June 14I 2012 Balffier&Hqstetlerllp
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Balffier&HQstetlerLLP yvashlngton SqU£^ Suite lio6 1050 Cohniscticut.Avenue, N.W.. Washington, .QC 20036-5304 T 202i.861.1.5G0 F 2.p2;^@ei. 17183 June 14i 2012 wvvwibaketiaw.obm E.'Mark Braden Office of the Qjeneral Counsel dlf^ctdial:; 20i86iv1S(}4 Federal Election Commissioh 999 E Street. N.W. O Washington, DC 20463 Attention: Dariiel Petsilas Associate General Counsel foir EnifdrGemeht o Re: Complaint Dear Sir. Enclosed with this letter is a signed, sworn to: and notarized cdmplalht aileging violations of the Federal Election .Campaign Act Qf 1dt1, as amended (^ct). the attached doGument recites^ facts that show specific viojations of the Act and provides identification of named: ihdividuats who may have committed violatiohs. The: compraint provides the Federal Electibn Commissioh (CQmtnijSsion) with details fegardjiig these violations. VipLations include failure to compiy .wjth jEjisclalmer req.uiremehts bh mesisages authorized and/or firiahcied by a^ c^iiididat0^, failure to di$clbse e>;penditures of coordinated Gprrimuhlq^tiphs!^ and 4ther possible-yipl^tlohs of the Act; the contact infbrmation and ievidehce included In this complaiht should be of assistance tothe Commission in Its investigatibn. ifyou should have any questions regarding this matter; please do not hesitate to Qohtact me. Sincerely :.0 1; E. Mark Braden Attachments: Original and 3 copies 11 CFR 11Q.11(b)(1); 11 CFR 110.1 11 CFR 109;21; 11 CFR 109.23; 11 CFR 109i.3(a) and (b). Office of General Counsel Federal Electioh Coinmissioin 999EStrcetHm Washington, Tm 39163 rsl David Clark Howard Wallack Q Santa ClaravUT 84765 ParkCityi Utah 84^)60 Phone: Home Phoiie: Home Email: i o Email';,. Cherilyn Eagar Jdhh ''Chuck" Williams 999 Murray-Jioiiaday Road Suite 202 Salt Lake City, Utah 84117 Heber Gity, Utah 84032 Cell Phone: HomePhonie: Email: Email; .•-.-3 z?. •f... -ij..;. KZ;1 V'^ ^lr> i r—s J-.— INTRQDUCllQN An anonymous letter, lacking the appropriate disclaimer^ was mailecl to a select group of convention delegates within three days ofthe Utah Republican-State Nominating: Convention. This letter likely altered the results ofthe. riomiriation process fbr the 2"** Congressional District. At the Utah State Republican Nominating Convention, the delegates passed a mptipn requiring the Utah State Party Chaiiman thorn to conduct a "full" investigation of 2 Congressional District, candidate Milt Hanks* charges of GonspiraGy and election fraud relating to the letter wMch Mr, Hanks levied against four other candidates on the convention floor. In Mr. Wright's official report,, issued Tuesdayi May 7,2012, the CMrmain siatied that an ^ inflamniatory anonymous letter was mailed to; selisct dieiegate's just prior tO i^e:non)inating ^ convention in violation of Federal Election Commissibn .(FEC) riegulations. He called upon O anyone who had evidence regarding,the matter to file a complaint with the FEC. Nl A number of facts suggest that a conspiracy existed between two candrdates> Milt Hanks and Chris Stewart^ their campaigns and/or their agents,: leading to the pTOduction and O distribution of this anonymous letter. Nl The individuals submitting this complaint were candidates fpr the Republican nomination for Utah's 2"'' Congressional District. We are collectively submitting, this, coniplaint, alleging that violations of the Federd Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (Act) occurred related to that 2012 Utah Republican Congressional nommatibn. BACKORO0ND The Anonvmotts Letter and the {Stcwart :.Ganipaiigri Response Letter An anonymous letter ("Anonymous Letter'') Without proper disGlaimer and identification (as required by FEC regulations) was mailed to select delegates on April 18,2012, four days prior to the Utah State Republican Nominating Convention held on April 21,2012> Exhibit A: Copy of Anonymous Letter and envelope; Recipients of the Anonymous Letter included:: Delegate Lisa Black, , Tooele, Utah 84074; phone: ;e-imail::, and PelegateJbto Smith, West Vall.ey City> Utah 84128; phone: ; e- mail:; Following the convention, during the week of May 7-12, 2012, a survey was conducted of 2"^ Congressional District delegates on tiieir knowledge and/or receipt of the Anonymous Letter and a "response letter" from Chris Stewart; Fifteen pefecent of State Delegates'polled (30%.responded) say they received the Anonymous Letter, and 68% did not. This number shows the .mailing likely targeted only "undecided" delegates. Exhibit B: Independent Poll of State Delegates, Week of May 7,2012. Cherilyn Eagar has personal knowledge, via a telephone conversation with Delegate John Smith that: 1) he received the Anonymous Letter sent to an incorrect address from what appears to be an outdated caucus attendee list. It wais forwarded, to his current 2012 delegate list address; 2) he did not receive the "Chris Stewart Letter,'' ("Cg Letter"), the response tp the Anonymous Letter^ but Mr. Smith; did receive niailers i^om all the other candidates at his current address; 3) Mr. Slrhith is; pn the Cbmplainants' delegate lists a.t his current cprrect address; he did receive their mailings. Exhibit C: Excerpt of th^ delegate databases *'Smifh-' listings. ^ Cherilyn Eagar believes that delegate Rick Raile may have more infprmatipn abo.iit the origin ^ of the Anonymous Letter and who was responsible for it. Rick Raile, Q Salt Lake City, Utah 84108; phone: ; e-mail:: ^ Chris Stewart's supporter«McKay Christensen stated that: 1) he had received a phone call ^ from his wife that the Anonymous Letter had arrived in their mailbox in Genteryilie, Utah O at 1Q:00 am, April 19,2012; 2) he notified the Stewart canipaign who sent a ^ volunteer/staff member to pick it up by 10:3Q a.m., and the letter was delivered to the Stewart campaign headquarters in Farmingtbn, Utah, at an estimated arrival time of 10:45- 11:00 a.m., April 19, 2012. McKay Christensen, =, Centerville^ Utah; phone: ; e-mail:. Exhibit D: Salt Lake Tribune VmlRolty Article. Source: httpi//www.sltrib.com/sitrib/poiitics/54025i363r90/stcwartrletterrconvcntion- email.htmi.csp?paige=^l Exhibit E: Faccbooli screen shot comments about Anonymons Letter, Paul Roily Article Comments (See Exhibit D Source). The Anonymous Letter envelope was post-m£u*ked at the Salt Lake City 84] post pfflce pn Wednesday, April 18, time stamped at :2:pm with a flrsjt-class ppstage stamp. The envelope had no return address. A response letter from the Stewart campaign. (CS Letter), referencing the Anoiiymous Letter as "documents," was mailed to delegates on April 19, 2012, prior to the nominating convention held on April 21,2012. Exhibit F: Copy of the *^CS Lptter." The CS Letter envelope was marked at the Salt Lake City 841 post office on 'rhursday, April 19,2012, time-stamped at 1:00 pm with a first-class jpostage stamp. The envelope had the Chris Stewart campaign's return address affixed. Travel time from Fannington, Utah to the Salt Lake City Post Office is approximately 30 minutes. The postal mark on the response letter mailed to nearly 1„Q00 delegates was time^stamped at ^e Salt Lake Post Office 841 at 1;00 p.m., April 19, 2012. The GS Letter was mailed to all, or nearly all, the 973 delegates in the 2"** District. The CS Letter was professionally printed on the campaign letterhead in color. There is no date on the CS Letter. If there were no advance knowledge of the: need to Craft a response letteri tlie campaign would have had to create the text and print 1,000 copies of the letters^ foidihg, stuiffmg, sealing, and affixing first-class stamp and address: label between 11:00 a.m;. and 12:30 p.m. Since the Anonymous Letter did not arrive at the campaign until, approximately 10:451- 11 :Q0 a.m. It takes time to make a decision to respond and to draft:the response. Assuming that drafting the response takes a minimum of 30 minutes, it might have been created by 11:3'0 a.m. Depending on where the letters were printed, that would adid (at a miiiimm) another 30: minutes, making it Noon. PFpcesslng'973 letters for moling takes time. It is highly unlikely that the Stewart campaign: coulid haye accomplished this feat> Volunteers would have: been needed at campaign headquarters with one hour's liotiCe and the Jetters delivered immediately to the Salt Lake Ppst Office .30 miniiftes. awa Post Office by 1 p.m> It is improbable the post office cpuld have timersiarnped Uhe enveippes by © 1:00 p.m,, unless the letters were prepared in advance. Q The time-stamps of these two letters, the Anonymous Letter and the CS Letter^ are in such close proximity - 23 hours apart, the only reasonable conclusion is: lhat the Stewart ^ campaign and/or its agent(s) pre-planned both the AnQnympus Letter and the GS. Letter. Q Additipnally, the Stewart campaign sent- an email tp delegates with: an identical message on ^ April 20,2012. There Was no logical xeason to wail to send the identical email the fbllowing day, on Friday, April 20,2012, because of the urgent need to get the message out as soon as possible. This further indicates probable adyanced-plannih coordinate with the receipt pf the April 19,2012 letter, due to reach the delegates on April 20,2012.. Suspicion :M.=ClI.onsnirtfcy iitctwccp Two: Candidates;,ah^^ Each Cpmplainant denies having any pripr knpwledge ofthe existence of this Anonympus Letter tintil after select delegatiss who had.rec.eiived:it.cLQ:ntacted: us. Cherilyn! Eagar's first notification came on the afternoon of Thursday, April 19,2012, by-phonC firom a female delegate she did ;not know. The Gomplainan^ deny haying any communication with each Other regarding the Anonympus Letter pr the CS Letter until after we ha:d: deliyered pur speeches on the cpnventiPn flpor Saturday, April 21, :20;12; However, on or about Tuesday, April 10,2012, a rumor began through the Chris Stewart, campaign that his opponents were desperate and planning to launch a negative campaign to damage Mr.: Stewart and that documents would be receiyed cpntaining: falise infoiiiladpn about him.