McNally hits back at ‘blatant untruths’ about campaign finance overhaul
Senate Speaker Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge) is hitting back at what he calls “blatant untruths” being spread about a the campaign finance and ethics overhaul advancing in the General Assembly.
McNally said efforts to get nonprofit “dark money” groups to disclose how much they are spending has caused the most pushback, including over what he called the false narrative that lawmakers are trying to force them to identify their donors.
“It is amazing that various seemingly ‘legitimate‘ groups are resorting to such disingenuous tactics to oppose it,” he said. “Is it because they are spending so much that Tennesseans would be appalled if they knew? Or is it that they spend so little that they fear they would be exposed as political grifters working to enrich only themselves?”
Here’s McNally’s full statement:
There are many blatant untruths circulating regarding the ethics reform bill Speaker Sexton and I have introduced.
The bill in question does not censor or otherwise curtail conservative activism or free speech in any way. Anything conservative groups can do now, they can still do under this bill. The legislation does not restrict their activity at all. The only additional requirement is disclosure.
Openness and transparency in the political process are prerequisites for freedom. For too long liberals, big corporations and corrupt political actors have been allowed to exploit loopholes in our system and operate in darkness.
The original Senate version as well as the current house version does not affect donors at all, just expenditures. It is simply a lie to say otherwise.
This bill is aimed at bad actors like the fictitious Matthew Phoenix and the various shell companies and shadowy PACs used by certain legislators to line their own pockets.
It is amazing that various seemingly “legitimate” groups are resorting to such disingenuous tactics to oppose it.
Is it because they are spending so much that Tennesseans would be appalled if they knew? Or is it that they spend so little that they fear they would be exposed as political grifters working to enrich only themselves?
If you are working to influence the outcome of an election, the voters deserve to know who you are and what you are doing. What could possibly be wrong with that? The fact this is even in question demonstrates the need for the legislation.
UPDATE: Smith strikes plea agreement with feds
State Rep. Robin Smith (R-Hixson) has struck a plea agreement with federal prosecutors over a kickback scheme related to a political vendor called Phoenix Solutions, according to court records.
“Ms. Smith submits that the parties have reached a plea agreement to resolve the pending charges in this case and that she is ready to change her plea in this matter,” according to a filing on Smith’s behalf on Monday afternoon.
A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. Central in Nashville.
Earlier Monday, federal prosecutors made charges agaisnt Smith public alleging she was was joined by two unnamed individuals who are nonetheless easily identified as former House Speaker Glen Casada (R-Franklin) and his onetime chief of staff Cade Cothren.
Smith, a former state Republican Party chair, resigned from the House after being charged.
“I want you to know that serving the great people of this district, and indeed, all of Tennessee, has truly been an honor,” Smith wrote in her letter to House Speaker Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) “I have resigned with the deepest of humility and out of respect for the role of public service.”
Correction: An earlier version of this post mistakenly referred to an indictment. The charging document was filed as an information.
Read the full charges here:
THE UNITED STATES CHARGES:
BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS
At all times material to this Information unless otherwise indicated:
1. Defendant ROBIN SMITH was a member of the Tennessee House of Representatives (“Tennessee House”), representing District 26, which included part of Hamilton County, Tennessee. SMITH was first elected to the Tennessee House in or around November 2018. SMITH also owned and operated a political consulting company called Company I. Company 1 provided political consulting, mail, and project management services.
2. Individual 1 was a member of the Tennessee House, first elected in 2003. Individual I served as Speaker of the Tennessee House from in or around January 2019 until in or around August 2019. In or around August 2019, Individual 1 resigned as Speaker after a scandal became public. Individual 1 also owned and operated a political consulting company called Company 2. Individual 1 started Company 2 in or around October 2019 to provide fundraising services to Political Party 1 lawmakers.
3. Individual 2 was a businessman and former Chief of Staff to Individual 1 when Individual 1 was Tennessee House Speaker. In 2019, multiple news forums published allegations that Individual 2 had committed inappropriate and illegal conduct. Based on public reporting, Individual 2 admitted certain allegations, and, on or about May 3, 2019, Individual 2 resigned his position as Chief of Staff.
4. The State of Tennessee (“the State”) allocated Tennessee Representatives $3,000 annually to fund postage and printing of items to be sent to the legislators’ constituents (“the Mailer Program”). According to Tennessee House guidelines, Representatives were permitted to use Mailer Program funds to design and mail “legislative update mailers” and legislative surveys to their constituents. Representatives were permitted to use campaign funds to offset additional expenses beyond the $3,000 allocated under the Mailer Program.
5. The Tennessee House Speaker’s Office had the authority to approve or deny a vendor to provide services or any mailing funded by the Mailer Program.
6. In or around November 2019, Individual 2 established Phoenix Solutions, LLC. Phoenix Solutions was established, with SMITH and Individual l’s knowledge and support, for the purpose of offering mail and consulting services for legislative members facing primary challengers, and was later expanded to offer constituent mail services to members of the Tennessee General Assembly. SMITH, Individual 1, and Individual 2 told others, including members of the Tennessee General Assembly and the House Speaker’s Office, that Phoenix Solutions was run by an individual named “Matthew Phoenix.” SMITH, Individual 1, and Individual 2 claimed that Matthew Phoenix was an experienced political consultant who had worked for Consulting Firm 1, a real company based in Washington, D.C. In truth and in fact, Individual 2 ran Phoenix Solutions and SMITH, Individual 1, and Individual 2 profited from it.
7. SMITH, Individual 1, and Individual 2 knew that Matthew Phoenix was a fictitious person and was, in truth and in fact, Individual 2.
8.SMITH, Individual I, and Individual 2 concealed Individual 2’s involvement in Phoenix Solutions from the State and members of the Tennessee General Assembly due to the expectation that Phoenix Solutions would not be approved by the Tennessee House Speaker’s Office, acting on behalf of the State, or hired as a vendor by individual members if Individual 2′ s involvement was disclosed. SMITH, Individual 1, and Individual 2 also concealed the fact that Individual 2 kicked back a portion of the profits from the State and members of the Tennessee General Assembly to SMITH and Individual 1 due to the expectation that Phoenix Solutions would not be approved by the Tennessee House Speaker’s Office, acting on behalf of the State, or hired as a vendor by individual members Individual 2’s operational involvement and financial interests in the business and the kickbacks to SMITH and Individual 1 were disclosed.
9. SMITH and Individual 1 received kickbacks from Individual 2 in exchange for using their positions as members of the Tennessee House of Representatives to perform official acts, including pressuring the Tennessee House Speaker’s Office to approve Phoenix Solutions as a Mailer Program vendor and disburse State funds to Phoenix Solutions.
10. Individual 2, with SMITH and Individual’s knowledge and support, set up an email account for Matthew Phoenix, matthew@powerofphoenix.com, which Individual 2 used to conduct business on behalf of Phoenix Solutions.
11. Individual 2 incorporated Phoenix Solutions as a limited liability company (LLC) in New Mexico. Individual 2 set up a United States Postal Service post office box for Phoenix Solutions there and forwarded the mail received by that post office box to his home address in Nashville. Individual 2 later explained to SMITH that he established the post office box in New Mexico because that state allows the anonymous registration of LLCs.
12. In or around January 2020, SMITH was informed by an employee of the Tennessee House Speaker’s Office that the Speaker’s Office needed to work directly with the third-party vendor, which was a change in the existing guidelines employed by legislative members for constituent mail. SMITH informed Individual 2 of this fact. Individual 2 was notified that the State could not pay Phoenix Solutions without an Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 on file. In response, Individual 2, assuming the identity of Matthew Phoenix to disguise his true identity, sent a W-9 signed by “Matthew Phoenix” from the matthew@powerofphoenix.com email address to the Tennessee House Majority Caucus Advisor for the purpose of filing it with the State.
13. On or about December 18, 2019, SMITH emailed Individual 2. Referencing a potential future conversation related to Phoenix Solutions with a Political Patty 1 employee regarding a campaign mailing list that each incumbent legislative member was to receive, SMITH told Individual 2 that he “may have to assume the role of Matthew again.” Individual 2 replied to SMITH, “Matthew, reporting for duty!” and included a graphic interchange format (“.gif”) picture of a salute from Harrison Ford’s character Han Solo in the movie Star Wars.
14. On or about January 24, 2020, SMITH emailed Individual 2, writing, “We’ll start with this…Matthew…you might expect some type of call, email.” Below, SMITH copied an email chain between SMITH, the Acting Chief of Staff to the House Speaker, and the General Assembly’s Director of Legislation. In the email chain, SMITH asked the officials about the status of Mailer Program payments to Phoenix Solutions and why there was an issue with processing them. The Acting Chief of Staff wrote SMITH, “I’m on it.” SMITH replied, “Don’t crush her, but [the Director of Legislation has] been telling this vendor that the check’s on the way for about two weeks.” SMITH falsely added, “It’s guys from [Consulting Firm 1] who did mail two years ago that left and started their own gig…tired of doing the DC/Trump stuff. Thanks.” SMITH then forwarded the email chain to Individual 2, adding the message, “Shhhhhhhhhh.”
15. Individual 3 was Individual 2’s girlfriend. At times, Individual 3 assumed the fictitious role of “Candice,” another alleged employee of Phoenix Solutions.
16. On or about June 16, 2020, Individual 3 and Individual 2 emailed each other as “Candice” and “Matthew.” The purpose of the email exchange was to falsely make it appear as if two employees of Phoenix Solutions were having an exchange about the need to secure payment on outstanding Mailer Program invoices that the State had not yet paid. Individual 2, using the matthew@powerofphoenix.com email account, then forwarded the exchange to SMITH.
17. On or about June 22, 2020, SMITH emailed the General Assembly’s Director of Legislation, copying the Acting Chief of Staff to the House Speaker, to complain about delays in Mailer Program payments from the State to Phoenix Solutions. SMITH forwarded them the June 16, 2020, email exchange between “Candice” and “Matthew” complaining about the delayed payments. Above that email chain, SMITH wrote, “[Director of Legislation], I was cc’d on this last week. … It would be either illegal or unethical to move to print without knowing payment was coming, so the bulk permit number is provided on the invoice. Simpler, asking a firm to be liable for the cost with the printing completed before knowing payment may or may not be approved is suspect. Is there something going on?” Enclosed within SMITH’s email were invoices from Phoenix Solutions for legislative mailers on behalf of two Representatives, for $4,547.50 and $5,537.
18. On or about May 20, 2020, SMITH discussed Phoenix Solutions with a member of the Tennessee House Political Party 1 caucus. SMITH described Phoenix Solutions as her preferred survey mailer company. SMITH falsely said that Phoenix Solutions was owned and operated by Matthew Phoenix, an experienced political consultant with whom SMITH did business when SMITH used Washington, D.C.-based Consulting Firm I for political work. SMITH falsely said that Matthew Phoenix and his associate, Candice, got tired of living in the Washington, D.C. area and decided to move back home to New Mexico, where Phoenix started Phoenix Solutions. SMITH falsely said that she used Phoenix Solutions because of the quality of its work.
19. On or about August 10, 2020, SMITH attended a meeting of the Political Party 1 House campaign committee. Present at the meeting were several Tennessee Representatives, officials from the Speaker’s Office, and a committee consultant. SMITH repeated the same false statements regarding Phoenix Solutions that she had made to the caucus member on or about May 20, 2020. She also falsely told the committee members that she did not make any money from Phoenix Solutions.
20. On or about April 2, 2020, Individual 2 sent an email to SMITH and Individual 1. The email stated, “Friends, Here’s our up-to-date printing spreadsheet. All of these checks have been collected and deposited. All bills related to these print jobs have also been paid. So, let me know what address is best for you and I will cut checks for each of you?” Individual 2 provided a breakdown of total profit earned from each client. SMITH, Individual 1, and Individual 2 shared the profits, with Individual 2 earning 30%. Individual 1 and SMITH each earned $4,143.64, which was 25% of the business, each. Individual 2 wrote that the remaining 20% of the profit was “left in business.” Individual 2 also discussed ways to cut Phoenix Solutions’ future costs.
21. From on or about June I, 2020, through on or about December 1, 2020, Phoenix Solutions took on more varied projects, but continued to receive payments from the State-funded Mailer Program and campaign accounts of members of the General Assembly. During that timeframe, a Phoenix Solutions bank account ending in x3886 received revenue of approximately $158,165, excluding payments from campaign accounts associated with SMITH and Individual 2. From on or about January 1, 2020, through on or about December 31, 2020, Phoenix Solutions, Company 1, and Company 2 received approximately $51,947 from the State in payments associated with the Mailer Program.
22. On or about September 10, 2020, SMITH endorsed and deposited check number 152, dated September I, 2020, in the amount of $12,003.16, from Phoenix Solutions’ account number x3886 into a bank account associated with her consulting firm, Company 1. Individual 2 signed the check in his given name and wrote “Consulting” on the memo line.
23. On or about December 17, 2020, SMITH endorsed and deposited check number 170, dated December 16, 2020, in the amount of $12,116.96, from Phoenix Solutions’ account number x3886 into a bank account associated with Company 1. Individual 2 signed the check in his given name and wrote “Consulting” on the memo line.
COUNT ONE
18 u.s.c. §§ 1343, 1346
(Honest Services Wire Fraud)24. Paragraphs 1 through 23 are incorporated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.
25. Beginning in or around November 2019 and continuing until in or around January 2021, in the Middle District of Tennessee and elsewhere, the Defendant, ROBIN SMITH, aided and abetted by others, including Individual 1 and Individual 2, devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud and deprive the citizens of the Middle District of Tennessee and the government of Tennessee of their right to the honest services of a public official, namely the honest services of SMITH and Individual 1, members of the Tennessee House of Representatives, through kickbacks.
26. In the Middle District of Tennessee and elsewhere, SMITH, aided and abetted by others, including Individual 1 and Individual 2, having devised and intended to devise the above described scheme, and for the purpose of executing the scheme, transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346, and 2.
FORFEITURE ALLEGATION
1. The allegations contained in this Information are re-alleged and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth in support of this forfeiture.
2. Upon conviction of Count One of this Information, the defendant, ROBIN SMITH, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(l)(C), by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461, any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the offense, including but not limited to a money judgment in an amount to be determined representing the value of the proceeds of the offense.
3. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of SMITH:
a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;
b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third party;
c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;
d. has been substantially diminished in value; or
e. has been commingled with other property that cannot be divided without difficulty, the United States shall be entitled to forfeiture of substitute property, and it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by reference in Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other prope1iy of SMITH up to the value of the property listed above as being subject to forfeiture.
Mark H. Wildasin
United States Attorney
Middle District of Tennessee
Indicted senator cites ‘exciting change’ in personal life in deciding agaisnt re-election bid
State Sen. Brian Kelsey, a Germantown Republican awaiting a federal criminal trial related to campaign fundraising during a 2016 congressional bid, announced he won’t seek re-election to the General Assembly this year.
“I will not be running for reelection due to a recent, exciting change in my personal life,” Kelsey wrote on Twitter. “And I look forward to spending more time with my family.”
Kelsey initially vowed to seek a rapid trial in hopes of clearing his name, but was later granted a yearlong delay.
After arguing in favor of the state’s school voucher law in a Supreme Court challenge last year, Kelsey was notably not among the speakers when the case was reheard before the state’s highest court last month.
New TNJ alert: What does a stationary bike maker have to do with the Tennessee economy?
The new print edition of The Tennessee Journal is out in the world. Here’s what’s in it:
— Are Peloton’s struggles a cautionary tale for the state economy? Lee delivers annual budget address, lawmakers fret about a future economic downturn.
— Removed without delay: Convicted Sen. Katrina Robinson calls ouster from chamber a “procedural lynching.”
— Campaign finance update: Lee raises big money for re-election bid, House GOP haul is down from two years ago, and Casada travels to Santa Fe.
Also: Registry to hold special meeting to take up subpoenas on mystery PAC on March 7, McNally gives Lamberth an inadvertent “promotion,” and the Senate Finance chairman bats down ballpark funding proposal by his hometown mayor.
As always, access the your copy of the TNJ here.
Or subscribe here.
Lee raises more than $3M for re-election bid
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee will report raising more than $3 million in the period covering the second half of 2021, The Tennessee Journal has learned. The Republican had about $5 million on hand as he began his re-election year.
Lee partially self-funded his 2018 gubernatorial bid. He’s not expected to report any loans to his re-election campaign.
Lee has yet to attract an opponent for the GOP nomination. Several Democrats have announced plans to run against him, including Nashville physician Jason Martin and Memphis City Council member JB Smiley Jr.
Lee last summer reported raising $3.6 million since being elected governor in 2018 and spending $1.85 million over the same period. Lee’s biggest donor since his defeat of Democrat Karl Dean was the Pharma Tennessee PAC, which had given $47,600 through July. Next were $24,600 each from St. Louis-based managed care company Centene and the PACs of H.G. Hill Realty and the David Volkert & Associates construction engineering firm.
The Butler Snow law firm’s PAC has ponied up $20,900, while Amazon and the HDR architecture and construction services company of Brentwood kicked in another $20,000.
The deadline to submit the most recent campaign finance reports is Monday, which is the same day the governor is scheduled to deliver the final State of the State address of his first term in office.
Tenn. lawmaker indicted on federal campaign finance charges is asking for donations
State Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) recently got his federal trial on campaign finance charges moved until January 2023. Then he started going about the business of raising money for his re-election bid next year.
“The Liberals have found an opponent to run against me!” Kelsey says in the fundraising appeal. “This race is the number one target for Democrats in the state of Tennessee and last election we won by only 51-49%!”
Kelsey makes no mention of his legal issues in the fundraising email.
Prosecutors allege Kelsey funneled money from his state account through other political action committees to a national conservative group to spend on radio ads in support of his ill-fated 2016 congressional bid. Kelsey has denied the charges and denounced the case as a political witch hunt.
It remains to be seen how enthusiastic potential donors will be about giving money to the indicted senator, especially when campaign finance disclosures due at the end of next month will reveal who has contributed to the embattled lawmaker.
Here’s the invite to Jan. 4 the fundraiser:
Kelsey gets yearlong delay for federal campaign finance trial
State Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) has been granted a yearlong delay before the start of his federal campaign finance trial.
Originally scheduled to begin next month, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw ordered the proceedings to be re-set for Jan. 23, 2023. The motion to delay the case was made by Kelsey’s legal team and unopposed by the U.S. attorney’s office or codefendant Josh Smith.
The attorneys for all parties met with Crenshaw behind closed doors for 45 minutes on Monday morning while Kelsey and Smith urgently whispered to each other in the courtroom that was devoid of spectators other than two reporters. Upon ending the in camera meeting, the public portion of the hearing lasted about 10 minutes to formalize the new trial date, which Crenshaw described as “firm.”
As previously reported in this week’s Tennessee Journal Kelsey attorney Paul Bruno said in a legal filing he faced a conflict with the original Jan. 18 court date because he is scheduled to go to trial in a quadruple homicide case in Nashville the following week. Bruno added the government has already provided “a significant amount of discovery” in the case and indicated more would be forthcoming. Given the volume of materials in the case, Kelsey and his legal team did not believe they had enough time to prepare for a trial next month.
Prosecutors say Kelsey funneled campaign funds from his state account through other political action committees to the American Conservative Union, the Washington-based organizer of CPAC conferences. The bulk of the money was then allegedly spent on radio ads supporting Kelsey’s unsuccessful bid for the 8th Congressional District in 2016. Kelsey has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and has claimed to be the subject of a political witch hunt.
Report: Durham subpoenaed for Kelsey grand jury
Sam Stockard of the Tennessee Lookout has some interesting details on former Rep. Jeremy Durham (R-Franklin) being subpoenaed to testify to the grand jury about Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown), who was indicted last week on federal campaign finance and conspiracy charges.
UPDATE: Kelsey pleaded not guilty on Monday morning, per the Daily Memphian.
According to the Lookout, Durham was called to testify on March 11:
As part of the subpoena, Durham was required to provide copies of all documents and records related to Kelsey, Kelsey’s wife, Amanda Bunning, his wife, Jessica Durham, Josh Smith, Andrew “Andy” Miller, Zach Crandell, Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union, Dan Schneider, Ryan McGowan, Clifford Pintak, Kelsey for Congress, Red State PAC, VoteKelsey.com, American Conservative Union, Citizens 4 Ethics in Government PAC and any entity representing Kelsey and his associated political campaigns.
We know who the Kelseys and the Durhams are, along with Standard club owner Josh Smith and conservative donor Andy Smith. Here’s our best guess at some of the others named in the subpoena:
Schlapp is the chairman of the American Conservative Union, the Washington-based group that puts on CPAC conferences. McGowan is the ACU’s finance director, Dan Schneider is its executive director, and Crandell was the group’s creative director until September. Pintak is a political ad consultant based in northern Virginia.
Durham was also ordered to turn in all records relating to the funds transferred between the various entities and the Standard Club PAC, plus any relevant calendars, diaries, meeting minutes, receipts, or statements, along with emails, text messages, voice mails, phone calls, logs, and metadata.
Kelsey in a Senate floor speech last week intimated that the chief witness in the case against him had been offered immunity in return for his testimony. Durham and Kelsey have long been close friends.
Kelsey: ‘I’m totally innocent’
State Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) hosted a Zoom call with reporters on Monday to denounce his federal indictment as politically motivated. Kelsey appeared with the Senate chamber as the backdrop.
Here’s what Kelsey had to say:
Look, this is nothing but a political witch hunt. The Biden administration is trying to take me out because I’m a conservative and I’m the No. 1 target of the Tennessee Democratic Party. I won my seat only 51% to 49% last time, and the Democrats think this will make the difference. They’re wrong. These 5-year-old, unfounded allegations have been reviewed and re-reviewed. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. I’m totally innocent, and I look forward to being cleared at trial.”
Kelsey’s attorney Ty Howard also spoke on the brief call.
“Let me state clearly and empathically from the start, these allegations are false,” Howard said. “Sen. Kelsey committed no crime. He is innocent. And he very much looks forward to his day in court.”
“Despite this ill-considered indictment, Sen. Kelsey and his legal team have great faith in our justice system,” Howard said. “He looks forward to being fully vindicated in a court of law. Out of respect for the legal process, we will take no questions today and this will be our only public comment during the pendency of this matter.
Read the Kelsey indictment here
The indictment of Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) has led to widespread speculation about the identities of people and organizations mentioned in the charges.
Some are are easier to pinpoint than others. For example, Unindicted Coconspirator No. 2 is described as a “member of the Tennessee House of Representatives from in or around January 2013 to in or around September 2016, when he was expelled.” That description only fits former Rep. Jeremy Durham (R-Franklin).
Political Organization No. 1 is listed as “a nonprofit corporation that hosted an annual political conference, published ratings on Members of Congress and State politicians, and issued political endorsements.” Presumably this refers to the American Conservative Union, which spent money in Kelsey’s congressional bid in 2016.
Individual No. 1 is named as the nonprofit’s director of government affairs who is now married to Kelsey. That description matches Amanda Bunning.
Coconspirator No. 1 is listed as “a Tennessee businessman and prominent political fundraiser and contributor,” who controlled a political action committee that received $30,000 from Smith’s PAC in July 2016. The Tennessean reported in 2017 the Standard Club PAC had given that amount to Citizens for Ethics in Government, the federal committee controlled by Andy Miller Jr.
Here is the full text of the indictment of state Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown):
I N D I C T M E N T
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
COUNT ONE
18 U.SC. § 371
(CONSPIRACY)
At all times material to this indictment unless otherwise indicated:
I. Relevant Individuals and Entities
1. BRIAN KELSEY was a practicing attorney and member of the Tennessee Senate, representing District 31, which includes parts of Shelby County, Tennessee. In 2016, KELSEY unsuccessfully ran for an open seat to represent Tennessee’s 8th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
2. Federal Committee 1 was KELSEY’S authorized federal campaign committee.
3. State Committee 1 was KELSEY’S Tennessee State Senate campaign committee.
4. JOSHUA SMITH was the owner and operator of Social Club 1, a members-only social club in Nashville, Tennessee popular among politicians and Nashville businessmen. SMITH also controlled PAC 1, a Tennessee-registered political action committee
5. Unindicted Coconspirator 1 (“UCC 1”) was a Tennessee businessman and prominent political fundraiser and contributor. UCC 1 controlled PAC 2, a federal independent expenditure-only committee.
6. Unindicted Coconspirator 2 (“UCC 2”) was a practicing attorney and member of the Tennessee House of Representatives from in or around January 2013 to in or around September 2016, when he was expelled by a vote of the House.
7. Political Organization 1 was a nonprofit corporation that hosted an annual political conference, published ratings on Members of Congress and State politicians, and issued political endorsements. Political Organization 1 registered with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) as a person or organization making independent expenditures.
8. Individual 1 was the Director of Government Affairs for Political Organization 1 and a member of Political Organization 1’s senior management team from in or around late 2015 until in or around March 2017. In that role, Individual 1 managed Political Organization 1’s political expenditures during the 2015-16 federal election cycle. Individual 1 and KELSEY became engaged in or around July 2017 and married in or around January 2018.
9. Individual 2 was a member of Political Organization’s senior management team. He oversaw Political Organization 1’s day-to-day operations, including managing its budget and finances. He worked closely with Individual 1 to direct all aspects of Political Organization l’s political activities, including political expenditures.
10. Individual 3 was a practicing attorney with ties to Political Organization 2, a nonprofit corporation that publicly advocated on legal and judicial issues.
11. Individual 4 was a longtime financial supporter of KELSEY’S political career.
Continue reading