|
(a) Reason to believe, but took no further
action*
[re: excessive contributions; disclaimers; failure
to amend Statement of Organization timely]
Sent admonishment letter with regard to Statement of
Organization.
No reason to believe*
[re: personal use of campaign funds]
Took no action*
[re: failure to properly report contributions]
(b) No reason to believe*
[re: violated the FECA or Commission regulations in
connection with MUR 5350]
(c-j) No reason to believe*
[re: contributions in the name of another]
(g-o) Took no action*
(p) Reason to believe, but took no further action*
[re: excessive contribution; exceeding the $25,000
annual contribution limit]
No reason to believe*
[re: disclaimers]
(q) Reason to believe but took no further action*
[re: excessive contribution]
The complaint in MUR 5350 alleged that the Committee accepted excessive
contributions from individuals who made contributions of $2,000
without proper designation; the candidate's father may have reimbursed
contributions made by his family member to Schneider's campaign;
the Committee purchased a television for Harold Schneider from campaign
funds and the Committee failed to properly report nearly $100,000
in debts. The Commission found there was no reason to believe that
Harold Schneider violated the Act in connection with the allegations
that he reimbursed family members for their contributions or that
the Committee violated the Act in connection with the purchase of
the television set. To the extent that the Committee had not reported
debts accurately, including the one remaining disputed reimbursement
claimed by Shelton , the Committee corrected the errors following
the interim audit report and the Commission decided to take no action
with respect to this allegation. The Commission found reason to
believe that the Committee violated the Act because if failed to
produce evidence of other checks or written instruments to show
how these contributions were designated, redesignated or reattributed
but decided to take no further action given the relatively small
amount potentially in violation and that the contributions would
have been allowable under the post-BCRA redesignation and reattribution
regulations.
The complaint in MUR 5354 alleged that the Committee failed to
properly report unitemized contrtibutions it had received in both
its 2002 12 Day Pre-General and October Quarterly Reports. The Committee
corrected the errors of which Mr. Merritt complained and the Commission
decided to take no action with respect to these allegations.
The complaint in MUR 5361 alleged that Michael Shelton was responsible
for running four political communications that bore false disclaimers
stating that Schneider and the Committee had authorized them when
in fact they had not.
The Commission found no reason to believe that Mr. Shelton had violated
the law with regard to the disclaimers because it appeared that he
was an agent of the Committee for the purpose of authorizing the communications
and had the candidate's permission to authorize distribution of them
without explicit advance approval, and either the Committee or Mr.
Shelton apparently paid for the communications in full or in part.
The Commission found reason to believe that the committee violated
the law because the disclaimers on two of the four political communications
were technically defective because they did not state that the Committee
paid for the communications. The Commission found reason to believe
that Mr. Shelton and Ms. Harwell violated the Act by making excessive
contributions in the form of advances and the Committee violated the
Act by receiving these excessive contributions and by failing to amend
its Statement of Organization in a timely manner. The Commission decided
to take no further action against these respondents. |
