This is ECU’s third complaint filed against Brown for federal campaign finance violations
End Citizens United (ECU) filed a complaint this week with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Sam Brown, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Nevada, for blatantly accepting an illegal in-kind contribution from Duty First Nevada (DFN) PAC, a super PAC established to solely support Brown’s campaign.
The complaint centers on high-quality footage that DFN PAC produced and provided to Sam Brown at no cost, which Brown then used to create campaign ads. The evidence and timeline make clear that DFN and the Brown campaign coordinated by using a shared media vendor to post the footage online with the sole purpose of transmitting the footage to the Brown campaign and not for any legitimate DFN function––circumventing federal contribution limits.
“Sam Brown seems determined to break records for campaign finance violations,” said End Citizens United President Tiffany Muller. “The coordination between Sam Brown and Duty First Nevada super PAC is an egregious violation of federal law that opens the door for corruption in our elections. This kind of secretive, backroom coordination doesn’t just cross a legal line; it undermines the fundamental principle of fair play in our elections. The FEC has established a clear precedent that this scheme is illegal, and we call on them to immediately launch an investigation to hold Brown accountable and prevent him from engaging in this type of corruption again.”
This is the third complaint ECU has filed against Sam Brown this cycle. ECU’s first complaint alleged Brown illegitimately used a political action committee that was marketed to help elect Republicans to Congress to instead retire his old campaign debt. The second complaint alleged potential illegal coordination between Brown’s 2022 campaign and a super PAC that was set up by Brown’s top allies in his primary against Adam Laxalt.
The Complaint:
- Duty First Nevada PAC (“DFN”) was a Super PAC registered with the FEC. DFN was formed in August 2023 to support Sam Brown’s Senate candidacy. DFN spent over $1,000,000 on independent expenditures supporting Sam Brown. It did not make expenditures to support any other candidate.
- The Sam Brown Campaign and DFN shared a common vendor, Pathfinder Strategic LLC (“Pathfinder”). DFN paid Pathfinder over $440,000 from August 2023 through June 2024. These payments included over $34,000 in disbursements for “Film B-Roll” and “Video Production.” The Brown Campaign also retained Pathfinder. The campaign has paid Pathfinder about $118,000, roughly a quarter of what DFN paid to the vendor. The Brown Campaign paid just $1,500 in total to Pathfinder for “Video Production,” a transaction that took place in October 2023.
- In June and July of 2024, it appears that in a short time frame DFN produced video footage, transmitted such footage to the Brown Campaign and shut down operations. The timeline is as follows:
- On June 12, 2024, the day after Sam Brown secured the Republican nomination for Senate, DFN posted an advertisement called “Service.” It included four seconds of high-quality video footage of a man identified as Redmond Barnes speaking directly to the camera.
- On July 5, 2024, DFN filed its termination report with the Commission, indicating that it had ceased operations.
- On July 25, 2024, weeks after DFN’s termination, the video of Mr. Barnes’ interview, along with 11 other videos, were shared online in a difficult to find corner of the internet. It was posted on Vimeo.com by “Chariot LLC.” On information and belief, Chariot LLC is the name of a precursor to Pathfinder Strategic LLC, the vendor that worked for both DFN and the Brown Campaign.
- On August 5, 2024, the Brown Campaign posted a video on X.com that included a 45-second video of Mr. Barnes speaking to the camera. It is readily apparent that this video comes from the same interview as the clip used in DFN’s “Service” advertisement. Yet, the clip is much longer – clearly indicating that the Brown Campaign possessed additional video of Mr. Barnes’ interview beyond the four seconds posted by DFN.
- Publicly available facts suggest that the Brown Campaign accepted an illegal in-kind contribution from DFN by using video footage provided by DFN free of charge.
- A super PAC is prohibited from making a contribution to a federal candidate and a federal candidate is prohibited from accepting such a contribution. A “contribution” broadly includes “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” Anything of value includes an in-kind contribution, which in turn includes providing “goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less than the usual and normal charge.” The Commission has held video footage is a thing of value and determines if its transfer results in a contribution “based on an examination on whether transfer of [the] footage was conducted under current market practices or whether payment was made at the usual and normal charge.”
- Here, the available facts suggest that DFN paid for high quality video footage and then transmitted it to the Brown Campaign free of charge by using a shared media vendor to post it online. The online posting of the video served no readily apparent purpose apart from transmitting the video to the Brown Campaign – in fact, DFN had already shut operations down when it was posted. This is in sharp contrast to the established market practice of charging for high quality video.
- In MUR 6792, under strikingly similar facts to the matter at hand, the Commission found reason to believe a transfer of video footage from a corporation to a campaign resulted in a prohibited in-kind contribution under the Act. The campaign used video from the corporation in its campaign communications without evidence that it paid for such footage. The campaign’s videos showed “extended video footage” of an individual making a statement “in the same clothing” that did “not appear in the” corporation’s advertisement, mirroring the facts of Sam Brown’s video. The Commission found that the use of this additional footage “reasonably suggest[ed] that the [campaign] may have had access to a larger quantity of footage,” than what appeared in the campaign’s video, indicating a greater in-kind contribution. The Commission noted that close ties between the candidate and the company that created the footage “reasonably suggest[ed] that the Committee may have obtained the footage for its use directly.”
- Publicly available facts paint a similar picture here. The two advertisements show that the Brown Campaign had in its possession a much larger amount of video footage than what was posted in the original DFN advertisement. Further, the Brown Campaign used the same media vendor as DFN. While the video footage was posted publicly, it was done by the shared media vendor and after DFN terminated its operations. The timing thus clearly suggests that it was posted solely to transmit the footage to the Brown Campaign and not for any legitimate DFN function. Accordingly, publicly available information suggests that: (1) DFN transmitted the video footage to the Brown Campaign for its use without charge, making a prohibited contribution in violation of the Act; (2) by using such footage without paying fair market value, the Brown Campaign accepted a prohibited contribution.
Click here to read the complaint.
###