August 10, 1998
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
James P. Hoffa
August 10, 1998
Page 1
James P. Hoffa
2593 Hounds Chase
Troy, MI 48098
Hoffa Slate
c/o Patrick J. Szymanski, Esq.
Baptiste & Wilder
1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
Ken Paff
Teamsters for a Democratic Union
7435 Michigan Avenue
Detroit, MI 48210
Paul Alan Levy, Esq.
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 20th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Bradley T. Raymond, Esq.
Finkel, Whitefield, Selik,
Raymond, Ferrara & Feldman
32300 Northwestern Highway
Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
James P. Hoffa
August 10, 1998
Page 1
Re: Election Office Case No. PR-172-TDU-EOH
Gentlemen:
James P. Hoffa, a candidate for general president, and the Hoffa Unity Slate filed a pre-election protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election against the Teamsters for a Democratic Union (“TDU”), an independent committee. Mr. Hoffa alleged that TDU accepted donations from retired IBT members and their spouses which violates the Rules. TDU denied the allegations.
This protest was investigated by Director of Campaign Finance Leslie Deak.
James P. Hoffa
August 10, 1998
Page 1
TDU mailed out a solicitation that contained the following disclaimer: “TDU solicits and accepts membership applications and donations only from Teamsters, retired Teamsters and spouses who are not employers. Only funds from Teamster members and their spouses can be used for campaign purposes.” Mr. Hoffa claims that the solicitation is improper because it allows TDU to unilaterally allocate contributions between its campaign and non-campaign accounts, whereas candidates and slates must specify on the solicitation whether they are soliciting money for their general campaign fund or for their legal and accounting fund.
It is well established that TDU is an independent committee under the Rules, defined as a caucus or group of union members not controlled by a candidate or slate that accepts funds or makes expenditures with the “purpose, object or foreseeable effect” of influencing the International election. Rules, Definitions, at Section 22; Advisory on Campaign Contributions and Disclosures (Revised November 1997) (“Advisory”); Hoffa, PR-039-IBT-EOH (March 10, 1998); Halberg, P-019-LU174-PNW (December 14, 1995) (decision on remand). As an “independent committee,” the TDU may contribute to International campaigns even if it receives financial assistance from sources prohibited under the Rules. The Rules require that monetary support for campaign activities consist exclusively of funds received from IBT members. Funds received from any other sources cannot be contributed to any candidate through TDU, or any other independent committee, and must be properly allocated and segregated. In re Gully, 91-Elec. App. - 158 (SA) (June 12, 1991), aff’g Sargent, P-249-LU283-MGN (May 21, 1991).
James P. Hoffa
August 10, 1998
Page 1
Since the decision in Gully, the Election Officer specifically required TDU to allocate and separate permitted funds from prohibited funds in the regular course of its operations. See Hoffa, PR-039-IBT-EOH (March 10, 1998); Halberg, P-019-LU174-PNW (December 14, 1995) (decision on remand). The solicitation in question conforms to the requirements mandated by the Election Officer. Moreover, disclaimer language is not required by the Rules, so long as the contributions themselves are proper. McCormick, PR-012-LU705-NCE (November 17, 1997).
Mr. Hoffa’s complaint about that system at this late date is not only untimely, but disingenuous. The Rules define independent committees differently than candidates and slates and treat them differently in a number of instances. As noted above, this issue has been litigated numerous times in the protest process.
Accordingly, this protest is hereby denied.
Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one (1) day of receipt of this letter. The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal. Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:
Kenneth Conboy, Esq.
James P. Hoffa
August 10, 1998
Page 1
Latham & Watkins
885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10022
Fax: (212) 751-4864
Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 445, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile
(202) 624-3525. A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.
Sincerely,
Michael G. Cherkasky
Election Officer
MGC:chh
cc: Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master