News Releases, Media Advisories

FEC Seal Linking to FEC.GOV

For Immediate Release
April 3, 2001


Kelly Huff
Ron Harris
Sharon Snyder
Ian Stirton



WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has recently made public its final action on four 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 4594 / Pre-MUR 330
RESPONDENTS: (a) Frank Fasi (HI)

(b) Friends for Fasi, William Rose, treasurer (HI)

(c) Longevity International Enterprises Corporation (HI)

(d) China Airlines, Ltd. (CA)

COMPLAINANT: Referral by Robert Y. Watada, Executive Director, Campaign Spending Commission (HI)
SUBJECT: Foreign national contributions
DISPOSITION: (a-b) Probable cause to believe [9/14/99], litigation initiated [12/14/99]

- Consent Order and Judgment: [1/19/01]

$15,000 civil penalty*

(c) Conciliation Agreement: $75,000 civil penalty*

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

2. MUR 4915
RESPONDENTS: (a) Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. (TN)

(b) Gore 2000, Inc., Jose Villareal, treasurer (TN)

(c) Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation (PG&E) (CA)

COMPLAINANT: Stephen M. Duprey, Chairman, The New Hampshire Republican State Committee (NH)
SUBJECT: Corporate contribution
DISPOSITION: (a-c) No reason to believe*
3. MUR 5046
RESPONDENTS: (a) Clinton/Gore ’96 Primary Committee, Inc., Joan Pollitt, treasurer (DC)

(b) Democratic National Committee, Andrew Tobias, treasurer (DC)

COMPLAINANTS: FEC Initiated (Audit)
SUBJECT: Excessive contribution; failure to report expenses; use of non-federal funds in connection with coordinated expenditures
DISPOSITION: (a) No reason to believe*

[re: excessive contribution]

(b) No reason to believe*

[re: excessive contribution]

Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: failure to report expenses; the use of non-federal funds in connection with coordinated expenditures]


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 Priority

4. MUR 4984
RESPONDENTS: (a) Honorable Michael Rogers (MI)

(b) F.H. & L. Development Inc., b/d/a Lake Pointe Manor (MI)

(c) Premiere Technologies, Inc., (f/k/a PTEK Holdings, Inc.) (GA)

(d) Goodwin Development, Inc., d/b/a Marion Oaks Golf Club (MI)

(e) La Prima (MD)

(f) City Club of Washington (DC)

COMPLAINANT: Andrew Nickelhoff, Esquire (MI)
SUBJECT: Corporate contributions


*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.

# # #