Linda McMahon's Senate campaign confirmed in a press release Friday that it will abide by an order from the Federal Election Commission to reveal the identity of some campaign vendors who were not identified in the quarterly report the campaign filed Oct. 15.The vendors, who provided more than $567,000 in services to the Republican challenger's campaign as it was ramping up this fall, were paid by the candidate herself, and the expenditures reported only as in-kind contribution from McMahon on the FEC report. The names of the recipients of those payments, for legal advice, consulting, computer services and other services, were not disclosed -- as they would have been if the payments were made through a campaign committee, and indeed as the disbursements of other candidates have been made public.

The vendors, who provided more than $567,000 in services to the Republican challenger's campaign as it was ramping up this fall, were paid by the candidate herself, and the expenditures reported only as in-kind contribution from McMahon on the FEC report. The names of the recipients of those payments, for legal advice, consulting, computer services and other services, were not disclosed -- as they would have been if the payments were made through a campaign committee, and indeed as the disbursements of other candidates have been made public.When The Day asked in December about the identities of the campaign vendors and asked if the campaign intended to amend the report to disclose the names, the inquiries were rebuffed. The McMahon campaign eventually released a statement after The Day published an article about the payments, calling the story "erronenous,"* particularly a line that said the failure to identify payees "appear[ed] to run afoul" of regulations that require disclosure of disbursements.

When The Day asked in December about the identities of the campaign vendors and asked if the campaign intended to amend the report to disclose the names, the inquiries were rebuffed. The McMahon campaign eventually released a statement after The Day published an article about the payments, calling the story "erronenous,"* particularly a line that said the failure to identify payees "appear[ed] to run afoul" of regulations that require disclosure of disbursements. But FEC officials wrote to the McMahon campaign on Christmas Eve, instructing campaign officials to file an amendment identifying the recipients of the payments by Jan. 28 or face sanctions from the commission.

But FEC officials wrote to the McMahon campaign on Christmas Eve, instructing campaign officials to file an amendment identifying the recipients of the payments by Jan. 28 or face sanctions from the commission.In the statement released Friday, McMahon said she would comply with that instruction.

In the statement released Friday, McMahon said she would comply with that instruction."My campaign will always be run in strict accordance with the law," McMahon said. "However, it is equally important to me that my campaign be transparent. That is why my first report listed every contribution and contributor, even though the law doesn't require the identification of donors who give under $200 to the campaign. Because of my commitment to transparency, we will go another step beyond what we believe to be the legal requirements for disclosure, and file a timely amendment with the FEC."

"My campaign will always be run in strict accordance with the law," McMahon said. "However, it is equally important to me that my campaign be transparent. That is why my first report listed every contribution and contributor, even though the law doesn't require the identification of donors who give under $200 to the campaign. Because of my commitment to transparency, we will go another step beyond what we believe to be the legal requirements for disclosure, and file a timely amendment with the FEC." In the statement, the campaign also says that its attorney, Michael Toner of Bryan Cave LLP, maintains that the report "was filed correctly relative to in-kind contributions by McMahon prior to her becoming a candidate."

In the statement, the campaign also says that its attorney, Michael Toner of Bryan Cave LLP, maintains that the report "was filed correctly relative to in-kind contributions by McMahon prior to her becoming a candidate."

 The letter from Robin Kelly, senior campaign finance analyst at the FEC, notes that FEC regulations require the itemization of in-kind contributions by a candidate -- for expenses not related to travel or subsistence -- if the aggregate amount paid to any recipient is greater than $200 in an election cycle. Many of the in-kind payments in McMahon's October quarterly report were for thousands of dollars.

The letter from Robin Kelly, senior campaign finance analyst at the FEC, notes that FEC regulations require the itemization of in-kind contributions by a candidate -- for expenses not related to travel or subsistence -- if the aggregate amount paid to any recipient is greater than $200 in an election cycle. Many of the in-kind payments in McMahon's October quarterly report were for thousands of dollars.

 

 *The McMahon statement contains one clear inaccuracy, which was surely inadvertent. The press release says the campaign was asked about the payments on Dec. 11. In fact, the story in question ran in the newspaper on Dec. 11. (We write fast, but not that fast.) The first inquiry -- one of several, none of which produced an on-the-record response before the story ran -- was one week earlier, on the afternoon of Dec. 4, the same day we inquired about a subpoena being served on McMahon adviser Mike Slanker by the Senate Ethics Committee. (The Slanker story ran the following day, Saturday, Dec. 5.) The press release also says Toner "addressed the question at the time." Toner did not, in fact, ever address our questions, but instead issued a press release after the original story ran to question its veracity. We continue to stand by the story.

*The McMahon statement contains one clear inaccuracy, which was surely inadvertent. The press release says the campaign was asked about the payments on Dec. 11. In fact, the story in question ran in the newspaper on Dec. 11. (We write fast, but not that fast.) The first inquiry -- one of several, none of which produced an on-the-record response before the story ran -- was one week earlier, on the afternoon of Dec. 4, the same day we inquired about a subpoena being served on McMahon adviser Mike Slanker by the Senate Ethics Committee. (The Slanker story ran the following day, Saturday, Dec. 5.) The press release also says Toner "addressed the question at the time." Toner did not, in fact, ever address our questions, but instead issued a press release after the original story ran to question its veracity. We continue to stand by the story.