SANDLER REIFF 1090 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 750

Washington, DC 20005

www.sandlerreiff.com

T: 202-479-1111

F: 202-479-1115

SANDLER REIFF LAMB

ROSENSTEIN & BIRKENSTOCK, P.C.

November 2, 2021

Ms. Dayna C. Brown

Acting Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Dear Ms. Brown:

 This letter will serve as the response of the Democratic Party of Arkansas (“DPA”) to the 

Interim Audit Report ("IAR") of the Federal Election Commission’s Audit Division ("the Audit 

Division") for the period covering the DPA’s financial activities for 2017 and 2018. 

The response to each of the Audit Division’s four findings is as follows:

Finding #1

The IAR’s first finding relates to the failure to disclose certain debts by the DPA in 2017 

and 2018. In response to these errors, the DPA has filed a Form 99 providing information relating 

to these debts as requested by the Audit Division. A copy of the Form 99 is attached to this letter 

as Exhibit A.

Finding #2

The IAR’s second finding involved recordkeeping for payroll. In response to the Audit 

Division’s inquiries regarding this issue, the DPA has instituted procedures to ensure that time 

records are maintained for all employees who are paid in part with non-federal funds. The DPA

notes that the finding’s inclusion of payroll records for those employees who are paid exclusively

with non-federal funds are outside the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction and should not have 

been included in the finding. See e.g Final Audit Report of the Commission on the Democratic 

Party of Wisconsin (2012 Cycle) at p.p. 13-16; Final Audit Report of the Commission on the

Kentucky State Democratic Central Executive Committee (2012 Cycle), p. 9.; Final Audit Report 

of the Commission on the Utah Republican Party (2012) Cycle, p. 26-27.
2

Finding #3

The IAR’s third finding involves the apparent failure to file 24/48 hour reports for 

transactions totaling $22,802.50 that were made in connection with the general election on behalf

of Clarke Tucker, the Democratic nominee for the United States House of Representatives in 2018

for the Second Congressional District. As a threshold matter, the DPA objects to the 

characterization of these expenditures as independent expenditures. These expenditures were 

properly made as exempt activities and were fully coordinated with the candidate. The activities 

fall into two categories. The DPA sent a volunteer exempt mailing through Resonance Campaigns 

at a cost of $18,423.97. In addition, the DPA paid for printing in the amount of $4,378.53 for 

printed materials that were distributed by hand by volunteers.

Attached as Exhibit B, please find a declaration from Karyn Coleman, who was at all times 

during the Fall of 2018, the Director of Operations for the DPA. In her role as Director of 

Operations for the DPA, Ms. Coleman would have direct knowledge of all DPA campaign 

activities. Ms. Coleman’s declaration (which complies with the formatting requirements of 28 

U.S.C. § 1746), confirms that both the mailings and printed materials were distributed through the 

substantial use of volunteers.

As part of the audit process, the DPA has provided a significant amount of documentation 

demonstrating the use of volunteers in connection with its volunteer exempt mailing activities. 

However, the DPA could not identify any documentation specifically related to this particular 

mailing. However, it is the DPA’s contention and Ms. Coleman’s recollection that this mailing had 

also complied with the Commission’s requirements related to volunteer exempt mail. As the IAR 

acknowledges, there is considerable uncertainty of the amount of volunteer involvement required to 

satisfy the exemption and based upon the information provided to the Audit Division by the 

CDSCC, the Audit Division should consider this matter resolved.

With respect to the printed, it is our understanding that since these activities were not public 

communications, they cannot be considered coordinated communications and no further action 

would be necessary regarding these expenditures. It should be noted that it is quite uncommon for 

state party committees to create and maintain documentation relating to the volunteer component of 

such daily canvassing activities. They are much too voluminous and difficult for a state party to 

document. In addition, since such activities are not public communications, and cannot be 

considered coordinated communications, the need to create and maintain such documentation is 

unnecessary. As a general matter, in my experience, the Audit Division has never requested such 

documentation for or questioned such canvassing activities, and it is unclear why they are doing so 

in this instance. Notwithstanding, as attested by Ms. Coleman, the printed materials were

distributed by volunteers. 
3

Finding #4

The IAR’s fourth finding relates to the incomplete and incorrect disclosure of certain loans 

and lines of credit received by the DPA’s federal account during the Audit period. Attached as part 

of Exhibit A, the committee has provided the requested clarifying information in its Form 99 that 

has been filed in connection with the Commission Audit.

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

479-1111.

Sincerely,

Neil Reiff

Counsel to the Democratic Party of Arkansas