2. The second one assigns "value" to the documents because they contained contact information for political partners and local political figures that would have required research on the part of the Bush/Cheney campaign. And even at that, the FEC recommended no further action because the value of the "contribution" was minimal.
3. In the third one, the FEC says "Yes" to every question (including at least two that I would have thought would be "No") except the last one. And in that particular case, the FEC admits that the "value" is very low but considers it a "thing of value" -- probably because the Canadian government's expenditure of money for those resources is clearly documented. Interestingly, the FEC says the campaign in question is free to BUY that information from their Canadian counterparts ... which everything I'm hearing in the Trump Jr. case would be problematic.
4. In the last case, it looks like the key point in the FEC finding related to the status of the person and the company of interest as part of a "political advocacy group" instead of just an ordinary person. And in the supporting evidence for its decision, the FEC was able to document the exact amount of the expenditures that were made by this outside company in the activities that were the subject of the complaint. I'm not sure how -- or even if -- this would relate to the Trump Jr. case.