HOME / PRESS OFFICE

FEC Home Page

For Immediate Release
August 4, 2006
Contact: Kelly Huff
Bob Biersack
Ian Stirton
George Smaragdis
FEC COMPLETES ACTION ON FOUR ENFORCEMENT CASES

WASHINGTON --The Federal Election Commission has recently made public its final action on four matters previously under review (MURs). In MUR 5669, Frist 2000, Inc. paid an $11,000 civil penalty for failing to properly report a loan and its repayment. 

In MUR 5581, the Commission found reason to believe but after subsequent investigation took no further action regarding possible corporate and excessive in-kind contributions resulting from efforts to place Ralph Nader on the ballot for President in Arizona in 2004. The respondents denied that they made or accepted any contributions.  The FEC found that any possible violations did not exceed $2,500 and were too small to warrant further investigation.

Finally in MURs 5550 and 5566 involving possible corporate expenditures, the Commission found no reason to believe regarding Michael Moore and dismissed the case against several Universities. The Commission found that proceeds from Mr. Moore’s speeches did not go to any political committee, the speeches were not coordinated with any campaign or committee, and that the Universities’ speakers programs were part of their general educational mission.  This release contains only disposition information.

1.

MUR 5669

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Frist 2000, Inc., Dawn Perkerson, treasurer

(b)   Senator William H. Frist

(c)   M. Lee Barfield, former treasurer, Frist 2000, Inc.

(d)   Linus Catignani, former assistant treasurer, Frist 2000, Inc.

COMPLAINANT:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

SUBJECT:

Failure to report loan; failure to properly report the repayment of a loan

  DISPOSITION:

(a)     Conciliation Agreement: $11,000 civil penalty*

(b-d)  Dismiss the matter.

The complaint alleged that Frist 2000, Inc., its current treasurer and former treasurers/assistant treasures and the Senator failed to report a $1.44 million loan on its 2000 Year-End Report taken out jointly by Frist 2000, Inc, and Senator Frist’s 1994 principal campaign committee, Bill Frist for Senate, Inc. The complainant also alleged that the respondents also failed to properly report the repayment of the loan on the 2001 Mid-Year Report. The Commission reached a conciliation agreement with Frist 2000, Inc. and closed the file.         

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5669 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     
2. MUR 5581  
     

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Arizona Republican Party, Woody Martin, treasurer

(b)   Nathan Sproul

(c)   Sproul & Associates, Inc.

(d)  Steve Wark

(e)   Nader for President 2004, Carl M. Mayer, treasurer

(f)    Ralph Nader

COMPLAINANT:

Daniel Schneider

SUBJECT:

Excessive contributions; corporate contributions; failure to report contributions

  DISPOSITION:

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

      [re: excessive in-kind contributions; failure to report in-    kind contributions]

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

      [re: corporate contributions; excessive contributions]

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

      [re: corporate contributions]

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

      [re: corporate contributions; excessive contributions]

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

      [re: excessive contributions; corporate contributions]

(f)  No reason to believe

The complainant alleged that the Arizona Republican Party (ARP) made excessive and unreported contributions in a petition drive to get Ralph Nader on the Arizona ballot.  The Commission initially found reason to believe that ARP and other respondents made excessive or prohibited contributions but subsequent investigation revealed that the facts warranted no further action.  The Commission found no reason to believe regarding Mr. Nader in part because there was no evidence of involvement by Mr. Nader in the petition drives.

[See MURs 5489/5513/5533 – Press Release dated 9/22/05]

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5581 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s Public Records Office at 999 E St. NW in Washington.

     

3.-4.

MURs5550 & 5566

     

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Michael Moore [5550]

(b)   Syracuse University [5550 & 5566]

(c)   University of Cincinnati [5550]

(d)  Wayne State University [5550]

(e)   Northwest Missouri State University [5550]

(f)    University of Florida [5550]

(g)   Pennsylvania State University [5550]

(h)   Lehigh University [5550]

(i)    Herring Broadcasting Company, Inc. [5550]

(j)    “Wealth TV “Network [5550]

COMPLAINANTS:

David T. Hardy [5550]

Jon Alvarez [5566]

SUBJECT:

Corporate expenditures

  DISPOSITION:

(a)        No reason to believe*

(b-j)     Dismiss the allegations in these matters.

            The complainants alleged that various universities and a corporation made prohibited corporate expenditures by funding speeches by Moore. Both complainants alleged that Mr. Moore’s expressly advocated the election of Senator John Kerry and the defeat of President George Bush. The Commission found no reason to believe with respect to Mr. Moore because the proceeds from the tour were not provided to any federal committee, and there was no evidence of coordination with the Democratic Party or the Kerry-Edwards campaign. The Commission dismissed the remaining allegations because the presence of speakers is consistent with a university’s fostering the free exchange of ideas in an academic setting.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5550 or 5566 under case number in the Enforcement Query System.  They are also available in the FEC’s 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.                                                     

 

 

# # #