November 2006 Federal Election Commission Volume 32, Number 11

Table of Contents

Reports

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

Post-General Reporting 

Reminder

The 30-day Post-General Election 

report is due on December 7. The 

Post-General Election report covers 

activity from October 19 (or from 

the close of books of the last report 

filed) through November 27. The 

following committees must file this 

report:

• All registered PACs and party 

committees—even committees 

with little or no activity to disclose. Monthly filers must submit 

this report in lieu of the December 

monthly report.1

• Authorized committees of federal candidates running in the general election, including committees 

of unopposed candidates. Note that 

because the reporting period for the 

Post-General Election report spans 

two election cycles, candidate committees must use the Post-Election 

Detailed Summary Page (FEC Form 

3, Pages 5-8) instead of the normal 

Detailed Summary Page.

Filing Electronically

Under the Commission’s mandatory electronic filing regulations, 

1

 Monthly filers are not required to file a 

December monthly report in addition to 

the Post-General report.

 Reports

 1 Post-General Reporting Reminder

 Compliance

 1 Comments Sought on Proposed 

Embezzlement Policy

 Court Cases

 3 Christian Civic League of Maine v. 

FEC

 3 FEC v. Club for Growth, Inc.

4 Advisory Opinions

 6 Nonfilers

 Web Site

 6 Daily IE Updates Available at 

FEC.gov

 7 Index 

Compliance

Comments Sought on 

Proposed Embezzlement 

Policy

The Commission requests public 

comment on a proposed enforcement policy regarding reporting 

errors that result from a misappropriation of funds. A companion 

document proposes internal controls 

that political committees could use 

to guard against embezzlement and 

unintentional reporting errors. Under 

the proposed policy, committees that 

implement certain minimum safeguards would not be held liable if a 

subsequent misappropriation led to 

reporting errors. Comments on both 

documents are due by November 30, 

2006.

The Commission’s proposal 

responds to a recent increase in the 

number of enforcement cases involving misappropriation of committee 

funds, often by committee employees. To address this problem, the 

Commission proposes that political 

committees adopt certain internal 

controls aimed at reducing the incidence of misappropriation.

The proposed safeguards, developed by the FEC’s Audit Division, 

draw upon established accounting 

practices and other sources, including the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Government 
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2006

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)

Michael E. Toner, Chairman

Robert D. Lenhard, 

 Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, 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

Reports

(continued from page 1)

individuals and organizations that 

receive contributions or make expenditures, including independent 

expenditures,2 in excess of $50,000 

in a calendar year—or have reason 

to expect to do so—must file all 

reports and statements with the FEC 

electronically. Electronic filers who 

instead file on paper or submit an 

electronic report that does not pass 

the Commission’s validation program will be considered nonfilers 

and may be subject to enforcement 

actions, including administrative 

fines. Reports filed electronically 

must be received and verified by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the 

December 7 filing date.

Senate committees and other 

committees that file with the Secretary of the Senate are not subject to 

the mandatory electronic filing rules, 

but may file an unofficial copy of 

their reports with the Commission in 

order to speed disclosure.

Timely Filing for Paper Filers

Registered and Certified Mail. 

Reports sent via registered or certified mail must be postmarked on or 

before December 7 to be considered timely filed. Please note that a 

certificate of mailing from the U.S. 

Postal Service is not sufficient to 

prove that a report is timely filed. 

A committee sending its reports 

by certified mail should keep its 

mailing receipt with the U.S. Postal 

Service postmark as proof of filing 

because the U.S. Postal Service does 

not keep complete records of items 

sent by certified mail. A committee 

sending its reports by registered mail 

should also keep its proof of mailing 

or other means of transmittal of its 

reports.

Overnight Mail. Reports filed via 

overnight mail3 will be considered 

timely filed if the report is received 

by the delivery service on or before 

the December 7 filing date. A committee sending its reports by Express 

or Priority Mail, or by an overnight 

delivery service, should keep its 

proof of mailing or other means of 

transmittal of its reports.

Other Means of Filing. Reports 

sent by other means–including first 

class mail and courier—must be 

received by the FEC before close of 

business on the December 7 filing 

deadline. 2 U.S.C. 434(a)(5) and 11 

CFR 104.5(e).

For those filers who are not 

required to file their reports electronically, paper forms are available 

on the FEC’s web site (http://www.

fec.gov/info/forms.shtml) and from 

FEC Faxline, the agency’s automated fax system (202/501-3413).

Additional Information

For more information on 2006 

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the 

January 2006 Record;

• Call and request the reporting 

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 or 202/694-1100;

• Fax the reporting tables to 

yourself using the FEC’s Faxline 

(202/501-3413, document 586); or

• Visit the FEC’s web page at 

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

dates.shtml to view the reporting 

tables online.

—Elizabeth Kurland

3

 “Overnight mail” includes Priority or 

Express Mail having a delivery confirmation, or an overnight service with 

which the report is scheduled for next 

business day delivery and is recorded in 

the service’s on-line tracking system.

2

 Disbursements for electioneering 

communications do not count toward 

the $50,000 threshold for mandatory 

electronic filing. See 11 CFR 104.18(a).

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

Accountability Office (GAO). 

Some of the recommended safeguards include regular account 

reconciliations and the separation of 

accounting duties. 

The Commission asks that members of the regulated community 

and other interested persons submit 

comments on these proposals either 

by e-mail to embezzlepolicy@fec.

gov, or in written form to Federal Election Commission, 999 

E Street NW, Washington, D.C., 

20463, ATTN: Joseph Stoltz. The 

Commission strongly encourages commenters to use electronic 

mail to ensure timely receipt and 

consideration. Both the proposed 

enforcement policy and the internal 

controls document are available 

on the Commission’s web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/policy/embezzlepolicy.pdf. For more information, please contact the FEC Audit 

Division Director Joseph Stoltz at 

202/694-1200 or 800/424-9530.
November 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Christian Civic League of 

Maine v. FEC

Recently two courts ruled against 

the Christian Civic League of Maine 

(CCL) in its challenge to the ban on 

corporate financing of electioneering 

communications. On September 27, 

2006, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia granted partial 

motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed 

all other CCL claims as moot. On 

October 2, 2006, the Supreme Court 

dismissed as moot CCL’s appeal of 

the district court’s May 2006 denial 

of a preliminary injunction. 

Background

CCL is a nonprofit corporation 

organized under section 501(c)(4) of 

the Internal Revenue Code that allegedly engages in some business activity. CCL wanted to use its general 

treasury funds to broadcast a radio 

ad prior to a 2006 Senate vote on a 

particular proposed constitutional 

amendment. The ad identified Senator Olympia Snowe by name and was 

to air in close proximity to her June 

13, 2006, primary election. If the ad 

had aired in Senator Snowe’s state 

within 30 days prior to her primary 

(or 60 days prior to the general), it 

would have qualified as an electioneering communication (EC). 2 U.S.C. 

434(f)(3)(A)(i). Under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act), as 

amended by the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act, corporate funds cannot 

be used to finance an EC. CCL’s suit 

contends that this financing restriction prevents it from exercising its 

First Amendment right to free speech. 

The Supreme Court upheld the 

electioneering communications provision in McConnell v. FEC, stating 

that, although the provision might apply to some so-called “issue ads,” it is 

narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. 540 U.S. 

93, 206 (2003). After McConnell, 

the Supreme Court held in Wisconsin 

FEC v. Club for Growth, Inc.

On October 10, 2006, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia denied Club for Growth, Inc.’s 

(the Club’s) motion for the court to 

certify its June 5, 2006, decision for 

interlocutory appeal.

Background

In response to a complaint filed by 

the Democratic Senatorial Campaign 

Committee, the FEC found reason to 

believe and opened an administrative 

investigation of the Club in 2003 for 

failure to register with the FEC as a 

political committee. Following the 

Commission’s vote finding probable 

cause to believe and unsuccessful 

conciliation efforts, the FEC filed an 

enforcement lawsuit in the district 

court. See November 2005 Record.

The Club moved to dismiss the 

complaint based on several alleged 

procedural violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act). 

On June 5, 2006, the court denied 

the Club’s motion to dismiss. See

August 2006 Record. 

Court Cases Right to Life v. FEC that McConnell

had not foreclosed all as-applied 

challenges to the electioneering communications provision. 126 S.Ct. 

1016, 1018 (2006). 

CCL did not broadcast its proposed ad, and the Senate voted on the 

legislation it referenced in early June 

2006.

District Court Decision

The district court dismissed CCL’s 

request for a permanent injunction 

to prevent the FEC from applying 

its EC rules to CCL’s proposed ad, 

concluding that the Senate’s vote on 

the legislation referenced in the ad 

had rendered the issue moot. CCL 

contended that its situation fit within 

the “capable of repetition, yet evading 

review” exception to the mootness 

doctrine. The court disagreed, noting 

that CCL’s claims were closely tied to 

the facts surrounding the spring 2006 

ad, circumstances that were unlikely 

to recur and would not necessarily 

evade review even if they did recur.

The court further granted defense 

motions for dismissal of CCL’s 

claims about possible other ads 

because they were not ripe for review 

and were too speculative. CCL 

admittedly had no firm plans to create 

or distribute any future ads besides 

the spring 2006 ad. The Constitution 

requires an actual “case or controversy” for the court to decide, so a 

party’s grievance cannot be solely 

hypothetical. U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia, CV06-0614 

(JWR, LFO, CKK).

Supreme Court Decision

On October 2, 2006, the U.S. 

Supreme Court dismissed as moot 

CCL’s appeal of the district court’s 

May 9, 2006, denial of a preliminary 

injunction. 529 U.S. 05-1447 (Oct. 2, 

2006); see June 2006 Record.

—Meredith Metzler

(continued on page 4)

Campaign Guides 

Available

 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.

 The FEC publishes four 

Campaign Guides, each for a 

different type of committee, 

and we 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 www.fec.gov.

 If you would like to place an 

order for paper copies of the 

Campaign Guides, please call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530.
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2006

4

Advisory

Opinions

Advisory Opinion 2006-20:

“Unity 08” Political 

Committee Status

Unity 08, a Section 527 political organization whose self-avowed 

purpose is electing federal candidates, must register as a political 

committee once it receives more 

than $1,000 in contributions or 

makes more than $1,000 in expenditures. As such, Unity 08 will be 

subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act) and may incorporate for 

liability purposes.

Background

Unity 08 is a political organization organized under Section 

527 of the Internal Revenue Code 

that describes itself as a “nascent 

political party.” Unity 08 seeks 

to nominate and support a “Unity 

Ticket” for president and vice-president of the United States in the 2008 

presidential election. Unity 08 has 

stated that they may either choose 

to support one of the two major 

party tickets, or may nominate one 

candidate from each party to form 

the Unity Ticket. Alternatively, they 

may select nominees through an 

“online nominating convention” 

sometime in the summer of 2008.

Unity 08 plans to fund its activities through sales of t-shirts and 

other items and through direct Internet solicitations. Unity 08 states 

that no funds collected will be used 

to support or oppose any federal 

candidates, but will instead be used 

to fund Unity 08’s organization 

building efforts. They also state 

that they will seek to qualify for 

the ballot in a number of states, and 

that they do not intend to support 

or oppose candidates for any other 

office than for the presidency and 

vice-presidency.

Analysis

The Club asked the court to certify its June 5, 2006, decision for an 

interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal allows an appellate court 

to review a lower court’s decision 

prior to the final judgment in the 

case. Interlocutory appeals are rare, 

in part because the moving party, in 

this case the Club, has the burden 

to show exceptional circumstances 

that justify the expedited process. 

The court held that the Club failed 

to do so. 

One requirement for granting certification for an interlocutory appeal is that there must be a 

substantial basis for a difference of 

opinion about the ruling. While the 

Club disagreed with the court’s application of a previous case, FEC v. 

Legi-Tech., Inc., 75 F.3d 704 (D.C. 

Cir. 1996), to the circumstances, 

the Club did not cite any case law 

to contradict the court’s decision. 

The court stated that the June 5, 

2006, decision was not based on 

“novel and untested legal theories.” 

Instead, the decision was based on 

the legal doctrine of harmless error, 

deference to the FEC, the plain 

language of the Act and settled 

principles of law regarding agency 

ratification actions. Since the Club 

did not show a substantial ground 

for difference of opinion, the court 

denied the Club’s motion to certify 

the decision for an interlocutory 

appeal.

U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, CV05-1851 

(RMU).

—Meredith Metzler

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

Analysis

Under the Act and Commission 

regulations, political committees 

are subject to certain registration 

and reporting requirements, as well 

as limitations and prohibitions on 

contributions received and made, 

and on expenditures made. The 

Act defines a political committee as 

“any committee, club, association, 

or other group of persons” which 

receives contributions or makes expenditures aggregating in excess of 

$1,000 in a calendar year. 11 CFR 

100.5(a).

The Act defines “expenditure” as 

a “purchase, payment, distribution, 

loan, advance, deposit, or gift of 

money or anything of value, made 

by any person for the purpose of 

influencing any election for federal 

office.” 2 U.S.C. 431a(9)(A)(i). The 

Commission has previously determined that expenses incurred in 

gathering signatures to qualify for a 

ballot for federal office are expenditures. Although Unity 08 plans to 

qualify for ballot access for itself as 

an organization, but not yet for any 

named candidates, the Commission 

found that Unity 08 is, in effect, 

using its name as a placeholder for 

its candidates’ names on the ballot. 

Thus, in promoting itself through 

petition drives to obtain ballot access, the Commission concluded 

that Unity 08 is promoting its presidential and vice-presidential candidates and any expenses incurred by 

Unity 08 for this purpose constitute 

expenditures.

Additionally, because Unity 08 

has publicly stated that its main goal 

is the nomination and election of a 

presidential and vice-presidential 

candidate in 2008, the Commission 

concluded that Unity 08 satisfies 

the “major purpose” requirement of 

Buckley v. Valeo, and must register as a political committee once 

it receives contributions or makes 

expenditures in excess of $1,000.

The Commission also determined 

that, as a political committee, Unity 

08 may incorporate for liability 
November 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Advisory Opinion 2006-24:

Limits, Prohibitions and 

Reporting Requirements 

Apply to Recount Activities

Funds raised and spent by a candidate or a state party committee to pay 

recount and election contest expenses 

resulting from the general election 

are subject to the amount limitations, 

source prohibitions and reporting 

requirements of the Act, but are 

not contributions or expenditures. 

Similarly, the state party must spend 

federal funds to support the recount 

effort, but those payments are not 

subject to the coordinated spending 

limitations of 2 U.S.C. 441a(d)(3). 

National party committees may also 

participate in the recount process, 

but must finance their activities using 

federal funds.

Background

Commission regulations promulgated before the enactment of 

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (BCRA) exempt from 

the definition of “contribution” and 

“expenditure” payments made with 

respect to a recount of a federal election, but expressly bar the receipt or 

use of funds from foreign nationals, 

corporations, labor organizations and 

national banks. 11 CFR 100.91 and 

100.151.

Under BCRA, candidates and 

officeholders may not solicit, receive, direct, transfer or spend funds 

“in connection with an election for 

federal office” unless the funds are 

subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements 

of the Act. 2 U.S.C. 441i(e)(1)(A). 

Similarly, national party committees, 

including the NRSC and DSCC, may 

not solicit, receive, direct or spend 

any funds that are not subject to the 

limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements of the Act. 2 U.S.C. 

441i(a)(1); 11 CFR 300.10(a). 

Analysis

Limits, Prohibitions and Reporting by Federal Candidates. The 

Commission’s 1977 regulations pertaining to recounts are premised on 

the conclusion that recounts are “in 

connection with federal elections.” 

See 2 U.S.C. 441b(a), 441e(a)(1)(A), 

11 CFR 100.91 and 100.151. Because of the limitations of 2 U.S.C. 

441i(e)(1)(A), federal officeholders, 

candidates, their agents and entities 

directly or indirectly established, 

financed, maintained or controlled 

by or acting on behalf of one or 

more federal officeholders or candidates are prohibited from soliciting, 

receiving, directing, transferring or 

spending funds for expenses related 

to a recount of the votes cast in a 

federal election unless those funds 

are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements 

of the Act. Therefore, donations to a 

recount fund established by a federal 

candidate may not exceed $2,100 per 

person or $5,000 per multicandidate 

political committee. Donations to a 

federal candidate’s recount fund are 

not “contributions” and therefore are 

not aggregated with contributions to 

the candidate for the general election 

nor are they subject to the aggregate 

biennial contribution limit.

A federal candidate may establish 

a recount fund either as a separate 

bank account of the candidate’s 

authorized committee, or as a 

separate entity. If the recount fund 

is a separate account of the federal 

candidate’s authorized committee, 

then its receipts and disbursements 

must be reported on the authorized 

committee’s report as “other receipts” and “other disbursements.” 

11 CFR 104.3(a)(3)(x)(A) and 

(b)(2)(vi)(A). If the recount fund is 

a separate entity established by the 

federal candidate, then the separate 

entity must report as an authorized 

committee under 11 CFR 100.5(d). 1

Limits, Prohibitions and Reporting by Political Party Committees. 

Payments for recount activities 

involving federal races are disbursements “in connection with a federal 

election.” Therefore, a state party 

committee may not allocate payments for recount activities between 

federal and nonfederal funds. The 

state party must establish a separate 

federal account to pay for all federal recount activities and report all 

of the recount fund’s receipts and 

disbursements to the Commission in 

accordance with 2 U.S.C. 434 and 

11 CFR 104.3. Donations to the 

recount fund must comply with the 

amount limitations of the Act and 

thus may not exceed $10,000 from a 

person or $5,000 from a multicandidate political committee per calendar 

year. However, as noted above, these 

donations are not aggregated with 

contributions made to the committee. 

National party committees, 

including the NRSC and DSCC, 

and their agents may participate in 

strategy sessions regarding the raising and spending of funds on recount 

activities without violating the Act 

or Commission regulations, provided 

that the state party does not use nonfederal funds to pay expenses related 

to their participation. The NRSC 

and DSCC must pay for all recount 

activities they conduct using entirely 

federal funds.

While party committees may 

coordinate recount activities with 

their candidates, the limitations on 

coordinated spending by a state party 

for a particular federal candidate 

are not applicable to a state party’s 

recount fund. The limitations of 

441a(d)(3) are applicable only “in 

connection with the general election 

(continued on page 6)

purposes only, without violating 

the Act’s prohibition on corporate 

contributions or expenditures. 11 

CFR 114.12. 

Date Issued: October 10, 2006

Length: 6 pages.

—Myles Martin

1

 To the extent that AOs 1978-92 and 

1998-26 permitted donations in excess 

of the contribution limits and did not 

require recount receipts to be reported, 

they are superseded.
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2006

6

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 2006-32

Whether communications constitute expenditures, solicit contributions, or indicate campaign activity 

under the major purpose doctrine 

of the political committee definition (Progress for America Voter 

Fund and Progress for America, Inc., 

September 22, 2006)

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

Congressional Committees 

Fail to File Reports

The Claude Oliver for Congress 

Committee failed to file a 12-Day 

Pre-Primary report for the September 

19, 2006, Washington primary election. The Dunkelbarger for Congress 

Committee failed to file a 12-Day 

Pre-Primary report for the September 

19, 2006, Massachusetts primary 

election.

Prior to the reporting deadlines, 

the Commission notified all affected 

committees of their filing obligations. Committees that failed to 

file the required reports were subsequently notified that their reports 

had not been received and that their 

names would be published if they 

did not respond within four business 

days.

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act requires the Commission to publish the names of principal campaign 

committees if they fail to file 12-day 

pre-election reports or the quarterly 

report due before the candidate’s 

election. 2 U.S.C. §437g(b). The 

agency may also pursue enforcement 

actions against nonfilers and late filers on a case-by-case basis.

—Meredith Metzler

Nonfilers

Web Site

Daily IE Updates Available 

on FEC.gov

The Commission has enhanced 

its on-line disclosure of campaign 

finance data by providing daily 

updates on all independent expenditures made in connection with the 

November 7 general election. Both 

summary data and detailed expenditure information is available, sorted 

by candidate, committee and race. 

The data is compiled as it arrives, 

regardless of whether the report was 

filed electronically or on paper. 

To see the very latest independent 

expenditure statistics, visit http://

www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/ie_

reports.shtml. For more information 

on the rules governing independent 

expenditures, consult the FEC’s Independent Expenditures brochure at 

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/

indexp.shtml. 

—Kathy Carothers

Advisory Opinion 2006-31

The Commission released for 

public comment, but did not approve, two alternative draft advisory 

opinions concerning whether a 

television station’s sale of advertising time to a political committee at 

campaign of a candidate for federal 

office.” Recount expenses are not in 

connection with the general election campaign of a federal candidate 

because the campaign has ended and 

because such funds are not otherwise 

permitted to be used for campaign 

activity.

Preemption. The Act supersedes and preempts any provision 

of state law with respect to election 

to federal office. 2 U.S.C. 453(a); 

11 CFR 108.7(a). Specifically, 

11 CFR 108.7(b)(3) preempts state 

laws concerning limitations on 

contributions made and received by 

and expenditures made by federal 

candidates and political committees. 

Although receipts and disbursements 

of the state party’s recount fund are 

not “contributions” or “expenditures” 

under the Act, these receipts and disbursements are “in connection with a 

federal election,” and not in connection with any nonfederal election. 

Thus, such recount funds are subject 

to the amount limitations and source 

prohibitions in the Act, preempting 

state law. Moreover because the 

state party’s recount fund is a separate federal account that is not used 

for nonfederal election spending, the 

reporting requirements of the Act and 

Commission regulations preempt the 

reporting requirements of state law.

Dissenting Opinion

On October 20, 2006, Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky issued a 

dissenting opinion.

Length: 12 pages

Date: October 5, 2006

—Amy Pike

FEC Accepts Credit 

Cards

 The Federal Election 

Commission now accepts 

American Express, Diners Club 

and Discover Cards in addition 

to Via and MasterCard. While 

most FEC materials are available 

free of charge, some campaign 

finance reports and statements, 

statistical compilations, indexes 

and directories require payment.

 Walk-in visitors and those 

placing requests by telephone may 

use any of the above-listed credit 

cards, cash or checks. Individuals 

and organizations may also place 

funds on deposit with the office 

to purchase these items. Since prepayment is required, using a credit 

card or funds placed on deposit 

can speed the process and delivery 

of orders. For further information, 

contact the Public Records Office 

at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1120.

the lowest unit charge would result 

in an in-kind contribution. Approval 

of an advisory opinion requires the 

affirmative vote of four members of 

the Commission.
November 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

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

the 2006 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

Advisory Opinions

2005-16: Press Exemption Applied 

to Web Sites, 1:11

2005-18: Candidate May Host Radio 

Program, 1:12

2005-19: Radio Program Qualifies 

for Press Exemption, 2:3

2005-20: Payroll Deduction for LLP 

PAC, 3:8

2006-1: Committee May Accept 

Discount in Normal Course of 

Business, 4:4

2006-2: LLC Does Not Qualify as 

Membership Organization, 4:4

2006-3: Common Username and 

Password Acceptable for SSF Web 

Site, 5:6

2006-4: Candidate Contributions to 

Ballot Initiative Committee, 5:6

2006-6: Millionaires’ Amendment 

Applied to California Special 

Election, 4:5

2006-7: Committee May Promote 

Candidate’s Book on Web Site, 6:4

2006-8: Corporation Collecting and 

Forwarding Contributions from 

Individuals to Political Committees, 6:4

2006-9: SSF’s Treatment of Checks 

Received from Partnerships, 6:5

2006-10: LLC’s PSAs Permissible 

under FECA, 8:5

2006-11: Allocation of Payment for 

Mass Mailings, 6:5

2006-12: Labor Organization Affiliation During Merger, 6:6

2006-13: Candidate’s Compensation 

According to Firm’s Plan is not a 

Contribution, 6:7

2006-14: SSF’s Solicitation of the 

General Public for Earmarked 

Contributions to Candidates, 9:3

2006-15: Domestic Subsidiaries of 

Foreign Corporation May Donate 

to State and Local Elections, 7:5

2006-16: Misappropriated Funds, 

6:8

2006-17: Berkeley Electric Cooperative, Inc., 8:6

2006-18: Committee May Promote 

Candidate’s Book Sales, 8:8

2006-19: Local Party Communications Not FEA, 7:5

2006-20: “Unity 08” Political Committee Status, 11:4

2006-21: Millionaires’ Rules Apply 

Separately to Primary and General 

Elections, 10:6

2006-22: Free Legal Services Result 

in Contribution, 10:7

2006-24: Limits, Prohibitions and 

Reporting Requirements Apply to 

Recount Activities, 11:5

2006-25: Millionaires’ Rules Apply 

Separately to Primary and General 

Elections, 10:8

2006-26: Application of Contribution Limits to Court-Ordered 

Elections, 10:9

2006-31: Television Station’s Sale 

of Advertising Time to Political 

Committee, 11:6

Compliance

Administrative Fine Program Extended, 1:15

Administrative Fine Update, 5:9

Alternative Dispute Resolution Update, 1:15, 2:7, 3:9, 5:10, 7:9, 9:5

Comments Sought on Proposed 

Embezzlement Policy, 11:1

MURs 5305 & 5398: Corporate and 

Excessive Contributions in the 

Name of Another, 5:8

MUR 5388: Accepting Excessive 

Contributions, 6:2

MUR 5390: Chartered Corporation 

Pays Record $3.8M Civil Penalty, 

6:1

MUR 5453: Excessive and Prohibited Contributions, 4:8

MUR 5628: Contributions in the 

Name of Another, 1:14

MUR 5635: No-Risk Contract Results in Corporate Contributions, 

2:6

MUR 5648: Millionaires’ Amendment Reporting, 9:6

MUR 5675, Improper Financial 

Reporting, 9:6

Nonfilers, 7:8, 8:9, 9:6, 10:6, 11:6

Policy Statement on Payroll Deduction Recordkeeping, 8:1

Record Civil Penalties in First Six 

Months of 2006, 9:1

Sharpton Repayment Agreement, 2:6

Correction

2006 Coordinated Party Expenditures, 4:11

Reports Due in 2006, 2:10

Court Cases

____ v. FEC

– CCL, 5:7, 6:3, 11:3

– CREW, 1:13

– Davis, 8:1

– EMILY’s List, 2:5

– LaRouche, 4:7

– Liffrig v. FEC, 2:5

– Kean for Congress, 3:7

– Shays II, 6:1

– Shays III, 9:1

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 3:1, 10:1 

FEC v. ____

– Club for Growth, 8:2, 11:3

– Kalogianis, 3:8

– Reform Party, 1:13

Randall v. Sorrell, 8:3

Information

FEC Names New Staff Director, 8:9

IRS Report on Political Activity 

Compliance by Exempt Organizations, 4:9

Party Activities

2006 Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits, 3:5

Regulations

Contribution Limits between Authorized Committees, final rules, 10:5

Coordinated Communications 

NPRM, 1:2; final rules, 7:1

Electioneering Communications, 

final rules, 2:1

FEA final rules, 3:2

FEA interim final rule, 5:3

Internet final rules, 5:1

Petition for Rulemaking, EC Exemption, 4:2, denied, 10:5

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2006

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

Public Hearing on Coordinated 

Communications, 3:3

Revised E&J for “Agent,” 3:1

Solicit and Direct, final rules, 4:1

State, District and Local Party Committee Wages, final rules, 1:3

Reports

Alabama Primary Runoff Delayed, 

6:9

April Quarterly Reporting Reminder, 

4:1

California Special Election Reporting: 50th District, 2:4

Connecticut Convention Reporting 

Dates, 6:9

Due in 2006, 1:4, 2:10

FECFile Update, 3:11

FEC Form Instructions Revised, 6:9

Index

(continued from page 7)

FEC to E-mail Report Notices, 9:7

July Reporting Reminder, 7:1

October Reporting Reminder, 10:1

Ohio 3rd District Special Election 

Reporting, 9:4

Ohio 18th District Special Election 

Reporting, 9:7

Post-General Reporting Reminder, 

11:1

Texas Special Election Reporting, 

9:3

Texas 22nd District Special Election 

Reporting, 10:3

Statistics

Congressional Campaigns Raise 

$657.2M, 7:6

Congressional Campaigns Raise 

$893.6M, 9:8

Major Parties Raise $555.2M, 7:7

Major Parties Raise $695M, 9:8

PACs Raise $477.4M in 2005, 4:7

Party Committees Raise Over $430 

Million, 5:10

Semi-Annual PAC Count Shows 

Slight Increase in 2006, 9:10

Senate Fundraising Figures, 2:8

Web Site

Administrative Fines Calculator, 

2:10

Commission Calendar Always UpTo-Date, 1:18

Daily IE Updates Available on 

 FEC.gov, 11:6

E&J Compilation Now Available on 

FEC Web Site, 4:10

E-mail @ FEC.gov, 7:10

FEC Web Site Presents Podcasts, 2:9

FEC Launches Treasurers’ Web 

Page with RSS, 7:10

New Search Engine for FEC Web 

Site, 4:10