December 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 12

Table of Contents

 Regulations

 1 Final Rules on Political Committee 

Status

 3 Final Rules on Party Committees’ 

Coordinated and Independent 

Expenditures

 Court Cases

 1 Shays and Meehan v. FEC

 3 Advisory Opinions

 Compliance

 5 MUR 5268

 6 Nonfilers

 Statistics

 7 Independent Expenditures

 7 Fundraising Through Pre-Election 

Period

 Public Funding

 9 Commission Certifies Matching 

Funds for Presidential Candidates

 Outreach

 10 FEC Roundtables

 10 Get Conference Info via E-Mail

 10 Index

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

Regulations Court Cases

Final Rules on Political 

Committee Status

On October 28, 2004, the Commission concluded its political 

committee status rulemaking by 

approving the explanation and 

justification (E&J) to accompany 

the final rules. The rules expand the 

definition of contribution in a way 

that may require additional organizations to register and file reports with 

the FEC, beginning in 2005. The 

regulations also change the methods 

PACs (i.e., separate segregated funds 

and nonconnected committees) use 

to allocate expenses between their 

federal and nonfederal accounts.

The final rules and their E&J will 

be published in a future Federal Register, and are available on the FEC 

web site at www.fec.gov/law/law_

rulemakings.shtml#political_committee_status. The effective date for 

these rules is January 1, 2005.

Funds Treated as Contributions

Under new regulations at 11 CFR 

100.57, funds received in response 

to a communication that indicates 

any portion of the funds will be used 

to support or oppose the election of 

a clearly identified federal candidate, 

will be considered contributions to 

the person making the communication. 11 CFR 100.57(a).

Shays and Meehan v. FEC

On October 28, 2004, the Federal 

Election Commission voted to ask 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit to overturn a U.S. District Court’s conclusions regarding 

several Commission regulations that 

implemented the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). 

(See the November 2004 Record, 

page 1, for more information regarding Shays and Meehan v. FEC.)

The Commission voted to pursue 

on appeal the District Court decisions regarding:

• Coordinated communications 

content standards at 11 CFR 

109.21(c)(4)(i)-(iii);

• The definition of “solicit” at 11 

CFR 300.2(m) and “direct” at 11 

CFR 300.2(n);

• The regulation governing payment 

of state, district or local party employee wages or salaries at 11 CFR 

300.33(c)(2);

• The de minimis exemption for 

Levin funds that allows state and 

local party committees to use 

federal funds, Levin funds or a 

combination of both for certain 

federal election activities aggregating up to $5,000 in a calendar year 

at 11 CFR 300.32(c)(4); and
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004

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)

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald, 

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

Meredith Trimble, Associate 

 Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

Many solicitations financed using a combination of federal and 

nonfederal funds will be subject to 

this rule. For example, if a solicitation refers to a political party and a 

clearly identified federal candidate, 

but not a nonfederal candidate, all 

mention a specific federal or nonfederal candidate. 11 CFR 106.6(b)(4) 

and (5). In addition, the new rules 

classify public communications by 

PACs that refer to a political party, 

and may or may not refer to clearly 

identified federal and/or nonfederal 

candidate, as allocable expenses. 11 

CFR 106.6(b)(6), (7) and (8).

Allocation Methods. Revised 11 

CFR 106.6(c) replaces the former 

“funds expended” allocation method 

with a new flat minimum federal 

percentage. PACs must now use 

at least 50% federal funds to pay 

administrative expenses and costs of 

generic voter drives that encourage 

support of candidates of a particular 

party or associated with a particular 

issue, without mentioning a specific 

candidate. Additionally, public communications that refer to a political 

party, but not to specific candidates, 

must be financed using the 50% federal funds flat minimum percentage.

The rules also specify that PACs 

must pay the following expenses 

with 100% federal funds:

1. Public communications that refer 

to one or more clearly identified 

federal candidates, regardless of 

any reference to a political party, 

but do not refer to any clearly 

identified nonfederal candidates; 

and

2. Voter drives, including voter 

identification, voter registration, 

GOTV drives, or any other activities that through public communications or other printed materials 

urge the public to:

• Register, vote or support one or 

more clearly identified federal 

candidates, but do not refer to 

any clearly identified nonfederal 

candidates; or

• Register, vote or support one or 

more clearly identified federal 

candidates and also urge support for candidates of a particular party or associated with 

a particular issue, but do not 

• The requirement that a communication be publicly distributed 

“for a fee” to be an “electioneering communication” at 11 CFR 

100.29(b)(3)(i).

In addition, the Commission will 

ask the Court of Appeals to review 

findings about the plaintiffs’ standing and the ripeness of the issues 

in this litigation. While the appeal 

is pending, the FEC will undertake 

rulemaking proceedings in response 

to the District Court’s decision.

 —Meredith Trimble

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

of the funds received in response are 

considered contributions. 11 CFR 

100.57(b)(1). 

However, if an allocable solicitation refers to both a clearly identified federal candidate and a clearly 

identified nonfederal candidate, the 

recipient need only treat 50% of 

the total funds received as contributions. This federal minimum applies 

regardless of whether the solicitation 

also refers to a political party. 11 

CFR 100.57(b)(2).

A second exception to the general rule applies to solicitations for 

joint fundraisers conducted between 

or among campaign committees of 

a federal candidate and campaign 

organizations of nonfederal candidates. 11 CFR 100.57(c). These 

fundraisers continue to be governed 

by regulations at 11 CFR 102.17. 

However, the new rules would 

apply to solicitations for all other 

joint fundraisers. For example, the 

new rules would apply to a solicitation for a joint fundraiser between 

political committees and/or other 

organizations that indicated that any 

portion of the funds received will be 

used to support or oppose the election of a clearly identified federal 

candidate.

Allocation

Allocable Expenses. The current 

rules at 11 CFR 106.6 outline the activities PACs may allocate between 

their federal and nonfederal accounts. These rules speak to generic 

voter drives, voter identification, 

and get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives 

conducted without mentioning a specific candidate as allocable expenses. 

The new rules provide guidance on 

how PACs allocate voter drives that 
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

refer to any clearly identified 

nonfederal candidates. 11 CFR 

106.6(f)(1).

By contrast, the following 

expenses may be paid with 100% 

nonfederal funds:

1. Public communications that refer 

to political party and one or more 

clearly identified nonfederal 

candidate, but do not refer to any 

clearly identified federal candidates; and

2. Voter drives, including voter 

identification, voter registration, 

GOTV drives, or any other activities that through public communications or other printed materials 

urge the public to:

• Register, vote or support one or 

more clearly identified nonfederal candidates, but not refer to 

any clearly identified federal 

candidates; or

• Register, vote or support one or 

more clearly identified nonfederal candidates and also urge 

support for candidates of a particular party or associated with a 

particular issue, but do not refer 

to any clearly identified federal 

candidates. 11 CFR 106.6(f)(2).

PACs must pay for the following 

expenses by using the “time/space” 

allocation method similar to 11 

CFR 106.1 and detailed in 11 CFR 

106.6(f)(3):

• Public communications that refer 

to one or more clearly identified 

federal candidates, and also refer 

to any clearly identified nonfederal 

candidates, regardless of whether 

there is a reference to a political 

party; and

• Voter drives that urge the public 

to register, vote or support one or 

more clearly identified nonfederal 

candidates and one or more clearly 

identified nonfederal candidates. 

11 CFR 106.6(f)(3).

Final Rules on Party 

Committees’ Coordinated 

and Independent 

Expenditures

On October 28, 2004, the Commission approved final rules that remove restrictions placed on political 

party committees’ ability to make 

both independent expenditures and 

coordinated party expenditures with 

respect to the same candidate in connection with a general election. The 

final rules also delete regulations 

prohibiting a political party committee that makes coordinated expenditures with respect to a candidate 

from transferring funds to, assigning 

coordinated expenditures authority 

to or receiving a transfer from a political party that has made or intends 

to make an independent expenditure 

with respect to that candidate. 

The rules restricting party committee independent and coordinated 

expenditures were promulgated in 

January 2003 in order to implement 

section 213 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). 

However, in McConnell v. FEC, the 

Supreme Court found that section 

of the BCRA to be unconstitutional. 

Therefore, the Commission has 

removed the rules that implemented 

section 213. 

The final rules and their Explanation and Justification were published 

in the November 3, 2004, Federal 

Register (69 FR 63919), and they 

are available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml. These rules will take 

effect on December 3, 2004.

 —Amy Kort

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2004-34

State Party Status 

The Libertarian Party of Virginia 

(the Party) satisfies the requirements 

for state committee status.

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) defines a state committee as “the organization which, 

by virtue of the bylaws of a political 

party, is responsible for the day-today operation of such political party 

at the State level, as determined 

by the Commission.” 2 U.S.C. 

§431(15). In order to achieve state 

committee status under Commission 

regulations, an organization must 

meet three requirements. 11 CFR 

100.14 and 100.15. It must:

• Be a political party that gained 

ballot access for at least one federal 

candidate who has qualified as a 

candidate under the Act;1

• Have bylaws or a similar document that “delineates activities 

commensurate with the day-to-day 

operation” of a party at a state 

level; and

• Be part of the official party structure.

The Libertarian Party of Virginia 

meets all three requirements. It 

satisfies the first requirement—ballot access for at least one federal 

candidate. Harry Browne appeared 

as the Party’s candidate on the Virginia ballot in 2000, and he met the 

(continued on page 4)

1

 Gaining ballot access for a federal 

candidate is an essential element for 

qualifying as a political party. See 11 

CFR 100.15.

Additional Information

On January 19, 2005, the FEC 

will conduct a roundtable workshop 

with the IRS regarding these new 

regulations and IRS 527 rules. See 

the roundtable chart on page 10 for 

more details.

 —Elizabeth Kurland
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004

4

requirements for becoming a federal 

candidate under 2 U.S.C. §431(2).2 

The Party satisfies the second 

requirement because its bylaws delineate activity commensurate with 

the day-to-day functions of a political party on the state level and are 

consistent with the state party rules 

of other political organizations that 

the Commission has found to satisfy 

this requirement for state committee 

status. See AOs 2003-27, 2002-10, 

2002-6 and 2002-3. It is also an 

affiliate of the national Libertarian 

Party, which qualified for national 

committee status in 1975. See AO 

1975-129. 

Finally, as the Libertarian Party’s 

state party organization in Virginia, 

the Party is part of the official party 

structure and, thus, meets the third 

requirement as well. See AOs 2004-

9, 2003-27, 2002-6, 1997-7 and 

1996-27. See also AOs 2002-10, 

2002-6 and 2002-3.

Date Issued: October 21, 2004; 

Length: 4 pages.

 —Amy Kort

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

2

 An individual becomes a candidate for 

the purposes of the Act once he or she 

receives contributions aggregating in 

excess of $5,000 or makes expenditures 

in excess of $5,000. 2 U.S.C. §431(2) 

and 11 CFR 100.3. The Commission has 

granted state committee status to a state 

affiliate of a qualified national party 

committee where its only federal candidates, as defined under the Act, were 

the Presidential and Vice Presidential 

candidates of the national party. AOs 

2004-9, 2002-3 and 1999-26.

AO 2004-37

Brochure Advocating 

Candidates Not a 

Contribution

Representative Maxine Waters 

intends, through her principal campaign committee (PCC) or leadership PAC, to produce a brochure 

Analysis

No in-kind contribution to federal 

candidates listed. Under Commission regulations at 11 CFR 109.21, 

a coordinated communication is 

considered an in-kind contribution 

to the candidate or party with whom 

it is coordinated. The first factor to 

consider in determining whether a 

communication is coordinated is 

whether someone other than the 

referenced candidate or party paid 

for the ad. In this case, because each 

federal candidate will be included 

in the brochure only if he or she 

reimburses the Waters Committee 

or PHP for the attributable costs, 

the brochure would not satisfy the 

payment prong of the coordinated 

communication test. Therefore, 

payments by either the Waters 

Committee or PHP for the brochure 

would not constitute support of, or 

in-kind contributions to, any federal 

candidate appearing in the brochure, 

so long as reimbursement is made 

within a reasonable period of time.1

 

Because the brochure would not be 

an in-kind contribution to the federal 

candidates listed within, the production and distribution costs would 

not be subject to the limits of either 

2 U.S.C. 432(e)(3) (support of a 

federal candidate from a principal 

or authorized campaign committee of another federal candidate) or 

441a(a)(2)(A) (contribution from a 

PAC to a federal candidate).2

1 See Advisory Opinion 2004-1, 

which concludes that communications produced and distributed by one 

candidate’s authorized committee and 

coordinated with a second candidate’s 

authorized committee would not result 

in an in-kind contribution to the second 

authorized committee so long as the 

second committee reimbursed the first 

for the attributed portion of the communication costs. 

2

 The Commission assumes that if PHP 

produces and distributes the sample 

ballot, the Waters Committee, like the 

authorized committees of all the other 

federal candidates listed, will reimburse 

PHP for the full costs attributable to 

Representative Waters.

that expressly advocates for various 

federal and nonfederal candidates. 

The proposed brochure would 

not constitute support of, or be an 

in-kind contribution to, the federal 

candidates listed, provided that the 

federal candidates or their authorized committees reimburse the PCC 

or leadership PAC in the appropriate amounts and in a timely manner. Those reimbursements would 

likewise not constitute support of, or 

be contributions to, the sponsoring 

committee. The requestors did not 

request the Commission’s opinion 

regarding arrangements with or payments by nonfederal candidates or 

their committees. 

Background

Representative Maxine Waters is a U.S. Representative from 

California who ran for re-election 

on November 2, 2004. She would 

like to produce a brochure, either 

through the Citizens for Waters 

principal campaign committee (the 

Waters Committee) or People Helping People leadership PAC (PHP), 

that will expressly advocate the election of clearly identified federal and 

nonfederal candidates in the general 

election. The brochure, promoted 

as Representative Waters’ “official sample ballot,” will feature a 

prominent picture of Representative 

Waters and convey her opinions and 

endorsements of federal and nonfederal candidates who will be given 

space and prominence in proportion 

to their prominence on the Democratic ticket. Federal candidates will 

be included in the brochure only if 

their principal campaign committees 

reimburse for the full production 

and distribution costs attributable 

to them. Approximately 200,000 

brochures will be distributed via 

U.S. Mail; different versions, each 

more than 500 pieces, will be created to accurately reflect the actual 

ballot within the recipient’s voting 

precinct. The initial request and 

subsequent opinion speak only to the 

federal candidates involved.
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

No support of or contributions to 

Waters Committee or PHP by listed 

candidates. Reimbursements by the 

authorized committees of the federal 

candidates listed in the brochure in 

amounts equal to the attributable 

costs associated with each candidate’s listing would not constitute 

support of the Waters Committee 

or contributions to PHP because, in 

this situation, mere reimbursement 

within a reasonable period of time 

would not constitute “anything of 

value” to the Waters Committee or 

PHP. Note that excess reimbursements would constitute contributions 

and be subject to the appropriate 

limits of the Act.

Attribution of costs to listed candidates. Attribution to each federal 

candidate shall be determined by 

the proportion of space devoted to 

each candidate as compared to the 

total space devoted to all candidates, 

whether federal or nonfederal. 11 

CFR 106.1(a) and 106.1(a)(1). 

Reporting of initial payments 

and reimbursements. The Waters 

Committee (on FEC Form 3) or PHP 

(on FEC Form 3X) must report the 

brochure production and distribution costs as operating expenditures. 

Likewise, reimbursements by each 

authorized committee of the individual candidates listed in the brochure must be reported as offsets to 

operating expenditures. Assuming 

the costs attributable to each candidate will exceed $500, the Waters 

Committee or PHP must disclose the 

costs attributable to each candidate 

as a debt owed to it on Schedule D 

of the 30-Day Post-General Election 

Report and future reports, unless a 

candidate’s complete reimbursement 

occurs on or before November 22, 

2004, the closing date of the Post 

General Election Report. The Waters 

Committee or PHP should include 

notations with the above entries citing this advisory opinion.

Disclaimer Requirements. Because the brochure will be distributed by a mass mailing, it will 

constitute a public communication. 

Accordingly, the brochure must 

include a disclaimer stating that 

it was paid for by the authorized 

committees of each federal candidate appearing in it. As the Commission has previously allowed for 

some flexibility in listing candidate 

names in a disclaimer notice, in this 

instance the Waters Committee or 

PHP may mark each paying candidate with an asterisk and include a 

statement on the mailing declaring 

that the brochure was “paid for by 

the authorized committees of the 

candidates marked with an asterisk.”

Date Issued: October, 21, 2004;

Length: 6 Pages

 —Meredith Trimble

Alternative Disposition of 

Advisory Opinion Requests

On October 28, 2004, the requestors withdrew Advisory Opinion 

Request 2004-38, regarding a federal 

candidate’s raising and spending of 

funds for recount expenses.

 —Amy Kort

On November 2, 2004, the requestors withdrew Advisory Opinion 

Request 2004-39, regarding a state 

party committee’s ability to raise 

and spend donations in unlimited 

amounts for recount expenses.

 —Meredith Trimble

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2004-40

Determination of political 

committee’s status as a state party 

committee (Libertarian Party of 

Maryland, October 19, 2004)

AOR 2004-41

Affiliation of membership organization SSFs (CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, October 25, 2004)

AOR 2004-42

Ability of LLC wholly owned by 

single corporate member and not 

electing to be treated as a corporaAOR 2004-43

Whether a broadcaster makes 

an in-kind contribution by charging a candidate the “lowest unit 

charge” for advertising time when 

the candidate might not be “entitled” under the Communications 

Act because one of the candidate’s 

advertisements has not contained 

the disclaimers required by BCRA 

(Missouri Broadcasters Association, 

November 1, 2004)

tion by the IRS to pay administrative and solicitation costs of SSF; 

whether SSF may be named after 

LLC rather than its corporate connected organization (Pharmavite 

LLC, October 22, 2004)

Compliance

MUR 5268: Labor 

Organization’s Use of 

Employee Time in Federal 

Campaign Activity and 

Coerced Contributions to 

Federal Candidates 

The Commission recently entered 

into a conciliation agreement with 

the Indiana-Kentucky Regional 

Council of Carpenters (the successor to the Kentucky State District 

Council of Carpenters, or KSDCC) 

resulting in a $297,000 civil penalty. Three of KSDCC’s former 

officers, J. Stephen Barger, Donald 

Mitchell and Thomas Schulz, were 

also named in the agreement. The 

conciliation agreement resolves 

violations of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) stemming 

from the organization’s use of union 

employees for federal campaign 

activity and requiring employees 

to make contributions to federal 

candidates. 

Background

The Act prohibits labor organizations from making contributions, 

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004

6

Nonfilers

Congressional Committees 

Fail to File Reports

The following principal campaign 

committees failed to file required 

Pre-General Election reports:

• Committee to Elect Daniel James 

Barnett Senator for the Christian 

Party 2004 (CO/00);

• Buckley for Senate (GA/11);

• O’Grady for Senate (NY/00);

• Honest Abe Hirschfeld for United 

States Senate (NY/00);

• Paul Van Dam for US Senate 

(UT/00);

• Randy Camacho for Congress 

2004 (AZ/02);

• Lawrence R. Wiesner for Congress 

Committee (CA/01);

• David R. Hernandez Jr. for Congress (CA/28);

• Byron for Congress (CA/49);

• Murray for Congress (FL/08);

• Robert Johnson for Congress 

Committee (FL/11);

• Simon Pristoop for Congress 

Committee (FL/15);

• Committee to Elect Leyva for US 

Congress (IN/01);

• Morse for Congress (MA/04);*

• Jane Brooks for Congress 

(MD/02);

• Lott for Congress Committee 

(MS/04);

• Ada M. Fisher for Congress 

(NC/12);

• Friends of Rich Hoffman (NY/02);

• Laba for Congress (NY/28);

• Jeff Hardenbrook for Congress 

(OH/08);

• Friends of Jeff Seemann for Congress (OH/16);

• Fjetland for Fair Elections 

(TX/22);

• Gary R. Page for Congress 

(TX/24);

• Paul J. Lord for Congress 

(WA/09); and

• Thomas for Congress (WI/01).

The following principal campaign committees failed to file 

required October Quarterly reports:

• Honest Abe Hirschfeld for United 

States Senate (NY/00);

• O’Grady for Senate (NY/00)

• David R. Hernandez Jr. for Congress (CA/28);

• Byron for Congress (CA/49);

• Murray for Congress (FL/08);

• Morse for Congress 2004 

(MA/04);*

• Ada M. Fisher for Congress 

(NC/12);*

• Laba for Congress (NY/28); and

• Gary R. Page for Congress 

(TX/24).

Prior to the reporting deadlines, 

the Commission notified committees 

of their filing obligations. Committees that failed to file the required 

reports were subsequently notified that their reports had not been 

received and that their names would 

be published if they did not respond 

within four business days.

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act requires the Commission to 

publish the names of principal 

campaign committees if they fail to 

file Pre-General Election reports or 

in-kind or otherwise, to federal 

candidates. The Act also prohibits 

labor organizations from coercing 

employees to make contributions, 

and from facilitating and serving as 

conduits for earmarked contributions 

to federal candidates. In addition, 

while a labor organization may 

expressly advocate a candidate’s 

election or defeat in communications 

to its members, it must report communication costs that exceed $2,000 

with respect to primary or general 

elections.

Conciliation

On September 27, 2004, the Commission entered into a conciliation 

agreement with the Indiana-Kentucky Regional Council of Carpenters. According to the agreement, 

KSDCC assigned union employees 

known as “field representatives” to 

work directly for the campaigns of 

federal, state and local candidates on 

union time during at least the 1998, 

2000 and 2002 election cycles. As a 

result, KSDCC provided as much as 

$141,000 in salaries for union staff 

working for candidates, constituting 

prohibited in-kind contributions for 

the value of time spent working for 

federal candidates. 

In addition, during at least the 

2000 and 2002 election cycles, 

KSDCC solicited and monitored 

contributions from its employees to 

federal candidates. The evidence 

showed that these contributions 

were a required part of the job for 

some employees, and that employees feared reprisals, including being 

fired, if they failed to contribute. 

The union further acted as a conduit 

for these contributions by collecting, 

bundling and forwarding them to the 

candidate committees.

In addition, KSDCC made 

partisan communications expressly 

advocating the election or defeat of 

a federal candidate to its members 

that exceeded the $2,000 reporting 

threshold, but failed to disclose those 

communication costs to the FEC.

The agreement requires KSDCC 

to pay the aforementioned civil 

penalty to the FEC and to cease 

and desist from violating the Act. 

KSDCC will send at least three 

representatives to an FEC training 

conference for labor organizations 

and will inform all employees what 

activities are permissible and prohibited under the Act through internal 

training seminars.

For additional information on this 

case, please visit the Commission’s 

Public Records Office or consult 

the Enforcement Query System on 

the FEC’s web site and enter case 

number 5268.

 —Meredith Trimble

Compliance

(continued from page 5)

*The committee is required to file electronically, but filed only on paper.
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

Statistics

(continued on page 8)

the quarterly report due before 

the candidate’s election. 2 U.S.C. 

§437g(b). The agency may also 

pursue enforcement actions 

against nonfilers and late filers on 

a case-by-case basis. 

The next regularly scheduled 

disclosure reports for candidate 

committees will be the 30-Day 

Post-General Election report due 

December 2, 2004.

 —Meredith Trimble

Independent Expenditures 

for September and October 

During the first 18 days of October, party committees, PACs and 

others reported making nearly $87.2 

million in independent expenditures on behalf of or against federal 

candidates.1 Most of this spending 

was reported by the two major parties, whose national, senatorial and 

congressional campaign committees 

reported $73.2 million in independent spending. This spending is 

in addition to nearly $45.5 million 

reported for the month of September. Between January 1, 2003, and 

August 31, 2004, a further $65.8 

million in independent expenditures 

was reported by individuals, political 

committees and other organizations.2

Independent expenditures expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified federal 

candidate by using messages such as 

“vote for” or “defeat” and are made 

independently of any candidate’s 

campaign or any political party committee. Political committees, using 

funds within the limits and prohibitions of federal law, may make 

unlimited independent expenditures. 

Individuals may also make unlimited 

independent expenditures. Individuals, political committees and other 

groups making independent expenditures must file additional reports 

to disclose their activity within 48 

hours each time spending exceeds 

$10,000 for a given election during 

a calendar year. During the final 20 

days of the campaign, up to 24 hours 

before the election, independent 

expenditures aggregating $1,000 or 

more must be reported within 24 

hours. (Last-minute independent 

expenditures are not included in the 

figures provided in this article).

The Democratic National Committee reported the largest independent expenditure totals in September 

and October, spending a two-month 

total of nearly $52.1 million mostly 

in opposition to President Bush’s 

reelection. 

Groups reporting more than $1 

million in independent spending in 

October included the Republican 

National Committee ($5 million), 

the National Republican Senatorial Committee ($4.6 million), the 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign 

Committee ($2.5 million), the 

United Auto Workers PAC ($2.3 million), the National Rifle Association 

Political Victory Fund ($2.1 million), Moveon PAC ($1.3 million), 

the Service Employees International 

Union PAC ($1.1 million) and the 

League of Conservation Voters Inc. 

($1 million).

Groups reporting more than $1 

million in independent spending in 

September included the National Republican Congressional Committee 

($7.1 million), Moveon PAC ($5.7 

million), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($2.2 

million) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee ($1.6 

million).

Independent expenditures are 

distinct from “electioneering communications” which must also be 

disclosed. Electioneering communications are broadcast ads that 

make reference to a clearly identified 

federal candidate without expressly 

advocating his or her election or defeat. Reported spending on these ads 

totaled $27.3 million during the first 

18 days of October and $12.3 million during the month of September.

FEC press releases dated October 

5 and October 20, 2004, offer additional information, including lists of 

all groups reporting independent expenditures and the totals spent for or 

against each candidate. The releases 

are available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004.

 —Amy Kort

1

 Independent expenditures disclosed 

between October 19, 2004 and 

October 28, 2004 totaled $98.9 million. For more information, please 

refer to the independent expenditure 

update press releases dated October 

25 and October 29 at http://www.fec.

gov/press/press2004.

2

 Some activity during that time 

period has yet to be tabulated from 

quarterly reports filed on October 15.

Fundraising High Through 

Pre-Election Period

Fundraising by national party 

committees and Congressional 

candidates increased substantially in 

the 2004 election cycle over fundraising from prior cycles. Financial 

activity for national party committees and Congressional campaigns, 

from January 1, 2003, to October 13, 

2004, is detailed below.

National Party Committees

The national committees of the 

two major parties raised just over $1 

billion between January 1, 2003, and 

October 13, 2004. Republican party 

committees raised $554.7 million in 

federally permissible “hard money,” 

while the Democratic committees 

raised $451.8 million. During this 

period, the parties reported spending 

$875.3 million. 

The 2004 election cycle is the 

first in which national parties have 

been prohibited from receiving 

“soft money” under the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 

(BCRA). The Democratic National 

Committee (DNC) and Republican 

National Committee (RNC) raised 
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004

8

0

50

100

150

200

Candidate

Other Committees

Individuals

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Millions of Dollars

Dems

0

50

100

150

200

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Millions of Dollars

Rep.

Democrats Republicans

Sources of Funds for House Candidates—1994-2004

Statistics

(continued from page 7)

substantially more during this cycle 

than in any prior campaign, even 

when money raised in prior cycles 

is included. However, both parties’ Senatorial committees and the 

DCCC raised less in 2004 than in 

previous cycles.

Spending directly in support of 

federal candidates increased substantially in 2004, with the Democratic 

national party committees reporting 

$105 million in independent expenditures. Independent expenditures 

advocate the election of specific candidates but are not coordinated with 

campaigns. In addition, Democratic 

committees spent a total of $19 

million in expenditures on behalf of 

general election candidates that were 

coordinated with the campaigns. 

Republican national party committees reported $43.6 million in 

independent expenditures and $11.9 

million in coordinated expenditures.

Congressional Campaigns

From January 1, 2003, through 

October 13, 2004, Congressional 

campaigns raised a total of $872.5 

million and spent $711.6 million, 

an increase of 20 percent in receipts 

and 15 percent in spending over the 

comparable period in 2002. 

Senate candidates raised $327.7 

million and spent $278 million, 

representing increases of 27 percent 

and 22 percent, respectively. Note, 

however, that comparisons across 

election cycles are difficult for Senate races as the states involved vary 

and a few campaigns, particularly in 

large states, can significantly affect 

the totals. House candidate fundraising increased 16 percent over 2002 

levels to reach a total of $544.8 

million. The chart below details 

the sources of funding for House 

candidates over the past decade. 

Spending by House candidates 

totaled $433.6 million, up 11 percent. This growth is found mainly 

among Republican candidates whose 

fundraising increased by 28 percent 

since 2002, with spending up by 

21 percent. Fundraising by Democratic House candidates, by contrast, 

increased by 4 percent, while their 

spending rose only 1 percent. Both 

the number of open seat candidates 

and their financial activity declined 

for both parties in 2004, with the 

smallest number of open seat campaigns since 1990.

Contributions from individuals 

continue to be the largest source of 

receipts for Congressional candidates, totaling $553.2 million and 

representing 63.4 percent of all 

fundraising as of October 13. PAC 

contributions totaled $250.9 million 

or 28.8 percent, while candidates 

themselves contributed or loaned a 

total of $31.7 million, representing 

3.6 percent of all receipts. When 

compared to the same time period in 

2002, contributions by individuals 

increased 34 percent, PAC contributions increased 12 percent and contributions and loans from candidates 

themselves decreased by 43 percent.

0

50

100

150

200

Candidate Loans/Contributions

Other Committees

Individuals

Millions of Dollars

Rep.

0

50

100

150

200

Candidate Loans/Contributions

Other Committees

Individuals

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Millions of Dollars

Rep.

0

50

100

150

200

Candidate Loans/Contributions

Other Committees

Individuals

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Millions of Dollars

Rep.
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

Commission Certifies 

Matching Funds for 

Presidential Candidates

On October 29, 2004, the Commission certified $203,484.83 in 

federal matching funds to three 

Presidential candidates for the 2004 

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Primary Candidates: 

October Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

October 2004 Certifications

Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $0 $7,615,360.39

John R. Edwards (D)2 $15,378.00 $6,640,318.44

Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $0 $4,104,319.82

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $128,000.00 $3,083,962.59

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)5 $0 $1,456,019.13

Joseph Lieberman (D)6 $0 $4,267,796.85

Ralph Nader (I)7 $60,106.83 $858,934.15

Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $0 $100,000.008

1 General Clark publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 11, 2004.

2 Senator Edwards publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on March 3, 2004.

3Congressman Gephardt publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on January 2, 

2004.

4 Congressman Kucinich became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 

2004.

5 Mr. LaRouche became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2004.

6 Senator Lieberman publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 3, 

2004.

7 Ralph Nader became ineligible to receive matching funds on September 2, 2004.

8

 On May 10, 2004, the Commission determined that Reverend Sharpton must repay 

this amount to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds he received in excess of his entitlement. See the July 2004 Record, page 8.

Public Funding

Additional Information 

More information on campaign 

finance statistics for the 2003-2004 

election cycle is available in press 

releases dated October 25, 2004, 

(party committees) and October 28, 

2004 (Congressional). The releases 

are available:

• On the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/press/press2004/summaries2004.shtml;

• From the Public Disclosure office 

(800/424-9530, press 2) and the 

Press Office (800/424-9530, press 

1); and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at 

202/501-3413 and request document numbers 618 and 619).

 —Meredith Trimble

election. The U.S. Treasury Department made the payment on November 1, 2004. This certification raises 

to $28,126,711.37 the total amount 

of federal funds certified thus far to 

eight Presidential candidates under 

the Matching Payment Account Act.

Presidential Matching Payment 

Account

Under the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act, the 

federal government will match up to 

$250 of an individual’s total contributions to an eligible Presidential 

primary candidate. A candidate must 

establish eligibility to receive matching payments by raising in excess of 

$5,000 in each of at least 20 states 

(i.e., over $100,000). Although an 

individual may contribute up to 

$2,000 to a primary candidate, only 

a maximum of $250 per individual 

applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each state. Candidates who 

receive matching payments must 

agree to limit their committee’s 

spending, limit their personal spending for the campaign to $50,000 and 

submit to an audit by the Commission. 26 U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b) 

and 9035; 11 CFR 9033.1, 9033.2, 

9035.1(a)(2) and 9035.2(a)(1).

Candidates may submit requests 

for matching funds once each 

month. The Commission will certify 

an amount to be paid by the U.S. 

Treasury the following month. 26 

CFR 702.9037-2. Only contributions 

from individuals in amounts of $250 

or less are matchable. 

The chart at left lists the amount 

most recently certified to each 

eligible candidate who elected to 

participate in the matching fund 

program, along with the cumulative 

amount that each candidate has been 

certified to date. 

 —Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004

10

Index

Roundtable Schedule

Date Subject Intended Audience

January 19

9:30-11:00

FEC-IRS Workshop

• New FEC rules on political committee status;

• Overview of IRS 527 

rules.

• Political Action 

 Committees;

• 527 Organizations; and

•Campaign Finance 

 Attorneys.

January 26

9:30-11:30 • Year-End Reporting for 

PACs and Party 

 Committees; 

• Meet your analyst and 

electronic filing staff at 

reception.

•Individuals responsible 

for filing FEC reports 

for PACs and Party 

Committees.

January 26

1:30-3:30 

• Year-End Reporting for 

Candidates and their 

Committees; 

• Meet your analyst and 

electronic filing staff at 

reception.

•Individuals responsible 

for filing FEC reports 

for Candidate 

 Committees.

Upcoming Roundtables

In January 2005, the Commission 

will host three roundtable sessions. 

The first session will be a joint FECIRS workshop regarding the new 

FEC rules on political committee 

status and the IRS rules pertaining 

to 527 organizations. The remaining 

two sessions will focus on election 

year reporting, including new disclosure requirements under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 

(BCRA). See the chart below for 

details. Both reporting sessions will 

be followed by a half-hour reception 

at which each attendee will have an 

opportunity to meet the campaign 

finance analyst who reviews his/her 

committee’s reports. Representatives 

from the FEC’s Electronic Filing 

Office will also be available to meet 

with attendees.

Attendance is limited to 30 

people per session, and registration 

is accepted on a first-come, firstGet Conference Info via 

E-Mail

Be the first to know about upcoming FEC conferences by signing up 

to receive advance notice e-mails. 

Simply send your contact information (e-mail address, name, organization, mailing address, fax and phone 

numbers) to Conferences@fec.gov

and you will periodically receive 

updated information regarding 

FEC conferences of interest to your 

organization. The complete conference schedule for 2005 is also 

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2004 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

2003-28: Nonconnected PAC 

established by limited liability 

company composed entirely of 

corporations may become an SSF 

with the limited liability company 

as its connected organization, 1:20

2003-29: Transfer of funds from a 

nonfederal PAC to a federal PAC 

of an incorporated membership 

organization, 1:21

2003-30: Retiring campaign debt 

and repaying candidate loans, 2:1

2003-31: Candidate’s loans to 

campaign apply to Millionaires’ 

Amendment threshold, 2:2

2003-32: Federal candidate’s use 

of surplus funds from nonfederal 

campaign account, 2:4

2003-33: Charitable matching plan 

with prizes for donors, 2:5

2003-34: Reality television show to 

simulate Presidential campaign, 

2:6

2003-35: Presidential candidate may 

withdraw from matching payment 

program, 2:7

2003-36: Fundraising by federal 

candidate/officeholder for section 

527 organization, 2:8

2003-37: Nonconnected PAC’s use 

of nonfederal funds for campaign 

activities, 4;4

2003-38: Funds raised and spent 

by federal candidate on behalf of 

redistricting committee to defray 

legal expenses incurred in redistricting litigation, 3:14

Outreach

served basis. Please call the FEC 

before registering or sending money 

to ensure that openings remain. The 

registration form is available on the 

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

and from Faxline, the FEC’s automated fax system (202/501-3413, 

request document 590). For more 

information, call the Information 

Division at 800/424-9530, or locally 

at 202/694-1100.

—Amy Kort

available on the FEC’s web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/info/outreach.

shtml#conferences.

 —Meredith Trimble
December 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

2003-39: Charitable matching plan 

conducted by collecting agent of 

trade association, 3:10

2003-40: Reporting independent 

expenditures and aggregation for 

various elections, 3:11

2004-1: Endorsement ads result in 

contribution if coordinated communications; “stand-by-your-ad” 

disclaimer for ad authorized by 

two candidates, 3:12

2004-2: Contributions from testamentary trusts, 4:8

2004-3: Conversion of authorized 

committee to multicandidate committee, 5:5

2004-4: Abbreviated name of trade 

association SSF, 5:7

2004-6: Web-based meeting services 

to candidates and political committees, 5:7

2004-7: MTV’s mock Presidential 

election qualifies for press exemption—no contribution or electioneering communication results, 5:8

2004-8: Severance pay awarded to 

employee who resigns to run for 

Congress, 6:4

2004-9: State committee status, 5:10

2004-10: “Stand by your ad” disclaimer for radio ads, 6:5

2004-12: Regional party organization established by several state 

party committees, 8:4

2004-14: Federal candidate’s appearance in public service announcements not solicitation, coordinated 

communication or electioneering 

communication, 8:6

2004-15: Film ads showing federal 

candidates are electioneering communications, 8:8

2004-17: Federal candidate’s compensation for part-time employment, 8:8

2004-18: Campaign committee’s 

purchase of candidate’s book at 

discounted price, 9:4

2004-19: Earmarked contributions 

made via commercial web site, 

10:4

2004-20: Connecticut party convention considered an election, 9:5

2004-22: Unlimited transfers to state 

party committee, 9:6

2004-23: SSF’s solicitation of subsidiaries’ restricted classes, 10:5

2004-24: Use of contributor information by commercial software 

company, 10:6

2004:25: Senator/national party officer may donate personal funds 

to voter registration organizations 

that undertake federal election 

activity, 10:7

2004-26: Foreign national’s participation in activities of political 

committees, 10:8

2004-27: Use of campaign funds for 

unpaid salary of former employees, 11:1

2004-28: Disclosure of donations to 

state party committee nonfederal 

office building fund, 11:6

2004-29: Federal candidate’s support 

of ballot initiative committees, 

11:6

2004-30: Documentary and broadcast ads do not qualify for media 

exception from definition of electioneering communication, 10:9

2004-31: Ads for business with same 

name as federal candidate not 

electioneering communications, 

10:11

2004-32: SSF may solicit affiliated 

LLC, 11:7

2004-33: Corporate-sponsored ads 

as electioneering communications 

and coordinated communications, 

10:12

2004-34: Status of state party as 

state committee of political party, 

12:3

2004-35: Presidential campaigns 

may use GELAC funds for recount expenses, 11:8

2004-36: Reporting in-kind contribution of office space shared by 

five candidates, 11:8

2004-37: Brochure by candidate’s 

authorized committee or leadership PAC expressly advocating 

other federal candidates, 12:4

Compliance

ADR program cases, 1:25; 4:15; 7:9; 

8:11; 11:9

Administrative Fine program cases, 

1:24; 4:14; 6:9; 9:9; 11:12

Enforcement Query System available on web site, disclosure policy 

for closed enforcement matters 

and press release policy for closed 

MURs; “enforcement profile” 

examined, 1:6; EQS update, 7:10

MUR 4818/4933: Contributions in 

the name of another and excessive 

contributions, 8:1

MUR 4919: Fraudulent misrepresentation of opponent’s party through 

mailings and phone banks, 6:2

MUR 4953: Party misuse of nonfederal funds for allocable expense, 

6:3

MUR 5197: Donations from Congressionally chartered corporations, 4:13

MUR 5199: Campaign committee’s 

failure to report recount activities, 

6:4

MUR 5229: Collecting agent’s failure to transfer contributions, 1:7

MUR 5268: Labor organization’s 

use of employee time in federal 

campaign activity and coerced 

contributions to federal candidates, 12:5

MUR 5279: Partnership contributions made without prior agreement of partners to whom contributions were attributed, 8:3

MUR 5328: Excessive contributions 

to and from affiliated leadership 

PACs, 5:1

MUR 5357: Corporation’s reimbursement of contributions, 2:1

MUR 5447: State party committee’s 

financial discrepancies and failure 

to pay allocable expenses from 

federal account, 10:17

Naming of treasurers in enforcement 

matters, proposed statement of 

policy, 3:4

Nonfilers, 3:16; 4:13, 6:7; 7:5; 8:13; 

9:4; 10:7; 12:6

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 4:10

– Alliance for Democracy, 3:8; 10:4

– Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. (I), 10:4

– Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. (II), 11:4

(continued on page 12)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2004

– Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington, 11:5

– Cooksey, 8:11

– Cox for Senate, 3:4

– Hagelin, 4:11; 8:9; 10:3; 11:3

– Kean for Congress, 3:7

– Lovely, 5:12

– McConnell, 1:1

– LaRouche’s Committee for a New 

Bretton Woods, 6:7; 9:3; 11:3

– O’Hara, 6:6; 8:11

– Wilkinson, 4:9

– Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 9:1; 

10:1

– Shays and Meehan (I), 11:1

– Shays and Meehan (II), 11:3; 12:1

– Sykes, 4:12; 11:3

FEC v. _____ 

– California Democratic Party, 4:9; 

8:10

– Dear for Congress, 8:10

– Friends of Lane Evans, 3:9

– Malenick, 5:13

– Reform Party of the USA, 9:3

Index

(continued from page 11)

Regulations

Administrative Fine program extension, final rule, 3:1

Contributions by minors, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 5:3

Electioneering communications, 

FCC database, 3:3

Electioneering Communication 

Exemption, Petition for Rulemaking, 9:4

Federal election activity periods, 3:1

Inaugural committees, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 5:1; final 

rules, 11:9

Leadership PACs, final rules, 1: 18

Overnight delivery service, safe harbor for timely filing of reports, 3:1

Party committee coordinated and independent expenditures, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 8:1; final 

rules, 12:3

“Political committee” definition, 

definition of “independent expenditure,” allocation ratio for 

nonconnected PACs, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 4:1; 

Public hearing, 5:3; extension of 

Commission’s consideration, 6:1; 

Rules approved, 9:1; Political 

committee status final rules, 12:1

Public access to materials from 

closed enforcement matters, Petition for Rulemaking, 3:4

Public financing of Presidential 

candidates and nominating conventions, correction and effective 

date, 1:19

Travel on behalf of candidates and 

political committees, final rules, 

1:19

Reports

Due in 2004, 1:9

April reminder, 4:1

Convention reporting for Connecticut and Virginia, 5:10

July reminder, 7:1

Kentucky special election reporting, 

1:9

North Carolina special election 

reporting, 7:9

October reporting reminder, 10:1