FACT Files Complaint With FEC Regarding Hillary Clinton

June 1, 2015

Federal Election Commission

Office of General Counsel

999 E Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20463

Re: MUR number 6932—Supplemental Complaint against Hillary Clinton

Dear Counsel,

In April 2015, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission to address violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and Commission Regulations by Hillary Clinton, which was assigned matter under review (MUR) number 6932. Since filing that complaint, additional information has come to light about interactions between Clinton’s campaign and Ready for Hillary PAC. We write today to supplement the April 2015 complaint and request the Commission fully investigate this relationship between Clinton’s campaign and a super PAC—a relationship that is exactly what federal law is designed to prevent.

As detailed in the April 2015 complaint, for nearly two years Clinton engaged in campaign related activities, yet denied she was a candidate in an apparent attempt to avoid complying with federal law. During this time, super PACs performed campaign-related tasks that benefited Clinton, including Clinton providing talking points to Correct the Record PAC and Ready for Hillary PAC identifying Clinton supporters and compiling crucial data. Thus, the April 2015 complaint requested the Commission investigate whether Clinton was a candidate, made all reports required by the Act and received any contributions not permitted under the Act, and engaged in any prohibited coordination with super PACs.

Since the April 2015 complaint was filed, Clinton’s campaign has now “obtained access to the full Ready for Hillary email list, a data gold mine that will immediately bolster the Democratic front-runner’s fundraising and organizing efforts.” Annie Karni, Hillary Clinton Campaign Scores Ready for Hillary Email List, Politico, May 30, 2015 (Attached as Exhibit A). The list was reportedly obtained through a “swap,” which provided the Clinton campaign with a highly valuable list of four million names that the campaign immediately began utilizing. Id.; Mike Allen, Playbook, Politico, June 1, 2015 (attached as Exhibit B). On May 31, 2015, Clinton’s campaign manager emailed the Ready for Hillary email list, writing “‘You and I have something in common: We’ve both been ready for Hillary for a long time.’” Allen, Playbook (citing Miranda Neubauer, Clinton Campaign Emails Ready for Hillary List, Capital, May 31, 2015).

Not only does Clinton’s acquisition of the super PAC list support the April 2015 complaint, demonstrating the coordination between Clinton and the super PACs formed for her benefit, but it also may indicate additional violations of federal law. Federal law explicitly prohibits a candidate from coordinating with and accepting donations, including an in-kind donation of a mailing list, from a super PAC. 52 U.S.C. §§ 30101, 30118. Based on the information reported, the Commission must further investigate whether both have occurred.

This type of behavior is directly contrary to the purpose of federal election law, which serves to provide disclosure and transparency and an equal playing field for all candidates. If this type of behavior is permitted to occur, a candidate could build an entire campaign operation using unlimited contributions, all while choosing when to be governed by federal election laws. Not only does this obscure information from the public, but it provides an unfair advantage over candidates who do comply with the law. The potential impact of permitting this to occur cannot be overstated—allowing an un-declared candidate to build their campaign on unlimited contributions, while their competitors are forced to do the same in $2,700 increments, creates a massive advantage that eviscerates the level playing field that election laws exist to create.

We request the Commission consider this new information in its investigation. Additionally, given Clinton’s apparent prior failure to comply with federal law, the Commission should further investigate whether Clinton accepted a prohibited donation from a super PAC. If it finds violations of federal law, the Commission must hold the Respondent accountable.