HOME / PRESS OFFICE

FEC Home Page

For Immediate Release
October 23, 2006
Contact:

Bob Biersack
Kelly Huff
George Smaragdis
Michelle Ryan

FEC COMPLETES ACTION ON FOUR ENFORCEMENT CASES

WASHINGTON --The Federal Election Commission has recently made public action on four matters previously under review (MURs). In MUR 5764, Thomas Ravenel and Ravenel for U.S. Senate paid a $19,500 civil penalty for failing to timely file reports of the candidate’s personal spending and failing to accurately report receipts and disbursements.

In MURs 5585, 5584 and 5601, the Commission found reason to believe that certain unidentified individuals may have violated the law by making push poll calls withoutthe required disclaimer. The FEC took no further action because this matter would require considerable resources to investigate with very limited prospects for identifying the party that made the calls. The Commission found no reason to believe or dismissed the complaint with regard to the rest of the respondents.

This release contains only disposition information.

1.

MUR 5764

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Ravenel for U. S. Senate, Ben Whaley LeClercq, treasurer

(b)   Thomas Jonathan Jackson Ravenel

COMPLAINANT:

FEC Initiated (RAD)

SUBJECT:

Failure to timely file Form 10s (Notification of Expenditures from Personal Funds); failure to accurately report receipts and disbursements

  DISPOSITION:

(a-b)  Conciliation Agreement: $19,500 civil penalty*

Through routine review of reports, the FEC’s Reports Analysis Division discovered respondents failed to timely file five Notices of Expenditure from Candidate’s Personal Funds (Form 10) and failed to accurately report receipts and disbursements on the 2003 Year-End Report. The Respondents signed a conciliation agreement in which they agreed to pay a $19,500 civil penalty.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5764 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.

     
2/3. MUR 5585 & 5584

   

RESPONDENTS:

(a)   Unknown Respondents [5584]

(b)   Mitchell Research & Communications, Inc. [5585]

(c)   Steve Mitchell [5585]

(d)  SurveyUSA [5585]

(e)   Fred R. Bierman [5585]

(f)    Honorable Nancy Pelosi [5585]

(g)   Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, James          J. Bonham, treasurer [5585]

(h)   ITC Research [5585]

(i)    USA Public Opinion Group [5585]

COMPLAINANT:

Jack L. Metcalf and Frances Free [5584]

James V. Lacy, General Counsel, Americans for Fair Taxation [5585]

SUBJECT:

Disclaimers

  DISPOSITION:

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

          [re: disclaimers]

(b-g)  No reason to believe*

          [re: any provision of the Act]

(h-i)   Dismiss the complaint*

The complaints filed in MURs 5584 and 5585 concerned telephone calls made to individuals residing in a number of Congressional districts across the country prior to the November 2004 election. The calls specifically mentioned the candidates for election in the districts where calls were made and no disclaimer or other attribution to any entity, political committee or individual was stated during the calls. Because both complaints referred to similar calls, the Commission merged the two matters into MUR 5585. Based on the complaint, information supplied by the named respondents and a review of publicly available information, the Commission found reason to believe that certain unknown respondents may have violated the Act by failing to use a disclaimer on the telephone calls, but took no further action because pursuing this matter would require the Commission to expend additional staff time and resources with uncertain prospects for successful conclusion. The Commission dismissed the case against ITC Research and USA Public Opinion Group because the Commission found no information regarding these two entities and concluded they used fictitious names to mask their identities of the responsible party or parties. The Commission found no reason to believe the rest of the respondents violated the law because the investigation did not uncover any evidence linking the respondents to the phone calls.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5585 and/or 5584 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.

     
4. MUR 5601  
     

RESPONDENTS:

Voter Research Group/Unknown Respondents

COMPLAINANT:

John T. Poprik, Treasurer, Fitzpatrick for Congress

SUBJECT:

Disclaimers

  DISPOSITION:

Reason to believe, but took no further action* [re: disclaimers]

The complainant alleged that two sets of phone calls were described as push poll calls. The complaint did not make any allegation as to who made the calls or name any respondents. Based on the complaint and a review of publicly available information, the Commission found reason to believe that certain unknown respondents may have violated the Act by failing to use a disclaimer on the telephone calls, but took no further action because pursuing this matter would require the Commission to expend considerable resources without the prospect of yielding any useful information.

DOCUMENTS ON PUBLIC RECORD:

Documents from this matter are available from the Commission’s web site at http://www.fec.gov by entering 5601 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.                                                     

 

 

# # #