| WASHINGTON -- The Federal Election Commission is making public three
additional cases resolved in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program. This brings
to 49 the total number of cases released thus far. The
program’s goal is to expedite resolution of some enforcement matters, reduce the cost
of processing complaints, and enhance overall FEC enforcement. Closed ADR negotiated
settlement summaries are available in the FEC’s Press and Public Records offices. For
a case to be considered for ADR treatment, a respondent must express willingness to engage
in the ADR process, agree to set aside the statute of limitations while the case is
pending in the ADR Office, and agree to participate in bilateral negotiations and, if
necessary, mediation.
Bilateral negotiations through ADR are oriented toward reaching an expedient resolution
with a mutually agreeable settlement that is both satisfying to the respondent(s) and in
compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Resolutions reached through
direct and, when necessary, mediated negotiations are submitted to the Commissioners for
final approval. If a resolution is not reached in bilateral negotiation, the case proceeds
by mutual agreement to mediation. It should be noted that cases resolved through ADR are
not precedential.
| 1. |
ADR #042 (See MUR 5133R) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RESPONDENTS: |
(a) Darland Corporation (b) Iowa Pipeline
Associates, Inc.
(c) Pinnacle Bank
(d) Par Electrical Contractors, Inc. |
|
| SOURCE: |
Anne Boyle, Chairperson, Nebraska Democratic
Party |
|
| SUBJECT: |
Corporate contributions |
|
| NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT: |
(a) $300 civil penalty* (b) $375 civil
penalty*
(c) $300 civil penalty*
(d) $300 civil penalty*
(a-d) All respondents, in effort to avoid repetition of the violation, agreed to adopt
and distribute within 30 days following the effective date of their agreements a policy
prohibiting corporate contributions to election campaigns and advising any officer or
director of the corporation that they are prohibited from consenting to any contribution
or expenditure by the corporation to an election campaign. |
|
|
|
|
| 2. |
ADR #067 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RESPONDENT: |
John D. Ong |
|
| SOURCE: |
Pre-MUR 404 – Complainant: Sua sponte |
|
| SUBJECT: |
Exceeding the $25,000 annual contribution limit
(1997 and 1999) |
|
| NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT: |
$15,000 civil penalty* |
|
|
|
|
| 3. |
ADR #071 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RESPONDENT: |
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. |
|
| SOURCE: |
Pre-MUR 405 – Complainant: Sua sponte |
|
| SUBJECT: |
Commingle campaign activity with personal
business |
|
| NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT: |
The respondent acknowledged that the commingling
of campaign activities with private outside business matters is inconsistent with House
rules and the FECA. In an effort to clarify the reporting responsibilities of campaign
committees and further understanding of the FECA, the respondent will direct staff from
his authorized committee to attend, sometime in the next 12 months, a FEC sponsored
seminar for candidate committees. On advice of the House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct, the respondent subsequently refunded all contributions from the
participants of the book signing. The respondent subsequently divested $37.50 representing
the amount that accrued from the sale of the subject volume and on advice from the House
Committee, contributed the $37.50 to a local charity in his district. |
# # # |
