The campaign financing statutes focus on the “making” and “receiving” of contributions and expenditures, and venue generally lies where a prohibited transaction was made or received. While this presents no problems in cases involving intradistrict transactions, one c o u r t o f appeals has interpreted “making a contribution” so narrowly that serious difficulties may be encountered in establishing a centralized venue over multi-district FECA violations. United States v. Passodelis, 615 F.2d 975 (3d Cir. 1980). In Passodelis, a campaign fundraiser had been convicted under 5 2 U.S.C. §§ 30116 and 30122 predecessor statutes for making excessive contributions to a presidential candidate through conduits in four states. Venue was laid in the district where the political committee to which these donations were given had its offices and bank accounts. The court of appeals held that cases against the donors had to be brought in the district where the donors “made” the prohibited donations, and that this concept did not encompass the district where the donee deposited the funds. Prosecutors facing similar fact situations should contact the Public Integrity Section to discuss potential solutions regarding venue. In United States v. Chestnut, 533 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1976), the Second Circuit held that the act of “receiving” a prohibited contribution or expenditure encompassed the donee’s acceptance of it. Therefore, multi-district acceptance, or “donee,” cases may be brought in the district where the donee accepted the donation. Venue for reporting offenses lies generally where the inaccurate report was prepared, dispatched, or received by the FEC. The FEC’s offices are in the District of Columbia. 6. Other Applicable Federal Criminal Statutes Conduct giving rise to a FECA violation may also give rise to violations of other federal statutes as well. The following statutes 158