April 1999 Federal Election Commission Volume 25, Number 4

Table of Contents

Court Cases

1 FEC v. Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign Committee

4 National Committee of the Reform

Party v. FEC

5 FEC v. Forbes

5 Judd v. FEC

5 On Appeal?

Budget

1 FEC Testifies Before House

Appropriations Committee

 Election Administration

2 Update of National Voting System

Standards to Proceed

Staff

2 New Personnel Director

Appointed

3 Correction

5 Advisory Opinions

Regulations

7 Commission Opens Comment

Period for Electronic FOIA

Amendments

Reports

7 Louisiana Special General

Election Reporting

8 Federal Register

Outreach

8 FEC 1999-2000 Conference Series

Begins April 22

10 FEC Conducts Monthly

Roundtable Sessions

10 Public Appearances

10 Index

Court Cases

FEC v. Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign

Committee

On February 23, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Colorado

granted the Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign Committee’s (the

Committee’s) motion for summary

judgment on its counterclaim, ruling

that the coordinated party expenditure limits found at 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d) are unconstitutional and

cannot be enforced against the

Committee. The court denied the

FEC’s cross motion for summary

judgment and dismissal of the

amended counterclaim.

The Commission, on March 23,

voted 6-0 to appeal this decision.

Coordinated party expenditures

are provided for in the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act).

Subject to limits, they are made by

party committees “in cooperation,

consultation, or concert” with a

candidate’s general election campaign. These expenditures are

considered contributions under the

Act, and the limits are calculated by

a mathematical formula found at 2

U.S.C. §441a(d)(3)(A) and (B).

Background

The catalyst for this case was an

April 1986 Committee-sponsored

(continued on page 3) (continued on page 2)

Budget

FEC Testifies Before House

Appropriations Committee

FEC Vice Chairman Darryl R.

Wold presented the FEC’s request

to members of a House appropriations subcommittee for a $38.6

million budget for fiscal year 2000,

a modest 4.5 percent increase to the

FEC’s current budget. The increase

is needed largely to cover inflation

in operations costs, but would also

include salaries for nine additional

compliance staff.

Mr. Wold, who appeared March 9

before the House Appropriations

Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal

Service and General Government,

described some of the FEC’s recent

successes.

• Campaign finance activity has

jumped 82 percent during the last

12 years, from $1.1 billion in the

1986 election cycle to $2 billion in

the 1998 election cycle, yet “[w]e

have handled these rising

workloads with increased productivity,” Mr. Wold said.

• “With Congress’ support, the FEC

has made the greatest technical

strides in our disclosure program.

We rapidly and successfully

inaugurated an Internet service to

enable anyone with access to the

World Wide Web to view digital
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1999

2

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)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Darryl R. Wold, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Acting Staff

 Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Budget

(continued from page 1)

images of most campaign finance

reports. We also developed

software that enables committees

to file electronically,” Mr. Wold

said. He added that the FEC is

pursuing ways to encourage more

people to file electronically.

• The average active case load is up

to 106, an increase from the

average active case load of 93 in

fiscal year 1998. As of February 1,

the FEC had 208 cases on its

enforcement docket (dealing with

3,203 respondents), and 51 percent

had been actively assigned to staff.

Mr. Wold also reported on the

PricewaterhouseCoopers audit (see

the March 1999 Record, p. 7). He

also drew attention to the

Commission’s annual legislative

recommendations, and he repeated

previous FEC warnings about the

near-certain shortfall in the Presidential Public Funding Program.

A news release about the FEC’s

budget request is available at http://

www.fec.gov (click on What’s

New!). ✦ New Personnel Director

Appointed

On March 15, William J. Fleming

took over as the FEC’s new Director

of Personnel and Labor Management Relations. He comes to the

Commission after serving as Deputy

Personnel Officer in the Department

of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs. Before joining the Justice

Department, Mr. Fleming worked

with the Department of Agriculture

as a Personnel Officer and Administrative Officer in Syracuse, NY, and

as a Dispute Resolution Counselor

in Atlanta, GA. Before working at

Agriculture, Mr. Fleming was a

Personnel Specialist in the Department of the Army.

Born in Syracuse, Mr. Fleming

graduated from Ithaca College with

a bachelor’s degree in music

education and, in 1994, received a

master’s degree in public administration from the Maxwell School of

Citizenship and Public Affairs at

Syracuse University.

Mr. Fleming succeeds former

FEC personnel director David Orr,

who became the Director for Human

Resources Management at the Court

Services and Offender Supervision

Agency. ✦

Update of National Voting

System Standards to Proceed

On February 25, the Commission

approved a new project to reorganize and revise the FEC’s national

voting system standards.

The voluntary standards, first

published in 1990, set performance

benchmarks to assure election

officials and the public that voting

equipment would count votes

accurately and securely. Independent test authorities use the standards to evaluate voting equipment

under the direction of the National

Association of State Election

Directors (NASED).

The Commission’s approval was

based upon a requirements analysis

conducted by ManTech Advanced

Systems International, Inc.

(ManTech). As part of this project,

ManTech representatives reviewed

current standards, observed voting

equipment in operation, and considered input from NASED’s Voting

Systems Board, independent test

authorities, voting system vendors

and others.

Twenty-seven states currently

require voting systems marketed in

the state either to meet the national

standards adopted by the state or to

pass the NASED evaluation process.

Four more states are expected to

require election equipment to meet

the standards within the next

election cycle. All told, the FEC

standards impact nearly 3,200

counties, 13,000 election offices and

180,000 precincts nationwide. ✦

Election

Administration

Staff

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain FEC

material fast. It operates 24 hours

a day, 7 days a week. More than

300 FEC documents—reporting

forms, brochures, FEC

regulations—can be faxed almost

immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial

202/501-3413 and follow the

instructions. To order a complete

menu of Faxline documents, enter

document number 411 at the

prompt.
April 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

radio advertisement that responded

to a series of television ads sponsored by former Congressman Tim

Wirth. The Committee advertisement contrasted the congressman’s

statements from his own advertising

campaign with his congressional

record, concluding with: “Tim

Wirth has a right to run for the

Senate, but he doesn’t have a right

to change the facts.”

The ad ran before Colorado’s

primary election, when three

Republicans were seeking to

represent their party in the run

against Mr. Wirth. The Committee

disclosed the $15,000 cost of the ad

in its reports as a generic voter

education expense not subject to the

§441a(d) limit. The Commission

disagreed. It viewed the expense as

a coordinated party expenditure

because the ad contained an “electioneering message,” and it mentioned a clearly identified candidate.

The Committee argued that the ad

did not contain express advocacy

and therefore was not subject to the

coordinated party expenditure limit.

It also argued that the limit was

unconstitutional.

Originally, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Colorado

agreed with the Committee, finding

that the ad contained no express

advocacy and was not subject to

§441a(d) limits. The U.S. Court of

Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed. It upheld the FEC’s “electioneering message” standard as

applied to the Committee’s ad.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled

that §441a(d) could not be constitutionally applied in this case because

the radio ad had not been coordinated with any candidate. The Court

concluded that payment for the ad

constituted an independent expenditure by the Committee. This ruling

affirmed that party committees,

even with their close ties to candidates, were capable of making

independent expenditures on behalf

of those candidates, and that Congress could not place limits on

independent expenditures.

The Court declined to address the

constitutional challenge to the

coordinated expenditure limits in the

Committee’s counterclaim. Instead,

it referred this matter to the lower

courts for further development of

the facts and consideration of the

law. See these Record issues:

November 1996, August 1996,

August 1995 and November 1993.

Recent Decision

In the district court’s view, the

FEC needed to demonstrate that:

• §441a(d) serves a compelling

government interest and

• §441a(d) is narrowly tailored to

achieve that interest.

The court said that the FEC had

to show that coordinated party

expenditure limits prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.

The FEC had to do more than show

“the opportunity” for corruption.

The FEC argued that generous

contributors could demand special

favors of candidates via their party

committee contributions; and that

party committees could withhold or

grant unlimited coordinated expenditures in order to exact a quid pro

quo from candidates who needed

financial assistance. The court

rejected the first argument, saying

that the FEC had shown that large

contributors to parties had obtained

access to elected officials, but such

access did not constitute corruption.

The court rejected the analogy to

unlimited soft money donations

because they may not be used to

make coordinated party expenditures. Moreover, because of the

limits on individual contributions,

the court found the contributor-toparty-to-candidate scenario “an

unlikely avenue of corruption.”

As to the second argument, the

court stated that party committees, by

their nature, exert some influence

over candidates. “[A] political

party’s decision to support a candidate who adheres to the parties’

beliefs is not corruption. Conversely,

a party’s refusal to provide a candidate with electoral funds because the

candidate’s views are at odds with

party positions is not an attempt to

exert improper influence.”

Furthermore, the court stated that

in Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme

Court’s concern with corruption was

related to large individual financial

contributions—not contributions

from party committees.

Finally, the court stated: “The

FEC cannot rely on general public

dissatisfaction with parties and

politicians and the amount of money

in the political process...to support

its claim that the party coordinated

expenditure limit serves a compelling

purpose and is narrowly tailored to

accomplish that purpose.”

The court concluded that the FEC

had failed to offer relevant, admissible evidence that suggested

coordinated party expenditures had

to be limited to prevent corruption

or its appearance. The court also

stated that coordinated party expenditures were “indistinguishable in

substance” from the candidate’s

campaign expenditures. Since,

under Buckley, candidate expenditures cannot be limited, coordinated

party expenditures also cannot be

regulated.

U.S. Supreme Court (95-489);

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th

Circuit (93-1433 and 93-1434); U.S.

District Court for the District of

Colorado (89-1159). ✦

(Court Cases continued on page 4)

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

Correction

 The chart appearing on page 10

of the March 1999 Record

contained two errors regarding

FEC conference dates. The year

for the conferences in April and

in May-June should have been

1999. A corrected chart appears

on page 9 of this issue.
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1999

4

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

National Committee of the

Reform Party v. FEC

On February 9, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

affirmed a lower court ruling that

had dismissed this case. The district

court had declined to certify claims

brought by the National Committee

of the Reform Party to an en banc

panel of the appeals court. The

district court had determined that

the Reform Party lacked standing in

regard to some of its claims and

failed to state a claim on which

relief could be granted with respect

to its remaining claims.

Background

In this case, the Committee, the

Reform Party of California, campaign committees of former Reform

Party Presidential candidate Ross

Perot and an individual voter who

supported Mr. Perot in the 1996

Presidential election alleged that:

• The issue ads paid for by the 1996

Democratic and Republican

presidential campaigns caused the

Reform Party monetary damages

by reducing the number of votes its

Presidential candidate received and

thereby reducing the amount of

federal funding the party nominee

would be entitled to in the 2000

election.

• The statutory composition of the

FEC at 2 U.S.C. §437c(a)(1),

which states that no more than

three members of the six-member

Commission may be affiliated with

the same political party, is unconstitutional.

• The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act (Fund Act) is

unconstitutional because it denies

equal protection by providing

greater funding to major party

candidates than it does to minor

party candidates.

In addition to these claims, the

Committee contended the Republican and Democratic defendants

owed it damages under California

and federal laws. See the January

1998 Record, p. 2, and the April

1998 Record, p. 4.

Appeals Court

Issue Advertisements. The

appellate court found that neither

California nor federal law authorized the Committee’s suit for

damages related to issue advertisements produced by the Republican

and Democratic committees. The

FEC’s power to sue alleged violators of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) is the “exclusive

civil remedy” for enforcement of the

Act. 2 U.S.C. §437d(e). (Entities

may, however, seek judicial review

of the agency’s dismissal of an

administrative complaint alleging

violations of the Act.) The Committee argued unsuccessfully that the

FEC’s “exclusive civil remedy” did

not preclude the Reform Party

Committee from acting as a private

party and suing for damages.

Legislative history is instructive

here, the court found. Before

the1976 amendments to the Act,

there was confusion over just which

agency should enforce the statute. In

those amendments, Congress added

the word “exclusive” to prohibit

enforcement suits by other agencies.

There is no indication that Congress

was, at the same time, approving

private suits. The U.S. Supreme

Court has also noted that there is no

authority supporting the contention

that Congress intended to have

anyone other than the government

enforce the Act (FEC v. National

Conservative Political Action

Committee, 470 U.S. 480 (1985)).

In addition, the Commission has

a process in place by which entities

can pursue their charges that the Act

or FEC regulations have been

violated.

Commission Composition. The

Act states that no more than three

members of the Commission may be

affiliated with the same political

party. 2 U.S.C. §437c(a)(1). Commission seats historically have been

equally divided between Democrats

and Republicans only. Appellants

claimed that this provision violates

the Appointments Clause and their

rights to free speech and equal

protection. The court said that they

lacked standing to raise this claim

because they did not explain how

the relief they requested—the

invalidation of the party affiliation

provision—would make minority

party representation on the Commission more likely.

Fund Act. The Committee’s facial

challenge to the Fund Act, based on

First Amendment and equal protection arguments, is foreclosed by

Buckley v. Valeo, the court found.

The Supreme Court held that the

Fund Act “is a congressional effort,

not to abridge, restrict, or censor

speech, but rather to use public

money to facilitate and enlarge

public discussion and participation

in the electoral process.” Buckley

went on to say that the public

funding system does not discriminate against minor parties. “[T]he

inability, if any, of minor-party

candidates to wage effective campaigns will derive not from lack of

public funding but from their

inability to raise private contributions.”

The Committee also argued that,

as applied, the Fund Act “invidiously” discriminates against the

Reform Party. The appellate court

rejected this claim, concluding that

the types of complaints expressed

by the Reform Party were understood and taken into account by the

Supreme Court when it rejected the

claims of invidious discrimination in

Buckley.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, 98-15443; U.S.

District Court for the Northern

District of California, C97-4048. ✦
April 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

FEC v. Forbes

On February 19, the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of

New York dismissed this lawsuit

after both parties asked for the

action. The court order was preceded by the Commission’s 4-2 vote

to withdraw the lawsuit against

1996 Presidential candidate

Malcolm S. “Steve” Forbes, Jr.

The FEC had asked the court in

September 1998 to find that biweekly columns authored by the

candidate in Forbes Magazine

resulted in violations of the Federal

Election Campaign Act by Mr.

Forbes, the magazine, his 1996

committee and the corporation he

controls. See the November 1998

Record, p. 2.

U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of New York, 98

Civ. 6148. ✦

Judd v. FEC

On February 22, the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit denied a motion

by Keith Judd to vacate its ruling in

this case. The court dismissed the

case for lack of prosecution in April

1998 and later declined Mr. Judd’s

request for a rehearing and a rehearing en banc of the dismissal.

Mr. Judd had asked the court to

find that the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act is

unconstitutional and to award him

public funding equal to that received

by President Bill Clinton during his

1996 reelection effort. See articles

in the following Record issues:

January 1999, October 1998 and

June 1998.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 98-

1078. ✦

On Appeal?

FEC v. Al Salvi for Senate

Committee (98C-4933)

On February 26, the FEC appealed this case to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The

U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division,

had dismissed this case on the

grounds that it was identical to a

case the Commission had previously

filed in the court. That first case (98-

1321) was dismissed on technical

grounds. In both suits, the FEC

asked the court to find that the

committee misreported or failed to

report more than $1.1 million in

contributions and loans during the

1996 election cycle. See the April

1998 Record, p. 4, and the October

1998 Record, p. 2. ✦

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1999-1

Use of Campaign Funds for

Candidate Salary

Mark Greene, a Texas resident

planning to run for Congress in

2000, cannot use campaign funds to

pay himself a salary during the

campaign. Such disbursements

would result in the conversion of

campaign funds to personal use,

which is prohibited at 2 U.S.C.

§439a.

Commission regulations define

personal use as any use of campaign

funds to cover an expense that

would exist irrespective of the

candidate’s campaign or duties as a

federal officeholder. 11 CFR

113.1(g). The regulations go on to

list specific examples of personal

use such as household expenses;

clothing; and mortgage, rent or

utility payments for the candidate’s

personal residence. 11 CFR

113.1(g)(1)(i). Expenses not covered in the regulations—such as

salary payments to a candidate from

his or her campaign—are examined

on a case-by-case basis, based on

the general definition of personal

use.

Mr. Greene, an independent

general contractor, stated that his

$5,000 average monthly income

would be cut when he took time

from work to pursue a seat in the

U.S. House of Representatives, and

that making up lost income would

be “vital to the plausibility” of his

election efforts. Mr. Greene had

planned to enter into a written

contract with his campaign committee to receive a salary sufficient to

offset the business income he would

lose due to time spent on campaign

activities.

A number of expenses that Mr.

Greene wanted to cover with the

campaign-paid salary—mortgage

payments, utilities, groceries and

clothing—are specifically mentioned in the regulations as falling

within the category of personal use.

The other expenses he described,

while not specifically named in the

regulations, would exist regardless

of whether he was a candidate for

federal office. In effect, Mr.

Greene’s plan would result in his

campaign committee doing indirectly what it cannot do directly—

pay for expenses that are not related

to the campaign.

Past advisory opinions, addressing the issue of donating campaign

funds to a charity in which the

candidate played a leadership role,

have similarly prevented the personal use of campaign funds in an

indirect manner, concluding that

donated campaign funds may not be

used for salary or compensation to a

candidate or candidate’s family

member. AOs 1997-1, 1996-40,

1985-30 and 1983-27.

Despite Mr. Greene’s assertion

that the necessity of his full-time

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1999

6

AO 1999-2

Corporate Sponsorship of

Candidate Lunch Forums

Premera Blue Cross may conduct

candidate forums before all of its

employees, and serve lunch to those

who attend, provided it follows the

requirements for such events

established by 11 CFR 114.4(b)(1).

Premera plans to hold forums in

1999 and 2000 that would feature

congressional candidates speaking

about nonpartisan issues. Candidates

competing for the same seats would

be invited to speak at separate

forums. Premera plans to invite all

employees to attend the forums

during their lunch hour, and to

provide meals for all who participate. Participation is voluntary. To

publicize the forums, Premera

intends to post flyers throughout the

corporate campus. None of the

flyers would include any campaign

language, such as “Elect” or “Reelect,” but rather would inform

employees that the events are

nonpartisan and intended to educate

them on relevant issues. Candidates

would not be permitted to distribute

campaign literature; nor would they

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1999-3

Use of digital signatures by restricted class to authorize payroll

deductions (Microsoft Corporate

Political Action Committee, February 9, 1999; 3 pages)

AOR 1999-4

Applicability of contribution limits

to local party organization conducting federal activity and affiliated

with state party committee (Republican Party of Minnesota, February

25, 1999; 4 pages)

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

service to the campaign would cause

financial difficulties, the Commission notes that candidates have

traditionally taken a significant role

in their campaigns regardless of

remuneration. Further, the Commission distinguishes between salary

payments to a candidate (which

cannot be covered with campaign

funds) and payments for additional

expenses incurred by a candidate in

connection with conducting the

campaign, such as travel to campaign events and additional child

care related to those events. The

latter may be paid with campaign

funds. AO 1995-42.

Date: February 25, 1999; Length:

5 pages. ✦

be able to solicit employees for

contributions while on the corporate

campus.

Commission Regulations

Commission regulations prohibit

contributions and expenditures by a

corporation in connection with a

federal election. 11 CFR 114.2(b).

The regulations, however, provide

that corporations may make certain

communications—including candidate and political party appearances

on corporate premises—to its

employees. 11 CFR 114.4(b)(1). If a

corporation sponsors a candidate

appearance before all employees

(rather than just its executive and

administrative personnel), then the

corporation must follow these

guidelines:

• If one candidate vying for a

particular congressional seat is

permitted to address all employees,

then the corporation must give a

similar opportunity to any other

candidate for that seat who requests to appear.

• A corporation must provide

comparable time and facilities to

candidates who appear before

employees unless it can demonstrate that such actions are impractical.

• The candidate, his/her representative or a party representative—but

not a representative of the corporation—may solicit contributions for

the candidate, but no one may

collect contributions before, during

or after a candidate appearance. A

candidate, however, may leave

behind campaign materials or

envelopes for the audience.

• Neither the corporation nor the

PAC may expressly advocate the

election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate or encourage

employees to do so.

• Coordination between a corporation and a candidate, candidate’s

agent and candidate committee can

include discussions about the

structure, format and timing of the

candidate’s appearance. Such

discussions must not, however,

include talk of the candidate’s

plans, projects or needs relating to

the campaign.

• News media may be present during

the appearances.

• A corporation may not reproduce

or distribute candidate campaign

materials.

Permissibility of Forums

So long as Premera follows the

guidelines listed above, its planned

forums are permissible. Although

Premera may not use any campaign

signs to announce the forums, it can,

on its own, produce and distribute

forum announcements that identify

the speakers by name and the office

they are seeking. Premera may use,

in these announcements, campaignprovided photos and biographical

information. 11 CFR

114.4(b)(1)(vii). Premera may also

provide free lunch to forum attendees. The Commission views the

expenses associated with providing

lunch to forum participants as a cost

directly related to sponsoring the

event and thus permissible under

Commission regulations.

Date Issued: March 8, 1999;

Length: 6 pages. ✦
April 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Request for Reconsideration

of Advisory Opinion

1999-1

The requester has asked the

Commission to reconsider this

advisory opinion. The opinion,

issued February 25, concluded that

Mark Greene could not use campaign funds from his authorized

committee to pay himself a salary.

See page 5 in this issue for a summary of the opinion. ✦

AOR 1999-5

Revising state party ballot composition ratio for new executive office

(Democratic Party of New Mexico,

February 25, 1999; 2 pages)

AOR 1999-6

Use and publication of information

about annuity allotment program

permitting union member retirees to

make contributions to separate

segregated fund (National Rural

Letter Carriers’ Association, February 26, 1999; 2 pages plus 18-page

attachment)

AOR 1999-7

Free hyperlinks on government web

site to web sites of candidates

(Minnesota Office of the Secretary of

State, March 12, 1999; 7 pages) ✦

1

These committees include authorized committees of candidates running in the

election and other political committees that support these candidates and do

not file monthly.

Close of Books Certified/

Registered

Mail Date

Filing Date

Pre-General

Post-General

April 11

May 21

April 16

June 1

April 19

June 1

Close of Books Certified/

Registered

Mail Date

Filing Date

Pre-General

Pre-Runoff

Post Runoff

April 11

May 9

June 18

April 16

May 14

June 28

April 19

May 17

June 28

Close of Books Certified/

Registered

Mail Date

Filing Date

Pre-General

Mid-Year

April 11

June 30

April 16

July 31

April 19

July 31

Close of Books Certified/

Registered

Mail Date

Filing Date

Pre-Runoff

Post-Runoff

May 9

June 18

May 14

June 28

May 17

June 28

Louisiana Special General Election Reporting

 Committees1 involved in the May 1 special general election and/or the May

29 special runoff election to fill the 1st Congressional District seat that was

vacated by former Congressman Robert Livingston must follow the reporting

schedules below. Note that 48-hour notices are required of authorized

committees that receive contributions (including loans) of $1,000 or more

between April 12 and April 28 in the special general election and between

May 10 and May 26 in the special runoff election (if the runoff is required).

For Committees Involved Only in Special General When No

Runoff is Held:

For Committees Involved in Special General and Special

Runoff:

For Committees Involved Only in Special General When Both

Special General and Runoff Elections Are Held:

For Committees Involved Only in Special Runoff:

Commission Opens Comment

Period for Electronic FOIA

Amendments

On February 25, the Commission

approved a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) to seek

comments on proposed amendments

to the FEC’s Freedom of Information Act regulations. The amendments comply with the Electronic

Regulations

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1999

8

Regulations

(continued from page 7)

Freedom of Information Act

Amendments of 1996 (EFOIA),

which was enacted to make covered

documents available by electronic

means.

The deadline for comments is

April 5.

Among the proposed changes:

• Add to Commission regulations a

requirement that requesters specify

the format in which they wish to

receive their requested information, including electronic formats.

• Make available any records

previously released as a result of a

FOIA request where the Commission determines that it is likely that

the same records will be requested

again, as well as an index of these

records.

• Conform FEC regulations to

reflect that the Commission has 20

working days to decide whether to

comply with a FOIA request.

• Incorporate EFOIA’s new procedures for handling a delay or

denial of a FOIA request.

• Aggregate related FOIA requests

by a single requester or group of

requesters when the Commission

determines that the requests

actually constitute a single request

or involve clearly related matters.

• Implement the EFOIA’s expedited

processing procedures in cases of

“compelling need.” This would be

limited to situations where there is

an imminent threat to the life or

safety of an individual or when

there is an urgency to inform the

public about a government activity.

• Notify requesters of the volume of

requested materials to which they

have been denied access.

• Prioritize records requests for

faster processing.

The Commission is also proposing several amendments unrelated to

EFOIA. The NPRM includes a

proposal to delete a reference to two

Commission ex officio positions

that were declared unconstitutional.

Additionally, the NPRM proposes to

distinguish between those records

available under the FOIA and those

available under other statutes, which

are available from the

Commission’s Public Records

Office. The affected regulations are

at 11 CFR Parts 2, 4 and 5.

The notice, published in the

March 4 Federal Register (64 FR

10405), is available from the

following sources:

• Public Records at 800/424-9530

(press 3); and

• FEC Faxline at 202/501-3413

(request document 238).

Public comments must be submitted in either written or electronic

form to Susan E. Propper, Assistant

General Counsel. Written comments

should be mailed to the Federal

Election Commission, 999 E St.,

NW, Washington, DC 20463. Faxed

comments should be transmitted to

202/219-3923, with a copy mailed

to the preceding address to ensure

legibility. Comments also may be

sent by e-mail to EFOIA@fec.gov.

Electronic submissions must include

the commenter’s full name, e-mail

address and postal mail address. ✦

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1999-5

Electronic Freedom of

Information Act Amendments;

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(64 FR 10405, March 4, 1999)

Notice 1999-6

Filing Dates for the Louisiana

Special Election (64 FR 13582,

March 19, 1999)

Outreach

FEC 1999-2000 Conference

Series Begins April 22

The FEC is again sponsoring a

series of conferences on campaign

finance. At each conference, Commissioners and FEC staff will

conduct practical workshops on

various aspects of the law.

The first conference, a Corporate

and Labor Conference scheduled for

April 22-23, will be held in Washington, DC, at the Hyatt Regency on

Capitol Hill. The registration fee of

$250 covers the conference, materials, breakfasts, lunches and refreshments.

The second conference, the

Membership and Trade Association

Conference, will be held on June 7-

8 in Arlington, VA, at the

Doubletree Hotel Pentagon City.

The registration fee for this conference is $225.

To register for a conference, call

800/246-7277 or send an e-mail to

tsylvester@worldnet.att.net. All

registration forms and fees for the

Corporate and Labor Conference

must be postmarked by April 8.

Registration forms and fees must be

postmarked by May 24 for the

Membership and Trade Association

Conference. Late registrations will

be assessed an additional $10 fee.

For information about programs

and workshops being featured at the

conferences, call the FEC’s Information Division at 800/424-9530

(press 1) or 202/694-1100.

A tentative schedule for conferences in 1999 and 2000 appears on

the next page. The schedule, a list of

workshops and registration forms

are also available at the FEC’s web

site—http://www.fec.gov (click on

“What’s New!”). The Record will

announce more details about the

conferences once plans have been

finalized. ✦

(Outreach continued on page 10)
April 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Corporate and Labor Conference Washington, DC April 22-23,

1999

Membership and Trade Association

Conference

Washington, DC June 7-8,

1999

Partnership Conference Washington, DC July 1999

Regional Conference

(Includes candidate, corporate/labor

and party workshops)

Chicago, IL September

1999

Regional Conference

(Includes candidate, corporate/labor

and party workshops)

San Francisco, CA November

15-17, 1999

Candidate Conference Washington, DC February

2000

Regional Conference

(Includes candidate, corporate/labor

and party workshops)

Miami, FL March 2000

Corporate and Labor Conference Washington, DC May 2000

Membership and Trade Association

Conference

Washington, DC June 2000

FEC Conference Schedule

Type Place Date

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

 The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names

of political action committees

(PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

 To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free under the “Using

FEC Services” icon at the FEC’s

web site—http://www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

 registered PACs showing each

 PAC’s identification number,

 address, treasurer and

 connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

 organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

 identification number ($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., N.W.
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1999

10

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1999 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

1998-22: Application of expenditure

definition and disclaimer requirements to web site containing

express advocacy, 1:16

1998-23: Status as state committee

of political party, 1:16

1998-26: Candidate committee’s

acceptance of loan repayment

from contested election trust fund

that contains funds loaned to it by

candidate, 3:5

1998-27: Status as state committee

of political party, 3:6

1999-1: Use of campaign funds to

pay salary to candidate, 4:5

1999-2: Use of corporate treasury

funds to provide meals to employees attending candidate forums,

4:6

Compliance

MUR 4750: Excessive contributions, 1:13

MUR 4751: Excessive and improper

transfers of nonfederal funds,

excessive contributions, corporate

contributions, 2:2

MUR 4796: Corporate contributions, contributions in the names

of others, 1:13

MUR 4834: Foreign national

contribution, contribution in the

name of another, 3:7

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee

(98C-4933), 4:5

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 4:1

– Forbes, 4:5

Outreach

(continued from page 8)

FEC Conducts Monthly

Roundtable Sessions

The FEC is conducting monthly

roundtable sessions for the regulated

community at its offices in Washington. The roundtable sessions,

limited to 12 participants per

session, focus on a range of topics.

See the table below for dates and

topics.

Registration is $25 and will be

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Please call the FEC

before registering or sending money

Date Subject Intended Audience

April 7

9:30 -11 a.m.

FEC Rules on Use of

the Internet to Raise

Funds

(Code #499)

•

•

•

Candidates

Political Party Staff

Nonconnected PACs

May 5

9:30 -11 a.m.

Fundraising Through

Payroll Deductions and

Combined Dues/PAC

Solicitations

(Code #599)

•

•

Corporate/Labor/

Trade PAC Staff

Lawyers, Accountants

and Consultants to

Above PACs

June 2

9:30 -11 a.m.

Candidate Reporting

Basics

(Code #699)

• House and Senate

Candidates

Filled!

Waiting List

Only

Filled!

Waiting List

Only

Public Appearances

April 2 Medill News Service

Washington, DC

Kevin Salley, Deputy Assistant Staff Director, Public Records

Branch

April 7 Women in Government Relations, Inc.

Washington, DC

Scott Thomas, Chairman

April 23-25 Radio and Television News Directors Foundation

San Francisco, CA

Eileen Canavan, Deputy Assistant Staff Director, Public

Disclosure Division

to be sure that openings remain in

the session of your choice. Prepayment is required. The registration

form is available at the FEC’s web

site (http://www.fec.gov) and from

Faxline, the FEC’s automated fax

system (202/501-3413, request

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 (press 1) or

202/694-1100.

Individuals who have signed up

for a roundtable but who will be

unable to attend are strongly encouraged to call the FEC and cancel

their registration so that the next

person on the waiting list may

attend in their place. ✦
April 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

_____ v. FEC

– Judd, 1:3; 4:5

– Mariani, 2:1

– National Committee of the Reform

Party, 4:4

– RNC (98-5263), 1:2

Other

– Burris v. Russell, 1:3

– Cincinnati v. Kruse, 1:3

Regulations

Definition of “Member” of Membership Association, 1:10; 3:1

Electronic FOIA, 4:7

Express Advocacy, 3:2

Limited Liability Companies, 1:11

Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Candidates, 1:7; 3:1

Soft money, 1:12

Status of, 3:3

Reports

Electronic filing, 1:6; 2:1

Reports due in 1999, 1:4

Special election, Georgia, 2:3

Special election, Louisiana, 4:7

Statistics

Congressional, 2:4

PAC, 3:11

Party, 3:4

Do you want to file your FEC reports electronically? The FEC will

mail you a copy of its new, free electronic filing software—FECFile.

Mail or fax this form to the address/number below. Currently, FECFile

operates on Windows95 and WindowsNT platforms.

FEC Identification Number

Committee Name

Electronic Filing Contact Name

Address: Street 1

Address: Street 2

City

State

Zip Code

Phone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address

Federal Election Commission

Data Division—Room 431

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Fax: 202/219-0674

✃

FECFile Order Form
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD April 1999