October 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 10

Table of Contents

Reports

1 On-line 48-Hour Notices Available

for the General Election

1 Web Access to Senate Candidates’

Campaign Finance Reports

Compliance

1 FEC Implements Administrative

Fines Program

9 Nonfilers

2 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

6 On Appeal?

Public Funding

6 Public Funding for GoreLieberman

6 Public Funding for BuchananFoster

7 August Matching Fund Payments

Election Administration

8 Revised National Mail Voter

Registration

Outreach

8 FEC Roundtables

8 Public Appearances

Statistics

9 Midyear PAC Count Shows Slight

Decrease from December 1999

Compliance Reports

On-line 48-Hour Notices

Available for the General

Election

In order to reduce the number of

faxed, mailed and hand-delivered

48-Hour Notices (Form 6), a Webbased filing system is being developed to enable filers to create and

submit their 48-Hour Notices

entirely on line. Even committees

that do not currently file electronically and those that use software

that does not allow for the creation

of Form 6 will be able to use the online filing system to file their 48-

Hour Notices electronically.

This Web-based filing system is

different from the current electronic

filing system, which allows committees to file Form 6 through the file

upload process built into electronic

filing software packages. Under

those software systems, the transactions are keyed into the software,

and the data reside on the local or

network drive. By contrast, the new

Browser-based version allows filers

to log onto the FEC filing Web site

and enter the transactions directly.

(continued on page 2)

FEC Implements

Administrative Fines Program

As part of its new Administrative

Fines Program, the Federal Election

Commission sent notices to committees that failed to file their July

Quarterly Report, or filed this report

late, informing them that the Commission had found reason to believe

they had violated the Federal

Election Campaign Act. Civil

money penalties, ranging from $125

to $12,000, were included in the

“Reason to Believe” notices.

Committees had 40 days to either

(continued on page 2)

Web Access to

Senate Candidates’

Campaign Finance

Reports

 Senate campaign finance reports

are now available to the public on

the FEC Web site. All Senate

reports received after May 15,

2000, are currently accessible on

the site, and the FEC will make

future reports available within 48

hours of receiving them.

To view these reports, go to

www.fec.gov, click on

“Campaign Finance Reports and

Data,” and then select “View

Financial Reports.”

Compliance
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2000

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)

Darryl R. Wold, Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Bradley Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Amy L. Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Reports

(continued from page 1) Advisory

Opinions

AO 2000-16

Placing Political

Advertisements on Internet

for Academic Study

Third Millennium: Advocates for

the Future, Inc., (Third Millennium)

may place advertisements for

Presidential candidates on the

Internet to study their effects on

voter participation among young

adults.

Third Millennium—a nonprofit

corporation that encourages younger

Americans to participate in the

electoral and legislative process—

proposes to study the effect of

Internet advertising on young

voters. To this end, it has retained

the services of Juno, an established

Internet service provider that offers

free Internet access to subscribers

who agree to provide demographic

information to Juno and to view online advertisements. Using Juno’s

demographic data, Third Millennium intends to randomly select

subscribers to view advertisements

supporting one or all of the current,

ballot-qualified Presidential candidates, and then measure these

subscribers’ voting patterns through

a post-election survey.1

Third Millennium will either use

the content and design of advertisements created by each Presidential

campaign or create its own advertisements from available materials.

In doing so, Third Millennium

will treat each candidate equally as

it obtains or develops the ads, giving

none a qualitative or quantitative

1

 The range of candidates for whom ads

will be shown will include all the

general election presidential candidates

who appear on enough state ballots to

win an Electronic College majority.

With this new system, the information is stored in local memory until

the committee treasurer presses the

“submit” button, thereby sending

the report to the FEC.

The FEC will soon be sending, by

mail, electronic filing passwords

(PIN numbers) to treasurers for

House and Presidential campaign

committees that are running in the

General Election1

 but do not yet

have PIN numbers. With this PIN

number, treasurers will have the

option to log into the FEC Web site

and fill out and submit a 48-Hour

notice electronically. (Paper notices

will also be accepted.)

For more information, visit the

FEC Web site at www.fec.gov and

click on the Electronic Filing logo.✦

pay the penalties or submit written

responses challenging the alleged

violations or the amount of the

penalties.

The July Quarterly Report was

the first report handled under the

new Administrative Fines program,

and the number of late filers

dropped significantly. While 30

percent of filers were late for the

April quarterly filing, only 18

percent of filers were late for the

July quarterly filing.

For more information on the

Administrative Fines Program, see

the May Record, page 1, and the

July Record, page 1. Information is

also available at the FEC’s Web site

at www.fec.gov.

Free copies of the final rules as

they appeared in the Federal

Register (65 FR 31787, May 19,

2000) are available through the

FEC’s Faxline (202/501-3413,

document 247) and on the FEC’s

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

00%20Administrative%20Fines

%20E&J.pdf.✦

1

 Senate committees file with the

Secretary of the Senate and cannot

participate in electronic filing. They

must continue to file 48-hour notices on

paper with the Secretary of the Senate.

Do You Need

Copies of

Campaign Guides?

 The FEC publishes four

Campaign Guides—each for a

different type of committee—

that explain the Federal

Election Campaign Act and

Commission regulations and

their practical application to

your committee. These guides

are available free of charge.

 If you would like to receive

copies of any of the guides,

please fill out and mail the

order form on the inside of the

back cover of this issue of the

Record (see page 11).

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

(continued on page 9)
October 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

advantage. It will not pay the

campaigns for materials provided,

and it reserves the right to reject

material that mentions or alludes to

another candidate. Third Millennium will present the study’s results

at a cross-disciplinary conference it

will host in December 2000.

The Commission found Third

Millennium’s proposal permissible

under the Federal Election Campaign Act and Commission regulations. Individual Commissioners

explained their reasons for voting to

approve this opinion in separate

concurring statements.

Date issued: August 28, 2000;

Length: 5 pages.✦

AO 2000-18

Closing Date of Matching

Fund Period for Nader 2000

The primary matching fund

payment period for Ralph Nader’s

primary campaign committee, the

Nader 2000 Primary Committee,

Inc. (the Committee), ended August

12, 2000, which was the day he

received the South Carolina United

Citizen’s Party’s (UCP) Presidential

nomination.

Mr. Nader’s effort to get on the

general election ballot in substantially all states had three components:

• His convention nomination by the

Association of State Green Parties

(ASGP)—the final step in securing

ballot access in 14 states where the

Green Party or its state affiliate

had previously attained ballot

access for its Presidential candidate. 1

• The submission of petitions

seeking ballot access for either Mr.

Nader (as an independent) or the

state Green Party in states where

neither the Party nor its state

affiliate had previously attained

ballot access for its candidates. In

30 of these states, the petition

process was not complete until

after the ASGP convention and, in

six states, the deadline fell after the

Presidential convention held by the

Democratic National Convention

on August 14-17, 2000.

• His convention nomination by the

South Carolina United Citizen’s

Party (UCP) on August 12, 2000.

Under the Matching Act2

 and

Commission regulations, the term

“matching payment period” means

the period beginning at the start of

the calendar year in which a Presidential general election is held and

ending on the date the national

convention of the candidate’s party

nominates its Presidential candidate.

In the case of a party that does not

nominate its Presidential candidate

by national convention, the matching payment period ends on the date

the party nominates its Presidential

candidate or on the last day of the

last national convention held by a

major party, whichever is earlier. 26

U.S.C. §9032(6) and 11 CFR

9032.6.

In several past advisory opinions

(AOs), the Commission has applied

the statute to situations where

candidates sought the nomination of

several non-major parties. In two of

these cases, candidates of non-major

parties asked whether their matching

payment periods ended on either the

date of their nomination by the last

state party to make its nomination or

the last date of the last major party

Presidential nomination convention,

whichever date was earlier. 3 In

these cases, the Commission found

that neither the Matching Act nor

Commission regulations require that

the matching payment period for

one non-major party Presidential

candidate be shorter than that for

another such candidate solely

because one was seeking a national

party nomination by national

convention and the other was

seeking nomination by several state

political parties.

In Mr. Nader’s case, the Commission found that his matching payment period would end August 12,

2000, the date he received the

nomination of the UCP, which

predated the close of the Democratic

National Convention (the last

national convention held by a major

party).

Date Issued: August 11, 2000;

Length: 4 pages.✦

1

 The Commission did not consider the

question of whether the June 25 Green

Party convention was a national

convention or whether the procedure

used to nominate Mr. Nader at that

convention represented the culmination

of the Green Party’s nomination

process.

2

 Presidential Primary Matching

Payment Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §9031

through §9042.

3

 For example, the Commission

considered the matching fund status of

an individual seeking the Presidential

nomination of several minor parties

that were active in several states. AO

1984-11. The Commission also considered the status of a candidate seeking

the nomination of a minor party with a

recognized national committee and

national nominating convention while

at the same time pursuing the nomination of several minor parties at the state

level that had no national conventions.

AO 1984-24.

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2000

4

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

AO 2000-19

Retroactively Reallocating

Party’s Ballot Composition

Ratio

The Republican Party of Florida

(the RPF) may retroactively adjust

its federal-to-nonfederal allocation

ratio to reflect the addition of two

state offices, which became vacant

in recent months. Further, in accordance with its request, the RPF may

retroactively reallocate its administrative expenses for the period

starting on June 1, 1999, using a

ballot composition ratio that includes points for the two state

offices that are now on the November 2000 ballot

Under Commission regulations,

state and local party committees are

required to allocate their administrative expenses and costs of generic

voter drives using the “ballot

composition method.” 11 CFR

106.5(d). Under this method,

committees determine their ballot

composition ratios at the start of the

election cycle “based on the ratio of

federal offices expected on the

ballot to total federal and nonfederal offices expected on the

ballot in the next general election to

be held in the committee’s state or

geographic area.”1

In this case, two state officials

(Commissioners Bill Nelson and

Tom Gallagher) decided to run for

the Senate when Senator Connie

Mack announced, on May 5, 1999,

that he would not seek another term.

Florida has a “resign-to-run” law

that requires state office holders to

resign from state office in order to

run for federal office.2

 The two

officers were not required to resign,

however, until the governor officially declared their candidacies for

the Senate opening. By law in

Florida, the governor may not make

this declaration until federal ballot

qualification week, which began on

May 8, 2000. The two state officials remained in their state positions until their candidacies were

officially announced. Consequently, the state vacancies did not

occur until May of 2000.

The RPF adjusted its ballot

composition ratio to reflect the

vacancies in May of 2000. It may

now retroactively adjust its ratio for

the period from June 1, 1999, to

May of 2000 as well. In reaching

this determination, the Commission

noted several events that support the

RFP’s assertion that, in fact, it

began supporting candidates for

these two state offices prior to June

1, 1999:

• One of the state officials filed his

Statement of Candidacy for the

Senate on March 22, 1999, and the

other established a testing-thewaters committee in April 1999;

• On May 13 and 14, 1999, state

candidates began registering for

the anticipated vacancies in the

state offices held by Commissioners Nelson and Gallagher; and

• Both Commissioners had collected

enough federal contributions by

June 1, 1999, to cross the threshold

for federal candidacy.

Under these circumstances, the

RFP may retroactively reallocate its

administrative expenses for the

period between June 1, 1999, and

May 8, 2000. The RFP has 30 days

from the August 11, 2000, publication of this advisory opinion to

submit an amended schedule H1 for

the period in question and to transfer

funds between its federal and

nonfederal accounts to correct its

prior allocation for this period.

Date Issued: August 11, 2000;

Length: 6 pages.✦

1

 The regulations explain how federal

and state offices should be counted for

purposes of the ratio. When anticipated

on the next general election ballot, the

offices of President, U.S. Senator and

U.S. Representative each count as one

federal point, while the offices of

Governor, State Senator and State

Representative are counted as one

nonfederal point each. The rules

further require committees to count the

total of all other partisan statewide

executive candidates expected on the

ballot as a maximum of two nonfederal

offices and include up to two points for

those offices in their ratios. State party

committees may also include an

additional nonfederal point. 11 CFR

106.5(d)(1)(ii). See also the Campaign

Guide for Political Party Committees,

pages 47-64.

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record starting

with January 1996 are available

through the Internet as PDF files.

Visit the FEC’s World Wide Web

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

click on “What’s New” for this

issue. Click “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” to see back issues. Future Record issues will be

posted on the web as well. You

will need Adobe® Acrobat®

Reader software to view the publication. The FEC’s web site has

a link that will take you to Adobe’s

web site, where you can download

the latest version of the software

for free.

2

 Florida’s “resign-to-run” law states

that “the resignation creates a vacancy

in office to be filled by election, thereby

permitting persons to qualify as

candidates for nomination and election

as if the officer’s term were otherwise

scheduled to expire.” FLA STAT. Ch,

99.012(4)(g). Thus, prior to the office

holders’ submission of their resignations, no vacancy existed.
October 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

AO 2000-21

New York Conservative

Party Qualifies as State

Committee of Political Party

The State Committee of the New

York State Conservative Party

meets all of the Federal Election

Commission’s (the Commission)

requirements for state committee

status, even though it is not affiliated with a recognized national

committee or other national political

party organization.

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).

Through a series of advisory

opinions, the Commission has

established two criteria necessary

for an organization to qualify as a

state committee. First, the organization must engage in activities that

“are commensurate with” the dayto-day operations of a party at a

state level. Second, the state

organization must gain ballot access

for its federal candidates who, in

turn, must qualify as “candidates” as

defined at 2 U.S.C. §431(2).1

The New York Party meets both

of these requirements:

• Its rules describe activity commensurate with the day-to-day functions and operations of a political

party on a state level; and

• Representative Vito Fossell—a

“candidate” under 2 U.S.C.

1

 Under 2 U.S.C. §431(2), an individual

becomes a candidate for the purposes

of the Act if he or she receives contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000,

or makes expenditures in excess of

$5,000.

§431(2)—appeared on the ballot as

a Conservative Party House

candidate in the 1998 election and

will again in the 2000 election.

Date Issued: August 28, 2000;

 Length: 5 pages.✦

Reconsideration of

Advisory Opinion

AO 2000-08

Donations to Federal Candidates

for Personal Living Expenses

On August 24, 2000, the Commission denied Philip D. Harvey’s

request that it reconsider its June 14,

2000, advisory opinion (AO 2000-

08), which stated that Mr. Harvey’s

proposed anonymous donations to

federal candidates for their personal

living expenses would count as

contributions under the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act).

The Commission found that Mr.

Harvey did not offer arguments that

were substantively different from

those offered in the initial Advisory

Opinion Request (AOR).

In his AOR, Mr. Harvey had

proposed giving monetary gifts—up

to $10,000—to show his gratitude

to individuals willing to engage in

the difficult and time-consuming

process of running for federal office.

He planned to donate the funds

anonymously, thereby avoiding any

appearance that he was trying to

curry favor with the recipient

candidates. He also intended to

instruct the recipients to use the

funds only for personal living

expenses, not for their campaigns.

Under the Act and Commission

regulations, gifts given for the

purpose of influencing a federal

election are considered contributions, while those given for other

purposes may or may not be. 2

U.S.C. §431(8)(A)(i) and 11 CFR

100.7(a)(1). For example, gifts of a

personal nature are not considered

contributions if they have been

customarily given prior to candidacy. If not, they are considered

contributions. 11 CFR 110.10(b)(2).

Similarly, under the

Commission’s personal use regulations, payment of a candidate’s

personal expenses by anyone other

than the candidate constitutes a

contribution, unless the payment

would have been made irrespective

of the candidacy. 11 CFR

113.1(g)(6).

In this case, Mr. Harvey’s

proposed donations would not be

made irrespective of the individuals’

candidacies and would not be “gifts

of a personal nature which had been

customarily received prior to

candidacy.” As a result, the gifts

would be considered contributions

under the Act and, as such, would

be limited to $1,000 per candidate,

per election.✦

Alternative Disposition of

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2000-9

The requester withdrew the

request for this advisory opinion on

August 29, 2000. The request,

submitted on May 2, 2000, sought

the Commission’s opinion on the

application of FEC regulations and

advisory opinions to a commercial

Web site that sells space and other

Web site services to federal and

local candidates and issue

organizations.✦

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2000

6

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2000-20

Nonconnected PAC established

by individuals associated with

several trade associations (Organizers of the proposed Committee for

Quality Cancer Care, July 18, 2000)

AOR 2000-22

Use of electronic signature to

grant prior approval for trade

association solicitation (Air Transportation Association of America, et

al., July 31, 2000)

AOR 2000-23

Preemption of state election law

prohibiting party contributions to

candidates during primary election

campaign period (New York State

Democratic Committee, August 28,

2000)

AOR 2000-24

Preemption of state election law

mandating fixed allocation ratio for

payment by political party of

administrative and voter drive

expenses (Alaska Democratic Party,

August 30, 2000)

AOR 2000-25

Transfer of funds between the

nonfederal and federal accounts of a

newly formed nonconnected political committee (Minnesota House of

representatives Democratic FarmerLabor Caucus, September 8, 2000)

AOR 2000-26

State party committee’s refund to

candidate of “party assessment”

portion of state ballot qualification

fee (Joel Deckard, September 11,

2000)

AOR 2000-27

Qualification as state committee

of political party (United Citizen’s

Party, South Carolina, September

15, 2000)

Court Cases

On Appeal?

FEC v. Colorado Republican

Federal Campaign Committee

The Federal Election Commission has asked the U.S. Supreme

Court to review this case. The

Commission seeks review of a 10th

Circuit opinion that found that

coordinated party expenditure limits

at 2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3) are unconstitutional. See July 2000 Record, p.

1.

Public Funding

Public Funding for GoreLieberman

On August 18, 2000, the Federal

Election Commission approved

public funding for the general

election campaign of Democratic

Presidential nominee Al Gore

and his running mate Joseph

Lieberman. The U.S. Treasury

Department made the payment of

$67.56 million in federal funds

shortly thereafter.

Under the Presidential Election

Campaign Fund Act, the Democratic

and Republican nominees are each

entitled to a grant of $20 million

increased by a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). In order to receive

public funding, the Gore-Lieberman

campaign agreed to abide by the

overall spending limit and other

legal requirements, including a postcampaign audit. Additionally, as

major party nominees, they agreed

to limit campaign spending to the

amount of the public funding grant

and not to accept private contributions for their campaign. They also

agreed not to spend more than

$50,000 in the aggregate of their

own personal funds. The campaign

may, however, accept contributions

designated for its general election

legal and compliance (GELAC)

fund. This fund is a special account

maintained exclusively to pay for

legal and accounting expenses

related to complying with the

campaign finance law. Compliance

expenses do not count against the

expenditure limit. Contributions to

the GELAC fund are, however,

subject to the limits and prohibitions

of the federal campaign finance

laws.

The Democratic National Committee may spend an additional

$13,680,292 for coordinated expenditures on behalf of the GoreLieberman campaign. These funds

are subject to the limits, prohibitions

and disclosure requirements of the

Federal Election Campaign Act.✦

Public Funding for

Buchanan-Foster

On September 14, 2000, the

Federal Election Commission

approved public funding for the

general election campaign of

Reform Party Presidential candidate

Patrick J. Buchanan and his running

mate Ezola Foster. The U.S.

Treasury Department made the

payment of $12,613,452 in federal

funds shortly thereafter. Mr.

Buchanan was eligible to receive the

funds as the candidate of a minor

party. To qualify as a minor party, a

party’s Presidential candidate must

have received at least 5 percent of

the popular vote in the prior Presidential general election.

As minor party candidates, Mr.

Buchanan and Ms. Foster are

entitled to partial public funding,

based on the amount certified to

each major party candidate ($67.56

million). The portion that Mr.

Buchanan received is based on the

ratio of the Reform Party’s popular

vote in the preceding Presidential

election to the average popular vote

of the two major party candidates in

that election. In this case, Ross
October 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Perot, the Reform Party candidate in

1996, received 8.4 percent of the

popular vote.

In order to receive funding in a

given election, the minor party’s

nominees must provide evidence

showing that they have qualified to

appear on the ballot as the candidate

of that party in at least 10 states.

Pre-election minor party funding

has only occurred once before, in

1996, when Mr. Perot received

$29,055,400 based on his vote from

the 1992 general election.

Under the Presidential Election

Campaign Fund Act, Presidential

candidates who accept public

funding must agree to a $67.56

million spending limit for the

general election and a $50,000 limit

on their use of personal funds to

support their campaign. Minor

party candidates may accept contributions up to an amount equaling

the difference between the federal

funds they receive and the spending

limit. These candidates may also

accept contributions to their general

election legal and accounting fund

(GELAC fund). This fund is a

special account maintained exclusively to pay for legal and accounting expenses related to complying

with the campaign finance law.

Compliance expenses do not count

toward the expenditure limit, but

they are subject to the contribution

limits and prohibitions of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

FECA).

The Reform Party may spend an

additional $13,680,292 for coordinated expenditures on behalf of the

Buchanan-Foster campaign. These

funds are also subject to the limits,

prohibitions and disclosure requirements of the FECA. For more

information on the Reform Party’s

eligibility for public funding, see the

January 2000 Record, p. 16.✦

Matching Funds for 2000 Presidential Candidates:

August Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

 August 2000 Certifications

Gary L. Bauer (R) 1 $33, 183.11 $4,825,060.93

Bill Bradley (D) 2 $0.00 $12,462,047.69

Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform) 3 $102,246.67 $4,124,418.51

Al Gore (D) 4 $0.00 $15,456,083.75

John Hagelin (Natural Law) 5 $184,175.06 $573,670.06

Alan L. Keyes (R) 6 $243,984.07 $4,021,004.91

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) 7 $50,968.49 $1,285,116.95

John S. McCain (R) 8 $0.00 $14,475,333.10

Ralph Nader (G) 9 $385,522.92 $664,150.95

Dan Quayle(R) 10 $0.00 $2,102,525.00

1 Gary L. Bauer publicly withdrew from the race on February 4, 2000.

2 Bill Bradley publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

3 Patrick J. Buchanan became ineligible for matching funds on August 11, 2000.

4 Al Gore became ineligible for matching funds on August 16, 2000.

5 John Hagelin became ineligible for matching funds on August 31, 2000.

6 Alan L. Keyes became ineligible for matching funds on April 20, 2000.

7

 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., became ineligible for matching funds on August 16,

2000.

8 John S. McCain publicly withdrew from the race on March 9, 2000.

9 Ralph Nader became ineligible for matching funds on August 12, 2000.

10 Dan Quayle publicly withdrew from the race on September 27, 1999 .

August Matching Fund

Payments

On August 31, 2000, the Commission certified $1,000,080.32 in

matching funds to six Presidential

candidates. The U.S. Treasury

Department made the payments the

first day of September.

With these latest certifications,

the FEC has now declared ten

candidates eligible to receive a total

of $59,989,411.85 in federal matching funds for the 2000 election. The

above chart lists the most recent

certifications and cumulative

certifications (and payments) for

each candidate. ✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2000

8

FEC Roundtables

The Commission will host

another roundtable session on

December 6, 2000. See the table for

more details.

FEC roundtables, limited to 12

participants per session, focus on a

range of subjects. All roundtables

are conducted at the FEC’s headquarters in Washington, DC.

The registration fee is $25, and

participants will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis. Please

call the FEC before registering or

sending money to be sure that

openings remain in the session.

Prepayment is required. The registration form is available at the

FEC’s Web site—http://

www.fec.gov/pdf/rndtabl.pdf—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.✦

Outreach

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

December 6 New FEC Alternative • Lawyers and

9:30 - 11 a.m. Dispute Resolution Program Consultants to PACs,

• Explanation and Q/A about Campaigns and

new program for settling Political Parties

complaints and audit

referrals

• How program works

• Benefits for regulated

community

Public Appearances

October 5, 2000

Embassy of the Republic of

Singapore

Washington, D.C.

Penelope Bonsall

October 6, 2000

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, MA

Kate Miller

October 6-7, 2000

National Association of State

Election Directors

Leesburg, VA

Brian Hancock

October 18, 2000

American University

Washington, D.C.

Chairman Wold

October 24, 2000

IMF

Washington, D.C.

Bill Kimberling

Revised National Mail Voter

Registration

On August 8, 2000, the Commission approved changes to the state

information in the national voter

registration form for Alaska,

California, Connecticut, Hawaii,

Louisiana and Michigan. The

Commission also approved a

procedural change that allows the

Office of Election Administration

(the OEA) to make such changes

more rapidly in the future. Instead

of requesting a formal Commission

vote approving the update of state

information, the OEA will make the

changes and notify the Commission

of them. The OEA will, however,

continue to submit for a formal

Commission vote any changes to the

form that are not specific to a given

state.✦

Election

Administration

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record starting

with January 1996 are available

through the Internet as PDF files.

Visit the FEC’s World Wide Web

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

click on “What’s New” for this

issue. Click “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” to see back issues. Future Record issues will be

posted on the web as well. You

will need Adobe® Acrobat®

Reader software to view the publication. The FEC’s web site has

a link that will take you to Adobe’s

web site, where you can download

the latest version of the software

for free.
October 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected1 Total

Jul. ’95 1,670 334 804 43 129 1,002 3,982

Dec. ’95 1,674 334 815 44 129 1,020 4,016

Jul. ’96 1,645 332 829 43 126 1,058 4,033

Dec. ’96 1,642 332 838 41 123 1,103 4,079

Jul. ’972 1,602 332 826 41 118 953 3,875

Dec. ’97 1,597 332 825 42 117 931 3,844

Jul. ’98 1,565 325 820 43 112 897 3,762

Dec. ’98 1,567 321 821 39 115 935 3,798

Jul. ’99 1,540 318 826 38 115 941 3,778

Dec. ’99 1,548 318 844 38 115 972 3,835

Jul. ’00 1,523 316 812 39 114 902 3,706

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

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

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

2

 During the first six months of 1997, 227 PACs were administratively terminated

because of inactivity.

Midyear PAC Count Shows

Slight Decrease from

December 1999

The FEC’s semiannual PAC

count reveals that the number of

PACs has decreased slightly since

the last count was taken in January

2000. The table at right shows the

midyear and year-end PAC figures

since 1995. To see a complete

listing of PAC statistics dating back

to 1975, visit the FEC’s Web site

(http://www.fec.gov) or request a

copy of the agency’s August 22,

2000, press release (call 800/424-

9530 and press 3 for the Public

Records Office or press 2 for the

Press Office).✦

Candidate Office Sought Report Not Filed

Abair, Peter J. House MA/01 Pre-Primary

Buchanan, Patrick J. Presidential August Monthly

Carroll, Jennifer S. House FL/03 Pre-Primary

Clarke, Una S. House NY/11 Pre-Primary

Diaz-Balart, Lincoln House FL/21 Pre-Primary

Detro, Mark House OK/02 Pre-Primary

Dodd, Douglas J. House FL/02 Pre-Primary

Ducey, Susan G. House OK/04 Pre-Primary

Fee, John House NY/30 Pre-Primary

Harris, Kevin Bruce House AZ/06 Pre-Primary

Lafalce, John J. House NY/29 Pre-Primary

Meeks, Gregory W. House NY/06 Pre-Primary

Sessman, Ray Senate FL Pre-Primary

Troutt, Eric D. House OK/02 Pre-Primary

Nonfilers

The campaign committees of the

candidates listed at right failed to

file required campaign finance

disclosure reports. The list is based

on recent FEC news releases. The

FEC is required by law to publicize

the names of nonfiling campaign

committees. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7).

The agency handles nonfiler cases

through its Administrative Fines

Program.✦

Statistics

FECFile Help on Web

 The manual for the Commission’s FECFile 3 electronic filing

software is now available on the

FEC’s web site. You can download a PDF version of the manual

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

fecfile3.pdf.

Compliance

(continued from page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD October 2000

10

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2000 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “3:4” means

that the article is in the March issue

on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

Alternative disposition of 2000-09,

10:5

Reconsideration of 2000-08, 10:5

1999-24: Web site sponsored by

LLC featuring information on

candidates, 1:17

1999-29: Fundraising exemption

from state limits for direct mailing

by Presidential committee, 1:19

1999-30: Application of allocation

ratio in state with single house

legislature, 1:20

1999-31: Application of one-third

rule to prizes and premiums used

in connection with payroll

deduction, 1:21

1999-32: Indian tribe’s utility

authority treated as separate from

the tribe, 3:4

1999-33: Delayed transmittal of

payroll deductions, 3:5

1999-34: Use of campaign funds to

finance charity event, 2:2

1999-35: Soliciting for SSF through

electronic deduction system, 2:4

1999-36: Fundraising via electronic

checks and Internet fund transfers,

3:5

1999-37: PAC distribution of

express advocacy communications through Web site and email, 4:1

1999-39: Disaffiliation of SSFs after

corporate restructuring, 4:5

1999-40: Solicitation of members of

rural electric cooperatives, 5:6

2000-1: Paid leave of absence for

attorney seeking federal office,

Index

4:5

2000-2: Campaign rental of candidate-owned office, 5:7

2000-3: PAC’s payment for corporate communication, 5:8

2000-4: Automatic Deductions for

credit union PAC, 5:8

2000-5: Application of $25,000

limit to contributions by Indian

tribe, 7:8

2000-6: Use of federal convention

funds to develop voter data base

and balloting system, 7:9

2000-7: Use of corporate web sites

to provide PAC information and

solicit contributions, 7:9

2000-10: “Permission to solicit

form” placed on trade association

Web page, 8:8

2000-11: Misplaced payrolldeducted contributions, 8:9

2000-12: Using campaign funds to

pay convention expenses of

former presidential candidates,

9:5

2000-13: Internet video coverage of

Republican and Democratic

national conventions, 8:9

2000-14: Status of New York State

Committee of the Working

Families Party as state committee,

9:6

2000-15: Payroll deduction by trade

association’s affiliated member,

9:7

2000-16: Political ads on Internet

for academic study, 10:2

2000-17: Establishment of separate

segregated fund by subsidiary of

foreign corporation, 9:7

2000-18: Closing date for Nader

2000 matching funds, 10:3

2000-19: Retroactively reallocating

ballot composition ratio, 10:4

2000-21: New York Conservative

Party as State Committee, 10:5

Compliance

Administrative Fines Program,

5:1,7:1, 10:1

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Program, 7:2, 8:10

MUR 3774: Failure to allocate

expenses between federal and

nonfederal accounts for get-outthe-vote drive conducted by third

party, 3:3

MUR 4322 and 4650: Violations by

candidate, campaign committees,

treasurer and relative, 2:1

MUR 4648: Failure to disclose

purpose of expenditures and other

violations, 3:4

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 8:12

– Arlen Specter ‘96, 8:14

– Becker, 8:13

– Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9

– Patrick J. Buchanan, et. al., 9:8

– DNC, 4:6

– DSCC, 1:2

– Fulani, Lenora B., 7:7

– Hooker, John Jay, 6:9, 7:8

– Unified Independent Party,

Committee for, 7:8

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 3:8

FEC v. _____

– Christian Coalition, 4:7

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 7:1, 10:6

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 6:8

– Friend for Fasi, 3:9, 8:14

– Fund for Conservative Majority

(Heckman), 6:8

– National Rifle Association, 6:9

– Salvi for Senate Committee, 6:9

– Toledano, James, 6:9

Other

– Fireman v. USA, 1:13

– Hooker v. All Contributors, 8:15

– Mariani v. USA, 1:3, 7:7

– Reform Party v. Gargan, 5:9, 7:8

– Shrink PAC v. Nixon, 3:7

(continued on back cover)
October 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

It has been brought to our attention that many

committees do not have copies of the Campaign

Guides – the single most valuable tool available to

committees.

For each type of committee, a Campaign Guide

explains, in clear English, the complex regulations

regarding the activity of political committees. It

shows readers, for example, how to fill out FEC

reports and illustrates how the law applies to practical situations.

Order Form

Name:________________________________________________________

Name of Committee:____________________________________________

Address:____________________________________ City:______________

State:______ Zip Code:_______________

Campaign Guide Number of Copies

For Congressional Candidates and Committees:

For Corporations and Labor Organizations:

For Nonconnected Committees:

For Political Party Committees:

Fold

Fold Over

We publish four Campaign Guides, each for a

different type of committee, and are happy to mail

your committee as many copies as you need, free of

charge. We encourage you to view them on our

Web site (go to www.fec.gov, then click on “Campaign Finance Law Resources” and then scroll down

to “Publications”).

If you would like to place an order for paper

copies of the Campaign Guides, please call 800-

424-9530, or return the form below by mail.

Campaign Guides Available!

Please fold this form into thirds, seal it and drop it in the mail.
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 October 2000

Regulations

Administrative Fines, 5:1, 7:1

Coordination, 1:14; 4:3

Election Cycle Reporting, 6:1, 8:4

Electronic Filing, 5:1, 8:1

Electronic Freedom of Information

Act, 4:1

Express Advocacy, 4:2

Presidential Public Funding, 5:3

Repayments by Federally Financed

Presidential Primary Campaign

Committees, 4:2

State Waivers, 4:3, 7:5

Reports

Georgia special election, 9:4

October reporting reminder, 9:1

On-line 48-hour notices, 10:1

Reports due in 2000, 1:5

Reports due in July, 6:1

State Filing Waiver, 1:2; 2:5, 4:3,

5:5, 6:3, 7:5

Virginia Convention Reports, 5:5

Web access to Senate candidates’

campaign finance reports, 10:1

Index

(continued from page 10)