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.[1] 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.[2] 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
[1] 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.
[2] 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).