HOME / PRESS OFFICE

FEC Home Page

For Immediate Release
September 21, 2006
Contact: Kelly Huff
Bob Biersack
George Smaragdis
FEC COMPLETES ACTION ON THREE ENFORCEMENT CASES

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has recently made public action on three matters previously under review (MURs). In MUR 5757, ARPAC paid an $8,500 civil penalty for failing to file seven disclosure reports in 2003 and 2004.

In MUR 5748, the Commission dismissed a complaint against Curt Hohn (SD – at Large), because of the lack of evidence supporting the allegations in the complaint and the expiration of any applicable statute of limitations.

The Commission dismissed the complaint in MUR 5454 because the same allegations regarding contributions by law firms to Edwards for President were resolved in MUR 5366. This release contains only disposition information.

 

1.

MUR 5757

RESPONDENTS:

ARPAC, Jeffrey B. Brooks, treasurer

COMPLAINANT:

FEC Initiated (RAD)

SUBJECT:

Failure to file disclosure reports

  DISPOSITION:

Conciliation Agreement: $8,500 civil penalty*

Through routine review of reports, the FEC’s Reports Analysis Division discovered respondents failed to file seven disclosure reports, from the 2003 Year-End report through the 2004 Year End report. The Respondents signed a conciliation agreement in which they agreed to pay an $8,500 civil penalty.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5757 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     
2. MUR 5748  
     

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Curt Hohn

(b)   WEB Water Development Associations, Inc.

COMPLAINANT:

Bill Johnson

SUBJECT:

Failure to disclose certain receipts and expenditures; improper use of employer facilities; receipt of salary while campaigning

  DISPOSITION:

The complaint alleged that Curt Hohn, who ran for the single congressional seat in South Dakota in 2000, failed to disclose certain receipts and disbursements for his committee; that he continued to receive a salary from his former employer (WEB) while campaigning full time; and that he used WEB facilities for his campaign. The respondents denied all allegations. The Commission exercised its prosecutorial discretion and dismissed the matter because of the lack of evidence supporting the allegations, the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, and the Commissions other enforcement priorities.

*The Enforcement Priority System (EPS) rates all incoming cases against objective criteria to determine whether they warrant use of the Commission’s limited resources.

Cases dismissed under EPS fall into two categories: low rated and stale cases. Low rated cases are those that do no warrant use of the Commission’s resources to pursue because of their lower significance relative to other pending matters.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5748 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     
3. MUR 5454  
     

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Michael Hosea

(b)    Thomas Sanchez

COMPLAINANT:

Paul R. Hollrah

SUBJECT:

Corporate contributions/contributions in the name of another

  DISPOSITION:

(a-b)  Dismiss the matter

The complaint alleged that six law firms reimbursed individuals for their contributions to John Edward’s presidential campaign. In MUR 5366, the Commission found no reason to believe that respondents associated with four of the six law firms violated the Act and closed the file as it pertained to them.  Because the complaint in this matter provides no new information as to these respondents, the Commission dismissed the complaint as it pertains to respondents associated with Howarth & Smith, Robinson, Calcagnie & Robinson, Shernoff, Bidart & Darras LLP, and Wilkes & McHugh.  This dismissal encompassed two spouses of law firm employees who were not specifically named as respondents in MUR 5366 but who have submitted sworn statements denying that they were reimbursed for their contributions to Edwards for President.  See Press Release for MUR 5366 dated June 22, 2006.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5454 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

There are four administrative stages to the FEC enforcement process:

1. Receipt of proper complaint

3. “Probable cause” stage

2. “Reason to believe” stage

4. Conciliation stage

It requires the votes of at least four of the six Commissioners to take any action. The FEC can close a case at any point after reviewing a complaint.  If a violation is found and conciliation cannot be reached, then the FEC can institute a civil court action against a respondent.                                                     

 

 

# # #