HOME / ABOUT THE FEC / COMMISSIONERS / FORMER COMMISSIONERS / COMMISSIONER SCOTT E. THOMAS / STATEMENTS AND OPINIONS
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
In the matter of
|In re Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee||MUR 5120|
Statement of Reasons
On April 3, 2001, the Commission voted unanimously to find no reason to believe that Respondent Hillary Rodham Clinton for U.S. Senate Committee violated any provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by reason of the activities described in the complaint in this matter. The complaint alleged that the Clinton campaign had used a government-owned list of White House visitors to solicit funds for Mrs. Clintons Senate campaign. The response stated that no contribution was made to the Committee when some pages of a list of names for a White House party were inadvertently mixed with other pieces of paper that included campaign lists [and] were subsequently added to the campaign database. Response at 1. Once the mistake was discovered, the campaign deleted the party names from its database and returned the five contributions totaling $275 received from individuals on the party list. Id.
The FECA governs, among other things, contributions by any person to federal election campaigns. 2 U.S.C. § 431(8). The term person, however, excludes the federal government. 2 U.S.C. § 431(11). Thus, even if, as alleged, federal assets were used in furtherance of Mrs. Clintons Senate campaign, no contribution to her campaign would result. When a complaint cites activity which does not constitute a violation of the FECA, the Commission may find no reason to believe. See Statement of Reasons in MUR 4960 (Clinton for U.S. Senate Exploratory Committee) and MUR 4869 (American Postal Workers Union).
May 25, 2001
/ s / / s /
Danny L. McDonald, Chairman David M. Mason, Vice Chairman
/ s / / s /
Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner
/ s / / s /
Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner
 The General Counsel recommended dismissing the matter as a low-rated case under the Commissions Enforcement Priority System because Respondent took some remedial action and the matter is less significant relative to other matters pending before the Commission.
 Compare 11 CFR 106.3 (costs of government-provided conveyance/accommodations are reportable). This requirement does not, however, extend to other government-provided assets and, under the FECA, there is no reimbursement requirement for any such assets. See, similarly, 11 CFR §§ 9004.7(b)(5) and 9034.7(b)(5) (publicly funded presidential candidates must reimburse the government for the costs of government-provided conveyance/ accommodations).