’t “have 

problems with [his] business”); Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Transcript at 37:10-38:5 (Feb. 3, 

2014).)

28. Because Johnson had previously contributed to Mark Shurtleff’s Senate campaign 

in 2009, he was aware in 2010 that there were limits on the amount of money any one person 

could give to a federal campaign. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 96:14-97:19; see Exh, 

20, Johnson Dep. Exh. 3.) Johnson confirmed with Swallow that those same limits applied to 

contributions to Mike Lee’s campaign. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 37:6-38:6 (Jan. 9, 

2014); Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 46:22-47:8 (Feb. 3, 2014).) Johnson, however, wanted 

to contribute money in excess of those limits. (Exh. 18, Johnson Interview Transcript at 6:16-

7:22 (Aug. 14, 2013).) 

29. Johnson gave money to third parties to enable them to donate to Mike Lee’s U.S. 

Senate campaign in 2010. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Transcript at 35:11-16 (Jan. 9, 2014) 

(“So I got people to give [the Lee campaign] money and most of them I had to end up giving 

them money to give the money; id. at 39:2-11 (“Yeah, I just said, hey, will you donate to Mike 

Lee? I’ll get you the money.”).) Johnson would “give someone a gift” and “they can donate it to 

the campaign,” (id. at 37:6-38:13), but he understood that “[i]t was [Johnson’s] money” and 

these third parties “didn’t actually donate any money.” See id at 39:2-11; Exh. 21, Johnson Dep. 

Exh. 33 (“[Swallow] told me that I can just give money to people and they can make the 

donation. It was an enormous pain in the ass to raise the amounts of money they wanted with the 

limits etc. Sometimes people’s checks would bounce and John would let me know.”); Exh. 9, 

Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 70:14-72:2 (authenticating Exhibit 33).) 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 16 of 53
11 

30. Johnson contributed at least $50,000 to Friends of Mike Lee, Inc. in 2010 using 

conduit contributions. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 22:10-17 (Jan. 9, 2014); id. at 42:15-

44:19; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 39:9-20.) The people Johnson donated “through” 

were his “family, . . . some employees, associates,” and “friends.” (Exh. 19, Johnson Interview 

Tr. at 40:14-41:1 (Feb. 3, 2014); Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 54:4-19.) Johnson 

financed these contributions in a variety of ways, but “mostly [he] gave them cash” as an 

advance on the contribution. (Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 54:15-19 (Feb. 3, 2014).)

31. Johnson used Triple Seven to finance conduit contributions. Triple Seven was 

controlled by Johnson and was funded, in substantial part, by Johnson’s money. (Exh. 22, 

Corrected Order Granting Mot. for Order Clarifying Prelim. Inj. Order and for Further Instrs. 

Regarding Scope of Receivership Defs’ Under Prelim. Inj. Order and Report of Receiver’s 

Financial Reconstruction (“Receiver Order”) at 3 and Exh. A (Docket No. 900), FTC v. Johnson, 

et al., No. 10-cv-2203 (D. Nev. Mar. 25 2013); Exh. 23, Arvin Lee Black II (“Lee Black”) Dep. 

Tr. at 47:21-48:19, 60:6-16, 161:18-162:9; Exh. 24, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 1, at 3; Exh. 25, Def. 

Jeremy Johnson’s Answers to FEC’s First Set of Discovery Reqs., Resp. to Req. for Admis. No. 

36; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 212:17-21; Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 23:4-13, 

30:22-31:7; Exh. 26, Jason Vowell Dep. Tr. at 47:5-9.) 

32. In the civil action that the FTC brought arising out of Johnson’s operation of 

iWorks (“iWorks litigation”), the United States District Court for the District of Nevada 

authorized a court-appointed receiver to seize Triple Seven’s assets, because the Court 

determined that those assets were really Johnson’s property. Exh. 22, Receiver Order at 3 and 

Exh. A (Docket No. 900), FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203; Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell 

¶ 16; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 238:15-239:4. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 17 of 53
12 

33. Johnson could direct Triple Seven to issue checks, and he directed Triple Seven to 

pay at least several hundred thousand dollars of his personal expenses, including his credit card 

balance, his casino account, and payments due to his attorneys. (Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell 

¶ 7; Exh. 25, Def. Jeremy Johnson’s Answers to FEC’s First Set of Disc. Reqs., Resp. to Req. for 

Admis. No. 36.) 

34. On May 17, 2010, Triple Seven issued a check in the amount of $9,600 to “cash.” 

(Exh. 27, Receiver Decl. ¶ 14 & Exh. J.) The purpose of this check was to fund “Cashier’s 

Checks for Mike Lee.” (Exh. 27, Receiver Decl. ¶ 16 & Exh. L.) 

35. Friends of Mike Lee received a $2,400 contribution from Jeremy Johnson himself 

on June 21, 2010. (Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. Exh. 7, at 8.) 

36. Johnson also gave his business partner C.J. Wade money to contribute to Mike 

Lee’s campaign. (Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 48:2-7 (Feb. 3, 2014) (“[L]ike C.J. Wade 

. . . I gave him the money. He wrote a check.”); Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 66:14-19.) 

Wade “wouldn’t have been interested in donating to Mike Lee, but [Johnson] talked him into it” 

by giving Wade money or allowing him to use cash from a car wash they co-owned. (Exh. 1, 

Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 150:19-151:4.) Friends of Mike Lee received a $2,400 contribution, 

purportedly from Christopher Wade, on June 21, 2010, the same day as Johnson’s personal 

contribution. (Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. Exh. 7, at 14; see Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 

150:3-9 (acknowledging that this is C.J. Wade).) 

37. Johnson attempted to make another $14,400, and successfully made $9,600, in 

contributions to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign through conduits recruited by his business 

associate at the time, Lee Black, and with money routed through Triple Seven. (Exh. 23, Lee 

Black Dep. Tr. at 48:24-51:17, 84:18-87:7, 87:22-88:5, 95:25-96:8; 97:2-20; 98:9-99:12, 108:8-

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 18 of 53
13 

109:14, 110:10-112:2, 113:11-114:3, 115:9-116:11, 117:13-118:2, 120:15-121:16, 127:13-

129:07, 130:5-131:8; Exh. 24, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 1; Exh. 28, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 2; Exh, 29, 

Lee Black Dep. Exh. 4; Exh. 30, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 5; Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 21:1-

23:10, 24:13-21; Exh. 32, Kyle Boyer Dep. Exh. 1; Exh. 33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 19:1-23; 

Exh. 34, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Exh. 1; Exh. 35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-10 and Exhs. A-I; 

Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶¶ 6-16 and Exhs. A-H; Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶¶ 

5-8 and Exhs. C, D; Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶¶ 11-12 and Exh. C; Exh. 27, Receiver 

Decl. ¶ 16 and Exh. L.) 

38. Jason Vowell was responsible for “networking” for Triple Seven. (Exh. 26, Jason 

Vowell Dep. Tr. at 23:3-8.) He was also nominally the manager of Triple Seven, and was 

authorized to sign checks on Triple Seven’s behalf. (Exh. 26, Jason Vowell Dep. Tr. at 22:11-

23:2, 39:11-23; Exh. 38, Jason Vowell Dep. Exh. 2, at 2, 12, 14; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 

30:6-31:9; Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 34:9-11.) 

39. Johnson could have cut the Vowells off from Triple Seven any time that he 

wanted. (Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 23:4-13.) 

40. From approximately 2007 to 2012, Lee Black owned an investment company 

called Sole Group, LLC (“Sole Group”). (Exh. 39, Statement by Def. in Advance of Plea of 

Guilty Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) at 4 (Docket No. 16), United States of America v. 

Arvin Lee Black II, 13-cr-836 (D. Utah Jan. 10, 2014); Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶ 14.) In 

2014, Lee Black pled guilty to and was convicted of wire fraud and money laundering arising out 

of his operation of Sole Group. Exh. 40, J. in a Criminal Case (Docket No. 35), United States of 

America v. Arvin Lee Black II, 13-cr-836 (D. Utah May 27, 2014). 

41. Jason Vowell first introduced Lee Black to Johnson. (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 19 of 53
14 

Tr. at 42:22-25.) By 2010, Lee Black and Sole Group were investing the money of online poker 

businesses and entities nominally owned or managed by the Vowells, but actually owned and 

controlled by Johnson, including Triple Seven. (Exh. 22, Receiver Order at 3 and Exh. A 

(Docket No. 900), FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 27:19-

29:7, 37:21-25, 46:21-48:21, 62:2-64:12; Exh. 24, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 1, at 3; Exh. 11, Decl. of 

Todd Vowell ¶ 144; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. Tr. (Vol. 1) at 237:3-21; Exh. 41, Johnson Dep. Exh. 

18.) 

42. Johnson and others involved in the online poker industry asked Lee Black to 

invest their money because SunFirst Bank was concerned that its auditors would become 

suspicious if the bank held too much money from online poker businesses. (Exh. 1, Johnson 

Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 220:11-222:5, 224:21-225:18, 237:17-21.) 

43. Millions of dollars of money that originated with Johnson passed through Lee 

Black and Sole Group. Exh. 42, Report of Receiver’s Financial Reconstruction at 15, 52-54 

(Docket No. 464), FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2012); Exh. 24, Lee 

Black Dep. Exh. 1 at 3. 

44. Johnson usually conducted business with Lee Black through the Vowells, rather 

than directly with Lee Black. (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 46:21-48:22.) 

45. In 2010, Johnson had discussions with the Vowells about the need to get as many 

contributions as possible for Mike Lee’s Senate campaign. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 

52:14-53:3, 132:21-133:4; Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶ 8; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 

50:19-51:1.) 

46. In 2010, Jason Vowell told Lee Black that Johnson needed him to find conduits to 

make $2,400 contributions to Mike Lee’s campaign, which would be reimbursed with Johnson’s 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 20 of 53
15 

money.3

 (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 48:24-51:17.) 

47. Lee Black wanted to continue doing business with Johnson through the Vowells, 

and therefore, he recruited relatives, employees, and friends to make conduit contributions to 

Mike Lee’s Senate campaign. (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 48:24-51:2, 76:20-77:25, 95:25-

96:8, 108:8-109:11, 110:10-13, 117:13-118:2, 127:13-129:7; Exh. 24, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 1, at 

3.) 

48. The following individuals issued $2,400 contribution checks to Mike Lee’s 

Senate campaign: (1) Lee Black, by check dated June 11, 2010; (2) Lee Black’s wife at the time, 

Atia Black, by check dated June 10, 2010; (3) Lee Black’s friend Kyle Boyer, who worked for a 

homebuilding company that Lee Black owned, by check dated June 11, 2010; (4) Kyle Boyer’s 

wife, Tiffany Boyer, by check dated June 11, 2010; (5) Lee Black’s younger brother, Matthew 

Black, by check dated June 11, 2010; and (6) Savannah Jones, who was employed by Sole Group 

as a secretary, by check dated June 14, 2010. (Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 6 and Exh. A; Exh. 

35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-10 and Exhs. A, C, E, G, H, I; Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah 

Jones Carter ¶ 7 and Exh. A; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 17:25-18:9, 50:9-13, 54:11-17, 

84:17-85:4, 105:2-23, 106:9-20, 108:8-109:14; 124:20-22; Exh. 30, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 5; Exh. 

31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 9:23-10:5, 21:1-25, 32:5-22; Exh. 32, Kyle Boyer Dep. Exh. 1; Exh. 

33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 19:1-23; Exh. 34, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Exh. 1.) 

 3

 During his deposition in this matter, Jason Vowell testified that he did not remember 

whether he had conversations with Lee Black about contributions to candidates for political 

office in 2010. (Exh. 26, Jason Vowell Dep. Tr. at 101:12-102:1.) As a result of his testimony 

that he cannot remember, Jason Vowell is unavailable as a witness pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Evidence 804(a)(3). Accordingly, his statements to Lee Black are excepted from the rule against 

hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)(A) because they exposed him to criminal 

liability. Jason Vowell’s statements indicate that he aided and abetted Johnson’s knowing and 

willful financing of the contributions of others, which could have been criminally prosecuted 

under 18 U.S.C. § 2. See FEC v. Swallow, 304 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1117 n.1 (D. Utah 2018). 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 21 of 53
16 

49. All of these individuals understood that their contribution checks would be 

reimbursed at the time that they issued them. (Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 7 and Exhs. C and 

D; Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶¶ 6-7; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 50:7-13; 

97:16-20; 108:11-109:3; 110:19-111:1; Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 21:1-23:10, 24:13-21, 

Exh. 33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 20:13- 25, 25:11-17.) 

50. None of these individuals were interested in Mike Lee or his policies, and they 

would not have made or attempted to make $2,400 contributions to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign 

if they had not anticipated being reimbursed. (Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 28:21-23; Exh. 

33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 19:1-23 , 20:13-21:9, 25:11-17; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 

88:22-89:1, 89:4-7, 99:13-100:2, 112:3-12, 116:12-21, 121:17-122:1, 131:9-22.) 

51. On June 14, 2010, Triple Seven made a payment of $14,400 to Sole Group, either 

by check number 5075 or by cashier’s check number 039770, which indicated that it “Replace[d] 

Check 5075.” (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 79:4-18, 81:11-82:23, 84:3-5; Exhs. 28, 29, Lee 

Black Dep. Exhs. 2, 4; Exh. 43, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 3.) 

52. The purpose of that $14,400 payment by Triple Seven was to reimburse conduit 

contributions to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign. (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 79:2-80:10; Exh. 

11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶¶ 11-12, 14 and Exh. C; Exh. 27, Receiver Decl. ¶ 16 & Exh. L.) 

53. On the same day that Triple Seven paid $14,400 to Sole Group, Sole Group in 

turn issued $2,400 checks to Savannah Jones, Lee Black, Atia Black, Kyle Boyer, Tiffany Boyer, 

and Matthew Black. These checks were prepared by Savannah Jones at Lee Black’s direction, 

and they were issued to reimburse contributions to Mike Lee’s campaign. (Exh. 36, Decl. of 

Savannah Jones Carter ¶¶ 8, 11-16 and Exhs. B, D-H; Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 7 and Exhs. 

B-D; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 54:11-55:6, 85:23-87:7, 98:11-99:6, 111:3-21, 115:9-116:5, 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 22 of 53
17 

120:15-121:10, 130:5-131:2; Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 25:21-26:2, 27:6-11, 33:12-34:18.) 

54. Although Kyle and Tiffany Boyer’s two $2,400 checks each cleared, the 

remaining four $2,400 conduit contribution checks to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign bounced. 

(Exh. 35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-10 and Exhs. A, C, E, G, H, I; Exh. 36, Decl. of 

Savannah Jones Carter ¶ 9; Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 6; Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. Exh. 7, at 17, 

121-23; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 132:10-133:4.) 

55. Mike Lee’s Senate campaign reported receiving contribution checks that were 

returned for insufficient funds from only five individuals in June of 2010. (See Exh. 2, Johnson 

Dep. Exh. 7, at 121-23 (reporting bounced checks as disbursements to five individuals for the 

purpose of “NSF”).) Four of those individuals were Lee Black, Atia Black, Matthew Black, and 

Savannah Jones. (Id.) 

56. Johnson explained that because he was under pressure to get contributions 

quickly, the contribution checks that his conduits issued would sometimes bounce because the 

campaign would deposit the checks before the conduits received or deposited their 

reimbursements. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 41:16-42:7 (Jan. 9, 2014); Exh. 19, Johnson 

Interview Tr. at 41:4-20, 55:18-56:5 (Feb. 3, 2014).) 

57. On June 21, 2010, the day before the 2010 Republican primary in Utah, Swallow 

and Johnson engaged in an email exchange regarding four bounced contribution checks to Mike 

Lee’s campaign. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 152:8 –154:18; Exh. 44, Johnson Dep. 

Exh. 9.) Johnson promised to get the issue “fixed.” (Exh. 44, Johnson Dep. Exh. 9.) 

58. By June 22, 2010, the day of the Republican primary, Atia Black, Savannah 

Jones, and Matthew Black, three of the four conduits whose contribution checks had bounced, 

issued new $2,400 contribution checks to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign. (Exh. 35, Decl. of 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 23 of 53
18 

Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-7 and Exhs. B, D, F; Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶ 10 and 

Exh. C; Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 8 and Exh. E.) 

59. The new contribution check that Matthew Black issued bounced, but the new 

contribution checks that Atia Black and Savannah Jones issued to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign 

cleared. (Exh. 35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-7 and Exhs. B, D, F; Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. 

Exh. 7, at 15, 61, 122; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 132:10-133:4.) 

60. Johnson also contributed at least $20,000 to Friends for Harry Reid in 2010 using 

conduit contributions. (Exh. 18, Johnson Interview Tr. at 6:4-22 (Aug. 14, 2013); Exh. 19, 

Johnson Interview Tr. at 52:12-55:5 (Feb. 3, 2014).) Friends for Harry Reid received a $2,400 

contribution from Johnson on July 14, 2010. (Exh. 3, Johnson Dep. Exh. 10, at 2.) In addition to 

his own contribution, Johnson worked to “round up some more donations for Harry Reid” with 

others in the online poker business. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) at 168:1-16.) 

61. Johnson did not support Harry Reid politically, so he “wouldn’t have normally” 

contributed to Reid. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 74:20-22; see id. at 164:8-14; Exh. 19, 

Johnson Interview Tr. at 52:12-13 (Feb. 3, 2014).) Johnson did so, however, as “part of a large 

strategy” with Bitar and other poker businesspeople to “make it so [he didn’t] have problems 

with processing poker.” (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 75:3-11.) Johnson also believed 

that Bitar and others had separately given money to Reid to entice Reid to support legislation that 

would be favorable to the online poker industry. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 76:19-

78:4.) 

V. The FEC’s Administrative Enforcement Proceedings against Johnson 

62. On June 30, 2014, the Alliance for a Better Utah and Maryann Martindale filed an 

administrative complaint with the FEC, alleging that in 2010, Johnson made approximately 

$50,000 in contributions in the name of others to Mike Lee’s Senate campaign. (FEC’s Am. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 24 of 53
19 

Compl. ¶ 50; Answer ¶ 8.) 

63. Prior to filing the complaint in this lawsuit, the Commission satisfied all of 

FECA’s statutory prerequisites that must be met before initiating a civil action. 52 U.S.C. § 

30109(a)(1)-(6); FEC’s Am. Compl. ¶¶ 50-58; Answer ¶¶ 8-16. 

ARGUMENT 

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 

A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The moving party has the initial burden to show ‘that there is an absence of 

evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.’” Bacchus Indus., Inc. v. Arvin Indus., Inc., 939 

F.2d 887, 891 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). 

“Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show 

that there is a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. In doing so, the nonmoving party “may not 

rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings” to avoid summary judgment.” 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “A fact is material if, under the 

governing law, it could affect the outcome of the lawsuit.” Cillo v. City of Greenwood Vill., 739 

F.3d 451, 461 (10th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted). 

II. JOHNSON VIOLATED FECA BY MAKING EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS 

AND CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE NAMES OF OTHERS 

Johnson’s own admissions and considerable other evidence establish beyond genuine 

dispute that he violated FECA’s bans on excessive contributions and on making contributions in 

the names of others in connection with campaigns for U.S. Senate in 2010. 

A. FECA’s Prohibition on Making an Excessive Contribution and on Making a 

Contribution in the Name of Another 

Congress enacted FECA and its subsequent amendments in significant part to “limit the 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 25 of 53
20 

actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial contributions.” 

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 26 (1976) (per curiam). This case involves two important pillars 

of FECA that Congress enacted to pursue that goal: the limit on the dollar amounts any one 

individual can contribute to a candidate for federal office and the requirement that individuals 

whose contributions exceed a certain threshold disclose those contributions publicly. See id. at 

7; see generally 52 U.S.C. §§ 30104, 30116(a). 

1. Section 30116(a)(1)(A)’s Contribution Limit 

“The integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined” when “large 

contributions are given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office 

holders.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26-27. To that end, FECA imposes limits on the amount that 

individuals or entities may contribute to federal candidates and other defined political groups. 52 

U.S.C. § 30116(a). The precise limitation depends on the type of entity making and receiving 

the contribution. Id. This limit applies on a per-election basis, and therefore a donor may give 

up to the maximum in both a primary and a general election. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A); id.

§ 30101(1); see Holmes v. FEC, 875 F.3d 1153, 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 

The Supreme Court has upheld these contribution limits as a permissible means of 

pursuing the government’s “strong interest . . . in combatting corruption and its appearance,” an 

interest the Court has long recognized is “critical to our democratic system.” McCutcheon v. 

FEC, 572 U.S. 185, 227 (2014) (plurality op.). “Under a system of private financing of 

elections,” candidates “must depend on financial contributions from others to provide the 

resources necessary to conduct a successful campaign.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26. By requiring 

that all contributions be made within a set of defined limits, FECA’s contribution limits reduce 

the “opportunity for abuse inherent in the process of raising large monetary contributions.” Id. at 

30. These limits are “preventative,” because the “pernicious practices” related to direct 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 26 of 53
21 

contributions to candidates “can never be reliably ascertained.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 

U.S. 310, 356-57 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

As relevant here, during the 2009-2010 election cycle FECA prohibited any person from 

contributing in excess of $2,400 per election to any candidate for federal office and his or her 

authorized political committee. See Price Index Increases for Contribution and Expenditure 

Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 74 Fed. Reg. 7435-02, 7437 (Feb. 17, 

2009). Utah law in certain circumstances contemplates that a single candidate may participate in 

a party’s nominating convention, a primary election, and a general election all within the same 

two-year election cycle. See UT Code § 20A-9-403; 406. This occurred in the Republican Party 

nomination process in 2010, and therefore the maximum any person could give to a federal 

candidate in that year was $7,200, divided between three elections. 

2. Section 30122’s Prohibition of Contributions in the Name of Another 

FECA also requires that the authorized campaign committees of federal candidates 

identify their large contributors. See 52 U.S.C. § 30104(b)(3)(A) (requiring campaigns to 

identify each person contributing “in excess of $200” in an election cycle). To make this 

disclosure provision effective, FECA provides that “[n]o person shall make a contribution in the 

name of another person,” 52 U.S.C. § 30122, thereby ensuring that the “true source[s] of 

contributions [are] disclosed.” Mariani v. United States, 212 F.3d 761, 775 (3d Cir. 2000). 

The prohibition on making a contribution in the name of another is crucial to FECA’s 

anticorruption goals. Without the prohibition, individuals or campaigns could “thwart disclosure 

requirements and contribution limits” by attributing contributions to false name or straw donors. 

United States v. O’Donnell, 608 F.3d 546, 549 (9th Cir. 2010). False attributions of that type 

undermine the government’s interests in providing the electorate with “information as to where 

political campaign money comes from and how it is spent by the candidate.” Buckley, 424 U.S. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 27 of 53
22 

at 66-67. The prohibition on contributions in the name of another also prevents circumvention 

of FECA’s contribution limits. O’Donnell, 608 F.3d at 549. In particular, the ban ensures that 

corporations, unions, and foreign nationals — all of whom are prohibited from contributing to 

federal candidates — do not evade FECA’s restrictions by contributing in the names of those 

who are permitted to contribute. FEC v. Rivera, 333 F.R.D. 282, 286 (S.D. Fla. 2019). And it 

prevents donors who have contributed the maximum to a candidate from evading those limits by 

financing the contributions of others. See id.

Violations of section 30122 are some of the most significant offenses under FECA. 

Reflecting the importance of the provision, Congress expanded the potential penalties for 

knowing and willful violations of the prohibition on conduit contributions in 2002. See 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-155, § 315, 116 Stat. 81, 108 (2002). 

Even with these increased penalties, contributing in the name of another remains a common way 

for individuals to conceal illicit contributions, making section 30122 one of FECA’s “most 

frequently violated prohibitions.” Department of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election 

Offenses 141 (8th ed. Dec. 2017). 

As this Court recognized in its prior opinion in this matter, section 30122 reaches socalled “conduit contribution[s],” which occur “when a person provides funds to another person 

(the conduit) who contributes the funds to the candidate.” FEC v. Swallow, 304 F. Supp. 3d 

1113, 1115 (D. Utah 2018). Concealed conduit contributions remain prohibited regardless of 

whether the true source of the donation provides the funds to the conduit in advance of the 

contribution or as a reimbursement after the fact. O’Donnell, 608 F.3d at 550-51. 

B. Johnson’s Unrecanted Admissions and Other Evidence Clearly Establishes 

That in 2010 He Made Approximately $70,000 in Conduit Contributions, in 

Violation of Sections 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122 

There is no genuine dispute of fact that Johnson reimbursed or advanced at least $70,000 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 28 of 53
23 

to third parties so that they could contribute to the 2010 Senate campaigns of Mike Lee and 

Harry Reid. Rather, the undisputed evidence — which includes Johnson’s own statements and 

contemporaneous documentary evidence — establishes that Johnson violated both sections 

30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122 by making excessive contributions through conduits. 

1. Johnson Admitted Making the Unlawful Contributions at Issue 

During interviews with law enforcement officials in 2013 and 2014, Johnson repeatedly 

admitted all the facts necessary to establish liability. In these interviews, Johnson explained that 

he recruited associates to donate money to the Lee and Reid campaigns “as though it was coming 

from them” even though Johnson was “going to pay the money.” (Exh. 18, Johnson Interview 

Tr. at 8:1-11 (Aug. 14, 2013); see also Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 35:12-16 (Jan. 9, 2014) 

(“So I got people to give [the Lee campaign] money and most of them I had to end up giving 

them money to give the money.”); id. at 39:4-6 (“Yeah, I just said, hey, will you donate to Mike 

Lee? I’ll get you the money.”); Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 52:12-56:5 (Feb. 3, 2014) 

(same for the Reid campaign).) Johnson did this despite knowing that there were limits on how 

much he could donate to a federal candidate and that making these conduit contributions would 

be in excess of those limits. (Exh. 18, Johnson Interview Tr. at 6:16-7:22 (Aug. 14, 2013); see 

also Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 97:13-19.) 

In total, Johnson admitted to contributing $50,000 to Mike Lee’s 2010 campaign through 

conduits. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 22:10-17 (Jan. 9, 2014).) And he admitted to 

contributing another $20,000 through conduits to Harry Reid’s 2010 reelection campaign. (Exh. 

19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 52:20-54:14 (Feb. 3, 2014).) Johnson executed this scheme by 

giving “cash” to friends and business partners for them to donate. (See, e.g., Exh. 19, Johnson 

Interview Tr. at 47:16-48:7 (Feb. 3, 2014).) In other instances, Johnson recruited intermediaries 

to find others to contribute with money Johnson controlled. (See id. at 54:22-55:5 (“[I]n some 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 29 of 53
24 

instances, like I would just instruct other people to go get the money.”).) 

These facts establish that Johnson is liable for the two FECA violations alleged here. 

Giving money to friends and business partners so that they may contribute to a federal candidate 

is a straightforward violation of section 30122. See Swallow, 304 F. Supp. 3d at 1115. And 

because Johnson contributed the per-election maximum of $2,400 to both Senate campaigns in 

his own name, his contributions through conduits are excessive contributions under section 

30116(a)(1)(A). See, e.g., United States v. Whittemore, 776 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 2015). 

It does not matter that Johnson purportedly structured some of the transactions to his 

conduits as gifts or bonuses that they could choose to use to contribute to a campaign. (See Exh. 

17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 37:11-38:19 (Jan. 9, 2014); Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 

76:16-77:15; Exh. 21, Johnson Dep. Exh. 33, at 2.) The maker of an illegal conduit contribution 

is not immune from liability merely because the true source gives the conduit money as a gift or 

bonus and asks the conduit to contribute using those funds. Whittemore, 776 F.3d at 1078. In 

Whittemore, the court affirmed the conviction of a true source who had characterized his 

transfers to his conduits as “bonuses” or “gifts,” holding that the defendant’s “theory that 

unconditional gifts . . . cannot be conduit contributions in violation of federal law is not 

supported by law.” Id. at 1077, 1078. Similarly here, the mere fact that Johnson may claim now 

that he gave third parties a gift and asked them to contribute it does not create a factual dispute 

that prevents summary judgment. 

Johnson has not recanted any of his prior admissions to law enforcement. In fact, during 

his deposition Johnson denied saying anything in the interviews that was “not the truth.” (Exh. 

1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 29:12-16 (explaining that “that’s not how it was”).) Instead, 

Johnson vaguely asserted in his deposition that his criminal attorney, Ronald Yengich, instructed 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 30 of 53
25 

him to be “misleading” and to tell a “version of the truth” that was how “the government 

want[ed] the information to be,” because it would be “good for [Johnson’s] case” in some 

unspecified way. (Id. at 23:5-10, 24:8-25:6.)4 

 This “conclusory and self-serving” testimony is insufficient to create a genuine dispute 

of material fact in light of Johnson’s specific admissions. See Murphy v. Facet 58, Inc., 329 F. 

Supp. 2d 1260, 1268 (D. Utah 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Johnson’s recorded 

statements to investigators in 2013 and 2014 lay out with specificity violations of FECA. In 

those statements, Johnson specifically acknowledges that third parties used his money to donate 

to Mike Lee and Harry Reid. For example, Johnson confirmed that those third parties “didn’t 

actually donate any money” and that he would “get [them] the money” if they would “donate to 

Mike Lee.” (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 39:2-6 (Jan. 9, 2014).) In light of Johnson’s 

deposition testimony in this case that he did not say things that were totally false, but only 

misleading, there is no dispute that Johnson violated FECA. 

Johnson’s other explanations regarding his admissions to law enforcement officials in 

2013 and 2014 similarly fail to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Specifically, Johnson 

attempted to explain his admission of funding the contributions of others by suggesting that they 

were entitled to the money in any event. (See, e.g., Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 68:5-8.) 

The only donor to Mike Lee or Harry Reid in 2010 that Johnson could identify as falling into this 

group was C.J. Wade, with whom Johnson co-owned a car wash. (Id. at 67:14-70:10.) Johnson 

testified that Wade “wouldn’t have been interested in donating to Mike Lee” and so Johnson 

either “gave him money or told him he could use money from the car wash” to finance the 

 4

 Yengich provided a sworn affidavit in this case stating that “[n]one of the investigators 

present at the interview induced or otherwise encouraged Mr. Johnson to provide false 

information.” (Exh. 45, Yengich Decl. ¶ 3.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 31 of 53
26 

contribution. (Id. at 150:21-151:2.) Under Johnson’s theory, Wade owned part of the car wash 

and was entitled to some of the money. (See id. at 67:13-18.) 

But even assuming the accuracy of Johnson’s testimony, accelerating the payment of 

money to a business partner in exchange for their contribution to a federal candidate would still 

be a violation of section 30122. That is because an “advance” of money “to another person for 

the purpose of causing that other person to make a contribution in that other person’s name” is an 

illegal conduit contribution. Whittemore, 776 F.3d at 1080. Johnson’s explanations, therefore, 

do not create a genuine dispute of material fact.5

Finally, the interviews with law enforcement were not the only times Johnson has 

admitted making the unlawful contributions at issue. During a March 2014 ABC News 

interview, Johnson represented that, at the direction of online poker figures, he had recruited 

straw donors to make contributions to Mike Lee and Harry Reid. (Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) 

Tr. at 66:3-68:7; Exh. 46, Johnson Dep. Exh. 32 at 3.) He has likewise failed to recant those 

statements. (Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 66:3-68:7.) 

2. Substantial Other Evidence Shows That Johnson Made Excessive 

Conduit Contributions 

A great deal of undisputed other evidence corroborates Johnson’s admissions that he 

made excessive contributions in the names of others. For example, on May 17, 2010, the 

Johnson-controlled company Triple Seven issued a $9,600 check to “cash” that was used to 

finance contributions to Mike Lee’s U.S. Senate campaign. (Exh. 27, Receiver Decl. ¶ 14, 16 & 

Exhs. J, L.) Moreover, with regard to the conduit contribution made through Johnson’s business 

 5

 Johnson also identified Terrason Spinks as someone to whom Johnson had accelerated 

payments in exchange for a contribution to a federal candidate. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) 

Tr. at 123:21-124:14.) There are no records, however, indicating that Spinks contributed to 

either Harry Reid or Mike Lee during the relevant time period. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 32 of 53
27 

partner C.J. Wade, discussed above, records show that the Lee campaign received a $2,400 

contribution apparently from Wade on June 21, 2010, the same day as Johnson’s own 

contribution. (Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. Exh. 7, at 14; see Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 

150:3-9.) 

In addition, considerable documentary and testimonial evidence shows that at least 

$9,600 of Johnson’s conduit contributions to Mike Lee’s campaign went through Triple Seven 

and Sole Group. As an initial matter, it is undisputed that, in 2010, Lee Black and his company 

Sole Group conducted substantial business for Johnson through Triple Seven and other entities 

nominally owned or managed by the Vowells. (Exh. 42, Report of Receiver’s Financial 

Reconstruction at 15, 52-54 (Docket No. 464), FTC v. Johnson, et al., No. 10-CV-02203; Exh. 

11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶ 14; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 27:19-29:7, 37:21-25, 46:21-

48:21, 62:2-64:11; Exh. 24, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 1 at 3; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. Tr. (Vol. 1) at 

237:3-21; Exh. 41, Johnson Dep. Exh. 18.) Johnson also does not dispute that he discussed with 

the Vowells the need to generate large numbers of contributions to the Lee campaign. (Exh. 1, 

Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 52:14-53:3, 132:21-133:4; Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶ 8; Exh. 

23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 50:19-51:1.) And after Jason Vowell told Lee Black that Johnson 

needed his help finding conduits, Black recruited his relatives, friends, and employees to make 

conduit contributions to the Lee campaign, in the interest of maintaining his business relationship 

with Johnson. (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 48:24-51:17, 95:25-96:8; 97:2-20; 98:9-99:12, 

108:8-109:14, 110:10-112:2, 113:11-114:3, 115:9-116:11, 117:13-118:2, 120:15-121:16, 127:13-

129:07, 130:5-131:8; Exh. 24, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 1, at 3; see also Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. 

Tr. at 21:1-23:10, 24:13-21; Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶¶ 6-7 and Exhs. A-B, DH; Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶¶ 5-7 and Exhs. C, D.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 33 of 53
28 

The result was that on or before June 14, 2010, six conduits each issued $2,400 

contribution checks to Mike Lee’s campaign: Lee Black, Atia Black, Matthew Black, Kyle 

Boyer, Tiffany Boyer, and Savannah Jones. (Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 6 and Exh. A; Exh. 

35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-10 and Exhs. A, C, E, G, H, I; Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah 

Jones Carter ¶ 7 and Exh. A; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 84:17-85:4; Exh. 30, Lee Black 

Dep. Exh. 5; Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 21:1-25, 32:5-22; Exh. 32, Kyle Boyer Dep. Exh. 

1; Exh. 33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 19:1-23; Exh. 34, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Exh. 1.) None of 

these individuals was interested in Mike Lee, and if they had not been reimbursed, none of them 

would have attempted to contribute $2,400 to Mike Lee’s campaign. (Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. 

Tr. at 28:21-23; Exh. 33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 19:1-23 , 20:13-21:9, 25:11-17; Exh. 23, Lee 

Black Dep. Tr. at 88:22-89:1, 89:4-7, 99:13-100:2, 112:3-12, 116:12-21, 121:17-122:1, 131:9-

22.) In fact, Tiffany Boyer was not even aware that Mike Lee was a candidate for Senate at the 

time that she issued her contribution check; instead, she was under the impression that he was 

someone connected with her husband’s work for Lee Black. (Exh. 33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 

19:1-23 , 20:13-21:9, 21:24-22:8.) 

On June 14, 2010, Triple Seven, a company controlled by Johnson and funded in 

substantial part with Johnson’s money, made a $14,400 payment to Sole Group. (Exh. 22, 

Receiver Order at 3 and Exh. A (Docket No. 900), FTC v. Johnson et al., No. 10-CV-02203); 

Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶¶ 14, 16; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 60:6-16, 79:4-18, 

81:11-82:23, 84:3-5, 161:18-162:9; Exh. 24, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 1 at 3; Exh. 28, Lee Black 

Dep. Exh. 2; Exh. 29, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 4; Exh. 43, Lee Black Dep. Exh. 3; Exh. 26, Jason 

Vowell Dep. Tr. at 47:5-9; Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1). Tr. at 212:17-21; Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. 

(Vol. 2) Tr. at 23:4-13, 30:22-31:7; Exh. 25, Johnson Dep. Exh. 1, at 7.) The $14,400 payment 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 34 of 53
29 

from Triple Seven to Sole Group is the precise amount necessary to reimburse six $2,400 

contributions to Mike Lee’s campaign, and the purpose of that payment was to reimburse the 

contributions to Mike Lee’s campaign made by the Lee Black group. (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. 

Tr. at 79:2-80:10; Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶¶ 11-12, 14 and Exh. C; Exh. 27, Receiver 

Decl. ¶ 16 & Exh. L.) Triple Seven’s own accounting records reflect that check 5075, which was 

either used to make the payment or replaced by a cashier’s check, was issued for “Cashier’s 

Checks for Mike Lee.” (Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶¶ 11-12 and Exh. C; Exh. 27, Receiver 

Decl. ¶ 16 & Exh. L; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 79:4-18, 81:11-82:23, 84:3-5; Exhs. 28-29, 

Lee Black Dep. Exhs. 2, 4.) 

On the same day that Triple Seven paid $14,400 to Sole Group, at Lee Black’s direction 

Sole Group issued $2,400 checks to Lee Black, Atia Black, Kyle Boyer, Tiffany Boyer, 

Savannah Jones, and Matthew Black. (Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶¶ 8, 11-16 and 

Exhs. B, D-H; Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 7 and Exhs. B-D; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 

54:11-55:6, 85:23-87:7, 98:11-99:6, 111:3-21, 115:9-116:5, 120:15-121:10, 130:5-131:2; Exh. 

31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 25:21-26:2, 27:6-11, 33:12-34:18.) The ultimate source of funds for 

those reimbursements, however, was the $14,400 payment that Sole Group received from Triple 

Seven. (Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 87:22-88:5, 99:7-12, 111:22-25, 116:6-11, 121:11-16, 

131:3-8.) 

The fact that Johnson used Lee Black and Sole Group to distribute reimbursement money 

does not affect his own liability for conduit contributions. See United States v. Boender, 649 

F.3d 650, 659-61 (7th Cir. 2011) (upholding a defendant’s conviction for making contributions 

in the name of another where the defendant asked two business associates to donate $2,000 each 

to a campaign, and wrote one conduit a check for $4,000 to reimburse himself and the other 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 35 of 53
30 

conduit). Johnson remains the true source liable for the entire scheme. See Swallow, 304 F. 

Supp. 3d at 1116 (stating that the “prohibited ‘person’” under section 30122 “is the actual 

contributor, that is, the source of the monetary donation”). 

Similarly, Johnson is responsible for Triple Seven’s role in the financing of conduit 

contributions as a matter of law. In the iWorks FTC action, the Nevada District Court twice 

ruled that Triple Seven was part of Johnson’s assets subject to the receivership. Exh. 22, 

Receiver Order at 3 and Exh. A; see also Exh. 47, Order at 4 (Docket No. 1070), FTC v. 

Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 (D. Nev. June 6, 2013) (denying motion to segregate Triple Seven 

assets because “the Court has already determined that various funds these entities claim an 

interest in are actually properly part of the receivership estate”). Those rulings reflected the 

Nevada court’s acceptance of the position of the receiver appointed to manage iWorks’ assets 

that Triple Seven, though nominally owned by the Vowells, was actually operated “for Jeremy 

Johnson’s benefit” and controlled by Johnson. Exh. 42, Report of Receiver’s Financial 

Reconstruction at 4, 28 (Docket No. 464), FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203. 

The Nevada court’s ruling in the FTC action establishing Johnson’s control of Triple 

Seven precludes him from arguing otherwise here. Issue preclusion applies when (1) the issues 

in the prior and present action are “identical”; (2) the “prior action has been finally adjudicated 

on the merits”; (3) “the party against whom issue preclusion is invoked was a party, or in privity 

with a party, to the prior adjudication”; and (4) that party “had a full and fair opportunity to 

litigate the issue in the prior action.” Park Lake Res. Ltd. Liab. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agr., 378 F.3d 

1132, 1136 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no question that the 

Nevada court decided that Triple Seven was controlled by Johnson such that its assets should 

become part of the receivership estate. Similarly, Johnson was a party to that action and opposed 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 36 of 53
31 

the ruling, showing that he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. (See Exh. 48, 

Johnson Dep. Exh. 19.) 

Finally, the Nevada court’s ruling clearly meets the requirement of finality because it was 

“sufficiently firm to be accorded preclusive effect.” Restatement of Judgments (Second) § 13 

(1982). The Nevada court definitively ruled that Triple Seven was part of the iWorks 

receivership and later denied a motion to reconsider that ruling. The decision was sufficiently 

firm for Todd Vowell to take an appeal from that ruling. See FTC v. Alpha Yankee, LLC, 13-

15822 (9th Cir. Docketed Apr. 4, 2013). That appeal was ultimately settled before the Ninth 

Circuit decided the case. See Exh. 49, Order (Docket No. 47), FTC v. Alpha Yankee, LLC, 13-

15822 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2014) (granting parties to voluntarily dismiss appeal with prejudice). 

And Johnson himself settled the FTC action in the district court. See Exh. 50, Stipulated Order 

(Docket No. 1932-1), FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 (D. Nev. Aug. 1, 2016). These 

circumstances are similar to others in which courts in this circuit have concluded that an 

interlocutory ruling was sufficiently final to support issue preclusion, even though the parties 

ultimately settled. See Siemens Med. Sys., Inc. v. Nuclear Cardiology Sys., Inc., 945 F. Supp. 

1421, 1433-37 (D. Colo. 1996). Johnson is therefore precluded from arguing that he did not 

control Triple Seven. 

Although all six of the Sole Group conduits issued contribution checks and received 

reimbursement checks, only four of them ultimately successfully contributed to Mike Lee, for a 

total of $9,600. The Boyers’ original contribution checks to Mike Lee’s campaign cleared, 

resulting in $4,800 in immediately successful conduit contributions, but the remaining four initial 

conduit contribution checks bounced. (Exh. 35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-10 and Exhs. A, 

C, E, G, H, I; Exh. 35, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶ 9; Decl. of Atia Black ¶ 6; Exh. 2, 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 37 of 53
32 

Johnson Dep. Exh. 7 at 17, 121-23; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 132:10-133:4.) This would 

sometimes happen when campaigns deposited conduit contribution checks before Johnson’s 

reimbursements went through. (Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 41:16-42:7 (Jan. 9, 2014); 

Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 41:4-20, 55:15-56:5 (Feb. 3, 2014).) 

Events subsequent to those four bounced Sole Group conduit checks further confirm 

Johnson’s involvement in the reimbursement scheme. On June 21, 2010, the day before the 

Republican primary in Utah, Swallow sent Johnson an e-mail stating that four contribution 

checks to Mike Lee’s campaign had bounced. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 152:8-

154:17; Exh. 44, Johnson Dep. Exh. 9.) Johnson responded, “I am really sorry about the checks. 

I will get it fixed ASAP! Let me know whos [sic] bounced. I was in a mad rush to get those so 

maybe I pushed a few people too hard.” (Exh. 44, Johnson Dep. Exh. 9.) This exchange is 

consistent with Johnson’s statement to law enforcement officials that, when conduit contribution 

checks bounced, Swallow would notify him by e-mail, and Johnson would take steps to remedy 

the problem. (Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 41:4-20, 55:15-56:5 (Feb. 3, 2014).) 

By the day of the Republican primary on June 22, 2010, the bounced checks were “fixed” 

in part — three of the four conduits whose contribution checks had bounced issued new 

contribution checks to Mike Lee’s campaign. (Exh. 35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-7 and 

Exhs. B, D, F; Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶ 10 and Exh. C; Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia 

Black ¶ 8 and Exh. E.) Atia Black and Savannah Jones’ new contribution checks cleared, 

resulting in another $4,800 in successful conduit contributions, but Matthew Black’s bounced a 

second time. (Exh. 35, Decl. of Thomas Datwyler ¶¶ 5-7 and Exhs. B, D, F; Exh. 2, Johnson 

Dep. Exh. 7, at 15, 61, 122; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 132:10-133:4.) 

These four bounced checks link Johnson directly to Lee Black and the reimbursed 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 38 of 53
33 

contributions. The Lee campaign reported receiving bounced checks from only five individuals 

during the relevant reporting period.6 (See Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. Exh. 7, at 121-23.) Four of 

those individuals correspond to the associates of Lee Black who attempted to resubmit 

contribution checks after Swallow informed Johnson that four checks had bounced. (See id.) 

The Lee campaign’s disclosure reports thus confirm that Johnson was connected to the Sole 

Group contributions. 

In addition to documentary evidence and Lee Black’s testimony regarding the 

reimbursement scheme, all four Sole Group conduits who successfully contributed provided 

testimony or sworn statements that their contributions were reimbursed. (Exh. 37, Decl. of Atia 

Black and ¶¶ 5-7 and Exhs. C and D; Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶¶ 6-8; Exh. 31, 

Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 21:1-23:10, 25:21-26:2, 27:6-11; Exh. 33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 

20:13- 25, 25:11-17; Exh. 23, Lee Black Dep. Tr. at 48:24-51:17.) In light of this considerable 

evidence, Johnson’s mere denial that he reimbursed contributions to Mike Lee is insufficient to 

create a genuine issue of material fact. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; FEC v. Toledano, 317 

F.3d 939, 949-53 (9th Cir. 2002); Clifton v. Craig, 924 F.2d 182, 183 (10th Cir. 1991); Murphy, 

329 F. Supp. 2d at 1268. Notably, none of the four successful conduits would fit within 

Johnson’s current explanation that he merely advanced money to people he did business with 

who were otherwise entitled to it. It is undisputed that he did not know or do business with Kyle 

Boyer, Tiffany Boyer, Savannah Jones, or Atia Black. (Exh. 25, Johnson Dep. Exh. 1, at 12-13; 

Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 134:4-13, 146:3-11; Exh. 31, Kyle Boyer Dep. Tr. at 15:11-

 6

 The Lee campaign reported making disbursements to five individuals and listed the 

purpose of the distribution as “NSF.” (Exh. 2, Johnson Dep. Exh. 7, at 121-23.) That notation 

reflects that a contribution check was returned for insufficient funds, i.e., that it bounced. (See 

Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 155:3-11.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 39 of 53
34 

17, 16:7-8; Exh. 33, Tiffany Boyer Dep. Tr. at 15:21-16:2.) 

In sum, both Johnson’s admissions and extensive other evidence shows that there is no 

genuine dispute he made excessive conduit contributions to U.S. Senate campaigns in 2010. 

III. THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER A CIVIL PENALTY AS WELL AS 

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

A. This Court Should Order Johnson to Pay a Substantial Civil Penalty 

When FECA is violated, the statute authorizes this Court to award a “civil penalty which 

does not exceed the greater of $[7,500] or an amount equal to any contribution or expenditure 

involved in such violation.” 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B); 11 C.F.R. § 111.24(a)(1) (2010). But 

Congress provided for enhanced civil penalties for “knowing and willful” violations. See 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(C). For any “knowing and willful” violation, including a violation of 

FECA’s contribution limits, the statute provides for civil penalties of up to the greater of $16,000 

or 200% of the contributions involved in the violation. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(C); 11 C.F.R. 

§ 111.24(a)(2)(i) (2010). Civil penalties for “knowing and willful” violations of the prohibition 

on making contributions in the name of another are enhanced even further. For such violations, 

the Court is authorized to award a penalty of no less than 300% of the amount involved in the 

violation, and the Court may award a penalty of up to the greater of $60,000 or 1000% of the 

contributions involved in the violation. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(C); 11 C.F.R. § 111.24(a)(2)(i) 

(2010). 

Johnson knowingly and willfully made approximately $70,000 in conduit contributions, 

and therefore FECA authorizes this Court to impose a maximum penalty of $840,000, consisting 

of $700,000 for knowing and willful violations of the prohibition on contributions in the name of 

another, and $140,000 for knowing and willful violations of FECA’s contribution limits. See 52 

U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(C); 11 C.F.R. § 111.24(a)(2)(i) (2010). If the Court finds that Johnson 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 40 of 53
35 

knowingly and willfully violated the prohibition on contributions in the name of another, the 

Court is authorized to award a penalty of no less than 300% of the amount in violation, or 

$210,000. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(C); 11 C.F.R. § 111.24(a)(2)(i) (2010). 

This Court has wide discretion to determine an appropriate civil penalty. FEC v. 

Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989); FEC v. Craig for U.S. Senate, 70 F. Supp. 3d 82, 

96 (D.D.C. 2014), aff’d, 816 F.3d 829 (D.C. Cir. 2016). In exercising its discretion, the Court 

should consider: (1) the good or bad faith of the defendant; (2) the injury to the public; (3) the 

defendant’s ability to pay; and (4) the necessity of vindicating the authority of the FEC and the 

penalty’s deterrent effect. Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1258; FEC v. O’Donnell, 15-cv-17, 2017 WL 

1404387, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 19, 2017) (unpublished); Craig, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 100; FEC v. 

Comm. of 100 Democrats, 844 F. Supp. 1, 7 (D.D.C. 1993). For the reasons set forth below, in 

this case these factors weigh in favor of awarding the Commission’s requested penalty of 

$280,000, which is comprised of 300% of the approximately $70,000 at issue in Johnson’s 

violation of the ban on contributions in the name of another and 100% of the same amount at 

issue in his violation of FECA’s contribution limit. 

1. Johnson’s Violations Were Knowing and Willful 

An important factor in determining an appropriate penalty is whether Johnson acted in 

good or bad faith. See Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1258; see also FEC v. Friends of Jane Harman, 59 

F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1058 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (“Defendants’ state of mind is clearly relevant in 

assessing the amount of a penalty”). Johnson’s knowing and willful violations reflect his bad 

faith, and they authorize this Court to assess the enhanced penalties provided for under FECA. 

See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(C); see also Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1259 (considering a defendant’s 

lack of good faith as “indicative of the need for a large penalty to deter future wrongdoing.”). 

A violation of FECA is knowing and willful if the “acts were committed with full 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 41 of 53
36 

knowledge of all the relevant facts and a recognition that the action is prohibited by law.” 122 

Cong. Rec. 12,197, 12,199 (May 3, 1976). This does not require the Commission to prove that 

Johnson was aware of the specific statutory provisions that he violated. United States v. 

Whittemore, 944 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1007 (D. Nev. 2013), aff’d, 776 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2015); 

United States v. Danielczyk, 788 F. Supp. 2d 472, 491 (E.D. Va. 2011), rev’d in part on other 

grounds, 683 F.3d 611 (4th Cir. 2012). Instead, it is sufficient for the Commission to establish 

that Johnson “[did] not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident,” and that he “acted with 

knowledge that some part of his course of conduct was unlawful and with the intent to do 

something the law forbids.” Whittemore, 776 F.3d at 1080-81; see also Danielczyk, 788 F. Supp. 

2d at 491 (finding that the Government must prove that defendants “intended to violate the law” 

but did not need to prove their “awareness of the specific law’s commands.”). 

There is no genuine dispute that the knowing and willful standard is satisfied here. 

Johnson admits that, due to several discussions with Swallow and others, he was aware in 2010 

that there were limits on the amount of money that he could contribute to a candidate for federal 

office. (Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 96:14-97:19; Exh. 18, Johnson Interview Tr. at 

6:16-7:22 (Aug. 14, 2013); Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 37:6-38:6 (Jan. 9, 2014); Exh. 19, 

Johnson Interview Tr. at 38:6-20, 46:22-47:10 (Feb. 3, 2014); Exh. 25, Johnson Dep. Exh. 1, at 

10.) During three separate interviews with law enforcement agents, Johnson admitted that, to 

circumvent those contribution limits and elect candidates that he believed would protect his 

business interests, he recruited conduits to make contributions that would be reimbursed with 

his money. (Exh. 18, Johnson Interview Tr. at 5:9-10:16 (Aug. 14, 2013); Exh. 17, Johnson 

Interview Tr. at 34:6-35:16, 37:6-39:8, 41:16-42:7 (Jan. 9, 2014); Exh. 19, Johnson Interview 

Tr. at 37:10-41:20, 44:20-48:11, 52:12-56:5 (Feb. 3, 2014).) Similarly, during the March 2014 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 42 of 53
37 

ABC News interview, Johnson represented that he had recruited straw donors to make 

contributions to Mike Lee and Harry Reid. (Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 66:3-68:7; 

Exh. 46, Johnson Dep. Exh. 32, at 3.) During discovery in this matter, Johnson admitted that he 

was aware that it was illegal to use his own funds to pay another person to contribute to a 

candidate for federal office. (Exh. 25, Johnson Exh. 1, at 11.) Finally, during the ABC News 

interview, Johnson also told a reporter that online poker figures instructed him to “hide illegal 

contributions” by using conduits, reflecting that, at the time that he violated FECA in 2010, he 

was aware that his actions were against the law. (Exh. 9, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 2) Tr. at 66:3-

68:7; Exh. 46, Johnson Dep. Exh. 32, at 3.) 

In addition to Johnson’s direct admissions, this Court can also infer that he was aware 

that his actions were unlawful from his elaborate scheme to conceal reimbursements to his 

conduits. See United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 214-15 (5th Cir. 1990). For example, for 

the $9,600 in conduit contributions to Mike Lee through conduits recruited by Lee Black, 

Johnson concealed his reimbursements by transferring funds from Triple Seven to Sole Group, 

and Sole Group then issued reimbursement checks to each individual conduit. (Exh. 23, Lee 

Black Dep. Tr. at 79:4-80:10, 81:11-82:23, 87:22-88:5; Exhs. 28-29, Lee Black Dep. Exhs. 2, 4; 

Exh. 36, Decl. of Savannah Jones Carter ¶¶ 6-10, 12-15 and Exhs. A-C, E-G.) For other conduit 

reimbursements, Johnson’s use of cash to reimburse $2,400 contributions reflects his desire to 

avoid generating a paper trail. (See Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 41:4-20; 47:4-48:1; 54:4-

56:5 (Feb. 3, 2014); Exh. 27, Receiver Decl. ¶ 14 & Exhs. J, L.) In sum, there is no evidence 

that Johnson acted in good faith, and abundant evidence that he acted in bad faith. 

2. Johnson’s Violations Injured the Public 

In determining an appropriate penalty, this Court should also consider the injury to the 

public as a result of Johnson’s violations of FECA. Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1258. “‘[T]here is 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 43 of 53
38 

always harm to the public when FECA is violated.’” Craig, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 99 (quoting FEC 

v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. and Mun. Emps. - P.E.O.P.L.E. Qualified, 88-cv-3208, 1991 WL 

241892, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 1991) (unpublished). Here, Johnson’s conduit contributions 

harmed the public because the electorate was deprived of accurate information regarding the true 

source of contributions to the 2010 Senate campaigns of Mike Lee and Harry Reid, and the 

interests to which those candidates would potentially be responsive if elected. See Buckley, 424 

U.S. at 67; O’Donnell, 608 F.3d at 553-54. 

Johnson’s excessive contributions also increased the appearance and risk of corruption of 

elected officials. See Buckley, 424 U.S at 66-67; Mariani, 212 F.3d at 775. Although Mike Lee 

and Harry Reid may have been unaware of Johnson’s actions, the very reason that Johnson took 

those actions was to elect officials that he believed would protect his interests. (Exh. 18, 

Johnson Interview Tr. at 10:17-11:10 (Aug. 14, 2013); Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 24:15-

25:13, 81:11-82:1, 94:19-95:6 (Jan. 9, 2014); Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 37:10-41:20, 

102:9-104:10 (Feb. 3, 2014).) As the Supreme Court has recognized, avoiding even the 

appearance of corruption is “critical” to prevent erosion of the public’s “confidence in the system 

of representative Government.” Buckley, 424 U.S at 27; see also McCutcheon, 572 U.S. at 199 

(recognizing a compelling interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance). 

3. The Necessity of Vindicating the FEC’s Authority and the Deterrent 

Effect of a Penalty 

In determining the penalty amount, this Court should also consider the necessity of 

vindicating the FEC’s authority. Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1258; Comm. of 100 Democrats, 844 F. 

Supp. at 7. A substantial civil penalty here serves that goal by deterring Johnson and others from 

committing similar violations in the future. See United States v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 

223, 231-32 (1975); O’Donnell, 15-cv-17, 2017 WL 1404387, at *2 (unpublished); Craig, 70 F. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 44 of 53
39 

Supp. 3d at 100. For a penalty to have a deterrent effect, it must be large enough that potential 

violators will consider it “more than an acceptable cost of violation.” ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 

420 U.S. at 231. If FECA penalties imposed after litigation are not higher than those arrived at 

through the statutory procedure of voluntary conciliation, it undermines the Commission’s ability 

to enforce FECA through the conciliation process, which is the “preferred method of dispute 

resolution under FECA.” FEC v. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am., 553 F. Supp. 1331, 1338 (D.D.C. 

1983); see also O’Donnell, 15-cv-17, 2017 WL 1404387, at *3 (unpublished). 

4. Johnson’s Ability to Pay 

In determining the amount of the penalty, this Court should also consider Johnson’s 

ability to pay. Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1258. To date, Johnson has not presented any evidence 

demonstrating that he is unable to pay. However, the Commission recognizes that, as a result of 

Johnson’s unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with his operation of iWorks, a 

court-appointed receiver seized many of his assets. (See Exh. 11, Decl. of Todd Vowell ¶ 16; 

Exh. 1, Johnson Dep. (Vol. 1) Tr. at 238:15-239:4.) The Commission also recognizes that 

Johnson is presently incarcerated due to his conviction for providing false information to a bank. 

See Johnson, 732 F. App’x at 642 (unpublished). The Commission has requested a penalty that 

is far less than the maximum authorized by FECA — indeed, the $280,000 the FEC has proposed 

is only moderately higher than the $210,000 (or 300%) minimum penalty that Congress 

authorizes for the knowing and willful violations of the ban on contributions in the name of 

another in this case. But if Johnson provides evidence that he is unable to pay, the Commission 

would not object to appropriate adjustments in the penalty amount and the timing of payment. 

B. This Court Should Declare That Johnson Violated 52 U.S.C. 

§§ 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122, and Enjoin Johnson from Committing Future 

Violations of These Provisions 

The Commission also respectfully requests that the Court declare that Johnson violated 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 45 of 53
40 

52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122, and permanently enjoin Johnson from violating these 

provisions again. See 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(6)(B). An injunction is appropriate where, as here, 

there is a likelihood of future violations. Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1262. The fact that Johnson used 

conduits to make excessive contributions to three candidates for federal office — Mark Shurtleff, 

Mike Lee, and Harry Reid — with awareness that his conduct was unlawful, suggests that there 

is danger that his conduct will recur. (See Exh. 17, Johnson Interview Tr. at 37:6-42:19 (Jan. 9, 

2014); Exh. 19, Johnson Interview Tr. at 37:10-41:20, 52:12-56:5 (Feb. 3, 2014).) Johnson’s 

subsequent refusal to take responsibility for his actions also indicates that he is likely to commit 

future violations. See Furgatch, 869 F.2d at 1262 (“[a] defendant’s persistence in claiming that 

(and acting as if) his conduct is blameless is an important factor in deciding whether future 

violations are sufficiently likely to warrant an injunction.”); see also O’Donnell, 15-cv-17, 2017 

WL 1404387, at *5 (imposing a permanent injunction to prevent future violations) 

(unpublished); Comm. of 100 Democrats, 844 F. Supp. at 8 (same). 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, this Court should (1) grant summary judgment in favor of the 

Commission; (2) declare that Johnson violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a)(1)(A) and 30122; (3) 

award a penalty of $280,000; and (4) issue a permanent injunction. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 46 of 53
41 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

lstevenson@fec.gov 

Kevin Deeley 

Associate General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

hsummers@fec.gov 

/s/ Jacob S. Siler 

Jacob S. Siler 

Attorney 

jsiler@fec.gov 

Tara J. Kilfoyle 

Attorney 

tkilfoyle@fec.gov 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650

March 20, 2020 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 47 of 53
Lisa J. Stevenson, Acting General Counsel (lstevenson@fec.gov) 

Kevin Deeley, Associate General Counsel (kdeeley@fec.gov) 

Harry J. Summers, Assistant General Counsel (hsummers@fec.gov) 

Jacob S. Siler, Attorney (jsiler@fec.gov) 

Tara J. Kilfoyle, Attorney (tkilfoyle@fec.gov) 

FOR THE PLAINTIFF 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION 

_______________________________________ 

 ) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) Case No. 2:15-cv-00439-DB 

 ) 

 ) APPENDIX TO PLAINTIFF

 Plaintiff, ) FEDERAL ELECTION

 ) COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR

 v. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND

 ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 

JEREMY JOHNSON, ) 

 ) District Judge Dee Benson 

 Defendant. ) Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead 

 ) 

INDEX TO APPENDIX 

Exhibit Title Source 

1. Transcript of deposition of Jeremy Johnson 

(Volume 1) (Nov. 16, 2019) 

Discovery in Federal Election 

Commission (“FEC”) v. Johnson, 15-

cv-439 (D. Utah) 

2. Friends of Mike Lee, Inc., Reports of 

Receipts and Disbursements for an 

Authorized Committee (FEC Form 3) 

Amended July 15, 2010 Quarterly Report 

(Excerpts) 

Publicly filed document on FEC’s 

campaign finance disclosure database 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 48 of 53
2 

Exhibit Title Source 

3. Friends for Harry Reid, Reports of 

Receipts and Disbursements for an 

Authorized Committee (FEC Form 3) 

October 15, 2010 Quarterly Report 

(Excerpts) 

Publicly filed document on FEC’s 

campaign finance disclosure database 

4. Letter from Ronald Brooke, Jr., Attorney, 

Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), to 

Jeremy Johnson (Feb. 19, 2010) 

Filed in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev.) 

5. Complaint (Docket No. 1), FTC v. 

Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 (D. Nev. Dec. 

21, 2010) 

Filed in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev.) 

6. Nathan Vardi, PokerStars: Online 

Gambling’s Quiet Giant, Forbes, Feb. 10, 

2010 

https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/10/inte

rnet-gambling-pokerstars-businessbeltway-pokerstars.html. 

7. Superseding Indictment (Docket No. 20) 

United States v. Scheinberg, et al., 10-cr336 (S.D.N.Y. April 14, 2011) 

Filed in United States v. Scheinberg, et 

al., 10-cr-336 (S.D.N.Y.) 

8. Group Says Poker Winnings are Frozen, 

Las Vegas Sun (June 12, 2009) 

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jun/

12/group-says-poker-winnings-arefrozen/ 

9. Transcript of deposition of Jeremy Johnson 

(Volume 2) (Nov. 17, 2019) (Excerpts)

Discovery in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 

(D. Utah) 

10. Utah House of Representatives, Report of 

the Special Investigative Committee (Mar. 

11, 2014) 

Publicly available legislative material 

11. Declaration of Todd Vowell (executed 

Nov. 5, 2019) 

Obtained in connection with discovery 

in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 (D. Utah) 

12. Consent Order, In re Sunfirst Bank, FDIC10-845b (Nov. 9, 2010) 

https://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/enfo

rcement/2010‐11‐23.pdf

13. History of the Utah Attorney General’s 

Office, Utah Office of the Attorney 

General (Nov. 19, 2018) 

https://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/about/hi

story/ 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 49 of 53
3 

Exhibit Title Source 

14. Emails between Jeremy Johnson and John 

Swallow (Aug. 25, 2010) 

Exhibit to Utah House of 

Representatives, Report of the Special 

Investigative Committee (Mar. 11, 2014) 

15. Email from Jeremy Johnson to Richard 

Rawle (Oct. 7, 2010) 

Exhibit to Utah House of 

Representatives, Report of the Special 

Investigative Committee (Mar. 11, 2014) 

16. Email from Jeremy Johnson to Richard 

Rawle (Oct. 7, 2010) 

Exhibit to Utah House of 

Representatives, Report of the Special 

Investigative Committee (Mar. 11, 2014) 

17. Transcript of interview of Jeremy Johnson 

(Jan. 9, 2014) (Excerpts) 

Transcript of audio recording obtained 

from Agent Scott Nesbitt of the Utah 

Department of Public Safety State 

Bureau of Investigation 

18. Transcript of interview of Jeremy Johnson 

(Aug. 14, 2013) (Excerpts) 

Transcript of audio recording obtained 

from Agent Scott Nesbitt of the Utah 

Department of Public Safety State 

Bureau of Investigation 

19. Transcript of interview of Jeremy Johnson 

(Feb. 3, 2014) (Excerpts) 

Transcript of audio recording obtained 

from Agent Scott Nesbitt of the Utah 

Department of Public Safety State 

Bureau of Investigation 

20. Emails between Jeremy Johnson and John 

Swallow (June 17 & 18, 2009) 

Obtained from Agent Scott Nesbitt of 

the Utah Department of Public Safety 

State Bureau of Investigation 

21. Timeline of events (undated) Obtained from Agent Scott Nesbitt of 

the Utah Department of Public Safety 

State Bureau of Investigation 

22. Corrected Order Granting Motion for 

Order Clarifying Preliminary Injunction 

Order and for Further Instructions 

Regarding Scope of Receivership 

Defendants Under Preliminary Injunction 

Order and Report of Receiver’s Financial 

Reconstruction (“Receiver Order”) (Docket 

No. 900), FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev. Mar. 25 2013) 

Filed in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev.) 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 50 of 53
4 

Exhibit Title Source 

23. Transcript of deposition of Arvin Lee 

Black II (Nov. 12, 2019) 

Discovery in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv00439 (D. Utah) 

24. Conciliation agreement of Arvin Lee Black 

II in FEC Matter Under Review 6850 (fully 

executed on July 16, 2015) 

FEC Matter Under Review 6850 

25. Jeremy Johnson’s Response to the FEC’s 

First Set of Discovery Requests (executed 

Nov. 16, 2019) 

Discovery in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 

(D. Utah) 

26. Transcript of deposition of Jason Vowell 

(Nov. 14, 2019) (Excerpts) 

Discovery in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 

(D. Utah) 

27. Declaration of FTC Receiver Brick Kane 

(executed Oct. 31, 2019) 

Obtained in connection with discovery 

in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 (D. Utah) 

28. SunFirst Bank check 5075 issued by Triple 

Seven, LP, to Sole Group, LLC (June 14, 

2010) 

Obtained from Robb Evans & 

Associates LLC, the appointed receiver 

in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 

(D. Nev.) 

29. SunFirst Bank cashier’s check 039770 

purchased by Triple Seven, LP, and 

payable to the order of Sole Group, LLC 

(June 14, 2010) 

Obtained from Robb Evans & 

Associates LLC, the appointed receiver 

in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 

(D. Nev.) 

30. Zions Bank check 105 issued by Arvin Lee 

Black II to Mike Lee (June 11, 2010) 

Obtained from Friends of Mike Lee, Inc. 

31. Transcript of deposition of Kyle Boyer 

(Oct. 16, 2019) (Excerpts) 

Discovery in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv00439 (D. Utah) 

32. America First Credit Union check 207 

issued by Kyle Boyer to Mike Lee (June 

11, 2010) 

Obtained from Friends of Mike Lee, Inc. 

33. Transcript of deposition of Tiffany Boyer 

(Oct. 16, 2019) (Excerpts) 

Discovery in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 

(D. Utah) 

34. America First Credit Union check 837 

issued by Tiffany Boyer to Mike Lee (June 

11, 2010) 

Obtained from Friends of Mike Lee, Inc. 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 51 of 53
5 

Exhibit Title Source 

35. Declaration of Thomas Datwyler, 

Treasurer of Friends of Mike Lee, Inc. 

(executed Nov. 4, 2010) 

Obtained in connection with discovery 

in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 (D. Utah) 

36. Declaration of Savannah Jones Carter 

(executed Oct. 10, 2019) 

Obtained in connection with discovery 

in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 (D. Utah) 

37. Declaration of Atia Black (executed Oct. 4, 

2019) 

Obtained in connection with discovery 

in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 (D. Utah) 

38. Agreement of Limited Liability Company 

of Triple Seven, LP with Katts, LLC, and 

Spyglass Enterprises, LLC, as the initial 

members with Jason Vowell as General 

Manager (filed with the Utah Department 

of Commerce Aug. 19, 2010) 

Obtained from Robb Evans & 

Associates LLC, the appointed receiver 

in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 

(D. Nev.) 

39. Statement of Defendant in Advance of Plea 

of Guilty at 4 (Docket No. 16), United 

States v. Arvin Lee Black II, 13-cr-836 (D. 

Utah Jan. 10, 2014) 

Filed in United States v. Arvin Lee Black 

II, 13-cr-836 (D. Utah) 

40. Judgment (Docket No. 35), United States 

of America v. Arvin Lee Black II, 13-cr-836 

(D. Utah May 27, 2014) 

Filed in United States v. Arvin Lee Black 

II, 13-cr-836 (D. Utah) 

41. List of Triple Seven, LLC payments to 

Johnson and Johnson entities from January 

1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 

Obtained from Robb Evans & 

Associates LLC, the appointed receiver 

in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 

(D. Nev.) 

42. Report of Receiver’s Financial 

Reconstruction (Jan. 31, 2012) (Docket No. 

464) FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 

(D. Nev. Feb. 3, 2012) 

Filed in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev.) 

43. Zions Bank business checking account 

statement for Sole Group, LLC for June 1, 

2010 through June 30, 2010 

Obtained from Robb Evans & 

Associates LLC, the appointed receiver 

in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 

(D. Nev.) 

44. Emails between Jeremy Johnson and John 

Swallow (June 21, 2010) 

Obtained from Agent Scott Nesbitt of 

the Utah Department of Public Safety 

State Bureau of Investigation 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 52 of 53
6 

Exhibit Title Source 

45. Affidavit of Ronald James Yengich 

(executed Oct. 9, 2019) 

Obtained in connection with discovery 

in FEC v. Johnson, 15-cv-439 (D. Utah) 

46. Matthew Mosk et al., Utah Officials Call 

on Feds to Investigate Senators Reid, Lee, 

ABC News (Mar. 13, 2014) 

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/utahofficials-call-feds-investigate-senatorsreid-lee/story?id=22905068 

47. Order at 4 (Docket No. 1070), FTC v. 

Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 (D. Nev. June 

6, 2013) 

Filed in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev.) 

48. Order (Docket No. 1070), FTC v. Johnson, 

et al., 10-cv-2203 (D. Nev. June 6, 2013) 

Filed in FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev.) 

49. Order (Docket No. 47), FTC v. Alpha 

Yankee, LLC, 13-15822 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 

2014) 

Filed in FTC v. Alpha Yankee, LLC, 13-

15822 (9th Cir.) 

50. Stipulated Order (Docket No. 1932-1), 

FTC v. Johnson, et al., 10-cv-2203 (D. 

Nev. Aug. 1, 2016) 

Filed in FTC v. Johnson et al., 10-cv2203 (D. Nev.) 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Acting General Counsel 

lstevenson@fec.gov 

Kevin Deeley 

Associate General Counsel 

kdeeley@fec.gov 

Harry J. Summers 

Assistant General Counsel 

hsummers@fec.gov 

/s/ Jacob S. Siler 

Jacob S. Siler 

Attorney 

jsiler@fec.gov 

Tara J. Kilfoyle 

Attorney 

tkilfoyle@fec.gov 

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

1050 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20463 

(202) 694-1650

March 20, 2020 

Case 2:15-cv-00439-DB-DBP Document 161 Filed 03/20/20 Page 53 of 53