SANDLER, REIFF, YOUNG & LAMB, RC. 

March 28,2012 

Mr. Thomas Hintermeister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Federal Election Commission 

999ESlreet,N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Dear Mr. Hintermeister: 

We are in receipt of the Draft Final Audit Report ("DEAR") regarding the Democratic 

Executive Conunittee of Florida ("DECF") for tiie 2007-2008 cycle. Altiiough the DECF disagrees 

with some of the analysis put fortii by the Office of General Counsel in coxmection with tiie DEAR, 

the merits of our objections are contained within Finding 3, for which the DFAR states that the 

DCEF has materially complied with the Audit Division's recommendation in the Interim Audit 

Report, and the DFAR does not appear to take a specific position on the merits of our objections. 

Therefore, we do not deem it necessary to expend the DECF's nor the Commission's resources in 

connection with an oral hearing. However, the DECF, would like provide the following comments 

with respect to the DFAR: 

I. The Fmal Audit Report should note that the aggregate Coordinated Expenditure Limit was 

not exceeded for Annette Taddeo 

Although the Final Audit Report accurately reflects the fiicts regardmg the DECF's use of 

441a(d) authority in the Taddeo congressional election, we believe it is important to note in the 

final report that the aggregate coordinated expenditure limit of $82,400 (which was the combined 

limit for state and national parties committees in 2008) was not exceeded and that combined 

coordinated expenditures by all national and state party committees did not exceed this amount. 

Thus, although there may have been a paperwork error with respect to the transfer of this unused 

authority, the authority held by the DCCC was in fiict, unused. Therefore, as a practical matter, 

the combined 441a(d), in total, had not been exceeded and thus, no unfrur advantage had been 

con&rred upon the DECF or the Taddeo campaign. 

1025 VERMONT AVENUE, N.W.. Surre 300 • WASHINGTON, DC 20005 • TEL: (202) 479-1111 • FAX: (202) 479-1115 
n. Use of Non-Federal Funds 

Althougih the DFAR concludes that the DECF's response to the Interim Audit Report 

materially complies with the recommendations contained in the Interim Audit Report, the DFAR 

does not appear to take a position on two key substantive issues raised in the Interim Audit Report. 

Based upon the analysis provided by the Office of the General Counsel, we would ask that the 

Commission, to the extent it disagrees with the analysis of the Office of the General Counsel, 

modify the Final Report to indicate as such. Specifically, the DECF, in its response to the Interim 

Audit Report objected to two findings by the Audit Division. 

First, the DECF objected to the characterization of rent paid on behalf of its legislative 

caucus activities as 100% non-federal. Of course, where regular state party employees utilize space 

to influence both federal and non-federal elections, it is appropriate for the Commission to require 

an allocation of such expenses in accordance with 11 C.F.R. § 106.7. However, in this instance, the 

space was used by an autonomous arm of the DECF that worked exclusively in connection with 

state legislative elections. Since the promulgation of the allocation regulations in 1990, the 

Commission has permitted state party committees to pay for expenses that were solely related to 

non-federal elections with 100% non-federal funds. Of course, for example, the Commission's 

current regulations for payroll clearly contemplate this feet. See Explanation and Justification, 

State, District and Local Party Committee Payment of Certain Salaries and Wages, 70 Fed Reg. 

75379,75382 (December 20,2005). Parties do indeed have discreet projects that are exclusively 

related to non-federal elections and the Commission, in previous audits and in previous practice, 

has acknowledged this fact There is no logical reason to prohibit a party committee &om paying 

the office rent paid of a discrete, autonomous non-federal project of the party with 100% nonfederal fimds. 

Second, the DECF objected to the characterization of translators as get-out-the-vote 

activities. Under the Interim Audit Report's interpretation, the DECF would have to either pay 

entirely federal or with a combination of federal and Levin funds for translators provided on a nonpartisan basis to any voter, already at their polling place, who requested language translation 

assistance. In its response to the Literim Audit Report, tiie DECF objected to the characterization 

of this expense as a federal election activity but conceded that it was an administrative or voter 

drive expense that should have been paid on the DECF's regular administrative split. The concept 

of get-out-the-vote, as contemplated by the Office of General Counsel is completely contradictory 

of what was intended by Congress and the Commission in the passage and promulgation of the getout-the-vote statute and regulations. As we stated in our response to the Interim Audit Report, tihe 

Commission promulgated regulations in 2002 (as amended in 2005) that were designed to urge, 

transport or facilitate voters to get to the polls not the non-partisan provision of assistance to voters 

once they were at a polling place. To be sure, national and state party committees engage in all 

types of protect the vote activities at polling places, which include information regarding voter 

identification and other information regarding voters rights, and to our knowledge, none of these 

activities are generally classified as get-out-the-vote by those committees. 
The Commission must reject the General Counsel's construction of "individualized contact" 

and "assist" (See p. 6 of Memorandum to Tom Hintermeister, Draft Final Audit Report -

Democratic Executive Committee of Florida) and confirm that the Commission's get-out-the-vote 

regulations in effect in 2008 only covered activities that ensured or attempted to increase voter 

turnout Thus, the get-out-the-vote regulation that was in effect in 2008 was designed to cover 

those activities that turned out voters by either 1) providmg information, through targeted 

communications on when and where to vote or 2) by transporting those voters to the polls or by 

engaging in absentee ballot or vote by mail activities. The translators did neither. They merely 

provided translation services to any voter that was already at the polling place that desured to speak 

with an election official or otherwise required translation services. The General Counsel's position 

on the terms "contact" or "assist" was certamly not what the Commission had in mind when it 

promulgated its regulations in 2002 (or when it amended the regulations in 2005). 

Accordingly, we agree, with three exceptions, to the conclusions of the Draft Final Audit 

Report and would urge that the Commission amend tiie Final Report per our discussion above and 

approve the DFAR including our proposed modifications. 

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

479-1111. 

Neil Reiff 

Counsel to the Democratic Executive Central 

Committee of Florida