High Point Realtors Coerced PAC Payments

In 2005 the High Point Regional Association of Realtors (HPRAR) publicly mocked realtor members who had not contributed to the Realtors Political Action Committe (RPAC). Realtor Michael Pugh of High Point filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that resulted in a $4,500 fine and a "cease and desist order" imposed on the HPRAR in 2007. A summary of the complaint and statement of the $4,500 civil penalty and specific violations of federal election laws can be found in the Conciliation Agreement 2/8/2007. Read the text and documentation of the newsletter taunts in Original Complaint 9/21/2005 and follow-up regarding Powerpoint presentation slides in the Supplement to Complaint 9/30/2005

RE: MUR 5681
High Point Regional Association of Realtors

1. HPRAR is a local association of realtors affiliated with the National Association of Realtors (“NAR’). As a local affiliate of NAR, HPRAR regularly solicits its members for contributions to NAR's separate segregated fund, the National Association of Realtors Political Action Committee (“RPAC”).

2. In August 2005, HPRAR listed the name of each individual realtor member who had not contributed to RPAC on two pages of its eight-page monthly newsletter. The names of the non-contributing individuals were listed under the name of their company, and the percentage of contributing members from each company appeared next to the company’s name. Companies that had a 100% contribution rate fiom its individual members were listed at the very top of the two-page list under the heading “2005 100% RPAC Companies.” No individual names of members who had already made contributions to RPAC were listed anywhere in the two-page spread. At the bottom of the second page there is a logo of RPAC with the question: “Have you made your contribution?” (Emphasis in original.) .

3. The newsletter also contained an article summarizing new state legislation “that makes significant improvements to the State’s real estate licensing law.” The end of the article stated, “These bills are representative of your RPAC dollars at work to improve our industry standards and working environment as well as to firher protect our customers and clients, the real estate consumer. Have you given your RPAC fair share? The article then gave a “special RPAC thanks” to an individual realtor member for her generous monetary support of RPAC.

4. HPRAR also displayed the names of non-contributing members on an overhead projection screen at the association’s monthly meetings and at the association’s 2005 Annual Meeting, held on September 21,2005, where checks were being presented to local candidates.

5. It is unlawful for a solicitation for contributions, whether written or oral, to fail to inform the employee or member being solicited at the time of the solicitation of the political purposes of the separate segregated fbnd and of his or her right to refuse to so contribute without any reprisal.

6. The solicitation in this matter lacked proper notice of the political purposes of RPAC and the member's right to refuse to contribute without reprisal, as required by [federal election law].

V. Respondent improperly solicited contributions to a separate segregated fund by failing to inform members being solicited at the time of solicitation of the political purposes of the RPAC fund and of the members' right to refuse to contribute without reprisal, in violation of [federal election law]. Respondent contends that the violation was inadvertent.

VI. Respondent will pay a civil penalty to the Federal Election Commission in the amount of Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500).

VII. Respondent will cease and desist from violating [federal election law] by providing proper notice of the political purposes of the separate segregated fund for which contributions are being solicited, and the member's right to refuse to contribute to such fund without any reprisal, in any and all solicitations for contributions, whether written or oral, at the time such solicitation is made.

For further information search the FEC Enforcement Query System with Case #: 5681