BEFORE THE

OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION

MARK W. MILLER
3630 Zumstein
CASE NO. 2018G-022
Cincinnati, OH 45208

Complainant,

AFTAB PUREVAL
580 Walnut Street, Apt. 1302
Cincinnati, OH45202

FRIENDS OF AFTAB PUREVAL

580 Walnut Street, Apt. 1302
Cincinnati, OH45202

EVAN NOLAN, Treasurer

Friends of Aftab Pureval
3850 Hyde Park Avenue
Cincinnati, OH45209

Respondents.

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

Aftab Pureval, Friends of Aftab Pureval, and Evan Nolan, Treasurer (collectively,

o'Respondents") write in response to the Complaint filed by Mark W. Miller. Without

substantiation, and relying on speculation, the Complaint presumes that contributions received

and expenditures made by Friends of Aftab Pureval violate Ohio law because Mr. Pureval is also

running for federal office. Having failed to present any prima facie violation, the Complaint

should be dismissed.

1
I. BACKGROUND & SUMMARY

Aftab Pureval is the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts. He was elected to his current

position in20I6 for a four-year term. Friends of Aftab Pureval ("the Ohio Committee") is Mr.

Pureval's campaign committee for re-election. Mr. Pureval remains a nonfederal officeholder

and candidate for re-election, and the campaign committee is registered and files reports with the

Hamilton County Board of Elections.

Mr. Pureval is also a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. OnJanuary 29,

2018, he registered his federal principal campaign committee, Aftab for Ohio ("the Federal

Committee"), with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC"). Ohio law permits individuals to:

(a) maintain separate campaign committees at the state and federal level, and (b) simultaneously

run for federal and county office, provided the individual does not seek multiple offices in the

same election. See Ohio Rev. Code $ 3513.052(A)(a); Ohio Campaign Finance Manual, at2-ll
oodoes
(Sept. 2012) (single committee restriction in Ohio law not prevent a local or statewide

candidate from also having a federal political committee in concurrent operation for the purpose

of seeking election to a federal office"). Like Ohio law, federal law permits an individual

simultaneously to be a candidate for federal and state office. See 52 U.S.C. $ 30125(e)(2); ll
C.F.R. $$ 110.8(d), 300.63. The Ohio Committee and the Federal Committee have accordingly

received contributions and made expenditures, while disclosing their activities to the Hamilton

County Board of Elections and FEC, respectively.

Despite the law's express provisions for simultaneous candidacies, the Complaint

imputes the Ohio Committee's receipts and disbursements to the Federal Committee. It rebrands

lawful contributions to the Ohio Committee as "disguised federal campaign contributions," and

lawful expenditures made by the Ohio Committee as "disguised federal campaign expenditures"

2
and "federal testing the waters expenditures." Relying repeatedly'oon information and belief,"

the Complaint fails to meet its burden of setting forth "sufficient facts" through affidavits,

ooto
exhibits, and documents constitute a prima facie violation of Ohio election law." Ohio

Admin. Code g 3517-l-02(AX1X0. The Complaint presents no specific facts or information to

allege that any of the Ohio Committee's receipts or disbursements were related to the Federal

Committee, with one de minimis exception that still fails to present any violation of Ohio law.

See Complaint,lffl 20-30. The Complaint has accordingly failed to present a prima facie case, and

the Commission should dismiss it upon preliminary review.

II. THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO ALLEGE A PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION OF

OHIO ELECTION LAW

A valid complaint must "[c]learly set forth sufficient facts, supported by affidavits,

exhibits andlor other documents to constitute a prima facie violation of Ohio election law .. . "

Ohio Admin. Code $ 3517-1-02(A). The complaint must also "fc]learly set forth the specific

source or basis of the personal knowledge" supporting its allegations. 1d $ 3517-1-02(AX1)(d)

ooburden
(emphasis added). According to the Commission, the of proof for any complaint rests

with the party bringing the complaint." Ohio Elections Comm'n, How to File a Complaint with

the Ohio Elections Commission, http://elc.ohio.gov/complaint.strn; see also Susan B. Anthony

List v. Driehaus,805 F. Supp.2d 412,417 (S.D. Ohio 20lI). The Complaint fails these basic

requirements. It presents a series of facially legal transactions, fashions claims of violations out

of speculation, and supports those claims with nothing besides unspecified'oinformation and

belief," public filings, and the website of a photographer to whom the Ohio Committee made a

5360.50 disbursement. The Complaint fails to meet the threshold requirements for legal

sufficiency, presents no prima facie violation of Ohio law, and should be dismissed.

J
 A. Facially Valid Contributions to an Ohio Candidate Present No Prima Facie
Violation of Ohio Law, Simply Because the Ohio Candidate Also Seeks
Federal Office

Offering no affidavits, no exhibits, and no documents to support its claim, except the

single page of the Ohio Committee's report that correctly disclosed the contributions, see

Complaint fltT7-10, the Complaint claims that two contributions made by Drenko Pureval to
oonot
Friends of Aftab Pureval in February and April of 2018 were legitimate contributions" and

were given'ofor the pu{pose of evading the contribution limits applicable to federal candidate

committees." Complaint fl 9. The Complaint makes the same claim regarding a series of other

contributions that it does not even bother to identify by name in the body of the Complaint. See

id. n rc. This claim is unsupported and must be dismissed.

All of these contributions are facially legal. State law sets forth no limit on the amount of

contributions that a candidate for county office may receive, unless a municipal or county charter

provides otherwise. See Ohio Campaign Finance Handbook, at2-12 (Sept. 2012). Hamilton

County imposes no such limitation on contributions to candidates for county office. And, as

discussed above, Ohio law and federal law expressly permit candidates to raise funds

simultaneously for nonfederal and federal elections. See 52 U.S.C. $ 30125(e)(2); n C.F.R. S$

110.8(d), 300.63; Ohio Rev. Code $ 3513.052(A)(a); Ohio Campaign Finance Manual, at2-ll
(Sept. 2012).Thus, the lone document on which the Complaint relies presents no prima facie

violation of Ohio election law. See Ohio Admin. Code $ 3517-1-02(AX1X0.

The claim of a supposed violation hinges entirely on speculation, which the Complaint

frames as "information and belief." Complaint fl 9. The Complaint assumes without evidence

that, because Mr. Pureval announced his campaign for Congress in January, and because the

Ohio Committee later received the contributions, the contributions were not "intended to support

4
Pureval's campaign for re-election as the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts ..." Id. However,

because Ohio law and federal law both permit dual candidacy, that fact cannot logically present a

prima facie violation of the law. The claims in Paragraphs 7-10 regarding contributions to the

Ohio Committee must accordingly be dismissed.

B. Facially Valid Expenditures by an Ohio Candidate Present No Prima Facie

Violation of Ohio Law, Simply Because the Ohio Candidate Also Seeks
Federal Office

The same defect afflicts the Complaint's other main charge, which is that the Ohio

Committee's disbursements were presumptively "federal testing the waters expenditures" or

"disguised federal campaign expenditures," simply because they were made in the time

surrounding Mr. Pureval's announcement of Congressional candidacy. Complaint ffi7,44,56,

57.Here, again,the Complaint fails to set forth any facts to support this claim, with the lone

exception of a single de minimis payment that still presents no violation of Ohio law. As a result,

the Complainant has failed to satisfy his burden of setting forth sufficient facts, supported by

documentary evidence, to constitute a prima facie violation of Ohio law, and the allegations

should be dismissed.

1. Ohio Law Affords Candidates Substantial Disqetion in Determining How

Campaign Funds Are Used

State law places specific boundaries on the proper use of campaign funds. First, such

funds may not be converted "for personal use," meaning they cannot be used to confer a personal

benefit to the candidate or any other person. Ohio Rev. Code $ 3517.13(O). Second, uses of

campaign funds must be legitimate, verifiable, ordinary, and necessary. Ohio Rev. Code $

3517.13(0); Ohio Elections Comm'n, Adv. Op. 87ELC-13 (Oct.2,1987). As interpreted by the
oovalid"
Commission, this means the expenses must be "true" or in the sense that the expenditure

"is truly related to a campaign activity." Ohio Elections Comm'n, Adv. Op. 87ELC-13 (Oct.2,

5
1987). The Commission has construed this standard as a "but-for" test that requires the expense

to exist as a result of a campaign or officeholder's needs. Id. The expenses must also be

oocustomary
or usual and appropriate and helpful" to accomplishing the activities set forth in

Ohio law. See Ohio Elections Comm'n, Adv. Op. 87ELC-04 (Jan. 30, 1987). This standard has

been construed as an "objective test of reasonableness and relevance." Ohio Elections Comm'n,

Adv. Op. 87ELC-13 (Oct.2,l9S7). Among the uses of campaign funds that the Commission has

deemed to be permissible are dues for a chamber of commerce, birthday and retirement gifts for

an officeholder's employees, office furniture, and vehicle expenses. See Ohio Campaign Finance

Handbook, at2-20 (Sept. 2012).If a use of campaign funds complies with these requirements,

then it will be permissible.

2. The Complaint Fails to Show That These Expenditures Were

Impermissible

The Complaint presents no affrdavits, exhibits, or other documents showing that any of

the Ohio Committee's disbursements was impermissible. In fact, every one of the expenditures

discussed in the Complaint was for activities that squarely fall within the four corners of state

law, as interpreted by the Commission.

For instance, the costs of traveling for campaign purposes or to engage in the duties of an

officeholder are permissible under state law. See Ohio Rev. Code $ 3517.13(O). Thus, the

Complaint fails to set forth any violation by contending that expenditures for air travel, lodging,

meals, and staff travel are not allowable. See Complaint flfl 1l-19, 36-37,45,47,50, 54. It is also

well settled that the costs of political consulting and polling services are "truly related to a

campaign activity" and would not exist but-for a person's status as a candidate for office. Thus,

the Complaint's bare assertion that the Ohio Committee's payment for political consulting costs

was impermissible fails to allege a violation of state law. See id.nn 31-35. Finally, the costs of

6
hosting campaign meetings and meetings with stakeholders are also legitimate, verifiable,

ordinary, and necessary, andhave never been found to constitute an impermissible use of

campaign resources. As a result, the allegations made in Paragraphs 46, 48,49,51, and 52 of the

Complaint fail to set forth any facts that constitute a prima facie violation of Ohio law.

As with the contributions received by the Ohio Committee, Mr. Pureval's concurrent

federal candidacy offers no evidence that the disbursements were impermissible. Ohio law does

not prohibit local officeholders from running for federal office or from maintaining separate

campaign committees to support their respective federal and non-federal candidacies. See Ohio

Rev. Code g 3517.13(S); see also 11 C.F.R. $$ 300.62, 300.63 (allowing federal candidates who

are also running for state or local office to raise funds for nonfederal office). A complaint may

not simply assert, without any basis in fact, that expenditures made by a dual candidate's state

candidate committee are for federal campaign activity or federal testing-the-waters activity.

Because the law clearly permits concurrent spending by nonfederal and federal campaigns, the

simple fact that such spending occurred cannot provide the basis for a prima facie violation of

Ohio law.

Through an administrative mistake, the Ohio Committee did make one disbursement that

ought to have been charged to the Federal Committee: a $360.50 disbursement to photographer

Mark Byron. The oversight occurred because the incorrect credit card had been linked to the

Venmo account used to make the disbursement to Mr. Byron. After identifying this mistake, the

Ohio Committee took corrective action by seeking a refund, and Respondents accordingly

understand that the Federal Committee will pay the invoice for Mr. Byron's services. Even here,

though, the erroneous payment presents no violation of Ohio law. A payment to obtain

campaign-related photographs is fundamentally related to a campaign activity, is a customary

7
and ordinary use of campaign funds, and thus falls plainly within the statute's scope of

permissible spending. See Ohio Rev. Code $ 3517.13(O). The nature of the expense, and its

evident utility to a future election for Clerk of Courts, make the expenditure permissible under

Ohio law.

C. The Ohio Committee Correctly Reported Its Expenditures

Respondents at all times adhered to Ohio law in reporting their campaign expenditures

and providing the required documentation. The Commission should dismiss these allegations, as

Complainant has failed to state or substantiate aprima facie case as to any of the reports.

Ohio law requires candidate committees to provide a statement of expenditures (Form 31-

B) and to substantiate each "expenditure in excess of twenty-five dollars" by including a

'oreceipted bill . . . that shall be filed with the statement of expenditures." Ohio Rev. Code $

3517.10(B)(5), (D)(4). An example of a sufficient "receipted bill" is a "canceled check with a

notation of the pulpose of the expenditure;' Id. $ 3517.10(DX4).

Because many campaign transactions are now conducted through electronic payment

systems, state law has evolved to allow committees to substantiate expenditures through means

other than canceled checks. Committees may satisfy the substantiation requirement by providing

"an account statement, from the committee's financial institution, which contains the name of the

payee, amount, date, and check number." Ohio Admin. Code $ 111:2-4-13(DX3). In addition,

when a committee uses a credit card for transactions, it may satisfy its recordkeeping obligations

by maintaining "the monthly billing statement or customer receipt for each [] transaction." Id. $

lll:2-4-13(Cx3). The Secretary of State has provided additional guidance clarifying that

committees that use credit cards may comply with the substantiation requirement by attaching a

credit card statement or bank statement to the report. See Ohio Campaign Finance Handbook, at

8
2-21 (Sept. 2012). For reimbursements of campaign expenses, the Handbook clarifies that

expense records must be maintained by the committee but need not be disclosed, unless

requested by the relevant authority. Id. Last, the regulations recognize that novel electronic

payment systems may be used for campaign transactions, specifying the information that must be

ooan
collected when using online payment application, including but not limited to, 'PayPal and

Click & Pledge."'Ohio Admin. Code $$ lll:2-4-13(L)-(M).

The Complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts establishing a prima facie violation of the

expenditure verification rules. By disclosing each expenditure on Form 31-B and providing

corresponding bank and credit card statements, Respondents satisfied their obligation under

Section 3517.10(D)(a) and the accompanying regulations. The chart below shows how the

expenditures discussed in the Complaint were appropriately disclosed and substantiated:

Payee (Date)* Reporting Compliance Verifi cation Compl iance

GBA Strategies (4/4/1 8) 2018 Semiannual report
(Form 31-B)
Joe Levy (1/8/18) 2018 Semiannual report
(Form 31-B)
Delta (ll29lI8) 2018 Semiannual report
(Form 31-B)
Sarah Topy (2l2ll8) 2018 Semiannual report
(Form 31-B)
Delta (3lI9lI8) 2018 Semiannual report
(Form 31-B)
Mark Byron (2l5ll8) 2018 Semiannual report
(Form 31-B)
Sarah Topy @l3lI8) 2018 Semiannual report
(Form 31-B)
Cancelled check with
notation of purposel
Fifth Third bank record
and Venmo account
statement
Fifth Third bank record
Fifth Third bank record
and Venmo account
statement
Fifth Third bank record
Fifth Third bank record
and Venmo account
statement
Fifth Third bank record
and Venmo account

I Respondents disclosed the purpose of the expenditure on Form 31-B and the memo entry field of the check.
Pursuant to the practice of the Hamilton County Board of Elections, the check's memo entry field was redacted upon
filing.

* Reimbursements marked in italics

9
 statement
Ellis Hotel (8ll4l17) 2017 Annual report Fifth Third bank record
(Form 31-B)
American Airlines (9 I l4l 17) 2017 Annual report Fifth Third bank record
(Form 31-B)
Reserve Bar (1ll7ll7) 2017 Annual report Fifth Third bank record
(Form 31-B)
Minted, LLC (1Il29lI7) 2017 Annual report Fifth Third bank record
(Form 31-B)
Murphin Ridge lnn (l2l5ll7) 2017 Annual report Fifth Third bank record
(Form 31-B)
White Star (l2l5ll7) 2017 Annual report Fifth Third bank record
(Form 3l-B)
Anderson Pub (l2l8ll7) 2017 Arrtual report Fifth Third bank record
(Form 31-B)

Because each of the expenditures referenced in the Complaint were appropriately

reported and substantiated through the filing of corresponding bank and credit card statements,

the Complaint has failed to set forth facts constituting a prima facie violation of the

recordkeeping and verification requirements. Accordingly, the Commission should dismiss the

allegations set forth in Paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Complaint, along with the related allegations

contained in Paragraphs 11-21, 36-37, and 45-53.

Finally, the Complaint fails to set forth a prima facie case of any violation of Ohio law

with respect to the reporting of contributions made by a political action committee ("PAC"),

Frost Brown Todd LLC PAC, andapolitical contributing entity ("PCE"), the Ohio

Administrative District Council of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers. Respondents complied

with state law in depositing and reporting these contributions. That the donating entities may not

have reported these expenditures on their campaign finance reports does not constitute any

evidence indicating that Respondents committed a legal violation.

Respondents complied with each component of the reporting rules with respect to the two

contributions discussed in Paragraphs 38-43 and66 of the Complaint. Respondents received the

10
two contributions on January 17,2017. As required by law, they reported the contributions on

Form 31-A of their 2018 semiannual report, filed on August 3,2018. The semiannual report

clearly shows the names of the donors, the amounts of the contributions, and the dates the

contributions were received. In addition, with respect to the donation from Frost Brown Todd

LLC PAC contribution, the report shows the PAC's registration number, as required by state

lavt. See Ohio Rev. Code $ 3517.1O(B)(4XbXi).Respondents'reporting of these contributions

complied with the letter of the law and provided all of the information necessary to fulfill the

transparency objective of the reporting rules.

State law does not impose a duty on the part of candidate committees to verify that their

PAC and PCE donors have complied with their independent reporting obligations, nor does it

impose liability on candidate committees if donors do not satisfy this obligation. See generally

Ohio Rev. Code $$ 3517.10,3517.13(D). Because the Complaint fails to set forth any facts with

respect to the reporting of the PAC and PCE contributions that constitute a prima facie violation

of Ohio election law by Respondents, the Commission should dismiss these allegations.

11
III. CONCLUSION

As the foregoing demonstrates, the Complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts to

substantiate allegations that Respondents violated Ohio law. The Commission should find no

probable cause and dismiss this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

P"*
Peter J. O'Shea (0086560)
C%u
Katz Teller Brant & Hild
255 East Fifth Street, Suite 2400
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
(513) 977-3477 (Phone)
(5 13) 7 62-0077 (Facsimile)
Email : posheafdkatztel I er.com

C ouns eI for Re sp o nde nt s

PERKINS COIE T,T,p

By: Ert t 4,14 L""h F-Ul.rLl\ro\

Brian G. Svoboda
David J.Lazarus
B Svoboda@perkinscoie. com
700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20005-3960
Telephone: 202.654.6200
Facsimile: 202.654.6211

C ouns eI for Re sp ondent s

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Pending

t2
 DECLARATION STATEMENT

The foregoing is true and correct to the best of my present knowledge, information, and
belief. Dated this 13th day of September 2018.

J. O'Shea

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this dout of September 2018

,/"
Notary Public

BETHANYA. PALMER
My Commission Expires: *i Notary Public, Stale of Ohio
Mv Commission Exphes 05-24-2023

13
 CERTIF'ICATE OF' SERVICE

I certify in accordance with Ohio Civ.R. 5(B)(2)(c) and (f) that a copy of the foregoing
was served by Certified U.S. Mail and electronic mail this 13th day of September 2018 upon the
following:

Brian C. Shrive
Finney Law Firm, LLC
4270Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
brian(@finneylawfi rm. com

Couns el for C omplainant

fuLgn/"*_
Peter J. O'Shea

t4