IN RE: HOFFA 2006, Protestor.
Protest Decision 2006 ESD 306
Issued: June 26, 2006
OES Case No. P-06-205-030906-HQ
Hoffa 2006 filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIII, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 2005-2006 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election ("Rules"). The protest alleged that the Committee for New Leadership ("CNL") made an improper campaign contribution to the Leedham Slate, in violation of the Rules.
Election Supervisor representatives Steven R. Newmark and Maria Ho investigated this protest.
Findings of Fact
CNL was formed in May 2005 with the aim of assembling "the program and leadership team that can defeat Hoffa in next year's IBT election." Hoffa 2006, 2005 ESD 3 (August 4, 2005). As such, we previously found it to be an "independent committee" under the Rules, in that it is an "entity not controlled by a candidate or slate ... which has accepted any campaign contribution, as defined by these Rules, or ... which has made any expenditure, where the purpose, object or foreseeable effect of the contribution or expenditure is to influence the election of International Officer candidate(s)." Id.; see also, Hoffa 2006, 2006 ESD 54 (January 25, 2006).
As an independent committee, CNL was required to file CCERs once it received contributions or made expenditures in excess of $1,000. Id.; Article XI, Section 2(a)(3). CCER #3 was due on or before February 15, 2006 for the period from October 1, 2005 through January 31, 2006. See Advisory on Campaign Contributions Expenditures and Disclosure; see also Rules, Article XI, Section 2(d)(iii). However, CNL was granted a filing extension through March 6, 2006, which the organization met. As a consequence of CNL's delayed filing, the protestor was unable to review CCER #3 for CNL until March 8, and when it did, filed this protest on March 9.
CNL dissolved as of January 13, 2006. CNL's last CCER filing indicated that, upon its dissolution, it forwarded the balance of its checking account, $4,397.39, to the Leedham slate. The protest alleged that "it is impermissible for an independent committee to donate directly to a candidate or slate." Further, the protest challenged the donation of "undisclosed" funds to the Leedham campaign.
CCER #3 provided by CNL lists an expenditure in the amount of $4,397.39 dated January 13, 2006 for the purpose of closing the CNL account. No campaign contributions are listed for the reporting period. However, CNL's previous CCER filings document these contributions.
Our forensic accountant determined that the sources that contributed the $4,397.39 in question came from IBT members who have not exceeded their maximum contribution allotment for the 2006 IBT International Officer Election. The identities of the contributors have been redacted from CCERs released to candidates.
Analysis
Article XI, Section 1(b)(9)(A) of the Rules permits "any candidate [to] accept[] contributions made by any … independent committee … provided that such … independent committee … is itself financed exclusively from contributions which are permitted and properly reported under these Rules."
Pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the Rules, the identities of all contributors to independent committees are protected from disclosure to any party except the Election Officer. See Taylor, 2000 EAD 75 (December 29, 2000). This rule for independent committees follows the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. IBT, 968 F.2d 1506, 1509, 1511, 1512 (2d Cir. 1992); accord, United States v. IBT, 981 F. Supp. 222, 231 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
In its unredacted filing with our office, CNL disclosed the identities of its contributors. Our forensic accountant verified that all contributors to CNL were IBT members who had not exceeded their maximum permitted contribution to the 2006 IBT International Officer Election. We find that the funds transfer made by CNL to the Leedham campaign was permitted under the Rules.
Accordingly we DENY this protest.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within two (2) working days of receipt of this decision. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Supervisor in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal and shall be served upon:
Kenneth Conboy
Election Appeals Master
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, New York 10022
Fax: (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served upon the parties, as well as upon the Election Supervisor for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 1400, Washington, D.C. 20007-5135, all within the time prescribed above. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for hearing.
Richard W. Mark
Election Supervisor
cc: Kenneth Conboy
2006 ESD 306
DISTRIBUTION LIST (BY EMAIL UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED):
Bradley T. Raymond, General Counsel
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2198
braymond@teamster.org
David J. Hoffa
Hoffa 2006
30300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 324
Farmington Hills, MI 48834
David@hoffapllc.com
Barbara Harvey
645 Griswold Street
Suite 3060
Detroit, MI 48226
blmharvey@sbcglobal.net
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
P.O. Box 10128
Detroit, MI 48210
ken@tdu.org
Daniel E. Clifton
Lewis, Clifton & Nikolaidis, P.C.
275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10001
dclifton@lcnlaw.com
Stefan Ostrach
1863 Pioneer Parkway East, #217
Springfield, OR 97477-3907
saostrach@gmail.com
Leedham Campaign
320 7th Avenue #338
Brooklyn, NY 11215
leedhamslate@gmail.com
Bruce Dubinsky
4520 East West Highway
Suite 640
Bethesda, MD 20814
bdubinsky@kd-cpa.com
Keith Neus
4520 East West Highway
Suite 640
Bethesda, MD 20814
KNeus@kd-cpa.com
Jeffrey Ellison
510 Highland Avenue, #325
Milford, MI 48381
EllisonEsq@aol.com