Preliminary Audit Report 

of the Audit Division on 

Jill Stein for President 

(January 17, 2015 – December 31, 2016) 

Why the Audit 

Was Done 

Federal law requires 

the Commission to 

audit every political 

committee established 

by a candidate who 

receives public funds 

for the primary 

campaign.1 The audit 

determines whether the 

candidate was entitled 

to all of the matching 

funds received, 

whether the campaign 

used the matching 

funds in accordance 

with the law, whether 

the candidate is entitled 

to additional matching 

funds, and whether the 

campaign otherwise 

complied with the 

limitations, 

prohibitions, and 

disclosure requirements 

of the election law. 

Future Action 

The Commission may 

initiate an enforcement 

action, at a later time, 

with respect to any of 

the matters discussed in 

this report.

About the Campaign (p. 2)

Jill Stein for President is the principal campaign committee for Jill 

Stein, a candidate for the Green Party nomination for the office of 

President of the United States. The Committee is headquartered in 

Lexington, Massachusetts. For more information, see the chart on the 

Campaign Organization, p. 2. 

Financial Activity2 (p. 3)

 Receipts

o Contributions from Individuals 

o Matching Funds Received 

o Loans Received 

o Offsets to Operating Expenditures 

Total Receipts 

$ 11,010,439 

456,035 

40,000 

716,735 

$ 12,223,209 

 Disbursements

o Operating Expenditures 

o Transfers to Other Authorized 

Committees 

o Fundraising Disbursements 

o Contribution Refunds 

o Other Disbursements 

Total Disbursements

$ 11,885,379 

22,300 

15,156 

2,465 

250 

$ 11,925,550 

Findings and Recommendations (p. 5) 

 Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations - Surplus (Finding 1) 

 Matching Funds Received in Excess of Entitlement (Finding 2) 

 Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding 3) 

 Reporting of Debts and Obligations (Finding 4) 

 

1

 26 U.S.C. §9038(a). 2

 These figures contain primary, general and recount activity. The general and recount activity combined 

accounted for approximately $9,590,974, or 78% of total receipts, and approximately $9,618,886 or 81% 

of total disbursements. See Committee Structure on p. 1. 
Preliminary Audit Report 

of the Audit Division on 

Jill Stein for President

(January 17, 2015 – December 31, 2016)
Table of Contents

Page

Part I. Background

Authority for Audit 1

Scope of Audit 1

Committee Structure 1

Commission Guidance 2

Inventory of Campaign Records 2

Part II. Overview of Campaign

Campaign Organization 3

Overview of Financial Activity 4

Part III. Summaries

Findings and Recommendations 5

Summary of Amounts Owed to the U.S. Treasury 5

Part IV. Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations - Surplus 7

Finding 2. Matching Funds Received in Excess of Entitlement 11

Finding 3. Misstatement of Financial Activity 12

Finding 4. Disclosure of Debts and Obligations 15
1

Part I

Background

Authority for Audit

This report is based on an audit of Jill Stein for President (JSFP), undertaken by the Audit 

Division of the Federal Election Commission (the Commission) as mandated by Section 9038(a) 

of Title 26 of the United States Code. That section states, “After each matching payment period, 

the Commission shall conduct a thorough examination and audit of the qualified campaign 

expenses of every candidate and his authorized committees who received [matching] payments 

under section 9037.” Also, Section 9039(b) of the United States Code and Section 9038.1(a)(2) 

of the Commission’s Regulations state that the Commission may conduct other examinations and 

audits from time to time as it deems necessary.

Scope of Audit

Unless noted in the Committee Structure section below, this audit examined JSFP’s primary 

election activity only. The following areas were covered by this audit:

1. the campaign’s compliance with limitations for contributions and loans;

2. the campaign’s compliance with the limitations for candidate contributions and loans;

3. the campaign’s compliance with the prohibition on accepting prohibited contributions; 

4. the disclosure of contributions and loans received;

5. the disclosure of disbursements, debts and obligations;

6. the consistency between reported figures and bank records;

7. the accuracy of the Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations;

8. the campaign’s compliance with spending limits;

9. the completeness of records; and

10. other campaign operations necessary to the review.

Committee Structure

JSFP was the only campaign committee authorized by Jill Stein (the Candidate) for the 2016 

Presidential election and conducted primary, general and recount activity for the Candidate. 

JSFP opened six bank accounts: one checking and one savings account for each activity. JSFP 

deposited contributions received before the Candidate’s nomination into the primary checking 

account, and most contributions received after the nomination into the general checking account. 

JSFP received matching funds for its primary campaign. This audit covered JSFP’s primary 

election activity to determine if the expenses were qualified campaign expenses defrayed in the 

connection with the primary election.3

 3

 Under Title 26, this audit included an examination of JSFP’s Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations 

based solely on JSFP’s primary election activity for the purpose of determining the extent to which the Candidate 

was entitled to primary matching funds (Finding 1). Due to the committee’s structure, this audit also covered a 

Title 52 examination of JSFP’s overall consistency between reported figures and bank activity, which included 

general and recount activity. For clarification, the Audit staff has indicated in Finding 3 – Misstatement of 

Financial Activity, those transactions that were not related to primary election activity.
2

Commission Guidance

Request for Early Commission Consideration of a Legal Question

Pursuant to the Commission’s “Policy Statement Establishing a Program for Requesting 

Consideration of Legal Questions by the Commission,” JSFP requested early consideration of 

two legal questions raised during the audit. The first question pertained to whether the 

Commission’s original determination of Dr. Stein’s date of ineligibility (DOI) was proper. The 

second question was whether committees should be permitted to incur winding down expenses 

and other primary expenses after the DOI if they are clearly incurred to improve compliance with 

existing laws and regulations or if they are clearly required in the course of seeking the 

qualification for the ballot in various states.4

The Commission concluded, by a vote of 4-0, to reaffirm JSFP’s original DOI as August 6, 2016. 

(See Finding 1, p. 7.)

Inventory of Campaign Records

The Audit staff routinely conducts an inventory of campaign records before it begins audit 

fieldwork. JSFP’s records were materially complete and fieldwork commenced immediately.

 4

 Although JSFP’s request purported to identify three separate questions for review, two of the questions raised the 

same essential issue, which is whether the Commission’s original DOI determination was proper. Therefore, 

those two questions were consolidated into a single question.
3

Part II

Overview of Campaign

Campaign Organization

 5

 On March 28, 2016, the Candidate submitted a signed letter (dated March 18, 2016 and subsequently revised on 

April 5, 2016), to the Commission seeking to become eligible to receive Presidential primary matching funds and 

agreeing that she and her authorized committee would comply with the conditions set forth in 11 CFR §9033.1(b). 

A threshold submission was submitted on March 28, 2016, and the Commission certified the Candidate as eligible 

to receive matching funds on April 13, 2016. The period during which the Candidate was eligible for matching 

funds ended on August 6, 2016, the Candidate’s DOI. 6

 The audit covered the period from JSFP’s first bank deposit on January 17, 2015. The Audit staff also conducted 

limited reviews of receipts and expenditures after December 31, 2016, to determine whether the Candidate was 

eligible to receive additional matching funds.

Important Dates

• Date of Registration July 14, 2015

• Eligibility Period5 April 13, 2016 – August 6, 2016

• Audit Coverage6 January 17, 2015 – December 31, 2016

Headquarters Lexington, Massachusetts

Bank Information

• Bank Depositories One

• Bank Accounts Six (One checking and one savings account each 

for primary, general and recount activity)

Treasurer

• Treasurer When Audit Was Conducted Steven Welzer

• Treasurer During Period Covered by Audit Steven Welzer

Management Information

• Attended Commission Campaign Finance 

Seminar

No

• Who Handled Accounting and 

Recordkeeping Tasks

Paid Staff
4

Overview of Financial Activity

(Audited Amounts)7

Cash-on-hand @ January 17, 2015 $ 0

Receipts

o Contributions from Individuals8 11,010,439

o Matching Funds Received9 456,035

o Loans Received 40,000

o Offsets to Operating Expenditures 716,735

Total Receipts $ 12,223,209

Disbursements

o Operating Expenditures 11,885,379

o Transfers to Other Authorized Committees 22,300

o Fundraising Disbursements 15,156

o Contribution Refunds 2,465

o Other Disbursements 250

Total Disbursements $ 11,925,550

Cash-on-hand @ December 31, 2016 $ 297,659

 7

 These figures contain primary election, general election and recount activity. See Committee Structure on p. 1. 8

 JSFP received approximately 50,924 contributions from 42,486 individuals totaling $2,135,681 for primary 

election activity. 9

 As of the Candidate’s DOI, August 6, 2016, JSFP had received matching funds totaling $456,036. JSFP received 

an additional $134,900 on January 18, 2017, for a total of $590,936.
5

Part III

Summaries

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations -

Surplus

The Audit staff’s review of JSFP’s financial activity through December 31, 2016, and 

estimated winding down costs indicated that the Candidate had a surplus of funds as of its 

date of ineligibility in the amount of $329,333. Of this surplus amount, JSFP is required 

to make a pro rata repayment of the $66,196. 

In JSFP’s initial Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations (NOCO) filed 

during the matching fund period, cash-on-hand was understated and both accounts 

payable and winding down expenses were overstated. As such, the JSFP’s NOCO 

indicated an apparent deficit position and therefore eligible to receive matching funds.

The Audit staff recommends that JSFP provide evidence that the NOCO was not in a 

surplus position as indicated by the audited NOCO. Absent such evidence, the Audit 

staff will recommend that the Commission make a determination that a pro rata 

repayment of $66,196 is repayable to the United States Treasury. 

(For more detail, see p. 7.)

Finding 2. Matching Funds Received in Excess of 

Entitlement

The Audit staff’s NOCO statement, as presented in Finding 1, indicated a surplus 

position as of August 6, 2016, the Candidate’s DOI. Therefore, JSFP was not entitled to 

the Matching Fund payment of $134,900 it subsequently received on January 18, 2017. 

The Audit staff recommends that JSFP provide evidence that it did not receive matching 

funds in excess of entitlement. Absent such evidence, the Audit staff will recommend 

that the Commission make a determination that $134,900 is repayable to the United 

States Treasury. (For more detail, see p.11.)

Finding 3. Misstatement of Financial Activity

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of JSFP’s reported financial activity with its bank 

records revealed a misstatement of receipts and disbursements for 2015 and 2016 and a 

misstatement of ending cash in 2016. In 2015, JSFP understated its reported receipts and 

disbursements by $31,495 and $35,042 respectively; and in 2016, JSFP understated its 

reported receipts, disbursements and ending cash by $996,384, $800,310 and $192,527 

respectively. The Audit staff recommends that JSFP amend its disclosure reports to 

correct the misstatements. (For more detail, see p. 12.)
6

Finding 4. Disclosure of Debts and Obligations

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified debts totaling $17,015 not disclosed on 

Schedule D-P (Debts and Obligations) as required. The Audit staff recommends that 

JSFP amend its reports to disclose the outstanding debt. (For more detail, see p. 15.)

Summary of Amounts Owed to the United 

States Treasury

Finding 1 Pro-rata portion of the Surplus Matching Funds $ 66,196

Finding 2 Matching Funds received in Excess of 

Entitlement

$ 134,900

Total Due U.S. Treasury $ 201,096
7

Part IV

Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1. Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations -

Surplus

Summary

The Audit staff’s review of JSFP’s financial activity through December 31, 2016, and 

estimated winding down costs indicated that the Candidate had a surplus of funds as of its 

date of ineligibility in the amount of $329,333. Of this surplus amount, JSFP is required 

to make a pro rata repayment of the $66,196. 

In JSFP’s initial Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations (NOCO) filed 

during the matching fund period, cash-on-hand was understated and both accounts 

payable and winding down expenses were overstated. As such, the JSFP’s NOCO 

indicated an apparent deficit position and therefore eligible to receive matching funds.

The Audit staff recommends that JSFP provide evidence that the NOCO was not in a 

surplus position as indicated by the audited NOCO. Absent such evidence, the Audit 

staff will recommend that the Commission make a determination that a pro rata 

repayment of $66,196 is repayable to the United States Treasury. 

Legal Standard

A. Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations (NOCO). Within 15 days after the 

candidate’s date of ineligibility (see definition below), the candidate must submit a 

statement of “net outstanding campaign obligations.” This statement must contain,

among other things:

• The total of all committee assets including cash-on-hand, amounts owed to the 

committee and capital assets listed at their fair market value;

• The total of all outstanding obligations for qualified campaign expenses; and 

• An estimate of necessary winding-down costs. 11 CFR §9034.5(a).

B. Date of Ineligibility. The date of ineligibility is whichever of the following dates 

occurs first:

• The day on which the candidate ceases to be active in more than one state;

• The 30th day following the second consecutive primary in which the candidate 

receives less than 10 percent of the popular vote; 

• The end of the matching payment period, which is generally the day when the 

party nominates its candidate for the general election; or

• In the case of a candidate whose party does not make its selection at a national 

convention, the last day of the last national convention held by a major party in 

the calendar year. 11 CFR §§9032.6 and 9033.5.
8

C. Qualified Campaign Expense. Each of the following expenses is a qualified 

campaign expense.

• An expense that is:

o Incurred by or on behalf of the candidate (or his or her campaign) during the 

period beginning on the day the individual becomes a candidate and 

continuing through the last day of the candidate’s eligibility under 11 CFR 

§9033.5;

o Made in connection with the candidate’s campaign for nomination; and

o Not incurred or paid in violation of any federal law or the law of the state 

where the expense was incurred or paid. 11 CFR §9032.9.

• An expense incurred for the purpose of determining whether an individual should 

become a candidate, if that individual subsequently becomes a candidate, 

regardless of when that expense is paid. 11 CFR §9034.4.

• An expense associated with winding down the campaign and terminating political 

activity. 11 CFR §9034.4(a)(3).

D. Value of Capital Assets. The fair market value of capital assets is 60% of the total 

original cost of the assets when acquired, except that assets that are received after the date 

of ineligibility must be valued at their fair market value on the date received. A 

candidate may claim a lower fair market value for a capital asset by listing the asset on 

the NOCO statement separately and demonstrating, through documentation, the lower 

fair market value. 11 CFR §9034.5(c)(1).

E. Winding Down Costs. A primary election candidate who does not run in the general 

election may receive and use matching funds after notifying the Commission in writing 

of the candidate’s withdrawal from the campaign for nomination or after the date of the 

party’s nominating convention, if the candidate has not withdrawn before the convention. 

A primary election candidate who runs in the general election must wait until 31 days 

after the general election before using any matching funds for winding down costs, 

regardless of whether the candidate receives matching funds for the general election. 

11 CFR §9034.11(d).

F. Documentation of Disbursements. Each candidate shall have the burden of proving 

that disbursements made by the candidate and/or her authorized committee are qualified 

campaign expenses. 11 CFR §9033.11.

G. Surplus. The Commission may determine through audits and examinations that the 

candidate’s net outstanding campaign obligations, as defined in 11 CFR 9034.5, reflect a 

surplus. When a surplus is identified, the candidate shall, within 30 days of the 

ineligibility date, repay to the U.S. Treasury an amount which represents the amount of 

matching funds contained in the candidate’s surplus. The amount shall be an amount 

equal to that portion of the surplus which bears the same ratio to the total surplus that the 

total amount received by the candidate from the matching payment account bears to total 

deposits made to the candidate’s accounts. The Commission will provide the candidate 

with a written notice of its repayment determination.

11 CFR §§9038.2(b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1) and 9038.3(c)(1).
9

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

The Candidate’s DOI was August 6, 2016. The Audit staff reviewed JSFP’s financial 

activity through December 31, 2016; analyzed actual and projected winding down 

costs;

10 and prepared the NOCO that appears below. 

Jill Stein for President

Statement of Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations

As of August 6, 2016

As determined at March 31, 2018

Assets

Cash in Bank $ 792,935 [a]

Accounts Receivable 13,289

Physical Assets @ 60% depreciation 4,200

Total Assets $ 810,424

Liabilities

Accounts Payable for Qualified Campaign Expenses as of 8/6/16 $ (201,567)

Loan Payable as of 8/6/2016 ( 40,000)

Actual Winding Down Costs (12/9/16 – 7/31/17) (138,644)

Actual Winding down Costs (8/1/2017 – 3/31/2018) 0 [b]

Estimated Winding Down Costs (4/1/18 – 7/31/2019) ( 100,880) [c]

Total Liabilities $ (481,091)

Net Outstanding Campaign Obligations –Surplus $ 329,333

Footnotes to NOCO Statement:

[a] Amount includes contributions dated prior to DOI and deposited after DOI.

[b] JSFP did not provide documentation to support actual winding down expenses beginning on 

August 1, 2017.

[c] Estimated winding down costs for future reportable periods only. This amount will be 

compared to actual winding down costs and will be adjusted accordingly.

Surplus Pro-Rata Repayment calculation

The Audit staff’s NOCO calculations indicated there were surplus funds of $329,333 as 

of DOI. Of this amount, $66,196 ($329,333 x .201011) is the pro-rata portion of the 

surplus that is repayable to the U.S. Treasury. 

The primary differences between JSFP’s NOCO and the NOCO prepared by the Audit 

staff are discussed below:

 10 The actual winding down costs were reviewed through July 31, 2017, the last date JSFP provided 

banking and disbursement documentation to support its actual winding down expenses. 11 This figure (.2010) represents JSFP’s repayment ratio as calculated pursuant to 11 CFR §9038.3(c)(1). 
10

Cash In Bank

The primary difference between the assets section of the NOCO presented above and 

those prepared by JSFP is the cash-in-bank balance. JSFP understated cash by $313,079. 

Most of the understatement of cash represented funds received prior to the Candidate’s

DOI, but deposited after, with a majority consisting of contributions less than $200 made 

by credit card. Further, a majority of these credit card contributions were included in 

JSFP’s receipts database as contributions made to the Primary election and were reported 

as unitemized contributions. The remaining difference pertained to outstanding 

disbursement checks that had not cleared the bank as of DOI that were not included in 

JSFP’s cash-in-bank calculation. The understatement of assets caused the NOCO 

statements to show a larger deficit and matching fund entitlement than was the case. 

Accounts Payable for Qualified Campaign Expenses 

Ballot Access Petitioning Expenses

The primary difference between the accounts payable section of the NOCO presented on 

the previous page and those prepared by JSFP is with the amount of ballot access 

petitioning expenses.

12 JSFP included all ballot access petitioning expenses, including 

those incurred after DOI, thus overstating the amount calculated by the Audit staff by 

$255,671.

13 As noted in the legal standards above, in order to be a qualified campaign 

expense, only expenses incurred on or before DOI can be considered campaign related 

expenses for the Primary election. Therefore, the Audit staff considered ballot access 

petitioning expenses incurred after DOI to be General election expenses. Furthermore, in 

many instances, the incurrence dates of the ballot access petitioning expenses were not 

sufficiently documented by JSFP and it did not appear any additional documentation 

would be made available. Due to the lack of documentation, the Audit staff also 

considered expenditures of this type to be General election expenses.

Winding Down Expenses

The Audit staff’s calculation of actual winding down expenses excluded expenses that 

were not adequately documented by JSFP. As of the date of this report, JSFP has not 

provided banking and supporting disbursement documentation for winding down 

expenses after August 1, 2017. Therefore, the winding down expenses for the months not 

documented are reflected on the NOCO as $0.14 Estimated monthly winding down 

expenses only include future reporting periods. 

JSFP’s NOCO also included winding down expenses that were incurred after DOI but

before December 9, 2016, totaling $42,727. Since the Candidate participated in the 

General election, the Audit staff considered disbursements on or before December 9, 

201615 to be expenses pertaining to the General election, in accordance with 11 CFR 

9034.11(d), and therefore did not include them on the NOCO as winding down expenses

for the Primary election. 

 12 Ballot access petitioning is required for all states when a minor party candidate seeks to be included on 

the General election ballot for the state. Each state has unique petitioning requirements and cutoff dates, 

and some dates were subsequent to the Candidate’s DOI. 13 The Audit staff’s review of all disbursements paid post DOI also resulted in the identification of 

additional expenses unrelated to ballot access that were not included in JSFP’s NOCO accounts payable 

section. 14 As of the date of this report, the excluded months are August 2017 through March 2018. 15 General election date = November 8, 2016 + 31 days = December 9, 2016.
11

Both winding down expense adjustments discussed above reduce the amount of liabilities 

on the NOCO and therefore reduce the amount of the matching fund entitlement.

B. Preliminary Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff presented a preliminary NOCO statement and related work papers to the 

JSFP representative at the exit conference. The JSFP representative stated he would need 

to review the work papers to determine why all credit card contributions had not been 

included in the cash-on-hand in the NOCO. He also related he disagreed with how the 

ballot access petitioning costs were allocated on the NOCO and stated he based this on 

previous audit reports. The representative stated it was his understanding that all ballot 

access costs were Primary election expenses regardless of the date they were incurred. In 

response to the exit conference, the JSFP representative provided documentation to 

support that certain ballot access petitioning costs were incurred prior to DOI. The 

response did not include any additional information or documentation to support JSFP’s 

position that costs incurred after DOI should also be considered Primary election 

liabilities. 

Subsequent to the exit conference, JSFP requested early consideration of two legal 

questions raised during the audit. The first question pertained to whether the 

Commission’s original determination of Dr. Stein’s DOI was proper. The second 

question whether committees should be permitted to incur winding down expenses and 

other primary expenses after the DOI if they are clearly incurred to improve compliance 

with existing laws and regulations or if they are clearly required in the course of seeking 

the qualification for the ballot in various states.16

The Commission concluded, by a vote of 4-0, to reaffirm JSFP’s original DOI as August 

6, 2016. 

The Audit staff recommends that, within 60 calendar days of service of this report, JSFP

provide additional documentation to demonstrate that it did not receive surplus matching 

funds in excess of its entitlement. Absent such a demonstration, the Audit staff will 

recommend that the Commission make a determination that $66,196, representing the 

pro-rata portion of the surplus, is repayable to the United States Treasury. 

Finding 2. Matching Funds Received in Excess of 

Entitlement

Summary

The Audit staff’s NOCO statement, as presented in Finding 1, indicated a surplus 

position as of August 6, 2016, the Candidate’s DOI. Therefore, JSFP was not entitled to 

the Matching Fund payment of $134,900 it subsequently received on January 18, 2017. 

The Audit staff recommends that JSFP provide evidence that it did not receive matching 

funds in excess of entitlement. Absent such evidence, the Audit staff will recommend 

 16 Although JSFP’s request purported to identify three separate questions for review, two of the questions 

raised the same essential issue, which is whether the Commission’s original DOI determination was 

proper. Therefore, those two questions were consolidated into a single question.
12

that the Commission make a determination that $134,900 is repayable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Legal Standard

A. Entitlement to Matching Payments after Date of Ineligibility. If, on the date of 

ineligibility a candidate has net outstanding campaign obligations as defined under 11 

CFR §9034.5, that candidate may continue to receive matching payments for matchable 

contributions received and deposited on or before December 31st of the Presidential 

election year, provided that he or she still has net outstanding campaign debts on the day 

when the matching payments are made. 11 CFR §9034.1(b).

B. Repayments. The Commission may determine that certain portions of the payments 

made to a candidate from the matching payment account were in excess of the aggregate 

amount of payments to which such candidate was entitled. Examples of such excessive 

payments include, but are not limited to, payments made to the candidate after the 

candidate’s date of ineligibility where it is later determined that the candidate had no net 

outstanding obligations. 11 CFR §§9034.5 and 9038.2 (b)(1)(i).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

On January 18, 2017, JSFP received its only post-DOI matching fund payment of 

$134,900. The Audit staff’s NOCO calculations indicated, however, that JSFP was in a 

surplus position as of DOI and was not entitled to receive additional matching funds (see 

Finding 1, p. 9). Therefore, JSFP is required to make a dollar for dollar repayment of this 

entire matching fund payment to the U.S. Treasury.

B. Preliminary Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff presented this matter to the JSFP representative at the exit conference in 

conjunction with the presentation of the audit calculated NOCO discussed in Finding 1 

above. JSFP’s response pertaining to receipt of matching funds in excess of entitlement 

is also detailed in Finding 1 above. 

The Audit staff recommends that, within 60 calendar days of service of this report, JSFP 

provide additional documentation to demonstrate that it did not receive matching funds in 

excess of its entitlement. Absent such a demonstration, the Audit staff will recommend 

that the Commission make a determination that $134,900 is repayable to the United 

States Treasury. 

Finding 3. Misstatement of Financial Activity

Summary

During audit fieldwork, a comparison of JSFP’s reported financial activity with its bank 

records revealed a misstatement of receipts and disbursements for 2015 and 2016 and a 

misstatement of ending cash in 2016. In 2015, JSFP understated its reported receipts and 

disbursements by $31,495 and $35,042, respectively; and in 2016, JSFP understated its 

reported receipts, disbursements and ending cash by $996,384, $800,310 and $192,527,
13

respectively. The Audit staff recommends that JSFP amend its disclosure reports to 

correct the misstatements.

Legal Standard

Contents of Reports. Each report must disclose:

• the amount of cash-on-hand at the beginning and end of the reporting period;

• the total amount of receipts for the reporting period and for the calendar year;

• the total amount of disbursements for the reporting period and for the calendar year; 

and certain transactions that require itemization on Schedule A (Itemized Receipts) or 

Schedule B (Itemized Disbursements). 52 U.S.C. §30104(b)(l), (2), (3), (4) and (5).

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

As part of audit fieldwork, the Audit staff reconciled JSFP’s reported activity17 with its 

bank records for calendar years 2015 and 2016. The reconciliation revealed that JSFP 

misstated its receipts and disbursements for both years. The following charts outline the 

discrepancies between JSFP’s disclosure reports and its bank records. 

2015 Reported Activity to Bank Activity

Reported Bank Records Discrepancy

Beginning Cash Balance 

@ January 1, 2015

$0 $0 $0

Receipts $244,196 $275,691 $31,495

Understated

Disbursements $221,985 $257,027 $35,042

Understated

Ending Cash Balance @ 

December 31, 2015

$22,211 $18,664 $3,547

Overstated

The understatement of receipts resulted from the following:

• Contributions from individuals not on reports + $43,877

• Unexplained difference - 12,382

Net Understatement of Receipts + $31,495

The understatement of disbursements resulted from the following:

• Payments for salaries and wages not reported + $45,364

• Disbursements reported but did not clear the bank - 14,903

• Credit card fees not reported + 4,455

• Miscellaneous disbursements not reported + 126

Net Understatement of Disbursements + $35,042

 17 Due to JSFP’s consolidated reporting as one entity for primary, general and recount activity; the incorrect 

identification of election designations on the reports; the missing election designation information in 

some of the database records; and the large volume of unitemizable transactions, it was impossible for 

the Audit staff to exclude the general and recount activity from this reconciliation, especially during the 

post DOI period, which was August 7, 2016 through December 31, 2016.
14

The $3,547 overstatement of the ending cash balance resulted from the misstatements 

described above.

2016 Reported Activity to Bank Activity18

Reported Bank Records Discrepancy

Beginning Cash Balance 

@ January 1, 2016

$22,211 $18,664 $3,547

Receipts $10,951,133 $11,947,517 $996,38419

Understated

Disbursements $10,868,212 $11,668,522 $800,31020

Understated

Ending Cash Balance @ 

December 31, 2016

$105,132 $297,659 $192,527

Understated

The understatement of receipts resulted from the following:

• Contributions from individuals not reported + $565,893

• Contributions from individuals reported, not supported by 

bank deposit - 128,420

• Offsets to operating disbursements not reported + 6,328

• In-kind contributions not reported as a receipt + 247

• Interest Income underreported + 25

• Unexplained difference21 + 552,311

Net Understatement of Receipts $996,384

The understatement of disbursements resulted from the following:

• Credit card fees not reported + $451,344

• Disbursements to vendors not reported + 365,676

• Disbursements reported but did not clear the bank - 74,774

• Disbursements directly from Paypal receipts, not reported + 35,762

• Payments for salaries and wages, not reported + 27,000

• In-kind contributions not reported as disbursement + 247

• Miscellaneous disbursements not reported - 4,945

Net Understatement of Disbursements $800,310

The $192,527 understatement of the ending cash balance resulted from the misstatements 

described above.

B. Preliminary Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff presented this matter to the JSFP representative at the exit conference 

along with schedules detailing the discrepancies. During the exit conference, the JSFP

representative stated he had no explanation for the discrepancies but would research and 

 18 This activity represents primary election, general election and recount activity. See Committee 

Structure, p. 1.

19 General election and recount activity represents $815,959, or 82% of the understated receipts totals. 20 General election and recount activity represents $688,355 or 86% of the understated disbursement totals. 21 Due to the volume of contributions and an incomplete receipts database from JSFP, the specific 

individual contributors could not be identified; however, it appeared that the majority of this unexplained 

difference pertained to deposits in the bank made after the general election.
15

determine if there was a pattern that would explain the cause. In its response to the exit 

conference, JSFP made no comment on this finding.

The Audit staff recommends that, within 60 calendar days of service of this report, JSFP

amend its disclosure reports to correct the misstatements.

Finding 4. Disclosure of Debts and Obligations

Summary

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff identified debts totaling $17,015 not disclosed on 

Schedule D-P (Debts and Obligations), as required. The Audit staff recommends that 

JSFP amend its reports to disclose the outstanding debt.

Legal Standard

A. Continuous Reporting Required. An authorized committee must disclose the 

amount and nature of outstanding debts and obligations until those debts are 

extinguished. 52 U.S.C. §30104(b)(8) and 11 CFR §§104.3(d) and 104.11(a).

B. Separate Schedules. An authorized committee must file separate schedules for debts 

owed by and to the committee with a statement explaining the circumstances and

conditions under which each debt and obligation was incurred or extinguished. 

11 CFR §104.11(a).

C. Itemizing Debts and Obligations. 

• Once it has been outstanding 60 days from the date incurred, a debt of $500 or 

less must be reported on the next regularly scheduled report.

• A debt exceeding $500 must be disclosed in the report that covers the date on 

which the debt was incurred, except reoccurring administrative expenses (such as 

rent) shall not be reported as a debt before the payment due date. 

11 CFR §104.11(b).

D. Disputed Debts. A disputed debt is a bona fide disagreement between the creditor 

and the committee as to the existence of a debt or the amount owed by the committee. 

Until the creditor and committee resolve the dispute (assuming the creditor did provide 

something of value), the committee must disclose:

• The amount the committee admits it owes;

• The amount the creditor claims is owed; and

• Any amounts the committee has paid the creditor. 11 CFR §116.10.

Facts and Analysis

A. Facts

During audit fieldwork, the Audit staff used the available disbursement records to 

reconcile the accounts of JSFP’s largest primary election vendors, including accounts 

payable expenses for the NOCO. The Audit staff identified debts owed to these vendors 

totaling $17,015 that were not disclosed on Schedule D-P as required. For one 

transaction totaling $13,114, the majority of the error, pertained to the disputed debt with 

one advertiser that was initially invoiced to JSFP for services in August 2016 and was 
16

ultimately paid in January 2017. During audit fieldwork, a JSFP representative related 

the amount of this invoice had been in dispute, but agreed that this debt should have been 

reported until the final invoice amount was negotiated and paid.

B. Preliminary Audit Report & Audit Division Recommendation

The Audit staff presented this matter to the JSFP representative at the exit conference and 

provided schedules detailing the unreported debts for each relevant reporting period. 

This matter was discussed with the JSFP representative during fieldwork, and at the exit 

conference. The representative stated he was familiar with the matter and understood the 

finding. In its response to the exit conference, JSFP made no comment on this finding.

The Audit staff recommends that, within 60 calendar days of service of this report, JSFP

provide documentation demonstrating that the $17,015 in debts did not require reporting

as debts on Schedule D-P. Absent such documentation, the Audit staff recommends that 

JSFP amend its reports to disclose the outstanding debt and continue to disclose until 

extinguished.