HOME / PRESS OFFICE

FEC Home Page

For Immediate Release
July 13, 2004
Contact: Kelly Huff
Bob Biersack
Ian Stirton
George Smaragdis
COMPLIANCE CASES MADE PUBLIC

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission has recently made public its final actions on two matters previously under review (MURs). This release contains only disposition information.

1. MUR 4952 (See MUR 4884)  
     
  RESPONDENTS: Mark Jimenez (a/k/a Mario Batucan Crespo)
  COMPLAINANTS: Sua sponte
  SUBJECT: Corporate contributions; foreign national contributions; contributions in the name of another; excessive contributions; exceeding the annual $25,000 contribution limit
  DISPOSITION:

Reason to believe, but took no further action*

[re: foreign national contributions; knowing and willful corporate contributions, contributions in the name of another; excessive contributions, exceeding the annual $25,000 contribution limit]

Mark Jimenez, Chief Executive Officer of Future Tech International, Inc., filed a sua sponte submission with the Federal Election Commission disclosing that the corporation, at the instruction of Mr. Jimenez, reimbursed various employees via company bonuses for contributions to federal candidate committees totaling approximately $40,000 made between February 1994 and September 1996. The submission further disclosed that Future Tech and Mr. Jimenez made numerous contributions to the Democratic National Committee's non-federal account. The FEC sought further information regarding Future Tech's and Mr. Jimenez's non-federal contributions. The respondents counsel filed a supplement to the sua sponte disclosing that Future Tech and Mr. Jimenez made approximately $110,000 in contributions tothe DNC's non-federal account between May 1993 and March 1994, at a time when Mr. Jimenez was a foreign national. Mr. Jimenez further reimbursed employees for approximately $21,500 in contributions to local candidates in South Florida . After considering the circumstances of the matter, the Commission determined to take no further action and close the file in this matter.

  DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD: Documents from this matter are available from the Commission?s web site at http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs by entering 4952 under case number. They are also available in the FECs Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.
     
2. MUR 5347  
     
  RESPONDENT:

(a)   Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, James J.    Bonham, treasurer

(b)   Pennsylvania Democratic Party, James Byrnes, treasurer

(c)   Congressman Joseph M. Hoeffel

(d)   Hoeffel for Congress Committee, Jeffrey B. Albert,    treasurer
  COMPLAINANTS: Deidre Barnes
  SUBJECT: Excessive coordinated expenditures; excessive contributions
  DISPOSITION:

(a-b)   No reason to believe*

(c-d) No reason to believe*

The complaint states that the Pennsylvania Democratic Party (?PDP?) made excessive contributions to the Hoeffel for Congress Committee during the 2002 election for Pennsylvania 's 13 th Congressional District. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the PDP spent $734,807 on coordinated expenditures for advertising while the limit was $35,910. The complaint further alleges that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Representative Hoeffel should be held accountable if they were aware, and aided or devised the scheme. The Commission found there was no reason to believe that any of the respondents violated the Act.

  DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD: Documents from this matter are available from the Commission?s web site at http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs by entering 5347 under case number. They are also available in the FECs Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.
     

*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.

# # #