Partial preview of the text
Download Controversial Campaign Contribution by Legal Guardian for Mentally Disabled Adult and more Lecture notes Acting in PDF only on Docsity!
1 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
3 FIRST GENERAL COUNSEL’S REPORT
5 MUR 7605
6 DATE RECEIVED: 05/06/
7 DATE OF SUPPL. COMPL.: 08/05/
8 DATES OF NOTIFICATION: 05/08/2019;
10 DATE RESPONSES RECEIVED: 06/06/2019;
12 DATE ACTIVATED: 09/17/
14 EXPIRATION OF SOL: 08/29/
15 ELECTION CYCLE: 2018
17 SOURCE: Complaint Generated
19 COMPLAINANT: Larry Price
21 RESPONDENTS: Chad E. Price
23 Judson Hill for Congress and Chris D. Clayton
24 in his official capacity as treasurer
26 RELEVANT STATUTES 52 U.S.C. § 30122
27 AND REGULATIONS: 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)
28 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f)
29 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(1)(i)
32 INTERNAL REPORTS CHECKED: FEC Disclosure Reports
33 FEC Contributor Database
35 FEDERAL AGENCIES CHECKED: None
36 I. INTRODUCTION
38 The complaint and the supplemental complaint allege that Chad Price made a $2,
39 contribution in the name of his mentally disabled adult sister, Jessica Price, to Judson Hill for
40 Congress and Chris D. Clayton in his official capacity as treasurer (the “Hill Committee”) in
MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price)
First General Counsel’s Report
Page 2 of 12
1 connection with a 2017 special election.^1 Chad Price, who already had made his own maximum
2 legal contribution to the Hill Committee, responds that, as his sister’s legal guardian, he believed
3 that he had the authority to act on her behalf in making an additional contribution in her name.
4 Chad Price asserts that he was advised by a representative of the Hill Committee that it was legal
5 for him to make a federal contribution, as legal guardian, on behalf of Jessica Price.^2 The Hill
6 Committee, which has terminated, states that it was unaware that Jessica Price did not make the
7 reported contribution herself.
8 Based on the available information, we recommend that the Commission exercise its
9 prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the allegations that Chad Price violated 52 U.S.C.
10 §§ 30116(a) and 30122 and issue a letter of caution. We further recommend that the
11 Commission exercise its prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the allegations that the Hill
12 Committee violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(f) and 30122 and issue a letter of caution.
13 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14 Complainant is the father of Jessica Price (“Jessica”), and he states that Jessica, who was
15 36 at the time of the Complaint’s filing, was born with a rare developmental disability that limits
16 her mental age to that of a 3-4 year old.^3 Chad Price (“Chad”) is Jessica’s brother and her legal
17 guardian, with full control over funds designated for her care.^4 Complainant asserts, and Chad
1 The First General Counsel’s Report was circulated on January 14, 2020, but withdrawn on October 24,
2020 to address the supplemental complaint.
2 As noted below, Price did not make this assertion when he responded pro se to the original complaint, but
made this assertion when he responded to supplemental complaint through counsel.
3 Complaint at 2, MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price) (May 6, 2018).
4 Response, MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price) (June 7, 2019). The documents attached to the response indicate that
Chad Price was named as the legal guardian in 2013. Id. The Complaint and the Response document a long-
running intra-family dispute.
MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price)
First General Counsel’s Report
Page 4 of 12
1 were in addition to approximately $47,800 in state contributions that Chad made in his own
2 name and in the name of his company, Mako Medical, in 2017-2018.^12
3 Chad’s pro se response to the original complaint asserts that he asked Baldwin, one of the
4 state candidates, if he could make a contribution on behalf of Jessica as her guardian, and
5 Baldwin told him that it was “ok since [he had] unrestricted and non-limited guardianship.”^13 He
6 states that he relied on Baldwin’s advice when he made additional contributions on Jessica’s
7 behalf as her legal guardian.^14 Chad also maintains that he conducted online research and could
8 not find “anything that prevented it.”^15 In addition, he contends that he asked the West Virginia
9 Secretary of State if a minor could make a contribution and was advised that a minor could make
10 a state contribution to a campaign within the campaign limits.^16 Chad’s response to the original
11 complaint does not mention any communication with the Hill Committee. Chad’s response adds
12 that “if it was not permissible for him to make contributions in his sister’s name, he will ask the
13 campaigns to refund these donations.”^17 He acknowledges that the information on the
14 Committee’s disclosure report indicating that Jessica Price is employed by his company, Mako
15 Medical, is inaccurate and should be corrected.^18 It is undisputed that the funds used to make the
12 Id. The information provided by Complainant indicates that Chad, between 2017 and 2018, made $47,
in contributions to state races in Georgia, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia. Id.
Respondent, during the same time period, also made lobbyist contributions through his corporation, Mako Medical,
in the amount of $46,000. Id. In addition, the Commission’s records indicate that Respondent has made several
federal contributions since 2013.
13 Resp., Attach. Chad does not indicate when he had this conversation with Baldwin.
14 Id. at 1.
15 Id.
16 Id. Chad had a later email exchange with West Virginia Secretary of State, which appears have been in
response to another complaint his father made regarding state contributions Chad made on behalf of Jessica. Id.
17 Id. at 2.
18 Id. at 3.
MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price)
First General Counsel’s Report
Page 5 of 12
1 contribution were controlled by her guardian, Chad, although it is not clear whether those funds
2 belonged to Jessica.^19
3 The supplemental complaint does not make any new or different allegations, but instead
4 requests that the Commission consider a newspaper article regarding the pattern of Chad’s state
5 and federal contribution history, including those contributions made on behalf of Jessica as her
6 legal guardian.^20 The article suggests that Chad made the contributions on behalf of Jessica in
7 order to obscure the source of the funds.^21
8 Chad responds to the supplemental complaint through counsel. Chad’s supplemental
9 response asserts that the attached newspaper article is a “coordinated smear campaign seeking to
10 discredit a company based on a disagreement with the founder’s political beliefs.”^22 In addition,
11 Chad newly asserts that, prior to making the contribution in Jessica’s name, he contacted
12 multiple recipient state and federal campaigns, including the Hill Committee, to ensure that the
13 contributions were “compliant with the provisions of the Act.”^23 According to Chad, he was
14 assured by an unnamed individual from the Hill Committee that his contribution on behalf of
15 Jessica as her court-appointed guardian was legally permissible under state and federal law.^24
16 This new assertion differs from the previous assertion that Chad relied on advice provided by a
19 See Id. , Attachs.
20 See Suppl. Compl., MUR 7610 (Aug. 5, 2020).
21 Id. at 2. The attached newspaper article details Price’s state and federal contributions, some of which were
made in the name of Jessica Price, and which allegedly demonstrate an attempt to be less than transparent about the
source of the contributions. See Id., Attach.
22 Suppl. Resp. at 2, MUR 7605 (Chad Price) (Sept. 14, 2020).
23 Id.
24 Id. at 3.
MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price)
First General Counsel’s Report
Page 7 of 12
1 III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
2 The Act defines “contribution” as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of
3 money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for
4 Federal office.” 30 Under the Act, an individual may not make a contribution to a candidate with
5 respect to any election in excess of the legal limit, which was $2,700 per election during the
6 2017-2018 election cycle.^31 The Act also prohibits a person from making a contribution in the
7 name of another or knowingly permitting his or her name to be used to effect such a
8 contribution.^32 Committees and candidates are barred from knowingly accepting contributions in
9 the name of another^33 and committees, through their treasurers, have a duty to examine all
10 contributions for evidence of illegality and return contributions that appear to be illegal.^34
11 The Commission has not previously addressed the legality of a contribution made by a
12 legal guardian on behalf of an adult who appears to have the mental capacity of a very young
13 minor.^35 However, the factors the Commission considers regarding contributions involving
30 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i); 11 C.F.R. § 100.52(a).
31 See Id. § 30116(a)(1)(A); 11 C.F.R. § 110.1(b)(1).
32 Id. § 30122; 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(i)-(ii).
33 Id. § 30122; 11 C.F.R. § 110.4(b)(iv).
34 See 11 C.F.R. § 103.3(b).
35 In past matters, the Commission has made reason to believe findings regarding excessive contributions
and/or contributions in the name of another where purported donors were very young children. See MUR 5335R
(Geoff Davis for Congress Committee) (contributions in the name of children ages four and five from funds
belonging to parent); MUR 4255 (Christopher P. and Martha F. Hitchcock) (contributions in the name of children
aged one and three from account owned and controlled by parents); MUR 4484 (Stewart Bainum, Jr.) (contributions
in the name of infant son from funds owned and controlled by parents); MUR 3268 (Congressman St. Germain
Reelection Committee) (contributions in the names of children ages four and eight from funds belonging to parent).
The facts of the instant case contrast with MUR 4208 (Friends of Bob Bennett) Second Gen. Cnsl’s Report at 5-6;
Certification at 1 (Oct. 17, 1996) (taking no further action concerning contribution made by developmentally
disabled minor, noting “difficult subjective determinations.”). In that case, the minor, who was nearly 18 at the
relevant time, signed an affidavit stating that the candidate was “my friend” and “I like to help him.” We have no
similar information in this case. More recently, the Commission dismissed allegations of section 30122 violations in
a matter involving contributions made by minors who were 17 and 14. See Certification, MUR 7492 (Ben
MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price)
First General Counsel’s Report
Page 8 of 12
1 minors are a useful framework for the consideration of this issue. Under Commission
2 regulations, individuals under the age of 18 may make a contribution if: (a) “[t]he decision to
3 contribute is made knowingly and voluntarily by the Minor; (b) the funds... are owned and
4 controlled by the Minor, such as income earned by the Minor, the proceeds of a trust for which
5 the Minor is the beneficiary, or funds withdrawn by the Minor from a financial account opened
6 and maintained in the Minor’s name; and (c) the contribution is not made from the proceeds of a
7 gift, the purpose of which was to provide funds to be contributed, or is not in any other way
8 controlled by another individual.”^36
9 In determining whether a contribution from a minor was “knowing and voluntary” under
10 11 C.F.R. § 110.19(a), the Commission has stated that it would consider, among other factors,
11 the age of the minor at the time the contribution was made;^37 whether the value of the minor’s
12 contribution, if attributed to an adult member of the minor’s immediate family, would cause that
13 family member to exceed the contribution limitations under the Act and Commission
14 regulations;^38 whether the minor has a history of making routine decisions about personal
15 finances, such as how to earn, spend, and invest their money;^39 and the minor’s history of
16 donating funds and the source of the funds contributed.^40
McAdams) (June 19, 2019). In support, the Commission noted the more advanced ages of the children and that the
funds used were taken from the accounts established in each child’s name. See Factual and Legal Analysis at 7-10,
MUR 7492 (Ben McAdams) (June 19, 2019).
36 11 C.F.R. § 110.19.
37 See Explanation and Justification, Contributions and Donations by Minors, 70 Fed. Reg. 5565-01 (Feb. 3,
2005) (citing to MURs 4252 (William and Virginia Baxter), 4254 (Birgit and Loren Hershey) and 4255 (Christopher
P. and Martha F. Hitchcock ).
38 Id. at 5567, citing to MUR 4255.
39 70 Fed. Reg. 5567.
40 Id.
MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price)
First General Counsel’s Report
Page 10 of 12
1 note that there are questions as to the credibility of Chad’s assertion about receiving advice from
2 a Hill Committee representative given that it was not raised in response to the original complaint,
3 and appears to be in conflict with the Committee’s assertion that it had no basis to know that
4 Jessica did not make the contribution herself.^42 However, we do not totally discount Chad’s
5 assertion that he acted in good faith reliance on advice from a state campaign (as set forth in his
6 original response) and from the Committee (as set forth in his supplemental response).
7 In recommending dismissal of the matter pursuant to Heckler v. Chaney , 470 U.S. 821
8 (1985), we take into account the single violation, the relatively small amount of money at issue,
9 the conflicting information before the Commission whether Chad was informed by a Committee
10 representative that he could legally make a contribution in the name of Jessica, and the
11 Commission’s limited resources. Under these unique circumstances, including the proper
12 ordering of the Commission’s priorities on its docket, it would not be a prudent use of the
13 Commission’s limited resources to pursue the matter further. Accordingly, we recommend that
14 the Commission exercise its prosecutorial discretion and dismiss the allegations with a caution to
15 Chad Price.^43
16 We similarly recommend that the Commission exercise its prosecutorial discretion and
17 dismiss the allegations that Judson Hill for Congress and Chris D. Clayton in his official capacity
42 Chad, in his original response, stated that he made the “donation on her behalf to candidate Stephen
Baldwin. I was told by the Campaign that this was OK since I had unrestricted and non-limited Guardianship. I
looked online and couldn't find anything preventing it either.” See Resp. Chad states that he sought advice from the
Stephen Baldwin committee but makes no specific mention of having contacted the Hill Committee for advice. Id.
The Hill Committee, in its complaint response, states that it had no knowledge of the circumstances under which the
contribution was made by Chad. See Hill Committee Resp. It appears that Chad did not have the benefit of counsel
when filing his original response but retained counsel to respond to the supplemental complaint. This may account
for the more detailed response to the supplemental complaint regarding his alleged attempts to determine in advance
whether he could make a contribution on behalf of Jessica as her legal guardian.
43 See Heckler v. Chaney , 470 U.S. 821 (1985).
MUR 7605 (Chad E. Price)
First General Counsel’s Report
Page 11 of 12
1 as treasurer knowingly accepted an excessive contribution in the name of another in violation of
2 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(f) and 30122 with a caution to the Hill Committee.
3 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
4 1. Dismiss the allegations that Chad Price violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(a) and
7 2. Dismiss the allegations that Judson Hill and Chris D. Clayton in his official
8 capacity violated 52 U.S.C. §§ 30116(f) and 30122.
10 3. Issue a letter of caution to Chad Price.
12 4. Issue a letter of caution to Judson Hill for Congress and Chris D. Clayton in his
13 official capacity as treasurer.
15 5. Close the file as to the Respondents.
17 6. Approve the attached Factual and Legal Analyses.
19 7. Approve the appropriate letters.
21 Lisa J. Stevenson
22 Acting General Counsel
24 Charles Kitcher
25 Acting Associate General Counsel
26 for Enforcement
29 ___________________________ ______________________________
30 Date Stephen Gura
31 Deputy Associate General Counsel
32 for Enforcement
36 ______________________________
37 Mark D. Shonkwiler
38 Assistant General Counsel
41 ______________________________
42 Kimberly D. Hart
43 Attorney
