March 2002 

Table of Contents 

Regulations 

1 Public Hearing on Use of Internet 

2 Interpretation of Allocation of 

Candidate Travel Expenses 

2 No Increase in Civil Penalties 

Court Cases 

1 Miles for Senate v. FEC 

3 New Litigation 

4 On Appeal 

2 Federal Register 

5 Advisory Opinions 

Staff 

9	 Joseph Stoltz Named Assistant 

Staff Director for Audit Division 

9	 Rhonda Vosdingh Named 

Associate General Counsel for 

Enforcement 

Reports 

10	 Reporting Last-Minute 

Contributions; 48-Hour Notice 

Periods for 2002 Primaries 

Administrative Fines 

11	 Committees Fined for Nonfiled 

and Late Reports 

Outreach 

12 FEC Conferences 

Statistics 

13 Semiannual PAC Count 

Party Activities 

13	 2002 Coordinated Party 

Expenditure Limits 

15 Index 

Federal Election Commission 

Regulations 

Public Hearing on Use of 

Internet 

The FEC will hold a public 

hearing on March 20 to receive 

testimony and additional comments 

about its proposed regulations 

concerning the use of the Internet 

for campaign-related activities. The 

proposed rules address: 

• Campaign-related Internet activity 

conducted by individuals; 

• Hyperlinks placed on web sites 

established by corporations and 

labor organizations; and 

• Press releases that announce 

candidate endorsements and are 

placed on web sites established by 

corporations and labor organizations and made available to the 

general public. 

The hearing will be held at the 

Federal Election Commission, 999 

E St. NW., Washington D.C. It will 

begin at 10:00 a.m. in the FEC’s 9th 

floor hearing room. 

The Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) was published 

in the October 3, 2001, Federal 

Register (66 FR 50358), and was 

summarized in the November 2001 

Record, page 1. The full text of the 

(continued on page 2) 

Volume 28, Number 3 

Court Cases 

Miles for Senate v. FEC 

On January 9, 2002, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Minnesota granted judgment in 

favor of the Commission in this 

case. The Miles for Senate Committee, Steven H. Miles and Barbara 

Steinberg (the plaintiffs) filed suit 

against the Commission on January 

18, 2001, appealing a civil money 

penalty the Commission assessed 

against Miles for Senate (the 

Committee) and its treasurer, 

Barbara Steinberg, LTD. The 

plaintiffs had argued, among other 

things, that Commission regulations 

that distinguish between certified or 

registered mail and regular mail for 

the purpose of determining when a 

report is filed are arbitrary and 

capricious and in excess of the 

Commission’s rulemaking authority. 

11 CFR 104.5(e). 

The court found that Mr. Miles 

and Ms. Steinberg lacked standing 

to request judicial review, and that 

the plaintiffs’ arguments were 

untimely because they did not raise 

them during the Commission’s 

administrative process. Moreover, 

the court found that, even if the 

plaintiffs had raised their arguments 

in a timely manner, the arguments 

(continued on page 3) 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Regulations 

(continued from page 1) 

NPRM is available on the FEC web 

site at http://www.fec.gov/ 

register.htm and from the FEC 

faxline, 202/501-3413. 

—Amy Kort 

Interpretation of Allocation of 

Candidate Travel Expenses 

On February 6, 2002, the 

Commission adopted an interpretive rule to clarify that the travel 

allocation and reporting requirements of 11 CFR 106.3(b) do not 

apply to the extent that a candidate 

pays for certain travel expenses 

using funds authorized and 

appropriated by the federal government. 

Regulations 

Commission regulations require 

candidates for federal office, other 

than Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates who receive federal 

funds, to report expenditures for 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

800/424-9530 

202/694-1100 

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline) 

202/219-3336 (TDD for the 

hearing impaired) 

David M. Mason, Chairman 

Karl J. Sandstrom, Vice Chairman 

Danny L. McDonald, 

Commissioner 

Bradley Smith, Commissioner 

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner 

Darryl R. Wold, Commissioner 

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director 

Lawrence H. Norton, General 

Counsel 

Published by the Information 

Division 

Greg J. Scott, Acting Assistant 

Staff Director 

Amy Kort, Editor 

http://www.fec.gov 

campaign-related travel. Travel 

expenditures must be reported 

when: 

• A campaign-related trip is paid for 

by a candidate from personal funds 

or from a source other than a 

political committee; 

• A trip involves both campaignrelated and non-campaign-related 

stops, in which case expenses are 

allocated between campaign and 

non-campaign activity; and 

• A stop involves any campaign 

activity. 11 CFR 106.3. 

Interpretation 

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (The Act) specifically excludes 

the federal government from its 

definition of “person.” This being 

the case, the Commission believes 

that the allocation and reporting 

requirements of 11 CFR 106.3(b) 

are not applicable to the extent that 

a candidate pays for travel expenses 

using funds authorized and appropriated by the federal government. 

This announcement represents the 

Commission’s interpretation of an 

existing regulation and is not 

intended to create or remove any 

rights or duties, nor is it intended to 

affect any other aspect of the Act or 

Commission regulations. Also, 

this interpretation does not apply to 

Presidential or Vice-Presidential 

campaigns that are covered by the 

Presidential Campaign Fund Act. 

26 U.S.C. §9001 et seq.✦ 

—Gary Mullen 

No Increase Necessary in 

FEC Civil Penalties 

On January 24, 2002, the Commission determined that no changes 

needed to be made to the maximum 

amount of civil penalties that can be 

assessed for violations of the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act). The Federal Civil Penalties 

Inflation Adjustment Act, as 

amended by the Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), 

requires that at least once every four 

years the FEC and other executive 

agencies adjust for inflation the top 

amount of their current civil penalties. 1 

The adjustment is determined 

according to the rise in the Consumer Price Index since the last year 

that the penalties were adjusted. See 

28 U.S.C. §2641nt sec 3(2). The 

adjusted amounts are then rounded 

in accordance with a formula set out 

in the DCIA. 28 U.S.C. §2641nt sec 

5(a). The Consumer Price Index 

rose 7.5 percent since 1997, when 

the Commission last raised the Act’s 

maximum civil penalties. After 

rounding the 7.5-percent increase in 

the penalties according the DCIA’s 

formula, however, the Commission 

determined that no adjustment was 

necessary at this time. Since no 

changes were made to the penalties 

this year, the Commission will 

consider the rise in inflation since 

1997 when it next recalculates the 

penalties. 

Currently, the general provisions 

at 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(5) and (6) call 

for a maximum civil penalty of the 

greater of the amount of any contribution or expenditure involved in 

1

 The Commission did not address the 

schedule of penalties under the administrative fine regulations, which became 

effective January 1, 2001. 11 CFR 

111.43. 

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the FEC web 

site at http://www.fec.gov/ 

register.htm and from the FEC 

faxline, 202/501-3413. 

Notice 2002-1 

Interpretation of Allocation of 

Candidate Travel Expenses (67 

FR 5445, February 6, 2002). 

Notice 2002-2 

Notice of Public Hearing on the 

Internet and Federal Elections (67 

FR 6883, February 14, 2002). 

2 
March 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

the violation or $5,500. The maximum penalty for knowing and 

willful violations is $11,000. Civil 

penalties for violating the Act’s 

confidentiality provisions (i.e. for 

publicizing FEC information 

concerning investigations and other 

matters) is $2,200; the penalty is 

$5,500 for knowing and willful 

violations. 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(12). 

See also 11 CFR 111.24. 

—Amy Kort 

Court Cases 

(continued from page 1) 

were unpersuasive and failed as a 

matter of law. 

Background 

The Commission found reason to 

believe (RTB) that the Committee 

and its treasurer failed to file a July 

15, 2000, Quarterly Report by the 

deadline, and proposed a $2,700 

civil penalty against the Committee 

and its treasurer under the Administrative Fine regulations. 2 U.S.C. 

§437g(a)(4)(C) and subpart B of 11 

CFR 111. Ms. Steinberg had sent 

the Committee’s report via first 

class mail on the due date, and the 

Commission did not receive it until 

six days later. Under Commission 

regulations, if a report is sent 

registered or certified mail, it is 

considered filed on the date of the 

U.S. postmark. However, if a report 

is sent by first class mail, it is 

considered filed on the date it is 

received by the FEC or the Secretary of the Senate. 11 CFR 104.5(e). 

As a result, the Committee’s filing 

was considered six days late. 

Commission regulations provide 

for an administrative process 

through which respondents can 

challenge the RTB finding and the 

proposed civil money penalty. The 

plaintiffs responded to the 

Commission’s RTB determination 

to assess the civil money penalty, 

but failed to respond to the 

Commission’s reviewing officer’s 

recommendations within the 10-day 

response period. 11 CFR 111.36(f). 

On December 14, 2000, the Commission made a final determination 

that the plaintiffs violated the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act) by filing the report late and 

assessed the civil money penalty. 

The plaintiffs petitioned the court 

for review of this determination on 

January 17, 2001. 

Court Decision 

Standing. The court found that 

Mr. Miles and Ms. Steinberg lacked 

standing to request judicial review 

of the matter because they were not 

respondents in the Commission’s 

determination. The Commission 

assessed the penalty against the 

Committee and the incorporated 

entity Barbara Steinberg, LTD, 

which was on record as the 

Committee’s treasurer. Under the 

Act, only a “person against whom 

an adverse determination is made” 

may ask for judicial review of an 

FEC determination. 2 U.S.C. 

§437g(a)(4)(C)(iii). 

Timeliness of Arguments. Under 

Commission regulations, if respondents fail to raise an argument with 

the Commission during the administrative process, they waive their 

right to make that argument in a 

petition to the court. 11 CFR 

111.38. The court found that the 

plaintiffs had waived the arguments 

made in their petition by not first 

making the arguments to the Commission. 

Plaintiffs’ Motion. In their 

motion to the court, the plaintiffs 

argued that the Commission regulation that distinguishes between first 

class mail and registered or certified 

mail exceeds the Commission’s 

rulemaking authority and draws an 

arbitrary distinction. 11 CFR 

104.5(e). The court, however, did 

not find that the regulation exceeded 

the Commission’s authority to make 

regulations to implement the Act: 

“Because the regulation merely 

incorporates the same distinction as 

that made by the statute, it is 

impossible to find that the regulation is inconsistent with the statute.” 

2 U.S.C. §434(a)(5). The court also 

concluded that it could not respond 

to the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning whether distinguishing among 

postmarks was a “bad policy.” Such 

arguments, the court explained, 

should be addressed to legislators 

and administrators rather than to the 

courts. 

The court dismissed Mr. Miles’s 

and Ms. Steinberg’s claims and 

granted summary judgment to the 

FEC on the Committee’s claims. 

U.S. District Court District of 

Minnesota Fourth Division, 01-83 

(PAM/JGL)✦ 

—Amy Kort 

New Litigation 

Judicial Watch, Inc., and Peter F. 

Paul v. FEC 

On December 7, 2001, Judicial 

Watch, Inc., a nonprofit, public 

interest organization, and Peter F. 

Paul, an alleged donor to Hillary 

Rodham Clinton’s Senatorial 

campaign committee (the Committee), asked the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia to find 

that the Commission acted contrary 

to law when it failed to respond to 

an administrative complaint filed by 

Mr. Paul and allegedly by Judicial 

Watch. The administrative complaint, filed July 16, 2001, alleged 

that the Committee violated the 

Federal Election Campaign Act’s 

(the Act) contribution limits by 

accepting cash and in-kind contributions from Mr. Paul totaling nearly 

$2 million. 2 U.S.C. §441a and 11 

CFR 110.1 and 110.9. The administrative complaint further alleged that 

the Committee failed to report the 

contributions. 2 U.S.C. §434(b) and 

11 CFR 104.3. 

In their request for declaratory 

relief, the plaintiffs allege that the 

Commission did not act on the 

complaint within 120 days, as 

required by the Act. They ask that 

the court: 

(continued on page 4) 

3 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Court Cases 

(continued from page 3) 

• Declare the Commission’s failure 

to act on the complaint contrary to 

law; 

• Direct the Commission to act 

within 30 days; and 

• Retain jurisdiction over this action. 

U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, 

1:01CV02527.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

On Appeal 

Christine Beaumont, et al. v. FEC 

On January 25, 2002, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

Circuit affirmed a district court 

decision that found the prohibitions 

on corporate contributions and 

expenditures of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations were unconstitutional as applied to North Carolina 

Right to Life, Inc. (NCRL), a 

nonprofit, MCFL-type corporation.1 

The appeals court also affirmed the 

district court’s finding that the 

Act’s prohibition on corporate 

1

 In FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for 

Life (MCFL) 479 U.S. 238 (1986), the 

Supreme Court concluded that 2 U.S.C. 

§441b could not constitutionally 

prohibit certain nonprofit corporations 

from making independent expenditures. 

MCFL was exempt from this ban 

because it had the following features: 

•	 It was formed to promote political 

ideas and did not engage in business 

activities; 

•	 It did not have shareholders or other 

persons who had a claim on its 

assets or earnings, or who had other 

disincentives to disassociate 

themselves from the organization; 

and 

•	 It was not established by a business 

corporation or labor union and had 

a policy of not accepting donations 

from such entities. 

Commission regulations at 11 CFR 

114.10 establish a test based on these 

features to determine whether a 

corporation qualifies for the exemption. 

contributions and expenditures, and 

Commission regulations that 

implement the prohibition, were not 

facially unconstitutional. 

District Court Decision. On 

January 24, 2001, the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

North Carolina, Northern Division, 

permanently enjoined the Commission from relying on, enforcing or 

prosecuting against the plaintiffs 

violations of 2 U.S.C. §441b, which 

prohibits corporations from making 

contributions and expenditures in 

connection with a federal election. 

The court also permanently enjoined 

the Commission from enforcing 

against the plaintiffs Commission 

regulations that: 

• Prohibit all corporations from 

making contributions (11 CFR 

114.2(b)); and 

• Create an exemption from the ban 

on corporate expenditures for 

certain nonprofit corporations, 

pursuant to the Supreme Court’s 

decision in FEC v. Massachusetts 

Citizens for Life (MCFL). Under 

this regulation, the NCRL did not 

qualify for the exemption because 

it accepted a small amount of 

corporate donations. 11 CFR 

114.10. 

The district court did not find 2 

U.S.C. §441b and its implementing 

regulations unconstitutional on their 

face. The court concluded that the 

constitutionality of the statute 

should be considered on a case-bycase basis. See the March 2000 

Record, page 2. 

Appeals Court Decision. The 

appeals court found that a complete 

ban on corporate contributions and 

expenditures in connection with 

federal elections, with an exception 

to the corporate expenditure ban “so 

narrow that NCRL does not fit into 

it,” burdened the plaintiffs’ First 

Amendment speech and association 

interests. The court explained that 

“Organizations that in substance 

pose no risk of ‘unfair deployment 

of wealth for political purposes’ 

may not be banned from participating in political activity simply 

because they have taken on the 

corporate form.” 

The FEC argued that the Act did 

not absolutely ban corporations 

from engaging in political activity. 

Rather, it permits corporations to 

establish political action committees, which can make contributions 

and expenditures subject to the 

Act’s limits. The appeals court, 

however, found that the reporting 

requirements and administrative 

burdens associated with maintaining 

a political committee “stretch far 

beyond the more straightforward 

disclosure requirements of unincorporated associations.” The court 

concluded that, as a nonprofit 

advocacy group, the “NCRL is more 

akin to an individual or an unincorporated advocacy group than a forprofit corporation.” 

The appeals court found that the 

criteria at 11 CFR 114.10, which 

create a test for whether a nonprofit 

corporation qualifies for the MCFL 

exemption, merely codify the list of 

nonprofit corporate attributes 

considered by the Supreme Court in 

MCFL. Relying upon a previous 

Fourth Circuit case involving 

NCRL, the appeals court held that 

these rigid criteria could not be used 

to determine whether an organization qualified for the constitutionally-mandated exception. The court 

ruled that the NCRL was constitutionally entitled to the exception and 

was not barred from making independent expenditures to influence 

federal elections. 

The court also ruled that the 

prohibition on corporate contributions was unconstitutional as applied 

to NCRL. The court reasoned that 

same rationale the Supreme Court 

used to find the ban on independent 

expenditures unconstitutional as 

applied to MCFL also applied to 

contributions. The court found that 

contributions by an MCFL-type 

corporation carried no greater risk 

of political corruption than did 

independent expenditures by such 

an organization. Thus, the appeals 

4 
March 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

court concluded that, as applied to 

the NCRL, the prohibition on 

corporate contributions was not 

closely drawn to match a sufficiently important government 

interest in preventing real or perceived corruption of the political 

system. 

The appeals court, however, 

found that the Act’s corporate 

prohibition was constitutional in the 

“overwhelming majority of applications,” and, thus, was not facially 

unconstitutional. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). 

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ 

argument that the statute was 

unconstitutional because it did not 

contain an MCFL exception, citing a 

case in which the Supreme Court 

had rejected a similar argument 

concerning a state statute modeled 

on §441b(a). 

The appeals court affirmed the 

district court’s permanent injunction 

barring the FEC from prosecuting 

the plaintiffs for violations of §441b 

and 11 CFR 114.2(b) and 114.10. 

The appeals court also affirmed the 

district court’s finding that the 

statute and its implementing regulations are not facially unconstitutional. 

U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, 01-1348 and 01-1479; U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, Northern Division, 2:00-cv-2-BO(2).✦ 

—Amy Kort 

AFL-CIO v. FEC 

On February 15, 2002, the 

Commission appealed this case to 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. The 

appeal challenged a December 19, 

2001, decision by the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia, 

which found that the confidentiality 

provision of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) and an 

FEC regulation prohibit the 

Commission from making public 

the investigatory files of matters 

under review (MURs). The district 

court also found that the Commission is required to redact names and 

other individual identifying information from the files prior to release 

under the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA). The Commission has 

previously made public the underlying documents from closed enforcement matters. 

See the February 2002 Record, 

page 3.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Advisory

Opinions 

AO 2001-17 

Reporting Contributions 

Made Via Single Check Split 

Between Federal and 

Nonfederal Accounts 

The DNC Services Corporation/ 

Democratic National Committee 

(DNC) must use memo entries with 

explicit cross-references to report 

single contribution checks that it 

splits between its federal and 

nonfederal accounts. The checks 

will be accompanied by the DNC’s 

donor card, which informs the 

contributor that amounts in excess 

of the federal contribution limits 

will be deposited in a nonfederal 

account. If the DNC fails to obtain 

written donor permission to split the 

check, it will transfer any portion 

deposited into its federal accounts to 

its nonfederal accounts within 60 

days of receiving the contribution. 

The DNC must report the transfer 

first as a refund to the contributor 

and then as a donation of that 

amount from the contributor to the 

nonfederal account.1 

Background 

Donor Card. The DNC donor 

card solicits funds for both the 

1

 The DNC requested this advisory 

opinion in accordance with a conciliation agreement between the DNC and 

the FEC (MUR 4961). 

federal and nonfederal accounts. It 

asks the donor to apportion the 

contribution in writing to a federal 

or nonfederal account and requires 

the donor’s signature. The card: 

• Informs individuals and federal 

political action committees that 

their contributions will be used in 

connection with federal elections 

and subject to the limits and 

prohibitions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), 2 and 

asks those persons to make their 

contributions payable to the DNC 

federal account, or to designate the 

“Federal Account below” (on the 

donor card), in order to allow for 

deposit in the federal account; 

• Advises “other contributors” that 

their contributions will be used for 

state and local elections, and asks 

them to make their checks payable 

to the DNC nonfederal account; 

• Informs individuals of the $20,000 

annual limit on contributions to the 

DNC and the $25,000 annual limit 

for contributions to all federal 

campaigns and accounts; 

• Informs individuals that any 

portion in excess of the $20,000 

limit will be “allocated” to the 

nonfederal account; 

• Asks the contributor to designate 

on the card either the entire 

contribution or the first $20,000 

(or other amount) to the federal 

account, or to designate the full 

amount to the nonfederal account; 

and 

• Asks for the contributor’s signature. 

Receipt of Contributions. Each 

contribution will be accompanied by 

the donor card described above, 

(continued on page 6) 

2

 Under the Act and Commission 

regulations, national party committees 

may receive no more than $20,000 per 

calendar year from a person and no 

more than $15,000 per year from a 

multicandidate committee. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(1)(B) and (2)(B) and 11 CFR 

110.1(c)(1) and 110.2(c)(1). 

5 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Advisory Opinions 

(continued from page 5) 

whether completed or not, indicating that the contribution was in 

response to a solicitation containing 

the card.3

 If the donor fails to 

provide clear instructions about how 

to apportion a contribution that 

exceeds the Act’s limits, either on 

its face or when aggregated with 

previous contributions, the DNC 

will send a written request to the 

donor asking permission to deposit 

the excessive portion in a nonfederal 

account. The request will also notify 

the donor that he or she may request 

a refund of the excessive portion. 

Upon receiving a contribution 

that it intends to split between 

federal and nonfederal accounts, the 

DNC will deposit the contribution 

into a federal account and, on the 

same day, will deposit into its 

nonfederal account a check from the 

federal account representing a 

transfer of the excessive portion. If 

the donor does not then provide 

written permission to split the 

donation, and does not request a 

refund, the DNC will, within 60 

days of its receipt of the contribution, transfer the federal account’s 

portion of the contribution to the 

nonfederal account. 

Permissibility of Proposal 

The DNC’s treatment of these 

contributions, as described above, is 

permissible given the specific facts 

presented, including the content of 

the donor card and the fact that each 

contribution will be accompanied by 

the card. The DNC’s plan does not, 

however, represent the only permissible treatment of such contributions. To determine the 

permissibility of other plans, the 

DNC would need to submit another 

advisory opinion request with a 

complete description of the relevant 

facts. See 11 CFR 112.1(b) and (c). 

3

 A copy of the donor card is attached 

to the opinion. 

Reporting Split Contributions 

Commission regulations do not 

specifically address the reporting of 

single-check contributions that are 

split between federal and nonfederal 

accounts. In this case, where the 

DNC will transfer the excessive 

amount from the federal to the 

nonfederal account on the same 

business day as the initial deposit of 

the contribution check, the transfer 

is virtually contemporaneous with 

the deposit. Thus, the DNC may 

report the portion left in the federal 

account after the transfer as the total 

contribution to the federal account. 

Similarly, it may report the portion 

transferred into the nonfederal 

account as a donation from the 

donor to the nonfederal account. 

Each contribution that is deposited in this way must be itemized 

both on Schedule A of the federal 

account’s report and on the memo 

Schedule A filed by the nonfederal 

account that received the funds. The 

Schedule A entry must report the 

receipt of the federal account’s 

portion, along with the date of 

receipt and other contributor information. 2 U.S.C. §§434(b)(2)(A) 

and (3)(A) and 431(13); 11 CFR 

104.3(a)(2)(i) and (4)(i) and 100.12. 

Along with this entry, the DNC 

must note that there is a corresponding entry on memo Schedule A, 

which discloses the portion donated 

to the nonfederal account. 

Under Commission regulations, a 

national party committee is required 

to report contributions to a 

nonfederal account in excess of 

$200, and to disclose the 

contributor’s name, address, occupation and employer. 11 CFR 

104.8(e). Thus, the memo schedule 

A must disclose the nonfederal 

account’s receipt of the contribution 

along with the date of receipt and 

the donor’s identifying information. 

The date of receipt will be the date 

that the DNC received the check. 

Along with the itemized entry, the 

memo Schedule A must note that 

the donation represents the 

nonfederal portion of a contribution 

and cross-reference the disclosure of 

the federal portion on Schedule A. 

If the DNC does not obtain either 

written permission to split the 

contribution or a request for a 

refund, it will transfer the federal 

portion to the nonfederal account 

within 60 days of the receipt of the 

initial contribution. In this case, it 

must report the transfer (which may 

include a number of contributions) 

as a refund to the contributor(s) and 

as a further donation of that amount 

by the contributor(s) to the 

nonfederal account. The DNC must 

report the federal account’s refund 

on Schedule B, showing the 

nonfederal account as the recipient 

of the transferred funds and noting, 

as a memo entry, the name(s) and 

address(es) of the contributor(s) and 

a reference to the initial disclosure 

of the contribution(s). 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b)(2)(A) and (3)(A), 431(13); 

11 CFR 104.3(a)(2)(i) and (4)(i) and 

100.12. The report must also crossreference the nonfederal account’s 

disclosure, on memo Schedule A, of 

its receipt of the transferred donation. 

The nonfederal account’s report—memo Schedule A—must 

disclose the transferred funds as a 

donation, and must report the 

transfer from the federal account as 

the source of the funds when 

itemizing the amount. It must also 

cross-reference the federal account’s 

disclosure of the transaction. The 

identifying information of all 

original contributors must be 

disclosed in subsequent memo 

entries. 

Requests for Refunds. If the 

contributor requests a refund of the 

excessive portion that was initially 

transferred to the nonfederal account, the DNC must disclose the 

refund on the nonfederal account’s 

memo Schedule B, along with the 

contributor’s name and address. 11 

CFR 104.9(c). No reference to other 

entries is necessary. 

6 
March 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Recordkeeping. The DNC must 

keep a record of these transactions 

for at least three years after filing 

any related report or statement. The 

record should include: 

• A copy of the contributor check 

and the returned donor card; 

• A copy of any follow-up request 

sent to the contributor; and 

• Any written contributor permission 

to split the contribution or any 

request for a refund. 

The DNC must also keep accounting records that connect each 

individual contribution to all 

deposits and transfers of the funds. 

Commissioner Thomas issued a 

concurring opinion on January 31, 

2002. 

Date Issued: January 30, 2001; 

Length: 8 pages.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

AO 2001-18 

Affiliation Between LLC 

PAC and PACs of Corporate 

Owners 

The political action committee 

(PAC) of Cingular, a joint venture 

limited liability company owned by 

SBC Communications (SBC) and 

BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth), 

is affiliated with Bell South’s PAC, 

as well as with SBC’s PAC. Although BellSouth owns 40 percent 

of Cingular and SBC owns 60 

percent, BellSouth and SBC have 

equal decision-making control over 

Cingular. 

Affiliation 

Under the Act and Commission 

regulations, committees established, 

financed, maintained or controlled 

by the same corporation, person or 

group—including any parent, 

subsidiary, branch, division, department or local unit of a given entity—are affiliated. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(5) and 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2) 

and 110.3(a)(1)(ii). Entities other 

than corporations, such as partnerships and limited liability companies 

(LLC), may also be affiliates of 

corporations.1 See AOs 2000-36, 

1997-13, 1994-11 and 1992-17; see 

also AOs 2001-7 and 1996-38. 

In cases where one entity is not 

an official or obvious subsidiary of 

another, Commission regulations 

provide for an examination of 

various factors, considered in the 

context of an overall relationship, in 

order to determine whether the 

entities are affiliated and, thus, 

whether their respective PACs are 

affiliated. Relevant factors include: 

• A controlling interest in voting 

stock; 

• The ability of one sponsoring 

organization or committee to 

participate in the governance of 

another sponsoring organization or 

committee through formal rules or 

through formal or informal practices; 

• The authority or ability to hire, 

appoint, demote or otherwise 

control the decision-making agents 

of another sponsoring organization 

or committee; 

• An overlap of officers or employees in a manner that indicates a 

formal or ongoing relationship 

between the organizations or 

committees; and 

• An active or significant role in the 

formation of another sponsoring 

organization or committee. 11 CFR 

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(A), (B), (C), (E), 

(F) and (I). 

Affiliation of Bell South PAC with 

Cingular PAC 

In past advisory opinions, the 

Commission considered situations 

where a joint venture (or LLC) 

partner owned 50 percent of the 

joint venture and exercised control 

over its governance and the direction of its officers equal to that of 

the other partner (or combination of 

partners in a case where one partner 

owned 50 percent and two partners 

1

 Cingular files with the IRS as a 

partnership and, thus, is not treated as 

if it were a corporation under the Act. 

each owned 25 percent). AOs 1997-

13, 1992-17 and 1996-49. In these 

cases, the Commission determined 

that the PACs of the 50-percent 

owners were affiliated with the joint 

venture’s PAC.2

 As a result, the 50-

percent owner corporations, as 

affiliates of the joint venture, could 

pay the administration and solicitation costs of the joint venture’s 

PAC. Additionally, the joint venture 

could pay those costs, even if it was 

not a corporation, because it was 

owned entirely by corporations and 

affiliated with at least one of them. 

See AOs 1997-13, 1996-49, 1994-

11 and 1992-17. 

In this case, SBC owns 60 

percent of Cingular and Bell South 

owns 40 percent. However, the 

control of Cingular by SBC and 

BellSouth is apportioned differently, 

and the relationship of SBC and 

BellSouth to Cingular includes a 

number of the affiliation factors 

outlined in Commission regulations 

in a context similar to that of 50-50 

joint venture partnerships where 

both owners were affiliated with the 

joint venture’s PAC. 

Formation of Sponsoring Organization; Authority and Governance. 

As Cingular’s founders, BellSouth 

and SBC formed a Managing 

Company to control the management and operation of Cingular. 

BellSouth and SBC each appoint 

two of the four members of the 

Managing Company’s board of 

directors. Only the parent company 

can appoint or replace its two 

representatives on the board. These 

board members are also the members of the Managing Company’s 

Strategic Review Committee (SRC), 

which must approve by a two-thirds 

vote substantially all important 

decisions concerning the operations 

(continued on page 8) 

2

 The Commission also noted in these 

cases that the PACs of the owners were 

not affiliated with each other by virtue 

of the joint venture. 

7 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Advisory Opinions 

(continued from page 7) 

of the Managing Company and 

Cingular. As a result, each corporate 

owner has equal authority to direct 

the governance of Cingular and to 

hire, demote and otherwise control 

Cingular’s decision-makers in a 

comprehensive manner. 11 CFR 

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(B), (C), (E) and (I). 

Former Officers and Employees. 

Of Cingular’s 16 executive officers, 

10 (including the CEO) were 

formerly employed by SBC, and 

four previously worked for 

BellSouth. Approximately two 

thirds of Cingular’s employees and 

officers are former employees of 

SBC, and approximately one third 

are formerly of BellSouth.3

 The 

larger proportion of former SBC 

personnel is less significant in 

comparing the two owners’ influence over Cingular, however, 

because the organizations have no 

formal or informal agreements in 

place that employees or officers of 

Cingular will return to BellSouth or 

SBC. The officers and employees 

are responsible to the Managing 

Company’s board and the SRC and, 

thus, must answer equally to each 

owner. 

Management of PAC. Cingular’s 

executive officers manage and 

operate Cingular’s PAC, and 

decisions concerning the PAC do 

not require the approval of the 

Managing Company’s SRC or board 

of directors. However, the relationship between the sponsoring organizations and the control they exert 

over the joint venture—rather than 

their participation in the management of the joint venture’s PAC— 

indicated affiliation. AOs 1996-49, 

1992-17. See also 1991-13. 

As a result of the foregoing, both 

SBC’s PAC and BellSouth’s PAC 

are affiliated with Cingular PAC. 

3

 Currently, there are no overlapping 

officers or employees between 

BellSouth or SBC and Cingular. 

Contributions 

Under the Act and Commission 

regulations, contributions made to 

or by affiliated committees are 

considered to have been made to or 

by a single committee for the 

purposes of the Act’s contribution 

limits. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(5) and 11 

CFR 100.5(g)(2), 110.3(a)(1) and 

110.3(a)(1)(ii). Additionally, a 

corporation may solicit contributions to its PAC from the restricted 

class of its subsidiaries or other 

affiliates. 2 U.S.C. §§441b(b)(2)(A) 

and (4)(A)(i); 11 CFR 114.3(a)(1) 

and 114.5(g)(1). 

Cingular PAC must share contribution limits with SBC’s PAC and 

BellSouth’s PAC, both of which are 

multicandidate committees. Following the same methodology for 

contributions from a 50-50 joint 

venture partnership, which calls for 

apportioning each contribution on a 

pro rata basis to each of its partners, 

contributions by Cingular PAC are 

apportioned half to SBC’s PAC and 

half to BellSouth’s PAC. 11 CFR 

110.1(e). As a result, there will be 

two sets of contribution limits 

available among the three committees—aggregate contributions to the 

same candidate may not exceed 

$10,000 per election from all three 

committees, and may not exceed 

$5,000 from any one committee. 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(2) and AOs 1997-

13, 1992-17 and 1987-34. Contributions made by SBC’s PAC and 

BellSouth’s PAC will not be 

aggregated with each other for the 

purposes of either PAC’s $5,000 

limit. But, Cingular PAC’s contributions will be aggregated with each 

corporate PAC’s contributions on a 

50-50 basis for the purpose of the 

limits of those two corporate PACs. 

Cingular PAC’s contributions may 

be held under $5,000 so that the 

corporate PACs do not exceed their 

limits. 

In specific cases, the three PACs 

may choose to establish a different 

ratio for apportioning Cingular 

PAC’s contributions to the limits of 

the other PACs, as long as all three 

PACs agree on the ratio and no 

excessive contributions result. 11 

CFR 110.1(e)(2). See AOs 1997-13, 

1992-17, 1991-13 and 1987-34. In 

this case, Cingular PAC must 

provide written instructions to 

recipient candidates and committees 

so that they can attribute to each 

committee the contributions they 

receive. 2 U.S.C. §441a(f) and 11 

CFR 110.9(a). To comply with 

recordkeeping requirements, the 

committees must keep a copy of the 

written instructions for three years 

after they report the contribution. 11 

CFR 104.14(b) and 102.9(b)(1). 

Statement of Organization 

BellSouth PAC must amend its 

Statement of Organization to list 

Cingular PAC as an affiliated 

committee. 2 U.S.C. §433(b)(2) and 

(c) and 11 CFR 102.2(a)(1)(ii) and 

(2). Cingular PAC must amend its 

Statement of Organization to list 

BellSouth’s PAC as an affiliated 

committee and to list BellSouth and 

SBC as its connected organizations.4 

AOs 1997-13, 1996-49 and 1992-

17. 

Date Issued: January 22, 2002; 

Length: 11 pages.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

AO 2001-19 

Non-preemption of State 

Law Prohibiting Political 

Committees from Receiving 

a Bingo License 

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) does not preempt a 

Michigan statute prohibiting political committees from obtaining a 

bingo license from the state of 

Michigan. 

Background 

The Oakland Democratic Campaign Committee (the Committee) 

4

 Cingular PAC already lists SBC’s 

PAC as an affiliated committee on its 

Statement of Organization. 

8 
March 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

operates two bingos to raise funds to 

influence federal elections. A 1995 

Michigan statute excludes “political 

committees” from the list of organizations qualified to obtain a bingo 

license (1995 PA 275, MCL 

432.103 et seq.). On September 23, 

2001, the Committee received 

notification from the Michigan 

Bureau of State Lottery that it fell 

within the definition of a “committee” under the Michigan statute and, 

as a result, was no longer eligible 

for a state bingo license. 

Regulations 

The Act “supersede[s] and 

preempt[s] any provision of State 

law with respect to election to 

Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. §453; 11 

CFR 108.7(a). According to the 

Conference Committee report on the 

1974 Amendments to the Act, 

“Federal law occupies the field with 

respect to criminal sanctions relating 

to limitations on campaign expenditures, the sources of campaign funds 

used in Federal races, the conduct 

of Federal campaigns, and similar 

offences, but does not affect the 

States’ rights” as to other electionrelated conduct such as voter fraud 

and ballot theft. H.R. Rep. No. 93-

1438, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess. 69 (1974). 

Preemption 

The Commission stated no 

opinion regarding whether the 

Committee falls under the Michigan 

statute’s definition of “political 

committee,” leaving the matter to be 

decided by the laws of Michigan. 

While the Commission has not 

previously considered cases involving a conflict between a state’s 

gaming laws and the Act’s preemption provisions, FEC regulations 

specifically recognize state authority 

regarding gaming activity by 

permitting certain committees to use 

gaming devices such as raffles, only 

“so long as state law permits” their 

use. 11 CFR 114.5(b)(2). 

Also, the Committee’s situation 

differs significantly from situations 

dealt with in past opinions, in which 

the Commission preempted state 

laws that disqualified an entire class 

of contributors to federal campaigns. AOs 2000-23, 1995-48, 

1993-25 and 1989-12. In this case, 

the statute covers only one particular method of fundraising, namely 

bingo, which is not specifically 

sanctioned by Commission regulations. See AO 1982-29. 

As a result, the Act and Commission regulations do not preempt or 

supersede the Michigan statute 

prohibiting the Committee’s use of 

bingo to raise funds for influencing 

federal elections. 

Date Issued: January 10, 2002; 

Length: 7 pages.✦ 

—Gary Mullen 

Alternative Disposition of 

Advisory Opinions 

AOR 2001-15 

The requester withdrew the 

request for this advisory opinion on 

January 22, 2002. The request, filed 

September 25, 2001, sought the 

Commission’s opinion on a trade 

association PAC’s solicitation of a 

master limited partnership and its 

employees. 

AOR 2001-20 

The requesters withdrew their 

request for this advisory opinion on 

January 22, 2002. The request, 

submitted October 19, 2001, sought 

approval of a proposal to use 

Internet Service Provider subscription fees, paid by credit card over 

the Internet, to make contributions 

to candidate or political committee 

recipients selected by the 

subscribers.✦ 

Advisory Opinion Request 

AOR 2002-2 

Preemption of state law barring 

lobbyist from fundraising for 

Congressional candidate who is 

member of Maryland General 

Assembly (Eric Gally, January 14, 

2002)✦ 

Staff 

Joseph Stoltz Named 

Assistant Staff Director for 

the Audit Division 

The Commission has appointed 

Joseph Stoltz to be the Assistant 

Staff Director for the Audit Division. Mr. Stoltz assumed his duties 

at the beginning of this year. 

Mr. Stoltz joined the FEC in 

1975 after working at the General 

Accounting Office on the 1972 

Presidential and 1974 Senate 

elections. He then served as the 

Deputy Director of what has become 

the Audit Division. 

He received his B.S. in Accounting from Penn State University in 

1972 and received his Certified 

Public Accountant certificate in 

1979.✦ 

—Phillip Deen 

Rhonda Vosdingh Named 

Associate General Counsel 

for Enforcement 

The Commission has appointed 

Rhonda J. Vosdingh to be the 

Associate General Counsel for 

Enforcement in the Office of 

General Counsel (OGC). In this 

position, she is responsible for the 

overall direction and management of 

OGC’s enforcement program. 

Ms. Vosdingh is a 1990 graduate 

of Harvard Law School and a 

member of the Virginia and the 

District of Columbia bars. She 

joined the Commission in 1994, 

serving in various OGC posts. She 

had been the Acting Associate 

General Counsel for Enforcement 

since September 2001.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

9 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Reports 

Reporting Last-Minute 

Contributions: 48-Hour 

Notices 

Campaign committees must file 

special notices, called 48-hour 

notices, disclosing contributions of 

$1,000 or more received less than 

20 days, but more than 48 hours, 

before any election in which the 

candidate is running. 

The FEC or the Secretary of the 

Senate must receive the notice 

within 48 hours of the committee’s 

receipt of the contribution. This rule 

applies to all types of contributions 

to any authorized committee, 

including in-kind gifts or advances 

of goods or services; loans from the 

candidate or other non-bank 

sources; and guarantees or endorsements of bank loans to the candidate 

or committee. 

Committees are required to file 

48-hour notices even if the candidate is unopposed in the election. 

Moreover, these reporting requirements still apply even if a primary 

or general election is not held 

because the candidate is unopposed 

or received a majority of votes in 

the previous election. However, no 

filing is required for a primary 

election that is not held because the 

candidate was nominated by a 

caucus or convention, for which a 

pre-election report was filed. See 

11 CFR 110.1(j). Also, a candidate 

who withdraws from the election 

before participating in the primary 

would not have to file 48-hour 

notices unless the candidate’s name 

remained on the ballot. 

Filing Methods 

Committees that file electronically with the Commission must file 

48-hour notices electronically. 

Committees other than Senate 

committees may also file their 48-

hour notices online. For more 

information concerning online 

filing, visit the FEC web site at 

State Election Date 48-Hour Notice 

Period 

Alabama 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

Runoff 6/25/02 6/6 - 6/22/02 

Alaska 8/27/02 8/8 - 8/24/02 

American Samoa 11/5/02 10/17 - 11/2/02 

Runoff 11/19/02 10/31 - 11/16/02 

Arizona 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Arkansas 5/21/02 5/2 - 5/18/02 

Runoff 6/11/02 5/23 - 6/8/02 

California 3/5/02 2/14 - 3/2/02 

Colorado 8/13/02 7/25 - 8/10/02 

Connecticut 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Delaware 9/7/02 8/19 - 9/4/02 

District of Columbia 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Florida 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Georgia 8/20/02 8/1 - 8/17/02 

Runoff 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Guam 9/7/02 8/19 - 9/4/02 

Hawaii 9/21/02 9/2 - 9/18/02 

Idaho 5/28/02 5/9 - 5/25/02 

Illinois 3/19/02 2/28 - 3/16/02 

Indiana 5/7/02 4/18 - 5/4/02 

Iowa 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

Kansas 8/6/02 7/18 - 8/3/02 

Kentucky 5/28/02 5/9 - 5/25/02 

Louisiana1 8/23/02 8/4 - 8/20/02 

Maine 6/11/02 5/23 - 6/8/02 

Maryland 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Massachusetts 9/17/02 8/29 - 9/14/02 

Michigan 8/6/02 7/18 - 8/3/02 

Minnesota 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Primary Election 48-Hour Notice Periods 

3

 In AO 2000-29, the Commission determined that the last day to qualify for 

a position on the general election ballot in Louisiana—in this case August 

23, 2002—must be considered the primary election date for Louisiana 

candidates. See 11 CFR 100.2(c)(4)(i). Additionally, under state law if no 

candidate in the November 5 general election receives over 50 percent of 

the vote, a runoff election will be held on December 7, 2002. If the runoff is 

held, 48-hour notices will be required between November 18 and December 

4, 2002. 

10 
March 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Primary Election 48-Hour Notice Periods, cont. 

State Election Date 48-Hour Notice 

Period 

Mississippi 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

Runoff 6/25/02 6/6 - 6/22/02 

Missouri 8/6/02 7/18 - 8/3/02 

Montana 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

Nebraska 5/14/02 4/25 - 5/11/02 

Nevada 9/3/02 8/15 - 8/31/02 

New Hampshire 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

New Jersey 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

New Mexico 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

New York 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

North Carolina 5/7/02 4/18 - 5/4/02 

Runoff 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

North Dakota 6/11/02 5/23 - 6/8/02 

Ohio 5/7/02 4/18 - 5/4/02 

Oklahoma 8/27/02 8/8 - 8/24/02 

Runoff 9/17/02 8/29 - 9/14/02 

Oregon 5/21/02 5/2 - 5/18/02 

Pennsylvania 5/21/02 5/2 - 5/18/02 

Rhode Island 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

South Carolina 6/11/02 5/23 - 6/8/02 

Runoff 6/25/02 6/6 - 6/22/02 

South Dakota 6/4/02 5/16 - 6/1/02 

Runoff 6/18/02 5/30 - 6/15/02 

Tennessee 8/1/02 7/13 - 7/29/02 

Texas 3/12/02 2/21 - 3/9/02 

Runoff 4/9/02 3/21 - 4/6/02 

Utah 6/25/02 6/6 - 6/22/02 

Vermont 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Virgin Islands 9/14/02 8/26 - 9/11/02 

Virginia 6/11/02 5/23 - 6/8/02 

Washington 9/17/02 8/29 - 9/14/02 

West Virginia 5/14/02 4/25 - 5/11/02 

Wisconsin 9/10/02 8/22 - 9/7/02 

Wyoming 8/20/02 8/1 - 8/17/02 

www.fec.gov and click on the 

Electronic Filing logo. Additionally, 

paper filers may file their 48-hour 

notices using FEC Form 6, or they 

may use their own paper or stationary for the notice, provided that it 

contains the following information: 

• The candidate’s name and the 

office sought; 

• The identification of the 

contributor(s); and 

• The amount and date of receipt of 

the contribution(s). 

Committees may fax the notice to 

the appropriate office using the 

following numbers: FEC, 202/219-

0174; Secretary of the Senate, 202/ 

225-1851. 

In addition to including lastminute contributions on 48-hour 

notices, these contributions must 

also be itemized in the committee’s 

next scheduled report. 11 CFR 

104.5(f). 

The period covered by 48-hour 

notices for every state primary 

election is listed in the chart to the 

left. ✦ 

—Phillip Deen 

Administrative 

Fines 

Committees Fined for 

Nonfiled and Late Reports 

The Commission recently 

publicized its final action on 11 new 

Administrative Fine cases, bringing 

the total number of cases released to 

the public to 311. 

Civil money penalties for late 

reports are determined by the 

number of days the report was late, 

the amount of financial activity 

involved and any prior penalties for 

violations under the administrative 

fine regulations. Penalties for 

nonfiled reports—and for reports 

filed so late as to be considered 

(continued on page 12) 

11 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Administrative Fines 

(continued from page 11) 

nonfiled—are also determined by 

the financial activity for the reporting period and any prior violations. 

Election sensitive reports, which 

include reports and notices filed 

prior to an election (i.e., 12 Day preelection, October quarterly and 

October monthly reports), receive 

higher penalties. The committees 

and the treasurers are assessed civil 

money penalties when the Commission makes its final determination. 

Unpaid civil money penalties are 

referred to the Department of the 

Treasury for collection. 

The committees listed in the chart 

at right, along with their treasurers, 

were assessed civil money penalties 

under the administrative fine 

regulations. 

Closed Administrative Fine case 

files are available through the FEC 

Press Office, at 800/424-9530 (press 

2) and the Public Records Office, at 

800/424-9530 (press 3).✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Outreach 

FEC Conferences in March 

and April 

Conference for Candidates and 

Party Committees 

The FEC will hold a conference 

for candidates and party committees 

March 25-26, 2002, in Washington, 

D.C. The conference will consist of 

a series of interactive workshops 

presented by Commissioners and 

experienced FEC staff, who will 

explain how the requirements of the 

federal election law apply to House 

and Senate campaigns and political 

parties. In addition, an IRS representative will be available to answer 

election-related tax questions. 

The registration fee for this 

conference is $325, which covers 

the cost of the conference, materials 

and meals. The deadline for registraCommittees Fined and Penalties Assessed 

1 This civil money penalty has not been collected. 

2

 The Commission voted to rescind the reason to believe (RTB) finding in 

this case. The filing requirements of host committees are covered under 2 

U.S.C. §437. As a result, these committees are not subject to the Administrative Fine program. 

1. $1,000 

2. $1,0001 

3. $1,1251 

4. $5,550 

5. 

International Union of Electric, Electrical, Salaried, 

Machine, and Furniture Workers AFL-CIO $2,700 

6. $2,000 

7. $850 

8. ——2 

9. 

of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry Local 322 

Committee for Political Education $900 

10. $1,1001 

11. $1,475 

Ann Arbor National Political Action Committee 

Clarke 2000 (12 Day Pre-General) 

Clarke 2000 (30 Day Post-General) 

Idaho Republican Party 

IUE Committee on Political Education/ 

The Loose Group 

Porter for Congress Committee 

Philadelphia 2000 

United Association Journeymen and Apprentices 

Willie Logan for United State Senate 

Women’s Campaign Fund Inc. 

tion (and for fully-refunded registration cancellations) is March 1. A 

late registration fee of $10 will be 

added effective March 2. 

The conference will be held at the 

Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington, 

D.C. A room rate of $189 single or 

double is available for reservations 

made by March 1. Call 800/635-

5065 or 202/484-1000 ext. 5000 to 

make reservations. In order to 

receive this room rate, you must 

notify the hotel that you will be 

attending the FEC conference. After 

March 1, room rates are based on 

availability. The hotel is located 

near the L’Enfant Plaza Metro and 

Virginia Railway Express stations. 

Conference for Corporations 

On April 22-24, 2002, the 

Commission will hold a conference 

in Washington, D.C., for corporations. Commissioners and experienced FEC staff will conduct a 

series of interactive workshops in 

order to explain how the requirements of the federal election law 

apply to corporations and their 

political action committees (PACs). 

A representative from the IRS will 

be available to answer electionrelated tax questions. 

The registration fee for this 

conference is $375, which covers 

the cost of the conference, materials 

and meals. The registration deadline 

(and the deadline for fully-refunded 

registration cancellations) is March 

29. A late registration fee of $10 

will be added effective March 30. 

The conference will be held at the 

Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW. Washington, 

D.C. A room rate of $220 single or 

$250 double is available for reservations made by March 29. Call 800/ 

635-5065 or 202/484-1000 ext. 

5000 to make reservations. In order 

to receive this room rate, you must 

notify the hotel that you will be 

attending the FEC conference. After 

March 29, room rates are based on 

availability. The hotel can be easily 

reached via the L’Enfant Plaza 

12 
March 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Metro and Virginia Railway Express 

stations. 

Registration Information 

Conference registrations will be 

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Attendance is limited, 

and FEC conferences have sold out 

in the past, so please register early. 

For registration information: 

• Call Sylvester Management 

Corporation at 800/246-7277; 

• Visit the FEC web site at 

www.fec.gov/pages/ 

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or 

• Send an e-mail to 

allison@sylvestermanagement.com.✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Conferences in 2002 

For complete conference 

information, visit the FEC’s web 

site at www.fec.gov/pages/ 

infosvc.htm#Conferences. 

Conference for Candidates and 

Party Committees 

Date: March 25-26, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: $325 

Conference for Corporations 

Date: April 22-24, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: $375 

Conference for Trade 

Associations 

Date: May 22-24, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: $375 

Conference for Member and 

Labor Organizations 

Date: June 26-28, 2002 

Location: Washington, D.C. 

(Loews L’Enfant Plaza) 

Registration Fee: $375 

Statistics 9530 and press 3 for the Public 

Records Office or press 2 for the 

Press Office).✦ 

Semiannual PAC Count —Amy Kort 

Shows Slight Increase 

According to the FEC’s semiannual Political Action Committee 

(PAC) count, 3,891 PACs were 

registered with the Commission at 

the close of the 2001 calendar year. 

This figure represents a 14-commit- 2002 Coordinated Party 

tee increase from the July 1, 2001, Expenditure Limits 

Party

Activities 

count. The 2002 coordinated party 

Corporate PACs remain the expenditure limits are now availlargest category, with 1,508 com- able. They are: 

mittees. However, the 2001 year- • $35,910 for House nominees;1

 and


end figures show a decrease of 37 • A range from $71,820 to


corporate PACs compared to the $1,781,136 for Senate nominees,


2000 year-end figures. Noncon- depending on each state’s voting


nected PACs remain the second- age population.


largest group, with 1,019


committees. The chart below shows (continued on page 14)


the complete mid-year and year-end


PAC figures since 1995.


To see a complete listing of PAC 1

 In states that have only one U.S. statistics, visit the FEC’s web site House Representative, the coordinated (http://www.fec.gov) or request a party expenditure limit for the House 

copy of the agency’s January 24, nominee is $71,820, the same amount 

2002, press release (call 800/424- as the Senate limit. 

Trade/ 

Member/ CoopCorporate Labor Health erative 

Jul. 95 1,670 334 804 43 

Dec. 95 1,674 334 815 44 

Jul. 96 1,645 332 829 43 

Dec. 96 1,642 332 838 41 

Jul. 97 1,602 332 826 41 

Dec. 97 1,597 332 825 42 

Jul. 98 1,565 325 820 43 

Dec. 98 1,567 321 821 39 

Jul. 99 1,540 318 826 38 

Jan. 00 1,548 318 844 38 

Jul. 00 1,523 316 812 39 

Jan. 01 1,545 317 860 41 

Jul. 01 1,525 314 872 41 

Jan. 02 1,508 316 891 41 

Corp. w/o 

Capital NonStock connected 1 Total 

129 1,002 3,982 

129 1,020 4,016 

126 1,058 4,033 

123 1,103 4,079 

118 953 3,875 

117 931 3,844 

112 897 3,762 

115 935 3,798 

115 941 3,778 

115 972 3,835 

114 902 3,706 

118 1,026 3,907 

118 1,007 3,877 

116 1,019 3,891 

1 Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On 

the other hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general 

public, while solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted. 

13 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Party Activities 

(continued from page 13) 

Party committees may make 

these special expenditures on behalf 

of their 2002 general election 

nominees. National party committees have a separate limit for each 

nominee, but they share their limits 

with their national senatorial and 

congressional committees. Each 

state party committee has a separate 

limit for each House and Senate 

nominee in its state. Local party 

committees do not have their own 

separate limit. One party committee 

may authorize another party committee to make an expenditure 

against its limit. Local committees 

may only make coordinated party 

expenditures with advance authorization from another committee. 

Coordinated party expenditure 

limits are separate from the contribution limits; they also differ from 

contributions in that the party 

committee must spend the funds on 

behalf of the candidate rather than 

give the money directly to the 

campaign. Although these expenditures may be made in consultation 

with the candidate, only the party 

committee making the expenditure—not the candidate committee— 

must report them. (Coordinated 

party expenditures are reported on 

FEC Form 3X, line 25, and are 

always itemized on Schedule F, 

regardless of amount.) 

The accompanying tables include: 

• Information on which party 

committees have the authority to 

make coordinated party expenditures; 

• The formula used to calculate the 

coordinated party expenditure 

limits; and 

• A listing of the state-by-state 

coordinated party expenditure 

limits. ✦ 

—Amy Kort 

Authority to Make Coordinated Party Expenditures on 

Behalf of House and Senate Candidates 

National Party Committee	 May make expenditures on behalf of House 

and Senate nominees. May authorize 1

 other 

party committees to make expenditures 

against its own spending limits. Shares 

limits with national congressional and 

senatorial campaign committees. 

State Party Committee	 May make expenditures on behalf of House 

and Senate nominees seeking election in the 

committee’s state. May authorize 1

 other 

party committees to make expenditures 

against its own spending limits. 

Local Party Committee	 May be authorized 1

 by national or state 

party committee to make expenditures 

against its limits. 

Calculating 2002 Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits 

Amount Formula 

Senate Nominee See table on The greater of: 

facing page $20,000 x COLA2

 or 

2¢ x state VAP3

 x COLA 

House Nominee in States


with Only One Representative $71,820 $20,000 x COLA


House Nominee in Other States $35,910 $10,000 x COLA


Nominee for Delegate or


Resident Commissioner 4 $35,910 $10,000 x COLA


1 The authorizing committee must provide prior authorization specifying the amount 

the committee may spend. 

2 COLA means cost-of-living adjustment. The 2002 COLA is 3.591. 

3 VAP means voting age population. 

4 American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands elect 

Delegates; Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner. 

14 
March 2002 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

Index Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for 

2002 Senate Nominees 

Voting Age Population

State (in thousands) 

Alabama


Alaska*


Arizona


Arkansas


California


Colorado


Connecticut


Delaware*


Florida


Georgia


Hawaii


Idaho


Illinois


Indiana


Iowa


Kansas


Kentucky


Louisiana


Maine


Maryland


Massachusetts


Michigan


Minnesota


Mississippi


Missouri


Montana*


Nebraska


Nevada


New Hampshire


New Jersey


New Mexico


New York


North Carolina


North Dakota*


Ohio


Oklahoma


Oregon


Pennsylvania


Rhode Island


South Carolina


South Dakota*


Tennessee


Texas


Utah


Vermont*


Virginia


Washington


West Virginia


Wisconsin


Wyoming*


3,327 

444 

3,825 

1,998 

24,800 

3,264 

2,609 

598 

12,566 

6,119 

920 

945 

9,349 

4,619 

2,196 

2,037 

3,065 

3,229 

1,013 

3,969 

4,958 

7,525 

3,773 

2,077 

4,202 

681 

1,273 

1,544 

965 

6,548 

1,326 

14,406 

6,114 

495 

8,648 

2,580 

2,611 

9,476 

813 

3,037 

571 

4,331 

15,205 

1,544 

480 

5,386 

4,460 

1,404 

4,092 

371 

Expenditure

Limit 

$238,945 

$71,820 

$274,712 

$143,496 

$1,781,136 

$234,420 

$187,378 

$71,820 

$902,490 

$439,467 

$71,820 

$71,820 

$671,445 

$331,737 

$157,717 

$146,297 

$220,128 

$231,907 

$72,754 

$285,054 

$356,084 

$540,446 

$270,977 

$149,170 

$301,788 

$71,820 

$91,427 

$110,890 

$71,820 

$470,277 

$95,233 

$1,034,639 

$439,107 

$71,820 

$621,099 

$185,296 

$187,522 

$680,566 

$71,820 

$218,117 

$71,820 

$311,052 

$1,092,023 

$110,890 

$71,820 

$386,823 

$320,317 

$100,835 

$293,887 

$71,820 

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2002 Record issue in which the 

article appeared. The second 

number, following the colon, 

indicates the page number in that 

issue. For example, “1:4” means 

that the article is in the January 

issue on page 4. 

Advisory Opinions 

Alternative Disposition of 2001-15, 

3:9; 2001-20, 3:9 

2001-13: National committee status 

of party committee, 1:11 

2001-16: Extension of 70-day 

window for transferring funds for 

allocable expenses after suspension of party fundraising due to 

national emergency, 2:1 

2001-17: Reporting contributions 

made via single check split 

between federal and nonfederal 

accounts, 3:5 

2001-18: Affiliation between LLC 

PAC and PACs of corporate 

owners in 60-40 joint venture, 3:7 

2001-19: Non-preemption of state 

law prohibiting political committees from receiving bingo license, 

3:8 

Compliance 

Administrative Fine program 

extended, 1:13 

Committees Fined under Administrative Fine program, 1:13; 2:7; 

3:11 

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC 

– AFL-CIO, 2:3; 3:5 

– Beaumont, 3:4 

– Common Cause and Democracy 

21, 2:4 

– Judicial Watch, Inc., and Peter F. 

Paul, 3:3 

– Miles for Senate, 3:1 

– Werthheimer, 1:12 

(continued on page 16) 

* In these states, which have only one U.S. House Representative, the spending limit 

for the House nominee is $71,820 the same amount as the Senate limit. In other 

states, the limit for each House nominee is $35,910. 

15 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2002 

Index 

(continued from page 15) 

Regulations 

Allocation of candidate travel 

expenses, interpretation, 3:2 

Civil penalties, no increase, 3:2 

Use of Internet, public hearing, 3:1 

Reports 

IRS filing requirements, 1:11 

Reports due in 2002, 1:2 

48-hour notice periods for 2002 

primaries, 3:10 

Important Complaint Information 

In response to the anthrax threat, the U.S. Postal Service continues to 

irradiate mail directed to the Commission. As a result, the Commission is not 

receiving timely delivery of documents sent through regular U.S. mail, 

including complaints alleging violations of the federal campaign finance laws. 

In some cases, such documents have been damaged or destroyed by the 

irradiation process. 

If you have filed a complaint since October 2001 and have not received an 

acknowledgment of your complaint, it is possible that the Commission did not 

receive it. As a result, complainants who have not received an 

acknowledgment of their complaint may wish to consider resubmitting their 

complaint by some means other than regular U.S. mail. Alternative methods 

include overnight mail and hand delivery. (Electronically submitted 

complaints are not proper under 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(1).) 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


999 E Street, NW


Washington, DC 20463


Official Business


Penalty for Private Use, $300


Printed on recycled paper


Presorted Standard


Postage and Fees Paid


Federal Election Commission


Permit Number G-31