News Releases, Media Advisories

FEC Seal Linking to FEC.GOV

For Immediate Release
September 24, 2001

Contact:

Kelly Huff
Ron Harris
Ian Stirton

 

COMPLIANCE CASES MADE PUBLIC

 

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has recently made public its final action on 11 matters previously under review (MURs).  This release contains only summary information. Closed files should be thoroughly read for details, including the FEC’s legal analysis of the case. (See footnote at the end of this release.) Closed MUR files are available in the Public Records Office.

 

1.

MUR 4621

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

(a) Cook 98 Re-election Committee, Camille Cook, treasurer       (UT)

(b) Honorable Merrill A. Cook (UT)

(c)  Cook Associates, Inc. (UT)

(d) R. T. Nielson Company (UT)

(e) Phillips, Twede, Spencer, Inc. (UT)

 

COMPLAINANTS:

Mike Zuhl, Chair, Utah State Democratic Committee (UT)

 

SUBJECT:

Failure to properly report debt; corporate contributions

 

DISPOSITION:

(a-c) Conciliation Agreement: $8,000 civil penalty*

(a-b) No reason to believe*

         (re: corporate contributions in the form of unpaid debt          with regard to R.T. Nielson Company and Phillips,          Twede, Spencer, Inc.)

(d-e) No reason to believe*

         (re: corporate contributions)

 

 

 

2.

MUR 5001

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

(a)  Charlie A. Dooley (MO)

(b) Dooley for Congress Committee, Everet Ballard,       treasurer (MO)

 

COMPLAINANT:  

Rickey Jamerson (MO)

 

SUBJECT:

Disclaimer

 

DISPOSITION:

(a)  No reason to believe*

(b) Reason to believe, but took no further action*

      Sent admonishment letter.

 

 

 

3.

MUR 5141

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

(a)  Honorable James P. Moran, Jr. (VA)

(b) Moran for Congress, H. Robert Morrison, treasurer (VA)

(c)  Terry L. Lierman (MD)

(d) Schering - Plough Corporation (NJ)

(e)  Schering - Plough Corporation Better Government Fund,       E. Kevin Moore, treasurer (NJ)

 

COMPLAINANTS:

Kenneth Boehm, Chairman, National Legal and Policy Center (VA)

 

SUBJECT:

Excessive contribution (in the form of a personal loan)

 

DISPOSITION:

(a-e)   No reason to believe*

          (re: an relevant provision of FECA)       

 

 

 

4.

MUR 5159

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

(a)  Committee to Elect Conrad Lee, David L. Yarno, treasurer        (WA)

(b) Conrad Lee (WA)

(c)  Bush-Cheney 2000 Inc., David Herndon, treasurer (TX)

 

COMPLAINANT:

Bryan Griggs (WA)

 

SUBJECT:

Failure to register and report; excessive contribution; corporate contributions

 

DISPOSITION:

   (a)   Reason to believe, but took no further action*

(b-c)   Took no action*

 

 

 

5.

MUR 5219

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENT:

Electrical Workers IUE AFL-CIO LU 323

 

COMPLAINANT:

Referral by Joseph S. Wasik, District Director, US Department of Labor, Office of Labor - Management Standards (NY)

 

SUBJECT:

Union contribution

 

DISPOSITION:

Reason to believe, but took no further action*

 
6. Pre-MUR 402 / MUR 5222

 

RESPONDENT:

Richard Egan

 

COMPLAINANT:

Sua sponte

 

SUBJECT:

Exceeding the annual $25,000 contribution limit

 

DISPOSITION:

Conciliation Agreement: $36,700 civil penalty*

       

        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 cases and stale cases.  Low rated cases are those that do not warrant use of the Commission’s resources to pursue because of their lower significance relative to other pending matters. Stale cases are those that initially received  a higher rating but have remained unassigned for a significant period due to a lack of staff resources for effective investigation.   Effective enforcement relies upon the timely pursuit of complaints and referrals to ensure compliance with the law.  Investigations concerning activity more remote in time usually require a greater commitment of resources, primarily due to the fact that the evidence of such activity becomes more difficult to develop as it ages.   The utility of commencing an investigation declines as these cases age, until they reach a point when activation of a case would not be an efficient use of the Commission’s resources.   As cases reach this point, they are recommended for dismissal. 

Dismissed -Low Rated

7.

MUR 5102

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

(a)  The Buffalo News, Inc. (NY)

(b)  National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC) (NY)

(c)   CBS Corporation (NY)

(d)  WNED Television (NY)

 

COMPLAINANT:

Harry Kresky, on behalf of Jeff Graham (NY)

 

SUBJECT:

Failure to use pre-established objective criteria for selection of candidates for participation in debate

 

   

 

8.

MUR 5163

 

 

   

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

Meeks for Congress 2000, Charles H. Reeves III, treasurer (NY)

 

COMPLAINANT:

Andrea T. Payne (NY)

 

SUBJECT:

Personal use of campaign funds

 

   

 

9.

MUR 5167

 

 

   

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

(a)  Citizens for O’Malley, William D. McLeod, treasurer (IL)

(b)  George A. Moser (IL)

(c)   Eugene Ognibene (IL)

(d)  Charter National Bank and Trust (IL)

(e)  Northwest Bancorp (IL)

 

COMPLAINANT:

Christopher Bollyn (IL)

 

SUBJECT:

National bank contributions

 

   

 

10.

MUR 5175

 

 

   

 

 

RESPONDENTS:

(a)  Citizens for Randy Borow, Jennilyn J. Walton, treasurer        (IL)

(b)  Randall A. Borow (IL)

 

COMPLAINANT:

Bob F. Holas (IL)

 

SUBJECT:

Excessive contribution (in form of loans)

 

 

 

11.

MUR 5184

 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENT:

Atlantic List Company, Inc. (VA)

 

COMPLAINANT:

McCain 2000, Allen Haywood, Comptroller/Assistant Treasurer (VA)

 

SUBJECT:

Sale and/or use of contributor information for commercial purpose

 

*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.

 

 

# # #