August 2005 Federal Election Commission Volume 31, Number 8

Table of Contents

 Court Cases

 1 FEC v. Friends of Lane Evans, et. 

al.

 4 John Hagelin, et. al. v. FEC

 Regulations

 1 Candidate Solicitation at State 

Party Fundraisers

 2 Internet Hearing

 3 Notice of Public Hearing

5 Advisory Opinions

 Statistics

 6 Congressional Candidate Spending

 Outreach

 6 State Outreach Workshops

 6 Conferences

 7 Index

Court Cases

FEC v. Friends of Lane 

Evans, et. al.

On June 27, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Central District 

of Illinois signed a consent judgment reflecting an agreement in this 

case between the Commission and 

Friends of Lane Evans, the 17th 

District Victory Fund and the Rock 

Island Democratic Central Committee. Under the consent agreement, 

the defendants neither admit nor 

deny violating the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act), but agree to 

pay civil penalties. Friends of Lane 

Evans will pay a $185,000 civil 

penalty for violations by the Evans 

campaign and the 17th District Victory Fund, while the Rock Island 

Democratic Central Committee has 

agreed to a $30,000 civil penalty for 

its role in the violations.1

Court Decision

The consent judgment signed by 

the court decrees that the defendants 

committed violations of the Act 

as presented in the Commission’s 

January 30, 2004, court complaint. 

(continued on page 2)

1 This court case originated as MUR 

5031. Additional information on this 

MUR is available through the Enforcement Query System on the FEC’s web 

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

(continued on page 4)

Regulations

Candidate Solicitation at 

State Party Fundraisers

On June 23, 2005, the Commission approved a revised Explanation 

and Justification for its rule at 11 

CFR 300.64, regarding appearances 

by federal candidates and officeholders at state, district and local party 

fundraisers. The rule, which was not 

amended, contains an exemption 

permitting federal candidates and 

officeholders to speak at such events 

“without restriction or regulation.”

Background

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), federal candidates, officeholders and their agents 

may not solicit, receive, direct, 

transfer or spend nonfederal funds in 

connection with federal or nonfederal elections except under limited circumstances. See 2 U.S.C. §441i(e). 

However, the Act permits them to 

speak or be featured guests at state, 

district and local party fundraisers 

(“state party fundraisers”), where 

nonfederal funds may be raised. See 

2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(3). 

The Commission’s regulation at 

11 CFR 300.64 permits federal candidates and officeholders to speak 

without restriction or regulation at 

these fundraisers. In Shays v. FEC
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2005

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)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Michael E. Toner, Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald, 

 Commissioner

Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, 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

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

the court found that, although this 

exemption was a permissible interpretation of the statute, the Explanation and Justification for the rule did 

not satisfy the “reasoned analysis” 

requirement of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA). The court 

remanded the regulation to the Commission for further action consistent 

with its opinion. 

Accordingly, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comments both 

on proposed changes to the Explanation and Justification for the existing 

rule and on a proposal to amend the 

regulation to prohibit federal candidates and officeholders from soliciting or directing nonfederal funds 

when attending or speaking at state 

party fundraisers. The Commission 

held a public hearing on May 17 to 

receive testimony concerning this 

NPRM. See the June 2005 Record, 

page 6, and the April 2005 Record, 

page 4.

Revised E&J

After considering public comments and testimony, the Commission decided to retain the current 

exemption in 11 CFR 300.64 

permitting federal candidates and 

officeholders to attend, speak or be 

featured guests at state party fundraisers without restriction or regulation. The Commission determined 

that the existing rule provides the 

“more natural” interpretation of the 

statute, is more consistent with legislative intent and provides federal 

candidates and officeholders with 

clear notice regarding permissible 

speech at state party fundraisers. 

The revised Explanation and Justification explains how the existing 

rule effectuates the careful balance 

Congress struck between the need to 

avoid the appearance of corruption 

created when large amounts of soft 

money are solicited and the need to 

preserve the legitimate and appropriate role that federal officeholders 

and candidates play in raising funds 

for their political parties—especially 

at the grass-roots level. 

The revised Explanation and Justification was published in the June 

30, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 

37649) and is available on the FEC 

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

law_rulemakings.shtml and from

the FEC faxline, 202/501-3413.

 —Amy Kort

Internet Hearing 

On June 28 and 29, 2005, the 

Commission hosted a public hearing 

concerning its Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that would 

encompass some paid Internet ads 

within the definition of “public 

communication.” The NPRM also 

republishes and invites comments 

on the current definition of “generic 

campaign activity,” which would 

incorporate the new definition of 

“public communication.” The proposed changes are in response to the 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia’s recent decision in 

Shays v. FEC, which held that the 

current definitions of “public communication” and “generic campaign 

activity” impermissibly exclude all 

Internet communications. For more 

information on the NPRM, see the 

May 2005 issue of the Record, page 

1.

Twenty witnesses, including bloggers, students, economists, campaign 

finance attorneys and representatives 

from non-profit political organizations, offered opinions as to how the 

proposed rules could affect Internet 

activity. Most stressed the uniquely 

democratic nature of the Internet and 

cautioned the Commission against 

adopting regulations that might 

restrict the ability of average citizens to use the medium for political 

participation. 

Several witnesses felt that the 

application of the media exemption1

to certain Internet content would 

be the best way to protect online 

speech, while others believed that 

monetary thresholds and the exemption for individual volunteer activity 

would sufficiently shield grassroots 

political speech from regulation. 

Some witnesses worried that a broad 

application of the media exemption 

would open a new loophole in the 

law that could be exploited by corporations and labor unions online. 

Still others urged the Commission 

to seek more specific comments and 

undertake separate rulemakings to 

address outstanding issues.

Media Exemption 

In his testimony, Reid Cox, 

representing the Center for Indi1 Under the Act, a news story, commentary or editorial distributed through 

the facilities of a broadcasting station, 

newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication is not considered an 

“expenditure” unless the facilities are 

owned or controlled by a political party, 

political committee or candidate. 2 

U.S.C.§431(9)(B)(1).
August 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

vidual Freedom, argued for a broad 

application of the media exemption to all Internet commentary to 

“counteract the chilling effect” he 

believed the new regulations would 

have on political speech. In making 

a similar argument, Mike Krempansky of Redstate.org added that blogs 

often provide information faster and 

more comprehensively than mainstream media because they are “free 

from the constraints of bureaucratic 

hierarchies and concerns of column 

inches,” and thus deserve equal treatment under the law. Markos Moulitsas from DailyKos.com echoed 

these sentiments, but cautioned the 

Commission against identifying 

specific technologies (such as blogging) in its regulations lest future 

Internet applications fall outside of 

their scope. 

By contrast, some panelists 

strongly opposed extending the 

media exemption to online activities. Rather than trying to determine 

which Internet sites are entitled to 

the exemption, Karl Sandstrom, 

representing OMB Watch, urged 

the Commission to value all Internet communications at $0. Carol 

Darr, from the Institute for Politics, 

Democracy and the Internet, warned 

that if the media exemption is 

broadened to encompass all activities on the Internet, there is nothing 

to stop corporations and unions from 

spending large amounts of money to 

influence elections through a blog or 

Internet site, which is the very activity that the sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) 

meant to halt. 

Volunteer Exemption

In his testimony and written comments, Don Simon of Democracy 

21 supported the proposed volunteer 

exceptions in the NPRM as drafted. 

He also suggested that the Commission petition Congress to establish 

a $25,000 statutory threshold for 

an individual’s purchase of computer equipment to engage in online 

political activity. Similarly, Michael 

Bassik of the Online Coalition 

argued that the regulations should 

distinguish between inexpensive ads 

paid for by individuals and more 

costly ads paid for by a corporation. 

He also asked the Commission to 

clarify when online communications 

require a disclaimer. John Morris of 

the Center for Democracy and Technology supported the exemption for 

individual volunteer activities, but 

would like the regulations to articulate a specific exemption for individual’s online speech. Lawrence 

Noble of the Center for Responsive 

Politics favored a combination of 

high monetary thresholds for online 

activity and an individual volunteer 

exemption that would exempt most 

blogging activities; individuals or 

groups whose activities fall outside 

of those provisions may petition the 

Commission for application of the 

media exemption on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Further Regulation Unnecessary 

Several witnesses suggested that 

the Commission adopt a “wait and 

see approach” rather than promulgate new, complicated regulations at 

this time. Mark Elias of John Kerry 

for President Inc. and Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. asserted that online 

fraudulent solicitations, not political bloggers, are the most pressing 

problem faced by political committees. Therefore, Mr. Elias recommended that the Commission wait to 

craft new regulations until specific 

problems on the Internet are reported 

instead of anticipating problems 

which may or may not come to light. 

Similarly, Matt Stoller of BOPnews.

com contended that the Internet 

is less susceptible than the offline 

world to the corrosive effects of 

money in politics because it is ideas 

and credibility, rather than money, 

which garner attention online. Mr. 

Stoller believes that the use of Web 

space has brought little corruption, 

so further regulations by the Commission are unnecessary and may 

hamper the development of the 

political Internet.

Additional Commission Action

Some witnesses encouraged the 

Commission to take other action. 

Instead of producing a slew of 

regulations that attempt to clarify the 

definition of “public communication,” election-law attorney Robert 

Bauer suggested that the Commission put the public at ease by issuing 

concurrently a “statement of policy” 

that explains what the regulated 

community can expect from the 

Commission’s future actions. Lawrence Gold of the AFL-CIO pointed 

out that corporate facilities regulations already address the use of 

corporate or labor union facilities for 

volunteer activities so the addition of 

Internet usage to regulatory amendments is unnecessary. However, Mr. 

Gold suggested that the Commission 

ask for another round of comments 

that specifically address how activities over the Internet should be 

quantified and valued. Similarly, 

Trevor Potter of the Campaign Legal 

Center believes that the Commission’s actions should be limited 

only to amending the definition 

of public communication, per the 

court’s order, and issues such as the 

application of the media exemption 

and party committee activities on 

the Internet should be addressed in a 

separate rulemaking.

Additional Information

The full text of the NPRM and 

public comments submitted to 

the commission are available on 

the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.

shtml#internet05.

 —Amy Pike

Notice of Public Hearing

The Commission will hold a 

public hearing on August 4, 2005 at 

10:00 a.m. for the following rulemakings: (1) State, district and local 

party committee payment of certain 

salaries; and (2) the definition of 

“Federal Election Activity.”
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2005

4

According to that complaint, during the 1998 and 2000 elections, 

Congressman Lane Evans’ campaign 

committee established a purportedly independent committee, the 17th

District Victory Fund (the Victory 

Fund), that was in fact nothing more 

than an alter ego of the Congressman’s campaign committee. 

For the 1998 and 2000 elections, 

a candidate’s principal campaign 

committee could accept up to $1,000 

per election from an individual, and 

the committees of a national party 

could accept up to $20,000 per year 

in the aggregate from an individual. 

Any other political committee could 

accept $5,000 per year from an 

individual. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1). 

Additionally, under the Act an 

expenditure made by any person in 

“cooperation, consultation or concert 

with, or at the request or suggestion 

of, a candidate, his authorized political committees, or their agents” is 

considered a contribution to the candidate. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(7)(B)(i). 

Corporations and unions are barred 

from making contributions or expenditures in connection with any 

federal election. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a).

During the period in question, the 

Victory Fund raised and spent more 

than $500,000. Congressman Evans 

and his staff raised a majority of the 

money contributed to the Victory 

Fund, including more than $200,000 

in prohibited contributions from 

labor union treasury funds. 

The Victory Fund then spent 

the majority of its funds on voter 

identification and get-out-the-vote 

activities promoting Congressman 

Evans. The Commission found that 

at least $330,000 of these campaignfocused activities were so closely 

coordinated with the campaign that 

they represented contributions from 

the Victory Fund to Congressman 

Evans. The contributions exceeded 

the Act’s limits and included funds 

from sources prohibited by the Act. 

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

In addition, in 1998 the Rock 

Island Democratic Central Committee (the Rock Island Committee) 

spent approximately $18,000 on a 

radio ad, two direct mail pieces and 

a newspaper ad that expressly advocated the Congressman’s re-election 

and were coordinated with the Evans 

Committee. These coordinated expenditures exceeded the applicable 

$1,000 contribution limit and the 

communications did not include the 

required disclaimer stating whether 

they were authorized by Congressman Evans or the Evans Committee. 

2 U.S.C. §441d(a).

The Rock Island Committee 

failed to register as a political committee and did not report its financial 

activity, even though it received 

several hundred thousand dollars 

during the 1998 and 2000 cycles 

after becoming a political committee. See 2 U.S.C. §433. Also, while 

it did not establish separate federal 

and nonfederal accounts, it accepted 

contributions outside the Act’s limits 

and prohibitions. See the March 

2004 Record, page 9.

In addition to the civil penalties 

assessed, the agreement requires the 

Victory Fund to pay the Commission 

all funds remaining in its accounts 

on the date that the parties executed 

the Stipulation for Entry of Consent 

Judgment. The court also enjoined 

the defendants from committing 

similar violations of the Act in the 

future.

U.S. District Court for the Central 

District of Illinois, 04-CV-4003.

 —Amy Kort

John Hagelin, et. al. v. FEC

On June 10, 2005, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia found that the 

FEC’s decision to dismiss an administrative complaint, which asserted 

that the Commission on Presidential 

Debates (CPD) was partisan and 

therefore could not lawfully sponsor 

Presidential debates, was supported 

by substantial evidence and thus not 

contrary to law. The appeals court 

held that, given the highly deferential nature of judicial review of the 

Commission’s decision to dismiss 

a complaint, the district court erred 

when it based its ruling against the 

FEC on the court’s own evaluation of the CPD’s explanation of its 

actions, rather than an examination 

of whether substantial evidence 

supported the FEC’s conclusion that 

CPD’s actions were not partisan. 

The Court of Appeals reversed the 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia’s earlier judgment and 

remanded the case to the District 

Court with instructions to enter judgment for the FEC. 

John Hagelin, Ralph Nader, 

Patrick Buchanan, Howard Phillips, 

Winona LaDuke, the Natural Law 

Party, the Green Party of the United 

States and the Constitution Party 

had asked the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia to find that 

the Commission’s dismissal of an 

administrative complaint dated June 

17, 2003, was arbitrary, capricious 

and contrary to law. On August 

12, 2004, the District Court had 

granted in part and denied in part 

the motion for summary judgment 

brought against the FEC. It also 

granted in part and denied in part the 

FEC’s cross-motion for summary 

judgment. On October 6, 2004, the 

District Court granted the FEC’s motion to stay its decision in the case, 

pending appeal. See also Hagelin 

et. al. v. FEC in the August 2004 

Record, page 9, the October 2004 

Record, page 3, and the November 

2004 Record, page 3.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit, 

No. 04-5312.

 —Meredith Trimble
August 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

Montana Joins State 

Waiver Program

 With the recent addition of 

Montana, all 50 states plus the 

territories of American Samoa 

and U.S. Virgin Islands are 

participants in the FEC State 

Filing Waiver Program.

 Under this program, Presidential, 

U.S. Senate and U.S. House 

of Representatives campaign 

committees, PACs and party 

committees are exempt from 

filing paper copies of their federal 

campaign finance reports with the 

state election offices. 

 This exemption applies only to 

the filing of federal campaign 

finance disclosure reports required 

under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. Paper copies of 

federal reports are still required 

to be filed with the appropriate 

offices in Guam and Puerto Rico. 

 For more information, call the 

Public Disclosure Division at 

202/694-1120.

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2005-6

Former Officeholder May 

Donate Campaign Funds to 

Charity

Former Representative Scott 

McInnis may donate campaign funds 

from Friends of Scott McInnis, Inc. 

(the Committee) to Friends of McInnis Canyons National Conservation 

Area (Friends of McInnis Canyons 

NCA), a not-for-profit charitable 

organization that will neither employ 

nor otherwise compensate the former Representative or his family.

Background

Friends of McInnis Canyons NCA 

is a not-for-profit organization that is 

incorporated in Colorado. The organization is in the process of applying 

for tax exempt status under section 

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue 

Code (IRC). The organization’s 

mission is to support the McInnis 

Canyons National Conservation 

Area in Colorado, which is named 

after former Congressman Scott 

McInnis, by providing funds and 

volunteers to do such things as trail 

maintenance, habitat improvement 

and educational activities. None of 

the organization’s funds will be used 

to influence any federal election, 

and neither former Representative 

McInnis nor any member of his family will receive any income from the 

organization.

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) provides that campaign funds may be donated to any 

charitable organization described in 

26 U.S.C. 170(c),1 but may not be 

“converted by any person to any personal use.” 2 U.S.C. §§439a(a)(3) 

and (b)(1); 11 CFR 113.2(b) and 

113.1(g)(2). The regulations explain 

that campaign donations to charitable organizations are not personal 

use unless the candidate (former or 

current) receives compensation from 

the organization before that organization has expended, for purposes 

unrelated to the candidate’s personal 

benefit, the entire amount donated to 

it. 11 CFR 113.1(g)(2).2

Although Friends of McInnis 

Canyons NCA bears former Representative McInnis’ name, it will not 

employ, compensate or financially 

benefit Mr. McInnis or any member 

of his family. As a result—assuming 

the IRS approves Friends of McInnis Canyons NCA’s application for 

510(c)(3) status—the Committee 

may permissibly donate campaign 

funds to the organization.

The Committee must report its 

donations as “Other Disbursements” 

on its FEC reports. 

Date Issued: June 23, 2005;

Length: 5 pages.

 —Meredith Trimble

1 Charities that qualify for tax exempt 

status under section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code (IRC) are described in section 170(c) of the IRC.

2 See Advisory Opinions 1997-1 and 

1996-40, which consider the application 

of the Act and Commission regulations 

to situations similar to the circumstances presented in 2005-6.

Alternative Disposition of 

Advisory Opinion Request

On June 20, 2005, the requestor 

withdrew Advisory Opinion Request 

2005-8, regarding the permissibility 

of a national bank’s donations to a 

state candidate’s legal defense fund.

Congressional Candidates 

Spend Nearly $1.16 Billion 

During 2003-2004 

House and Senate candidates 

spent a total of $1.157 billion seeking office during 2003-2004. The 

2,219 candidates who participated in 

primary and general election campaigns for the U.S. Congress raised a 

total of $1.206 billion dollars during 

those two years. These figures represent a 24 percent increase over the 

Congressional campaigns of 2002. 

During 2003-2004, Senate candidates raised $497.5 million and 

spent $496.4 million, about 52 percent more than 2002 levels. House 

candidates also increased their 

financial activity during 2003-2004, 

raising $708.5 million—10 percent 

above 2002 totals—while spending 

Statistics

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2005

6

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the web site 

at http://www.fec.gov/law/law_

rulemakings.shtml and from the 

FEC faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2005-15

Travel on Behalf of Candidates 

and Political Committees, 

Announcement of Effective Date 

(70 FR 33689, June 9, 2005)

Notice 2005-16

Inflation Adjustments for Civil 

Monetary Penalties, Final Rules 

(70 FR 34633, June 15, 2005)

Outreach

FEC to Hold State Outreach 

Workshops in August

As part of the FEC’s State Outreach Program, Public Affairs Specialists conduct informal meetings 

in different cities across the country 

to brief PACs, party committees and 

candidate committees on areas of 

the law specific to their needs. This 

summer, FEC staff will hold workshops in the following cities:

• Denver, CO, August 10-11; and

• Portland, OR, August 23-24.

Registration for these programs is 

free. Visit the FEC web site at www.

fec.gov/info/outreach.shtml#state 

for additional information, including workshop schedules for each 

program. For additional information about this outreach program, or 

to register for one of the sessions, 

call the FEC’s Information Division at 1-800/424-9530 (or locally, 

202/694-1100) or send an email to 

Conferences@fec.gov with your 

contact information (name, organization, phone number, fax number 

and email address). Please identify 

the particular city in which you wish 

to attend a session.

 —Amy Kort

Campaign Finance Law 

Training Conferences in San 

Diego and San Antonio

In September and October the 

Commission will hold conferences 

for House and Senate campaigns, 

political party committees and 

corporations, labor organizations, 

trade associations, membership 

organizations and their respective 

PACs. The conferences will consist 

of a series of workshops conducted 

by Commissioners and experienced 

FEC staff who will explain how the 

federal campaign finance law applies 

to each of these groups. Workshops 

will specifically address recent 

$660.3 million, up seven percent 

from the previous election. 

Contributions directly from individuals totaled $720.8 million and, 

at 60 percent of total receipts, represent the largest source of funds for 

both House and Senate candidates. 

Contributions from political action 

committees (PACs) totaled $289.1 

million, or 24 percent of receipts. 

Candidates themselves provided 

$133.3 million, which represented 

11 percent of all fundraising. Contributions directly from individuals 

played a larger role in Senate campaigns (65 percent of receipts) than 

in House races (56 percent), while 

PACs represent a larger percentage 

of receipts for House candidates 

(32 percent vs. 13 percent in Senate 

races).

Additional Information

Additional information is available in a Press Release dated June 9, 

2005, which is available on the FEC 

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

press2005/2005news.shtml. The 

release provides:

•An overall summary of all Senate 

and House campaigns based on 

political party and candidate status 

(incumbent, challenger and open 

seat);

•An overall summary of Senate and 

House general election campaigns 

based on political party and candidate status;

•Comparable statistics for seven 

campaign cycles;

•Median activity for various types of 

House races and comparisons with 

prior elections;

•Contributions from individuals by 

size of contribution;

•Six-year financial summaries for 

2004 Senate candidates;

•Financial summaries for all general 

election House candidates; and

•Top 50 rankings of candidates in 

various categories.

—Amy Kort

Statistics

(continued from page 5)

changes to the campaign finance law 

and will focus on fundraising and reporting rules. A representative from 

the IRS will be available to answer 

election-related tax questions.

Conference in San Diego

The San Diego Conference will 

be held September 14-15 at the 

Hyatt Regency Islandia. The registration fee for this conference is 

$350, which covers the cost of the 

conference, materials and meals. A 

$10 late fee will be added to registrations received after August 17. 

For additional information on this 

conference, please visit the FEC web 

site at http://www.fec.gov/info/conference_materials/san_diego_conference_05.shtml. 

The Hyatt Regency Islandia is 

located on Mission Bay, near Sea 

World, at 1441 Quivira Road, San 

Diego, CA, 92101. A room rate of 

$169 per night, single or double, is 

available to conference participants 

who make reservations on or before 

August 17. After August 17, room 

rates are based on availability. To 

make hotel reservations, visit the 

hotel’s online reservations web page 
August 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

at https://resweb.passkey.com/

Resweb.do?mode=welcome_ei_

new&eventID=19000, or call 619-

224-1234. To receive the conference 

rate, you must indicate that you are 

attending the FEC conference. 

Conference in San Antonio

The San Antonio Conference will 

be held October 25-26 at the Crowne 

Plaza Hotel San Antonio Riverwalk. 

The registration fee for this conference is $350, which covers the costs 

of the conference, materials and 

meals. A $10 late fee will be added 

to registrations received after September 30.

The Crowne Plaza Hotel is 

located at 111 Pecan Street East, 

San Antonio, TX, 78205, in San 

Antonio’s famous Riverwalk area. A 

$129 room rate, single or double, is 

available for conference participants 

who make reservations on or before 

September 30. To receive this special 

rate, you must mention that you are 

attending the FEC conference. After 

September 30, room rates are based 

on availability. Call 1-888-623-2800 

to make reservations.

Registration Information

Complete registration information for FEC conferences is 

available on the FEC web site at 

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

shtml#conferences.

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

at 1-800/246-7277. For questions 

about the conference program, call 

the FEC’s Information Division 

at 1-800/424-9530 (or locally at 

202/694-1100) or send an e-mail to 

Conferences@fec.gov.

Please note that the FEC suggests 

that you wait to make your hotel and 

air reservations until you have received confirmation of your conference registration.

 —Amy Kort

Index

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2005 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

2004-40: Status of state party as 

state committee of political party, 

1:8

2004-41: Non-affiliation of SSFs, 

2:4

2004-42: LLC as connected organization for SSF, 2:7

2004-43: Discounted sale of ad time 

not a contribution, 4:6

2004-45: Accounting method for 

determining excess contributions 

under Millionaires’ Amendment, 

3:7

2005-1: Indian tribe not a federal 

contractor, 5:8

2005-2: Fundraising for nonfederal 

committees by federal officeholder 

who is nonfederal candidate, 6:7

2005-3: Affiliation of membership 

organizations, 6:8

2004-4: Reporting court-ordered 

restitution owed to campaign committee, 6:9

2005-5: Federal candidate/officeholder’s use of funds from nonfederal exploratory committee, 7:8

2005-6: Former officeholder may 

donate campaign funds to charity, 

8:5

Compliance

Administrative fines assessed, 2:13; 

6:13

ADR program update, 1:9; 2:12; 4:9; 

5:7; 6:10

MUR 5020: Corporate facilitation, 

4:6

MUR 5405: Contributions in the 

name of another and corporate 

contributions, 6:5

MUR 5428: Excessive and prohibited contributions, improper allocation and reporting violations, 6:6

MUR 5183: Corporate contributions, 

7:4

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Alliance for Democracy, 4:4

– Augusti and Augusti for Congress, 

1:12

– Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington (04-2145), 

2:10

– Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington (04-1672), 

7:3

– EMILY’s List, 3:1; 4:1

–Hagelin, 8:4

– Judicial Watch, 4:3

– Kean for Congress, 4:3

– Sykes, 6:5

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 7:1

FEC v. _____ 

– Democratic Party of New Mexico, 

6:1

–Friends of Lane Evans, et. al., 8:1

Regulations

“Agent” definition for coordinated 

and independent expenditures 

and nonfederal funds regulations, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

3:4; public hearing scheduled, 5:5; 

public hearing, 7:6

BCRA technical amendments, final 

rules, 1:6

Candidate solicitation at state, 

district and local party committee 

fundraisers, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 4:4; public hearing 

scheduled, 5:5; public hearing, 

7:6; Revised Explanation and 

Justification, 8:1

Civil penalties adjusted for inflation, 

7:5

Contributions by minors to candidates and party committees, final 

rules, 3:3

“De minimis” exemption for Disbursement of Levin funds by state, 

district and local party committees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 3:6

(continued on page 8)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2005

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Index

(continued from page 7)

“Federal Election Activity” definition, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6:1; public hearing scheduled, 8:3 

Filing by Priority Mail, Express 

Mail and overnight delivery, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2:1; 

final rules, 5:4

Internet communications, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 5:1; Hearing on proposed rules, 8:2

Party committee donations to certain 

tax-exempt organizations and 

political organizations, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 1:7; final 

rules, 5:4

Payroll deductions for contributions 

to trade association SSF, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 2:2; public 

hearing scheduled, 5:5; public 

hearing, 7:6

Salaries and wages paid by state, 

district and local party committees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6:3; public hearing scheduled, 8:3

Travel rules for certain Presidential 

candidates, effective date, 7:6

Reports

April reporting reminder, 4:1

California special election reporting, 

2:3

Due in 2005, 1:3

Electronic filing software, FEC 

Form 3X, updated, 2:1

July reporting reminder, 7:1

Ohio special election, 6:14