Statement of FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub in J. Whitfield Larrabee v. Party of Regions, Et. Al.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

)
In the Matter of )
) MUR 7272
Party of Regions, et al. )
)
STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIR ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB
The flow of lobbying money to K Street from foreign despots and kleptocrats is nothing
new, if perennially distasteful. But every once in a while, the flow becomes so foul and murky
that the government must step in to find out what’s going on and to ensure none of the money
made its way to congressional campaign accounts.
So it was in this matter, where the illegal foreign influence scheme orchestrated by Paul
J. Manafort, Jr. – a convicted money launderer and unregistered foreign agent – prompted
serious questions about whether lobbyists violated the ban on campaign contributions from
foreign nationals and the prohibition against giving in the name of another.
Despite these pressing concerns, against the backdrop of ongoing attacks by foreign
adversaries against our elections, 1 the Federal Election Commission has once again been blocked
from investigating this matter. The American public deserves to know the extent of these foreign
influence campaigns against our country, which have the potential to compromise American
sovereignty and implicate the funding of our elections.
As described in the indictments issued by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III,

Manafort acted as an unregistered agent of Ukraine’s pro-Russian regime between 2006 and
2015. 2 He concealed his work as an agent of Ukraine, the Party of Regions, and the party’s
leader, then-President Victor Yanukovych (who later fled to Russia after protests against
rampant government corruption). Further, Manafort helped arrange for the European Centre for a
Modern Ukraine (“ECFMU”), a nonprofit created in Belgium around 2012, to serve as a front for
Yanukovych and the Party of Regions. At Manafort’s direction, an unidentified lobbying
1
Written Testimony of Chair Ellen L. Weintraub Before the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on
National Security (May 22, 2019), https://go.usa.gov/xme4c.
2
Superseding Indictment at 2-3, United States v. Manafort, 323 F. Supp. 3d 768 (E.D.V.A. Feb. 22, 2018)
(No. 18-cr-83); Superseding Indictment at 1-2, United States v. Manafort, 312 F. Supp. 3d 60 (D.D.C. June 8, 2018)
(No. 17-cr-201).
MUR 7272 (Party of Regions, et al.)
Statement of Chair Ellen L. Weintraub
company3 lobbied multiple Members of Congress and their staffs about various foreign policy
matters, including lifting Russia-related sanctions, the validity of Ukraine’s elections, and the
imprisonment of President Yanukovych’s presidential rival. 4
The complaint in this FEC matter alleges that Manafort led a group of lobbyists who
made financial contributions on behalf of the Party of Regions and the ECFMU to the campaign
committees of four Members of Congress. 5 The lobbyists claim that the money for these
contributions came out of their own pockets, but the timing of the contributions, the payments
from the Ukrainians, and dates of the lobbyists’ meetings with the Congressmen raise questions.
With the exception of one U.S. representative, the lobbyists met with the Congressmen within
weeks if not days of making the 2013 contributions. 6 The lobbyists were on the Ukrainians’
payroll at the time.
Some Respondents suggest that this is just the way lobbying works, and they shroud their
efforts on behalf of foreign nationals with the First Amendment right to petition the
government. 7 But the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances is a right
provided to those in the United States. It is not a right afforded to Ukrainian tyrants to wield
against American democracy or our national security interests. And although we are unable to
impose a monetary penalty on the Respondents now that the statute of limitations has expired,
that is no reason to throw in the towel. Even when time has taken the Commission’s ability to
financially sanction a respondent, we still have the power and the duty to illuminate. The
American people deserve to see what happened here.
This matter merited investigation. The FEC had before it a credible allegation indicating
that pro-Russian Ukrainian leaders were indirectly making campaign contributions to Members
of Congress. 8 The credibility of this allegation is further enhanced now that Manafort is known
to have illegally concealed his foreign clients and the foreign sources of money that financed his
other illegal activities. It’s sometimes said that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. In this case, it
would be more accurate to say that where there’s fire, there’s fire. If Manafort and his foreign
3
The Office of General Counsel infers that the unidentified company is the two Respondents Mercury Public
Affairs LLC and Mercury LLC, which comprise the lobbying group known as “Mercury.” First Gen. Counsel’s Rpt.
at 7 [hereinafter “First GCR”].
4
Superseding Indictment at 17-20, United States v. Manafort, 312 F. Supp. 3d 60 (D.D.C. June 8, 2018)
(No. 17-cr-201).
5
Compl. at 8 (Aug. 14, 2017). Nothing in the record suggests that the recipient Members of Congress were
aware of Manafort’s alleged scheme, or that they bear any culpability in this matter.
6
The record does not show a meeting between the lobbyists and Rep. Chabot. First GCR at 12.
7
Mercury Joint Resp. at 2 (Oct. 6, 2017).
8
The “reason to believe” finding required to investigate a matter is appropriate when a complaint credibly
alleges that a violation may have occurred, but further investigation is required to determine the actuality and scope
of the violation. Statement of Policy Regarding Comm’n Action in Matters at the Initial Stage in the Enforcement
Process, 72 Fed. Reg. 12,545 (Mar. 16, 2007). This should be a low threshold to overcome for a civil enforcement
action, but my Republican colleagues continue blocking investigations at their earliest stages.
Page 2 of 3
MUR 7272 (Party of Regions, et al.)
Statement of Chair Ellen L. Weintraub
clients obeyed campaign finance law here, it was just about the only law they did obey. The
Commission should not have given a convicted criminal and fraudster the benefit of the doubt.
June 21, 2019

Date Ellen L. Weintraub
Chair
Page 3 of 3

Statement of FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub in J. Whitfield Larrabee v. Party of Regions, Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statement of FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub in J. Whitfield Larrabee v. Party of Regions, Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statement of FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub in J. Whitfield Larrabee v. Party of Regions, Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

STATEMENT OF REASONS OF CHAIR ELLEN L. WEINTRAUB

As described in the indictments issued by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III,

June 21, 2019

You might also like