May 13, 2014

Office of General Counsel

Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463

Re: Complaint Against Kerry Bentivolio and Kerry Bentivolio for US Congress

Dear Sir or Madam:

This complaint is filed pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(1) and is based on the information and
belief that Kerry Bentivolio, and Kerry Bentivolio for US Congress, Mr. Bentivolios former
principal campaign committee for Michigans 11th Congressional District (the Committee or
Campaign), suborned coordinated communications in violation of provisions of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act), and Federal Election Commission
(Commission) regulations.

Based on press reports
1
and pleadings filed by Mr. Bentivolio in a contract dispute lawsuit in
Michigan,
2
it appears Mr. Bentivolio, the Committee, and agents of both, received and accepted
in-kind contributions from independent expenditure-only committees (Super PACs) and other
third-party entities in the form of coordinated communications in violation of provisions of the
Act and Commission regulations. Specifically, it appears that Mr. Bentivolio knowingly and
willfully entered into an illegal contract with his former campaign manager, Robert Dindoffer,
that created incentives for Dindoffer, as an agent for the Committee, to violate the Acts
coordinated communications and soft money bans. See 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(B)(i);
441i(e)(1)(A). Remarkably, Mr. Bentivolio admits to these violations in detail in his Motion for
Summary Disposition
3
filed in the lawsuit dated April 25, 2014, as a way to attempt to void his
agreement with Mr. Dindoffer and to get out of paying Mr. Dindoffer the monies he was entitled
to under the agreed-upon contract.

Such incentives to break the law raise serious questions about the independence of all third-party
expenditures that were made in support of Mr. Bentivolios candidacy during the 2012 election
cycle. At worst, Mr. Dindoffer, with Mr. Bentivolios knowledge and approval, and as an agent
for the Committee, knowingly and willfully violated coordinated communications and soft
money bans in Federal law by coordinating with third-party groups and soliciting third-party
expenditures in order to boost his own commissions under the agreed-upon contract. At best, the

1
Bentivolio Claims Dindoffers Contract Is 'Void', MIRS NEWS, April 30, 2014 (attached as Exhibit A).
2
See generally, Dindoffer v. Bentivolio et al., No. 2014-139528-CK (Mich. Cir. Ct.), Defendants Motion for
Summary Disposition (filed Apr. 25, 2014) (Bentivolio Motion) (attached as Exhibit B).
3
Id.
Page 2 of 7

Committee has failed to pay Mr. Dindoffer commissions he is entitled to under the contract, and
failed to report almost $65,000 worth of debt to Mr. Dindoffer on the Committees reports, in
violation of 11 CFR 104.3(d), 104.11(a) and 116.10(a).

Relevant Facts

As discussed in detail in his recent court filing, during Mr. Bentivolios 2012 campaign,
Bentivolio hired Mr. Dindoffer to be his campaign manager pursuant to a Campaign
Management Agreement (the Agreement) that was signed and approved by both parties. The
Agreement provides, in pertinent part:

In the event that Bentivolio is elected to be Representative in the
United States Congress, then the Campaign shall pay to Dindoffer
a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of all the contributions and loans
that the Campaign receives or has received prior to the end of
calendar year 2012, and, in addition, the Campaign will pay to
Dindoffer a sum equal to ten percent (10%) of all federally
regulated funds that are expended by all other outside political
committees, parties and party committees, and other entities
for the purpose of supporting Bentivolios attempt to be elected
Representative in the United States Congress or for the
purpose of opposing any opponent that Bentivolio faces.

Campaign Management Agreement, at 2 7 (attached as Exhibit C).

At some point following Mr. Bentivolios victory in November of 2012, a dispute apparently
arose regarding monies owed to Mr. Dindoffer pursuant to the Agreement. On November 26,
2012, Mr. Dindoffer submitted an invoice to Mr. Bentivolio and the Committee for $143,467.16,
an amount comprised of $15,000 in unpaid monthly payments for the months of September,
October and November 2012, and $128,467.16 in bonuses upon winning. Mr. Dindiffer
submitted a revised invoice to Mr. Bentivolio and the Committee on December 6, 2012, which
included additional expense reimbursement and mileage charges in the amount of $7,051.54.
Despite these invoices, Mr. Bentivolio and the Committee refused to make payment. In fact, the
only compensation paid to Mr. Dindoffer for his campaign management services under the
Agreement was $16,000, which included only the monthly payments due to him for the months
of J une, J uly and August 2012, as well as some expenses incurred during that time.
4


On J anuary 31, 2013, the Committee filed its 2012 Year End report, disclosing a massive, yet
understated, debt of $89,101.91 to Mr. Dindoffer. Importantly, that debt was acknowledged and
not disclosed as disputed debt. On April 15, 2013, shortly after Mr. Dindoffer was terminated as
a senior advisor in Mr. Bentivolios official office, the Committee filed its 2013 April Quarterly
report and rebranded the debt owed to Mr. Dindoffer as disputed debt. On J une 29, 2013, Mr.
Dindoffer issued additional invoices and demand letters to Mr. Bentivolio and the Committee for
amounts due still under the Agreementa total of $154,518.73. On J uly 3, 2013, Mr. Bentivolio

4
See Dindoffer v. Bentivolio et al., No. 2014-139528-CK (Mich. Cir. Ct.), Complaint at 5 (Dindoffer Complaint)
(attached as Exhibit D).
Page 3 of 7

and the Committee issued correspondence to Mr. Dindoffer objecting to his invoices and
claiming that they were not required to make payment on certain portions of the invoices.
5

Despite receiving repeated invoices from Mr. Dindoffer to the tune of over $150,000, this
amount has never been disclosed as debt or disputed debt on the Committees reports. The
maximum amount of debt reflected to Mr. Dindoffer was $89,101.91.
6


On March 17, 2014, Mr. Dindoffer filed suit against Mr. Bentivolio, seeking $154,518.73 in
back pay, bonuses and expenses.
7
In lieu of filing an Answer to Mr. Dindoffers Complaint, Mr.
Bentivolio filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on April 25, 2014, in which he freely admits
that the contract he personally signed and approved with Mr. Dindoffer creates an incentive to
cause violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 USC 431, et seq (FECA)
because it included a provisionthat incentivized Dindoffer to solicit third-party independent
expenditures for Bentivolio.
8
Furthermore, Mr. Bentivolios Motion cites specific provisions
from the Act and the Commissions regulations, and explains in detail how the contract he
personally approved and signed was in violation of each of the cited provisions.

Applicable Law

Coordinated Communications

The Commissions regulations define independent expenditure as an expenditure by a person
for a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate
that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a
candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or
its agents. 11 CFR 100.16(a).

A communication is made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or
suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party
committee or its agents if it is a coordinated communication under 11 CFR 109.21. Id. In
addition, no expenditure shall be considered independent if the person making the expenditure
allows a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party
committee or its agents to become materially involved in decisions regarding the
communication. 11 CFR 100.16(c).

The term coordinated means made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the
request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political party
committee. For purposes of this subpart C, any reference to a candidate, or a candidate's
authorized committee, or a political party committee includes an agent thereof. 11 CFR
109.20(a).

The Commissions regulations also state that a a communication is coordinated with a
candidateor an agent of a [candidate] when, among other things, [t]he communication is

5
Id. at 6-8.
6
See Kerry Bentivolio for US Congress, 2012 Year End Report, at 22-23.
7
Dindoffer Complaint at 7.
8
Bentivolio Motion at 1.
Page 4 of 7

created, produced, or distributed at the request or suggestion of a candidate or after one or
more substantial discussions about the communication between the person paying for the
communicationand the candidate who is clearly identified in the communication. 11 CFR
109.21(d)(1)(i); 109.21(d)(3). Moreover, a payment for a coordinated communication isan
in-kind contributionto the candidatewith whomit is coordinated. 11 CFR 109.21(b).

Soft Money Ban

Unlike independent expenditures, there are monetary limits and source prohibitions on
contributions made to federal candidates, in the form of direct contributions or payments made
for coordinated communications or other expenditures that are coordinated. For example,
individuals may contribute no more than $2,600 to a single candidate, $5,000 to a federal PAC,
and $32,400 to national party committees. See 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1). Non-multicandidate PACs
may contribute up to $2,600 per election to a single candidate. Further, it is illegal for a
candidate to solicit or receive contributions, either directly or through coordinated expenditures,
from national banks, corporations or labor organizations. 2 U.S.C. 441b(a).

The Act makes clear that a candidate or candidates agent may not solicit funds unless the
funds are subject to prohibitions and limitations of the Act (i.e. hard money). The Act
provides that a candidate or his agent shall notsolicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds
in connection with an election for Federal office, including funds for any Federal election
activity, unless the funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements
of this Act. 2 U.S.C. 441i(e)(1)(A). This is known as the soft money ban.

Reporting Debt and Disputed Debt

A candidates campaign must report debts and obligations. Each report must disclose the
amount and nature of outstanding debts and obligations owed by or to the reporting committee.
See 11 CFR 104.3(d). Debts and obligations owed by or to a political committee which remain
outstanding shall be continuously reported until extinguished. Id. These debts and obligations
shall be reported on separate schedules together with a statement explaining the circumstances
and conditions under which each debt and obligation was incurred or extinguished. 11 CFR
104.11(a).

Even if a campaign has questions or disputes, regarding the amount billed to it, the
Commissions regulations state that a campaign must nonetheless report such a disputed debt
in accordance with 11 CFR 104.3(d) and 104.11. Until the dispute is resolved, the campaign
must disclose on the appropriate reports any amounts paid to the creditor, any amount the
campaign admits it owes and the amount the creditor claims is owed. 11 CFR 116.10(a).







Page 5 of 7

Analysis

Bentivolio Appears to Have Violated the Soft Money Ban by Suborning Coordinated
Communications with Third Parties.

As demonstrated above, the Act prohibits a candidate, a candidates campaign, or their agents
from soliciting funds for coordinated expenditures or coordinated communications if the
expenditure is otherwise supposed to be independent. 2 U.S.C. 441i(e)(1)(A); 11 CFR
109.21(b); 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 CFR 109.20(a). In direct contravention to this
provision, Mr. Bentivolio approved and signed a contract that Mr. Bentivolio believes was
intended to encourage Mr. Dindoffer, as an agent for the Committee, to violate federal law. The
Agreements third party spending bonus created financial incentives for Mr. Dindoffer to
coordinate with third parties regarding their expenditures to support Mr. Bentivolio or oppose his
opponents. In promoting such blatant illegal behavior, Mr. Bentivolio is knowingly and willfully
promoting and, in fact, rewarding violations of federal law.

As mentioned in Mr. Bentivolios Motion for Summary Disposition, third party entities made
hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures in support of Mr. Bentivolio or in opposition to
his opponents during the 2012 election cycle. The independence of these expenditures must be
called into question because of Mr. Bentivolios expressed intent to incentivize his agent, Mr.
Dindoffer, to request and suggest third party spending under the Agreement. It is difficult to
understand why Mr. Dindoffer and Mr. Bentivolio would have agreed to such a provision, or
explicitly made it a part of the Agreement, without there being an understanding that Mr.
Dindoffer would make efforts to court third party groups to make expenditures on Mr.
Bentivolios behalf.

Mr. Bentivolio also concedes in his Motion that:

if Bentivolio or his campaign (or an agent of either, which includes
Dindoffer) engaged in conduct to coordinate the communications
made by any of the Third Party Groups, the communications and
expenditures of the Third Party Groups would be converted by law
to in-kind contributions to the Bentivolio Campaign. 2 USC
441i(e)(1)(A); 11 CFR 109.21(b); 2 USC 441a(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 CFR
109.20(a). And once converted to in-kind contributions, each of the
Third Party Groups would be subject to the limitations applicable
to contributions and to the source of funds.
9


In 2012, Super PACs and non-profit corporations, which are both prohibited from making
contributions to federal candidates or their campaign committees, made hundreds of thousands of
dollars worth of third party expenditures in support of Mr. Bentivolio or against his opponents.
Mr. Dindoffers win bonus was based on a percentage of those third party expenditures under the
Agreement. This is made clear in Mr. Dindoffers email to the Committees Treasurer, Timothy
Witt, on November 26, 2012, where he states that his latest invoice only includes a portion of
my win bonus. There is some data that goes into the formula that I cannot compute until some

9
Bentivolio Motion at 11.
Page 6 of 7

other folks make some filings.
10
Presumably, other folks is referring to third party groups
that had yet to file independent expenditure reports, which would figure into Mr. Dindoffers win
bonus calculation. Under the Act, if Mr. Dindoffer, acting as an agent for Mr. Bentivolio and the
Committee, engaged in any conduct whatsoever to coordinate these communications, Mr.
Bentivolio, the Committee, and Mr. Dindoffer would all be in violation of the soft money ban.

Moreover, considering the fact that coordination with third party groups was incentivized in the
Agreement, it would not be surprising if Mr. Dindoffer, at Mr. Bentivolios behest, knowingly
and willfully violated the coordinated communications and soft money bans in an effort to attract
support from third-party groups. In such hotly contested and expensive primary and general
elections, where the Committees campaign war chest was lacking, such coordination appears to
have been not only incentivized, but actively promoted by Mr. Bentivolio. Knowing and willful
violations of federal campaign finance laws are not taken lightly by the Commission, and if the
Commission determines that there is probable cause to believe that a knowing and willful
violation has occurred in this case, I hereby request that it refer such violations to the U.S.
Department of J ustice for criminal prosecution. See 2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)(C).

Bentivolio Has Failed to Report Debt and/or Disputed Debt to Dindoffer.

Mr. Bentivolio and the Committee have failed to accurately report debt to Mr. Dindoffer since
J anuary 31, 2013, the date the Committee filed its 2013 Year End Report with the Commission.
As explained above, Mr. Dindoffer sent invoices to Mr. Bentivolio and the Committee on
November 26, 2012 and December 6, 2012, totaling over $150,000 in charges due to Mr.
Dindoffer for back pay, bonuses and expenses.
11
The Committees 2012 Year End Report only
reported $89,101.91 in debt to Mr. Dindoffer, failing to include over $60,000 owed to him under
the contract, and as reflected by the invoices.
12
Three months later, the Committee reclassified
that $89,101.91 as disputed debt in its 2013 April Quarterly Report, but it still failed to account
for the additional $60,000-plus owed to Mr. Dindoffer.
13
To this day, even in light of the
foregoing lawsuit and the now-public invoices disclosing over $150,000 in charges to Mr.
Bentivolio and the Committee, the Committee has failed to amend its reports to reflect the
additional debt.
14
Such omissions are in direct contravention to the reporting requirements set
forth in the regulations cited above, and a blatant violation of federal law.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, the Commission should take steps to immediately investigate Mr.
Bentivolio and the Committees role in approving and signing an agreement that promoted
willful violations of the Act and Commission regulations. The Commission should also
immediately investigate whether Mr. Dindoffer, Mr. Bentivolio, or any other agent of the
Committee, engaged in conduct to illegally coordinate with third party groups in their
expenditures in support of Mr. Bentivolios candidacy during the 2012 election cycle. In doing

10
Dindoffer Complaint, Exhibit B, Email from R. Dindoffer to T. Witt, Nov. 26, 2012.
11
Dindoffer Complaint at 5.
12
See Kerry Bentivolio for US Congress, 2012 Year End Report, at 22-23.
13
See Kerry Bentivolio for US Congress, 2013 April Quarterly Report, at 22.
14
See Kerry Bentivolio for US Congress, 2014 April Quarterly Report, at 10.
so, the Commission should find reason to believe Mr. Bentivolio, the Committee, or agents of
both, have violated the Act and the Commission's Regulations, determine and impose
appropriate sanctions for any and all violations, and enjoin Mr. Bentivolio from any and all
violations in the future. I also ask that the Commission impose such additional remedies as are
necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance, and refer this matter to the U.S. Department of
Justice as necessary. The foregoing is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
En c.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ ~ ~
P.O. Box 700228
Plymouth, MI 48170
Signed and sworn before me this J.2_ day of May, 2014
JENNIFER KAPLAN
Notary Public, State of Michigan
County of Oakland
My Commission Expires Oct. 29, 201 4
_ ctklg ~ the County of
200694608.1 43591/166184
Page 7 of7