FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 999 E Street, N.W. Wasfaington, D.C. 20463

FIRST GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT CELA

MUR: 6276 8 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: April 20,2010 9 DATE OF NOTIFICATION: April 27,2010 10 LAST RESPONSE RECEIVED: June 16,2010 11 DATE ACTIVATED: June 28,2010 HI 12 cn 13 EXPIRATION OF SOL: 14 Earliest Dec. 23,2014/Latest Feb. 5,2015 CP IS 16 COMPLAINANT: Mark Brewer 17 18 Chair, Michigan Democratic Party 19 RESPONDENTS: 20 Ron Weiser 21 Michigan Republican Stote Committee and 22 Carl Meyers, in his official capacity as treasurer 23 Ken McKay 24 Michael Steele 25 Republican National Committee and Randall 26 Pullen, in his official capacity as treasurer 27 Albert Berriz 28 Paula Berriz 29 Gaylen Byker 30 Thomas Celani 31 Vicki Celani 32 Michael Ferrantino 33 Kellie Feiiantino 34 Michael Jandemoa 35 Susan Jandemoa 36 John Kennedy 37 Nancy Kennedy 38 Robert Lynas 39 Joyce Lynas 40 William Parfet 41 Robert Thompson 42 William Young 43 Vivienne Young MUR 6276 (Weiser, era/.) First General Counsers Report

1 RELEVANT STATUTES I 2U.S.C.§437g(a)(l) 2 AND REGULATIONS: r 2U.S.C.§441a(a) 3 I 2U.S.C.§441a(f) 4 i 2U.S.C.§441f s 11 C.F.R.§ 110.1(h) 6 11 C.F.R.§ 110.6 7 11 C.F.R.§ 111.4 8 9 INTERN/^ REPORTS CHECKEO: Disclosure Reports 10 11 FEDERAL AGENCIES CHECKE >. None rH 12 cn 13 1. INTRODUCTION 04 14 The complaint in this mattejt' alleges that the Michigan Republican State Committee cn i: 04 IS (''Michigan Republican Party*' or *'^4RP"), its Chairman, Ron Weiser, the Republican National Q «1 n 16 Committee ("RNC^. its Chairmanl Michael Steele, former RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay, and 17 17 individual donors (collectively ^Respondents**) knowingly and willfully evaded individual

18 contribution limits, which resulted Sn excessive contributions to the MRP in violation ofthe 19 Federal Election Campaign Act of 971, as amended ("die Act**). According to the complaint,

20 the excessive contributions resultec when Michigan-based donors who made direct contributions

21 to the MRP subsequently made dirkt contributions collectively totaling $465,000 to the RNC in

22 December 2009 that were earmark^ for die MRP. The complaint alleges that die RNC, in tum, I 23 U^sferred those earmarked funds io the MRP in January and February 2010. 24 As discussed in further detafl below, the allegations are not supported by available i 25 information, and are rebutted by sp^ific swom denials submitted by die Respondents.

26 Therefore, we recommend that the [commission find no reason to believe that tfae Respondents

27 violated the Act by making or accepting excessive contributions in violation of 2 U.S.C.

28 §441a(a)(l)or441a(f). MUR 6276 (Weiser. et al.) ' 3 First General Counsel's Repoit |

1 n. FACTUAL AND LEGAll ANALYSIS i 2 A. Factual Summary 3 i 4 The complaint alleges that ^ntributions made to tfae RNC by some of the MRP*s donors

5 in late 2009 were made as part of d| scheme to knowingly and willfully evade die contribution

6 limits of die Act. The complaint cjtes to a news article from The Daily Caller intemet news site I CO 7 CDaUy Caller article") and to the jlNC^s disclosure reports filed with the Commission in 04 ^ 8 support ofthe allegations. 04 r ^ 190 if die statThee partDailyy coulCalledr raise articl hale describef a milliosn a dollar schems efo rin di whice RNhC th *teo RNincreasC ande ththee MRRNC'P agrees 200d9 tha t O 11 fundraising numbers," then the RNC would "give the money back" to the MRP in the next 12 calendar year.' The article quotes ^ unnamed "former RNC official" who explained that,'*[i]t I 13 was a known secret that a deal had been struck on the topic,** that it would benefit the MRP by 14 "getting guaranteed money," and b ^neflt the RNC by helping it reach fundraising goals, and

15 allow donora **to give more monetoy th e Michigan state party than the federal limit of 1 Ok."

16 The complaint alleges tfaat MichaeSteele . Chairman of die RNC, and Ken McKay, RNC Chief

17 of Staff, were "behind the deal wit$ Michigan party chair Ron Weiser." Complaint at 2.

18 The complaint also cites to the RNCs disclosure reports filed with the Commission,

19 which show that seventeen Michig^ donore contributed the maximum allowed to the RNC

20 totaling $456,000, on December 2?, and December 31,2009. Complaint at 2. Disclosure reports

21 also showed that the RNC made ap|)roximately $500,000 in disbursements to the MRP in

22

' See Alex Pappas. Former RNC official}, Steele strudc a deal with Midugan GOP to increase Jundraising numbers, possibly to circumvent federal fimdraising Umits, April 7,2010, http-7/dailvcaller.coni/2010/04/Q7/fonner- mc-official-steele-struck-a-deal-with-iniclugan-gop-to-iiicrease-fundraislrie-num federri-funding-limits flast visited September 10.2010). MUR 6276 (Weiser, e/a/.) : 4 First General Counsel's Report ! 1 January and February 2010. Id. A|Bcording to disclosure reports, five ofthe individual donora

2 had contributed the maximum to tliie MRP in 2009.

3 ' The Daily Caller article in4icates that Weiser, through a spokeswoman, denied any sort

4 of deal stating that, "Michigan donora have a long history of contributing to the RNC and fhe

5 RNC has a long history of supporting Michigan GOP efiforts." However, the article noted that an I ts, 6 MRP representative stated that she! was not aware of any specific December fundraising events fi [ ^ 7 to explain the large donations, indijbating only that many large donore make contribution 04 i ^ 8 decisions at the end of the year, lie article also notes that none of Michigan's senatora are up ' I 9 for election in 2010, that the state's primaries are held later than edier states, yet Michigan

. 10 received the most money fiom the kNC of all the states in January and Februaiy 2010. In

11 response, an MRP representative a; }parently explained to the Daily Caller that the Michigan

12 GOP began its victory program "ei rlier than any other state in the country." Complaint I 13 Atbichment {Daily Caller Article). I- 14 All of the respondents deny[ violations of the Act. The MRP, Ron Weiser, Ken McKay, 15 and fourteen (14) of the'individual Icontributore submitted a joint response to the complaint j 16 (*'MRP Response") that included 1^ swom afiRdavits.^ The response challenges the sufficiency j, 17 ofthe complaint because it was ba^ on infonnation from a press article quoting an anonymous 18 source and denies diat there was ariy scheme to evade the $10,000 annual limit to the MRP. I 19 MRP Response at 2, Weiser Affidajyit at \ 3, and McKay Affidavit at H 3. The response explains

20 that Chainnan Weiser solicited c4ibuti„ns for the RNC fiom nine ofthe named respondents

2\ \ il*

' The fourteen contributors included in die MRP Response are the following: 1) Gaylen Byker, 2) Thomas Celani, 3) Vicki Celani. 4) Michael Fenantino, S)iKellie Fenantino. 6) Michael Jandemoa, 7) Susan Jandemoa. 8) John Kennedy, 9) Nancy Kennedy, 10) Robert pynas, 11) Joyce Lynas, 12) William Par&t, 13) William Young, and 14) Vivienne Young. MUR 6276 (Weiser, et ai) 5 First Geneial Counsel's Report

1 and that Robert Schostak, die MRPfs Finance Chairman, solicited one additional conuibution.

2 The MRP Response acknowledges ihat certain Michigan-based donore made contributions to the

3 RNC and diat the RNC transferred ^ds to die MRP in January and February 2010, but it asserts

4 that the complaint distorts the contribution and transfer history in an effort to demonstrate a link

5 between the contributions and transjfera. MRP Response at 3-4. It points out that, in addition to

«0 6 the $456,000 in contributions ident^ed in the complaint, nine other Michigan residents made cn 7 maximum conUributions of $30,400leach to die RNC, totaling $273,600, from November 18

9 transfera fit)m the RNC to the MRI^ that were completed between June 2009 and May 2010,

^ 10 totaling $256,967.72. MRP Response at 5-6.

^ 11 In response to the complainant's questioning of contributions made by donore who had

12 never previously contributed to the IRNC and by othere who had never previously contributed the

13 annual maximum, the MRP points put that 13 of the 17 named respondents had contributed to i 14 the RNC in the past, and 11 had previously contributed die maximum annual amount. MRP

15 Response 3. The MRP also notes that only a small number of the 17 individual contributors

' 16 named in the complaint had contributed die maximum $10,000 annual amount to the MRP in

17 2009.^ Id. atl. The Committee aigues that "it is simply not tfae case that a history of lawful i 18 contributions, or a history of not m^ing contributions, can properly be viewed an evidence of an

19 Mllegal scheme' in an enforcement batter." Id at 3.

20

^ While the MRP's disclosure reports indicate that only five of die 17 individual respondents had contributed the annual maximum to the MRP in 2009. the^ also show tiiat another ei^t of the 17 respondents contributed $9,000 to the MRP in 2009 and that most of thos^respondents also contributed the maximum to the MRP's Levin account. Four ofthe 17 respondents did not contribjite to the MRP at all in 2009. MUR 6276 (Weiser. efd/.) 6 First Qeneral Counsel's Report 1 Weiser's and McKay's afiBdavits each "unequivocally state" that diere was never an i 2 illegal scheme to evade the $10,000 annual limit to the MRP. Weiser and McKay Afif. at ^ 3.

3 They explain that fhey were '*unav^ of any conversations between the Individual Respondents

4 and the RNC prior to the time that ihe contributions in question were made" during which the

5 intended purpose of the contributic^s would have been discussed. Weiser and McKay Aff. at f cn 6 4. Weiser also denies that he ever {'suggest[ed] tfiat die RNC would re-direct their contributions iH ^ 7 fix>m the RNC to die MRP.** Weisir Afif. at If 5. In his afiGdavit, McKay describes a December 04 cn (M 8 2009 discussion with Weiser during which they discussed fundraising for the RNC but heaven ^ 9 that he "did not discuss or otherwise propose nr consider any program in which Chairman Q 1 ^ 10 Weiser would raise funds for the R^C tfiat would dien be transferred doilar-for-dollar to tiie 11 MRP." McKay Afif. at ^ 5. j

12 The swom afifidavits provided by the individual contributora are virtually identical to

13 each other.^ The donore indicate tliat their contributions to the RNC were voluntary, that their r 14 contributions were "not earmarked |in any way and [were] made with no conditions or i 15 contingencies; there were absolutely no strings attached to [the] contribution," that they did not

16 retain control over their contributi^is once they made them, were **never told with any . |

17 specificity how the Republican National Committee would use my contiibution," and thai prior I

18 to making then' contributiDns they never spoke with anyone from the RNC about their I 19 conbibutions. ^ee Affidavits Atta^ed to MRP Response. Some ofthe donore indicated that ! 20 they had been solicited by Weiser fljnd/or Schostak, but their affidavits did not provide any 21 details of those discussions.

* The affidavit of Thomas Celani differs slightly fromth e others in that it explains that because his business activities prevented hun fromdonatin g in Michigan elections, he made his contribution to tiie RNC with tiie condition tiiat**n Q funds would oome bac^to Michigan." Celani Aff. at ^ 4. MUR 6276 (Weiser. efa/.) 7 First General Counsel's Report 1 Separate responses submitted by the remaining three individual contributora, Albert and

2 Paula Berriz and Robert Thompsoii, also state that their conuibutions were voluntaiy, made

3 without conditions, tfiat they did not know how the RNC would use their contiributions, and that

4 other than Weiser's solicitation, th6y had no discussions about the contributions with anyone

5 else. 5ee Berriz AfiGdavits and Thompson Response and AfiGdavit. Thompson's response also

^ 6 challenges the sufficiency of the c0mplaint. Thompson Response at 1-2; see fn. 5 infra. 04 I (ft. 7 The response submitted on jbehalf of the RNC and Chainnan Michael Steele included 04 j ^ 8 swom affidavits from Steele, Linds^ey Drath, Director of the RNC's major donor program, and fM j ^ 9 Allyson Schmeiser, Deputy Direct(br ofthe major donor program. In their response, Steele and •3 [ 10 the RNC request dismissal of the complaint for the failure to state a violation and failure to rHI ! j 11 provide specific fricts as evidence bf the alleged scheme, and on the grounds that the independent r 12 tiransactions at issue (i.e., the individual contilbutions to the RNC and tfie RNC's tiransfere to tfie

13 MRP) were permissible on their fa^. See RNC Response at 1-2. These respondents also argue

14 that there is no evidence in support:of a violation under an earmarking theoiy or as a contribution s ! 15 in the name of another. Id at 2-3. )rhe RNC response challenges the complainant*s implication

16 that oontiibutions from first-time donors are suspicious, noting that the RNC had 364,890 firet-

17 time contributore in 2009. The RN{b Response also notes that the complaint ignores 1,397 total

18 contiibiitions firom Michigan imd 5 ^396 contrifautions firom across fhe oountiy made to fhe RNC

19 during the time period that is the fticm of the complaint. RNC Response at 3.

20 In his affidavit, Steele denies knowledge of an illegal scheme to evade the S10,000

21 annual individual limit to the federal account of the MRP, that any RNC employees discussed i 22 the purpose of a contribution with cjny contiibutora named in the complaint, or that any MRP MUR 6276 (Weiser. efa/.) 8 First General Counsel's Report 1 representative ever told contiibutora tfiat their oontiibutions would be redirected to tfie MRP.

2 Steele Afif. at ^ 3-6. Steele also specifically states tfiat he never had any discussions with any of

3 the contributore named in the comiikunt regardmg the puipose of their contributions. Id. at \ 2.

4 However, he does not indicate whether RNC and MRP representatives ever discussed how the

5 contributions at issue would be used.

. 6 Dratfi's and Schmeiser's affidavits were substantially similar. They explain that in their rm the RNC's major 04 i ^ 8 donore and as a result, they reviewed fhe eontributions at issue. Drath and Schmeiser AfiRdavits 04 ^ 9 at n 1 -4. They each indicate that ^one of the contiibution checks at issue was earmarked or o i 10 designated for any purpose, including for the MRP. Drath and Schmeiser Afif. at f 5. They also 11 state that they never spoke to any df the contributore named in the complaint prior to their ! 12 contributions, never discussed the purpose for which the contributions would be used and had no

13 knowledge regarding the contributore* expectations or of any discussions between the

14 contributora and MRP representatijes. Drath and Schmeiser Afif. at ^ 6-7.

15 B. Analysis j 16 Under the Act, an individual is permitted to contribute $10,000 per calendar year to a i 17 state political party and $30,400 tola national political party committee. See

18 2 U.S.C. § 441 a(a)( 1 )(B) and (D); Siee also Price Index Increases for Contribution and

19 Expenditure Limitations and Lobbyist Bundling Disclosure Threshold, 74 Fed. Reg. 7435,7437

20 (February 17,2009). In addition, tjie Act permits imlimited transfera between a national party I 21 committee and a state political par^ committee. 2 U.S.C. § 441a(aX4). Notwithstanding the

22 fact that the individuals' direct con^ ributions to the MRP and the RNC complied with the limits

23 of 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(l)(B) and (D | on tfieir fru:e, tfie complaint alleges tfiat tfie RNC I i MUR 6276 (Weiser. efa/.) 9 First General Counsel's Report ' 1 subsequentiy transferred the funds jit received from the 17 conti-ibuttire to tfie MRP purauant to a i 2 prior arrangement, resulting in exc^sive contributions to the MRP by those individuals.^

3 Complainants appear to argue that the conti'ibutions made by the individual contiibutora to the i' 4 RNC were earmarked to go back tq the MRP, and should tfierefore, be aggregated witfi tfieir

5 direct conti-ibutions to the MRP. }|owever, this argument is not supported by the relevant ». (M 6 provisions of the Act or their corresponding regulations. OJ i ^7 i. Earmarked Contributioil[S and Appregation cn ' ^8 If individual donore earmaiic then* contnbutions ot make contributions with the ^ 9 knowledge that they would be usee) to benefit a particular candidate, their contributions may be

10 excessive to the extent that they haji already contributed the maximum to that candidate. ^ [ 11 Pureuant to the Act, an earmarked Contribution (i.e., one with a designation, instruction, or 12 encumbrance, whether direct or indirect, express or implied, oral or written, which results in all I 13 or any part of a contiibution or expenditure being made to, or expended on behalf of, a clearly

Some of the Respondents also questioii the sufficiency of the complaint, arguing that the complaint is speculative, based on an anonymous sounle rather than on personal knowledge, and fails to contam a clear recitation oftiie facts giving rise to a violation. See MRP Response at 1-2, RNC Response at 1-2 and Thompson Response at 1-2. However, tiie complaint filed in this Kiatter complied with the Commission's statutoiy and regulatoiy requirements fer legal sufficiency. 2 U.S.C. ,§ 437g(aXl); 11 C.F.R. § 111.4(b). The complaint was signed, swom, identifies tfie complainant and die sources|,of his information in support ofthe allegations (Le., a press report and Commission disclosure reports), and provides a recitation of Acts that may give rise to a violation of the Act The fact tiiat the compiaim relies partly on a pigess article quoting an anonymous source does not in and of itself render the c(miplainl insufficient on its fiiice. Seeie.g., MUR 6023 (McCain^;x)effler Group). The Commission has the opportunity to weigih Qie information repeated in the press article against other available information when it considers the recommendations in the Fir^ General Counsel's Report. I * Commission regulations pemtit an indiiridiial to contribute to a candidate or his or hec autiiorized eommittee with respect to a particular election and also contribute to a political committee, which has supported, or anticipates supporting, the same candidate in the same election without aggregation, as long as (1) the political committee is not tiie candidate's principal campaign Mnunatee or otiier authorized political committee or a single candidate committee; (2) tiie contributor does mS give with the knowledge that a substantial portion will be contributed to, or '^"^ expended on behalf of. that candidate fbr tiie same election; and (3) the contributor does not retain control over the funds. 5^ 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(liXIH3). sSpe MURs 6221 (Transfund FAC). 5968 (John Shadegg's Friends). 5732 (Matt Brown for U.S. Seiuite). and 5019 (Keystone Federal PAC) (altfiougih donors might reasonably infiBrtiun dieir contributions would be used to benefit a pjirticuter candidate, sudi infonnaiiun was insufficient for finding reason to believe that 11 CF.R. § 110.1(h) had beeij violated). See also MUR 5881 (Citizens Club for (jrowtii) (rejecimg claim that contributora had actual knowlecjge based on text nf soUcilations). MUR 6276 (Weiser, ef al.) 10 First General Counsel's Report 1 identified candidate or a candidate's authorized committee), 11 C.F.R. § 110.6(b), counts against

2 the contributor's contiibution limit jfor the recipient candidate. See 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(8),

3 nC.F.R.§ll0.6(a).^

4 However, unlike contributions earmarked to benefit particular candidates, the Act does

5 not mandate aggregation of an individual's direct contributions to unauthorized committees with

^ 6 contributions earmarked to the samp committees. See Explanation and Justifications for 04 q) 7 Affiliated Committees, Ti^ansfers, Prohibited Contributions, Anmtal Contribution Limitations ^ 1 8 and Earmarked Contributions, 54 Eed. Reg. 34098,34105 (August 17,1989). In adopting a 04 ^ 9 revised earmarking regulation, the Commission explicitiy chose not to extend the regulation to ri 10 "include contributions earmarked t<^ other types of political committees" and concluded tfiat ri j 11 earmarked contributions to an unavjtfiorized committee would not count against the original

12 contributora' limits for tfie committiee. 54 Fed. Reg. at 34105. The RNC and MRP are not j 13 autfiorized committees because they have not been authorized in writing by a candidate to solicit

14 or receive contiributions or make cdntiributions on behalf of such candidate. See 2 U.S.C.

I. 15 § 431 (6), 11 C.F.R. § 100.5(f)(2). because tfie respondent committees are not autfiorized

16 committees, section 441 a(a)(8) and; its corresponding regulations do not apply. Therefore, even

17 if tfie contiributions to the RNC weije earmarked for the MRP, the amounts would not be I 18

^ In the past, the Commission has determjned tiiat contributions were earmarked where there was clear documentaiy evidence denionstrating a deMgnation or insU'uction by die donor, but has rejected -earmaiking based ir rii» on circumsUintial evidence Where tiiey lacked a clear designation or instroction. See MURs 4831/ 5274 (Nixon) ' (finding contributions were eamuurked where checks contained express designations on memo lines). Without a clear designation, the Commission may ex imine whetiier a contributor had ''actual knowledge" ofthe committee's plans to use his or her contribution to cont ibute to or expend funds on behalf oftiie candidate in order to determine whetiier the contribution counts against th^ limit for tiie recipient candidate. Seell C.F.R. § 110.1 (hXl)-(3). I . i MUR 6276 (Weiser, efa/.) 11 First General Counsel's Report \ 1 aggregated to the contributions the'rsame individuals made directly to the MRP. As a result, none

2 of tfie1 7 individuals nuide excessive contiibutions to tfie MRP.

3 2. Transmittal and Reporting Requirements

4 Conduits forwarding earmarked contributions to unauthorized committees must "comply

5 witfi tfie time limits for forwaidingLthe contributions as prescribed by 11 C.F.R. § 102.8," and the i ^ 6 unauthorized committee receiving ^e earmarked contributions is "required to report the amount fM ; cn 7 received as a contribution fiom- theloriginal contiibutors pureuant to 11 C.F.R. § 104.3(a)(4)." 04 . \ ^ 8 54 Fed. Reg. at 34105 (citing Advisory Opinions 1983-18 and 1981-57). Therefore, if tfie 'qr ' ^ 9 contributions at issue had been earmarked, the RNC would have been required to comply with m \ *^ 10 the time limits for forwarding contributions and reporting the amount received as contributions ri i 11 from the original contributore.

12 Respondents have sufiTicienily rebutted the allegation that the contributions at issue were

13 earmarked. All of the individual rej&pondents, in swom affidavits, deny that they earmarked their

14 contributions to the MRP or that th^y had any knowledge how the RNC planned to use the i I 15 contributions. See supra at 6-7. Further, two RNC representativeswh o examined every major i 16 donor's check have averred that nojsuch designations were included on the checks or

17 accompanying documentation. Id jBit 8; ll C.F.R. § 110.6(b). There is no information to

18 contradict die Respondents* specifip denials that they had any knowledge that their oontributions

19 MUR 6276 (Weiser. ef oil) 12 First General Counsel's Report

I 1 would be used for tfie MRP. 11 C.^.R. § 110.1 (h)." Accordingly, tfie requirements for

2 forwarding earmarked contributions and reporting the contiibutions are not applicable.

3 11 C.F.R. §§ 102.8 and 104.3(a)(4).

4 3. Conclusion

5 We recommend that the Commission fmd no reason to believe that Ron Weiser; the

LO 6 Michigan Republican State Committee and Cart Meyera, in his official capacity as treasurer; Ken

^ 7 McKay; Michael Steele; and the Republican National Committee and Randall Pullen, in his 0» rsj 8 ofiRcial capacity as tireasurer, violated 2 U.S.C. § 441 a(f); and find no reason to believe that "ST ^ 9 Albert Berriz; Paula Berriz; Gaylen'Byker; Thomas Celanr, Vicki Celani; Michael Ferrantino; HI ^ 10 Kellie Ferrantino; Michael Jandemoa; Susan Jandemoa; John Kennedy; Nancy Kennedy; Robert

11 Lynas; Joyce Lynas; William Parfet; Robert Thompson; William Yoimg; and Vivienne Young

12 violated 2 U.S.C.§441a(a)(l). 13 !

' As with die alleged violation of the Act based on an eaimarking theoiy, there is also no information to demonstrate tiie requisite knowledge neces$aiy for a violation of 2 US.C. § 441 f. The RNC's and MRP's denials ofa scheme to evade contribution limits lower the possibility that tiiey "knowingly" assisted in making contributions in the name of anotiier. as required fbr a 441f violation. 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(lXiii)-^"3]ie RNC notes tiiat a finding as to section 441f **would require evidence tiiat tiie contributors knew their contributS)ns to tiie RNC would be sent to die MRP" because the Commission's regulation requires tiiat a person "knowingly permit his or her name to be used lo effect that contributon" in the name of anotiier. See RNC Response at 3; 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(bXlXii)- However, because ofthdr swom denials diere is no infbmiation to support the allegations that tiie individual donors in dus matter actively pagrticipated in such a scheme to evade contribution limits by allowing tiie RNC to make contributions on their behalf! MUR6276(Weiser,efa/.) 13 \ j First General Counsel's Report - | 1 m. RECOMMENDATIONS j

2 1. Find no reason to believe that Ron Weiser; the Michigan Republican State Committee 3 and Carl Meyera, in his iofficial capacity as treasurer; Ken McKay; Michael Steele; 4 and the Republican National Committee and Randall Pullen, in his ofiRciai capacity as 5 tteasurer violated 2 U.s!c. § 441 a(f). 6 7 2. Find no reason to believe that Albert Berriz; Paula Berri:^ Gaylen Byker; Thomas 8 Celani; Vicki Celani; Mtehael Ferrantino; Kellie Ferrantino; Michael Jandemoa; 9 Susan Jandemoa; John ^ennedy; Nancy Kennedy; Robert Lynas; Joyce Lynas; 10 William Parfet; Robert tfaompson; William Young; and Vivienne Young violated J5 " 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(l). cn 12 '04 13 3. Approve the attached Ftictual and Legal Analysis. cn 14 • . 1^ 15 4. Approve the appropriate lettere. Z 16 Q 17 5. Close tfiefile . • 18 ' rl 19 ; 20 21 , . 23 Date 24 25 26 I 27 ! 28 ! 29 Katiileen M.Guitfi. 30 Acting Associate General Counsel for 31 Enforcement 32

35 36 Peter G. Blumberg 37 Assistant General Counsel 38 39 40 41 Xha J. Pefia-Wallace 42 Attomey 43 44