February 2007 Federal Election Commission Volume 33, Number 2

Table of Contents

(continued on page 2)

 

Court Cases

Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC

On December 21, 2006, a threejudge panel of the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia issued a 2-1 decision 

granting Wisconsin Right to Life’s 

(WRTL’s) motion for summary 

judgment, finding the electioneering 

communications (EC) provisions 

unconstitutional “as applied” to 

three broadcast ads WRTL had intended to run before the 2004 election. Based on the court’s decision, 

the ads would not have been subject 

to the ban on the use of corporate 

treasury funds to finance ECs.

Background

Under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, an EC is 

defined, with some exceptions, 

as any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that refers to a 

clearly identified federal candidate 

and is publicly distributed within 

60 days before the general election or 30 days before a primary 

election or a nominating convention for the office sought by the 

candidate. 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3) and 

11 CFR 100.29. Corporations may 

not finance ECs using their general 

Limits for 2007-2008

Under the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), certain 

contribution limits are indexed for 

inflation every two years, based on 

the change in the cost of living since 

2001, which is the base year for 

adjusting these limits.1

 The inflationadjusted limits are:

• The limits on contributions made 

by persons to candidates and national party committees (2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(1)(A) and (B)); 

• The biennial aggregate contribution limits for individuals (2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(3)); and 

• The limit on contributions made by 

certain political party committees (2 

U.S.C. §441a(h)).

Please see the chart on page 2 for 

the contribution amount limits applicable for 2007-2008.

The inflation adjustments to 

these limits are made only in oddnumbered years, and—except for 

the biennial limit—the limits are in 

effect for the two-year election cycle 

beginning on the day after the general 

election and ending on the date of the 

next general election. The biennial 

(continued on page 2)

1

 The applicable cost of living adjustment amount is 13.9 percent. 

Contribution Contribution Limits Limits

 1 Limits for 2007-2008

 Court Cases

 1 Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC

 3 CREW v. FEC

 4 Unity ‘08 v. FEC

Compliance

 5 Policy Statement on Reporting of 

“Purpose of Disbursement”

6 Advisory Opinions

 Staff

 6 General Counsel and Deputy 

Resign

 Information

 7 Reporting Notices Enter the 

Electronic Age 

 7 Index 
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2007

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)

Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman

David M. Mason, Vice Chairman

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

Hans A. von Spakovsky, 

 Commissioner

Steven T. Walther, Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner

Patrina M. Clark,

 Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, 

 General Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Meredith E. Metzler, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

treasury funds.1 2 U.S.C. §441b(a)-

(b) and 11 CFR 114.2 and 114.14.

WRTL originally filed suit in the 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia on July 28, 2004, 

asking the court to find the ban on 

corporate treasury funding of ECs 

unconstitutional as applied to what 

it called “grassroots lobbying” communications planned for the period 

before the 2004 elections. After 

the district court denied WRTL’s 

motion for a preliminary injunction 

and dismissed its complaint, WRTL 

appealed to the Supreme Court. 

On January 23, 2006, the Supreme 

Court vacated the judgment and 

remanded to the district court to 

reconsider the merits of WRTL’s 

“as applied” challenge. The district 

court held a hearing on September 

18, 2006, regarding motions for 

summary judgment as to WRTL’s 

2004 ads.

Court Decision

The three communications in 

question were two radio advertisements and one television advertisement WRTL had planned to 

run before the 2004 primary and 

general elections concerning anticipated filibusters of President Bush’s 

federal judicial nominees. The ads 

encouraged Wisconsin listeners and 

viewers to contact their Senators 

(Senators Feingold and Kohl) to 

urge them to oppose the filibusters. 

Senator Feingold was up for reelection in 2004, but Senator Kohl was 

not.

The three-judge panel considered 

the “as applied” challenge to the EC 

provisions based on two main arguments: whether the ads contained 

Contribution Limits

(continued from page 1)

1

 Commission regulations provide an 

exception allowing “qualified nonprofit 

corporations” to pay for electioneering 

communications. 11 CFR 114.2(b)(2). 

However, WRTL believes that it does not 

meet the definition of a qualified nonprofit corporation. 11 CFR 114.10.

limit covers the two-calendar-year 

period beginning on January 1 of the 

odd-numbered year and ending on 

December 31 of the even-numbered 

year.

Please note, however, that these 

limits do not apply to contributions 

raised to retire debts from past elections. Contributions may not exceed 

the contribution limits in effect on 

the date of the election for which 

those debts were incurred. 11 CFR 

110.1(b)(3)(iii).

The BCRA also introduced a 

rounding provision for all of the 

amounts that are increased by the 

indexing for inflation.2

 Under this 

provision, if the inflation-adjusted 

amount is not a multiple of $100, 

then the amount is rounded to the 

nearest $100.

—Meredith Metzler

2

 This provision also affects the indexing 

of coordinated party expenditure limits 

and Presidential expenditure limits. 2 

U.S.C. §§441a(b) and 441a(d).

Contribution Limits for 2007-2008

Type of Contribution Limit

Individuals/Non-multicandidate Committees 

to Candidates $2,300

Individuals/Non-multicandidate Committees

to National Party Committees $28,500

Biennial Limit for Individuals $108,2001

National Party Committee to a Senate Candidate $39,9002

1 This amount is composed of a $42,700 limit for what may be contributed to 

all candidates and a $65,500 limit for what may be contributed to all PACs and 

party committees. Of the $65,500 portion that may contributed to PACs and 

parties, only $42,700 may be contributed to state and local party committees 

and PACs.

2 This limit is shared by the national committee and the Senate campaign committee.
February 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

express advocacy for or against a 

federal candidate or the “functional 

equivalent” of express advocacy; 

and, if they did not, whether the 

government had demonstrated a 

compelling interest in regulating 

these ads.

Express advocacy. To determine 

whether WRTL’s 2004 anti-filibuster ads contained express advocacy, 

or its functional equivalent, the 

court considered only the text and 

images of the ads and declined to 

consider contextual factors bearing on the ads’ purpose or likely 

effect. The court’s evaluation was 

based upon whether the ads: 1) 

described an issue that was or 

“likely” soon would be a “subject 

of legislative scrutiny”; 2) referred 

to the prior voting record or current 

position of the named candidate 

on the described issue; 3) exhorted 

the audience to do anything other 

than contact the candidate about 

the described issue; 4) promoted, 

attacked, supported or opposed the 

named candidate; and 5) referred to 

an upcoming election, candidacy or 

party of the candidate.

Considering those five factors, 

the court found that the anti-filibuster ads did not contain express 

advocacy or its functional equivalent and thus were not “intended 

to influence the voters’ decisions.” 

The court noted that the ads did not 

mention an election, a candidacy 

or the individual’s “fitness for office.” While the ads discussed the 

filibuster issue, the court stated that 

they did not reference the Senators’ voting records, current or past, 

on this issue, and that they did not 

promote, attack, support or oppose 

either Senator. Additionally, the 

court noted that the ads asked the 

audience to contact both Senators, 

not just the Senator up for reelection. 

Government interest in regulating issue ads. In McConnell v. FEC, 

540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Supreme 

Court found that the compelling 

government interest in regulating 

the communications covered by the 

definition of electioneering communication was sufficient to uphold 

the statute on its face. However, the 

district court stated that by permitting “as applied” challenges to the 

provisions of the BCRA, the Supreme Court left open the question 

as to whether there is a compelling 

government interest in regulating 

“genuine issue ads” covered by the 

statute. In light of its finding that 

WRTL’s anti-filibuster ads did not 

contain express advocacy, or its 

functional equivalent, the threejudge panel evaluated the government interest in regulating these 

ads. The court found no compelling 

government interest and rejected 

the argument that the need for a 

“bright line” test is a basis for regulating “genuine issue ads,” noting 

that the “virtues of the bright line 

test cannot alone justify regulating 

constitutionally protected speech.”

Notice of Appeal

On December 29, 2006, the 

Commission filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, CV04-1260 

(DBS, RWR, RJL).

—Elizabeth Kurland

CREW v. FEC

On January 12, 2007, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia upheld the district 

court’s summary judgment in favor 

of the FEC, finding that Citizens 

for Responsibility and Ethics in 

Washington (CREW) lacked standing to challenge the Commission’s 

dismissal of its administrative 

complaint. 

Background

According to the administrative 

complaint CREW filed during the 

2004 campaign, Grover Norquist, 

head of Americans for Tax Reform, 

provided Kenneth Mehlman, campaign manager for Bush-Cheney 

’04, a master list of conservative activists. The administrative 

complaint did not seek as relief 

information about the precise dollar 

value of the list. On October 19, 

2004, the Commission voted to take 

no further action in this matter and 

to close the file. Although the FEC 

found the master list to be an unreported, in-kind prohibited corporate 

contribution, it appeared to be “limited in size and impact.” The Office 

of General Counsel recommended 

that the Commission “exercise its 

prosecutorial discretion and take no 

further action” in the matter.

Court Decision

On December 13, 2004, CREW 

filed suit to challenge the FEC’s 

decision not to pursue further investigation. The FEC filed a motion 

for summary judgment on April 15, 

2005, arguing that CREW lacked 

(continued on page 4)

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 

on the FEC web site as PDF files. 

Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/record.shtml

to find monthly Record issues. 

 The web site also provides 

copies of the Annual Record Index

for each completed year of the 

Record, dating back to 1996. The 

Annual Record Index list Record

articles for each year by topic, 

type of Commission action and, in 

the case of advisory opinions, the 

names of individuals requesting 

Commission action.

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.
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2007

4

standing to pursue the action. The 

motion was granted by the district 

court on November 14, 2005.

In order to have standing, the 

plaintiff must satisfy three requirements: injury, redressability and 

causation. The injury standard is 

met when the plaintiff suffers an 

actual, not abstract, invasion of a 

concrete, legally protected interest. 

Redressability is proved when it is 

likely, not merely speculative, that a 

favorable court decision will redress 

the injury. Lastly, when the injury 

is fairly traceable to the defendant’s 

action in question, the causation 

standard is satisfied. 

CREW argued that the FEC 

should have required Bush-Cheney 

’04 to assign a precise monetary 

value to the master list and publicly 

disclose that figure to help CREW 

in its mission of “empowering 

citizens.” In order to have standing, 

however, the plaintiff must prove it 

has suffered an injury in fact to its 

own interests, not simply assert that 

it would be unable to help others 

achieve abstract goals. CREW cannot vote, nor does it have any members who participate in the political 

process. As a result, the appeals 

court upheld the district court’s 

conclusion that CREW could not 

have suffered from a lack of information in the voting process.

Like the district court, the court 

of appeals also found that CREW 

was unable to prove standing based 

on the standards of redressability 

and causation. CREW complained 

that the FEC’s failure to require 

Bush-Cheney ’04 to publicly disclose and report the monetary value 

of the master list was a violation of 

the Act. However, the court noted 

that while the Act requires the FEC 

to negotiate a conciliation agreement after a “reason to believe” 

determination and “probable 

cause,” the Act does not require 

that disclosure of information be 

part of the conciliation agreement. 

Therefore, the Commission is not 

legally bound to requiring, or the 

court granting, the disclosure of the 

information to redress the situation.

To prove causation, the alleged 

harm must be fairly traceable to 

the defendant’s action. The court 

inferred that the alleged harm 

suffered by CREW was based on 

the FEC’s decision to dismiss the 

complaint in order to focus its resources on more pertinent matters. 

The court did not find that the FEC 

violated any legal principle when 

it dismissed the administrative 

complaint because the FEC retains 

prosecutorial discretion and is not 

expected to bring every administrative complaint to court. 

In support of its ruling, the 

court cited Common Cause v. FEC, 

108 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Under circumstances similar to those 

in CREW’s case, Common Cause 

was held not to have standing. 

Appeal from the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia, 

04-2145.

—Carrie Hoback

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

Unity ‘08 v. FEC

On January 10, 2007, Unity 

‘08 and individual members of its 

Board of Directors (the plaintiffs) 

filed a complaint in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the FEC’s recent 

Advisory Opinion that concluded 

that the group’s proposed activities 

would require it to register as a political committee. The plaintiffs ask 

the court to rule that this conclusion 

was “arbitrary” and in violation of 

the First Amendment. The plaintiffs 

also seek to enjoin the FEC from 

enforcing the Act’s reporting provisions and contribution limitations 

against Unity ‘08. 

Background

Unity ‘08 describes itself as a 

political movement of voters who 

seek to nominate candidates for a 

“Unity Ticket” in the 2008 Presidential election through an online 

nominating convention over the 

Internet. Unity ‘08 plans to organize a group of voters to support the 

candidates selected in this online 

convention. Currently, Unity ‘08 

maintains a web site that focuses on 

issue content and describes its plans 

to nominate candidates via the online convention and to qualify for a 

place on the ballot in the November 

2008 general election. 

In Advisory Opinion (AO) 2006-

20, the Commission concluded 

that the ballot access expenditures 

and activities that Unity ‘08 will 

conduct, combined with its stated 

goal of nominating and electing 

presidential and vice-presidential candidates, would cause it to 

qualify as a “political committee” 

under the Act. As such, it would 

be subject to the Act’s contribution 

limitations and registration and 

reporting requirements. For more 

information, see the November 

2006 Record, page 4. 

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the web 

site at www.fec.gov/law/law_

rulemakings.shtml and from the 

FEC Faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2006-23

Statement of Policy: “Purpose of 

Disbursement” Entries for Filings 

With the Commission (72 FR 887, 

January 9, 2007)

Notice 2007-1

Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of 

Records (72 FR 3141, January 24, 

2007)
February 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Compliance

Policy Statement on 

Reporting of “Purpose of 

Disbursement”

On December 14, 2006, the 

Commission approved a Statement 

of Policy designed to improve the 

descriptions of the purpose for each 

itemized disbursement that political 

committees and others disclose on 

their FEC reports. The policy was 

published in the January 9, 2007, 

Federal Register. 72 FR 887. 

FEC regulations require that the 

“purpose of disbursement” entry for 

each disbursement be sufficiently 

specific, when considered with the 

identity of the recipient, to provide 

a clear reason for the payment. The 

regulations also provide examples 

of acceptable and unacceptable descriptions, but the lists are brief and 

not exhaustive. 11 CFR 104.3(b)(3) 

and (4). 

The new policy statement 

includes non-exhaustive lists of 

acceptable and unacceptable “purpose of disbursement” descriptions 

intended to provide additional guidance to the regulated community 

and to foster consistency among 

filers. As a rule of thumb, the statement suggests that filers consider 

whether a person unaffiliated with 

the campaign/committee could 

discern why a payment was made 

by reading the description they have 

provided.

Court Complaint

The plaintiffs contend that the 

FEC’s conclusion in AO 2006-20 

was: 

• Arbitrary and not in accordance 

with law, because the Act regulates as expenditures only those 

expenses incurred in support or 

opposition to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, 

and support for a clearly identified candidate is required by the 

Supreme Court before the definitions of “expenditure” or “political 

committee” apply.

• An infringement on the group’s 

First Amendment rights of speech 

and association and not narrowly 

tailored to prevent corruption, 

or the appearance of corruption, 

in the political process. Unity 

‘08 contends that the registration 

requirements and contribution 

limits the Commission determined 

would apply to Unity ‘08 would 

hamper its ability to raise money 

and burden its ability to engage 

in core political speech, such as 

petitioning and other ballot access 

activities. The group further notes 

that it does not support or oppose 

a clearly identified candidate at 

this time. 

As well as alleging a violation of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), the plaintiffs also contend, 

among other things, that the Commission’s determination was vague 

and overbroad, thus violating the 

First Amendment.

Relief

The plaintiffs ask the court to 

preliminarily and permanently 

enjoin the FEC from enforcing its 

ruling in AO 2006-20. 

The plaintiffs also ask the court to:

• Declare that AO 2006-20 is unconstitutional on First Amendment 

grounds, as it applies to Unity ‘08; 

• Declare that the FEC’s determination that signature-gathering 

expenses to qualify Unity ‘08 for 

FEC Web Site Offers 

Podcasts

In an effort to provide more 

information to the regulated 

community and the public, the 

Commission is making its open 

meetings and public hearings 

available as audio recordings 

through the FEC web site, as well 

as by podcasts. The audio files, 

and directions on how to subscribe 

to the podcasts are available 

under Audio Recordings through 

the Commission Meetings tab at 

http://www.fec.gov. 

The audio files are divided into 

tracks corresponding to each 

portion of the agenda for ease 

of use. To listen to the open 

meeting without subscribing to 

the podcasts, click the icon next to 

each agenda item. Although the 

service is free, anyone interested 

in listening to podcasts must 

download the appropriate software 

listed on the web site. Podcast 

subscribers will automatically 

receive the files as soon as they 

become available–typically a day 

or two after the meeting. 

the ballot are “expenditures” is in 

violation of the APA;

• Declare that the FEC’s classification of Unity ‘08 as a “political 

committee” is in violation of the 

APA; and 

• Award costs and attorneys’ fees.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:07CV00053.

—Dorothy Yeager

The Commission added one 

additional term, “Consulting-Political,” to the non-exhaustive list 

of generally insufficient descriptions, based on public comments it 

received on the proposed policy. To 

the non-exhaustive list of generally acceptable descriptions, the 

Commission added “ConsultingMedia,” “Consulting-Fundraising,” 

“Consulting-Polling,” “ConsultingLegal” and “Consulting-Get-OutThe-Vote.”

The policy statement is available on the Commission’s web site 

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

shtml. 

—Meredith Metzler
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2007

6

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2006-38

Federal officeholder’s use of 

funds raised for state campaign 

(Senator Bob Casey Jr. and the 

Casey State Committee, December 

12, 2006)

AOR 2007-1

Federal officeholder’s ability to 

raise nonfederal funds to retire state 

campaign’s debt (Senator Claire McCaskill and McCaskill for Auditor, 

January 9, 2007)

Advisory

Opinions

Advisory Opinion 2006-33:

Association May 

Compensate State Affiliate 

Collecting Agents

The National Association of Realtors (“NAR”), may make payments 

from its corporate treasury fund to 

its state affiliates to increase their 

fundraising for the Realtors’ Political Action Committee (“RPAC”), 

the SSF established and controlled 

by NAR. The Commission split on 

a rationale, with two commissioners 

concluding that the payments would 

be a permissible use of corporate 

treasury funds for the establishment, 

administration and solicitation costs 

of NAR’s PAC, and with two other 

commissioners concluding that the 

payments would not be subject to 

the Act or Commission regulations. 

The payments would not be subject 

to the “one-third rule.”

Background

NAR is an incorporated trade 

association engaged in activities 

intended to improve business conditions in the real estate industry. 

RPAC is its SSF. NAR has affiliated 

state associations in each state, and 

approximately 1,500 local affiliates. 

Together, NAR and its affiliates 

comprise a federation of trade associations. 11 CFR 114.8(g).

Each state association operates its 

own nonfederal political committee, 

and simultaneously solicits funds 

for both its nonfederal PAC and 

RPAC. By agreement, the state PAC 

receives 70% of the fundraising proceeds and RPAC receives 30%. As 

an incentive to increase the percentage of funds given to RPAC, NAR 

proposes to pay the state associations NAR corporate treasury funds 

in amounts comparable to the increased contributions to RPAC. The 

funds given to the state associations 

by NAR would be used in connection with state and local elections or 

other activities as permitted by state 

law. Individual contributors would 

not receive any portion of the funds 

from NAR, nor would they receive 

any benefit as a result of the payments. Solicitations would inform 

the contributors of the new percentage of funds to be sent to RPAC. 

Analysis

As an exception to the general 

ban on corporate contributions and 

expenditures, the Act and Commission regulations permit a corporation, including an incorporated trade 

association, to pay for the establishment, solicitation and administrative 

costs of its separate segregated fund. 

11 CFR 114.1(b). As part of that 

exception, a corporation may use its 

treasury funds to pay for “a raffle 

or other fundraising device which 

involves a prize” to raise funds for 

the corporation’s separate segregated 

fund, so long as State law permits 

and the prize is not disproportionately valuable. When using raffles 

or entertainment to raise funds, a 

reasonable practice to follow is 

for the separate segregated fund to 

reimburse the corporation for costs 

that exceed one third of the money 

contributed to the separate segregated fund. 11 CFR 114.5(b)(2). 

The Commission concluded that 

NAR’s incentive payments to its 

state associations would not be subject to the one-third rule, because the 

payments would not be for a raffle or 

other fundraising device that involves a prize, or for entertainment. 

Date: December 19, 2006

Length: 5 pages

—Gary Mullen

AOR 2007-2

Whether the Arizona Libertarian 

Party, Inc., qualifies as a state party 

committee (Arizona Libertarian 

Party, Inc., January 9, 2007)

General Counsel and Deputy 

Resign

FEC General Counsel Lawrence 

H. Norton and Deputy General 

Counsel James A. Kahl will resign 

from the agency on February 16, 

2007, to enter private practice with 

the law firm of Womble Carlyle 

Sandridge & Rice. 

Mr. Norton has served as General 

Counsel since September 2001, after 

coming to the Commission from the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Since Mr. Norton joined 

the Commission, the Office of General Counsel has made significant 

strides, closing cases more quickly 

with higher penalties than ever 

before.

“I am proud of the role of the 

Commission’s staff in implementing and defending the most sweeping changes in campaign finance 

law in over a quarter century,” said 

Mr. Norton. “As the Commission 

faces new challenges, I have no 

doubts that the Office of the General 

Counsel will continue to provide 

the highest quality of advice to 

the Commission and service to the 

public.”

Mr. Kahl has been instrumental 

in revamping the operations and 

management practices of the Office 

of General Counsel and in recruiting 

strong legal talent to the Commission.

Staff
February 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

The first number in each citation refers to the numeric month of 

the 2007 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 four.

Index

Information

Reporting Notices Enter the 

Electronic Age

The year-end reporting reminders committees recently received 

will be the last sent on paper. The 

FEC will send all future courtesy 

materials to committees exclusively by electronic mail. Reporting 

reminders and mailings concerning 

changes in the law will no longer be 

sent by U.S. mail. As a result, it is 

important that every committee update its Statement of Organization 

(FEC Form 1) to disclose a current 

e-mail address. 

Most committees registered with 

the FEC are already required to 

disclose an e-mail address on Form 

1. Under 11 CFR 102.2(a)(1)(vii) 

and (viii), all mandatory electronic 

filers and the principal campaign 

committees of House and Senate 

candidates must provide an e-mail 

address.

The Commission’s decision to 

switch from paper to electronic 

mail will obviously improve the 

timeliness of its communications 

with committees, but that is only 

one of the advantages. E-mail will 

also offer opportunities for new 

types of communications and will 

simplify the process of providing 

information tailored specifically to 

each committee’s needs, all while 

saving tax dollars.

The Commission recognizes that 

disclosing a personal e-mail address 

on a public document may raise 

privacy concerns. For that reason, 

committees may wish to create a 

separate e-mail account intended 

solely for this purpose. As the 

agency begins to communicate with 

committees electronically, keeping 

that e-mail address current on the 

committee’s Statement of Organization will be essential. 

To disclose a new e-mail address, 

electronic filers must submit a complete electronic Form 1. Paper filers 

Thomasenia Duncan 

Designated Acting General 

Counsel

Following the February 2007 

resignation of the FEC’s General 

Counsel, Lawrence H. Norton, 

Thomasenia (Tommie) Duncan 

will serve as the agency’s Acting 

General Counsel. Ms. Duncan 

will serve while the Commission 

conducts an open search to fill the 

General Counsel’s position.

Ms. Duncan joined the staff 

of the FEC’s Office of General 

Counsel in February 2004, and 

most recently served as the FEC’s 

Associate General Counsel for 

General Law and Advice. Prior to 

joining the FEC, Ms. Duncan was 

the General Counsel for America’s 

Promise—The Alliance for Youth. 

She has worked in government 

service as Senior Legal Advisor to 

the Administrator of the Federal 

Aviation Administration, General 

Counsel of the Corporation for 

National and Community Service 

and Acting Deputy Solicitor and 

Special Assistant to the Solicitor of 

the Department of Labor. She is a 

graduate of Brown University and 

received her Juris Doctor from the 

University of Pennsylvania Law 

School. 

Advisory Opinions

2006-33: Association May Compensate State Affiliate Collecting 

Agents, 2:6

Compliance

527 Organizations Pay Civil Penalties, 1:1

Comments Sought on Proposed Probable Cause Hearings, 1:5

Comments Sought on Sua Sponte 

Proposal, 1:5

MURs 5511 and 5525: Swift Boat 

Veterans and POWs for Truth, 1:3

MUR 5634: Express Advocacy Leads 

to Prohibited Corporate Expenditure, 1:4

MUR 5753: League of Conservation 

Voters 527 I and II, 1:3

MUR 5754: MoveOn.org Voter Fund, 

1:4 

Policy Statement on Reporting of 

“Purpose of Disbursement”, 2:5

Court Cases

______ v. FEC

– CREW, 2:3

– Unity ‘08, 2:4

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 2:1

(continued on page 8)

Need FEC Material 

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain 

FEC material fast. It operates 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

Hundreds of FEC documents—

reporting forms, brochures, FEC 

regulations—can be faxed almost 

immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial 

202/501-3413 and follow the 

instructions. To order a complete 

menu of Faxline documents, enter 

document number 411 at the 

prompt.

need only complete the committee 

identification section of the Form 

1 and those portions that disclose 

a change. Copies of the Statement 

of Organization form are available 

from the Commission or on its web 

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

forms.shtml.
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2007

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Index

(continued from page 7)

Information

Contribution Limits for 2007-2008, 

2:1

Reporting Notices Enter the Electronic Age, 2:7

Telephone Excise Tax Refunds, 1:11

Regulations

Proposed Rules and Policy Statement 

on Best Efforts, 1:6

Reports

Reports Due in 2007, 1:7

Staff

General Counsel and Deputy Resign, 

2:6