December 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 12

Table of Contents

Legislation

1 Congress Amends the FECA

www.fec.gov

1 Commission Expands Web Site

2 Committees File 48-Hour Notices

On Line

3 Advisory Opinions

Court Cases

5 Christine Beaumont, et al. v. FEC

Regulations

6 Commission Declines Rulemaking

on PAC Reporting Requirements

6 Federal Register

Public Funding

7 October Matching Fund Payments

8 Commission Rejects Requests to

Deny Buchanan Public Funding

Compliance

8 Nonfilers

Outreach

9 FEC Roundtables

9 Public Appearances

10 Index

Compliance Legislation www.fec.gov

Commission Expands Web

Site

Summary Information on

Candidates and Committees

Individuals may now easily view

summary statistical information

about candidates, PACs and party

committees on the FEC Web site.

This information includes total

figures for the following categories:

• Receipts;

• Disbursements;

• Contributions received from

individuals;

• Contributions made to candidates;

• Contributions received from other

committees, such as PACs;

• Beginning and ending cash-onhand; and

• Debts owed by the committee.

This new search option also

allows users to search among

candidates by name, state office,

district, party or status (incumbent,

open seat or challenger) and provides summary information for each

candidate in a particular race.

Moreover, the search provides a

series of links guiding viewers from

financial activity overviews to

Congress Amends the FECA

On October 23, 2000, President

Clinton signed legislation (the FY

2001 Transportation Appropriation

Bill, P.L. 106-346) that included

several amendments to the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the FECA),

which pertain to:

• Independent expenditure statements filed by persons who are not

political committees and who are

not otherwise required to file

reports electronically; and

• Lines of credit obtained by candidates. The amendments will apply

with respect to elections occurring

after January 2001.

Independent Expenditure

Statements Filed by Persons Who

Are Not Political Committees

The amendments concerning the

filing of independent expenditure

statements by persons who are not

political committees (e.g., individuals, partnerships), and who are not

otherwise required to file their

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2000

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Darryl R. Wold, Chairman

Danny L. McDonald,

 Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

Bradley Smith, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Amy L. Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

reports electronically,1 provide that:

• Such persons may file their

independent expenditure statements either by electronic mail or

by fax;

• The Commission must post these

statements on line within 24 hours

after receiving them;

• The Commission will provide for a

method, other than requiring a

signature, for verifying these

documents; and

• These independent expenditure

statements will be considered to

have been filed on the date they

are received. 2 U.S.C. §§434(c)(2)

and 434(d).

Legislation

(continued from page 1)

1

 Beginning with the reporting periods

that start on or after January 1, 2000,

all committees that receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of

$50,000 in a calendar year, or that

have reason to expect to do so, must

submit their reports electronically.

www.fec.gov

(continued from page 1)

specific contributions and expenditures, and it allows access to original filings.

The Commission’s database is

updated every evening, and the

information viewable on the site is

the most current available. Statistical summaries now cover the 1999-

2000 election cycle. The site will

eventually be expanded to include

other cycles. This new search

feature is accessible on the FEC

Web site, at www.fec.gov, under the

“What’s New” and the “Campaign

Finance Reports” links. Users may

also go directly to the search option

at http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/

srssea.html.

Indexes of 48-Hour and 24-Hour

Notices

Additionally, as in 1998, the

Commission created and placed on

its Web site an index of 48-hour and

24-hour notices. These indices

provided the public with information, updated daily, about lastminute contributions to campaigns

and last-minute independent expenditures made on behalf of, or in

opposition to, federal candidates.✦

1

 These notices are required to be filed

for any contribution of $1,000 or more

received after the 20th day before, but

more than 48 hours before, the general

election. Committees are to file the

notices within 48 hours of receipt of

such contributions.

Committees File 48-Hour

Notices On Line

Between October 18 and November 5, 2000, 25 percent of all 48-

Hour Notices (Form 6) were filed by

committees using the Commission’s

new on-line filing system.1

 The

system was designed to reduce the

number of paper notices (faxed,

mailed or hand-delivered). Instead

of generating paper copies of their

reports, committees logged onto the

FEC filing Web site directly and

entered the transactions. With this

new system, in contrast to the

Commission’s electronic filing

system, the information is stored in

local memory until the committee

treasurer presses the “submit”

button, thereby sending the report to

the FEC. Even committees that do

not file their regular quarterly or

monthly reports electronically were

able to take advantage of this filing

option for 48-hour notices.

To give committees access to this

system, the Commission sent, by

mail, electronic filing passwords

(PIN numbers) to approximately

700 House and Presidential campaign committees that were running

in the general election but did not

yet have electronic filing passwords.

This PIN number both allowed

treasurers the option to log into the

FEC Web site and fill out and

submit a 48 Hour notice electronically and acted as a method of

verification in lieu of the treasurers’

signatures. The on-line filing option

was not available to Senate campaign committees, however, because

they are required to file their reports

with the Secretary of the Senate.

For more information, visit the

FEC Web site at www.fec.gov and

click on the Electronic Filing logo.✦

Lines of Credit Obtained by

Candidate

Under the amendment concerning

lines of credit obtained by candidates, an advance on a candidate’s

brokerage account, credit card, home

equity credit line or other available

lines of credit is not a contribution

and is instead considered a commercially reasonable loan provided that

it is made:

• In accordance with applicable law;

• Under commercially reasonable

terms; and

• In the normal course of business of

the person making the loan. 2

U.S.C. §431(8)(B).✦
December 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2000-25

Transfer from Nonfederal

Account to New Federal

Account

The Minnesota House of Representatives Democratic Farmer-Labor

Caucus (the Caucus) may transfer

funds from the account of its

existing nonfederal committee to

that of its newly-formed federal

committee because the two committees are affiliated under the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act).

The Caucus must, however, ensure

that the funds transferred are from

permissible sources and that they

have been redesignated by the

contributors to the federal committee. Additionally, because the

transfer will represent an expenditure in excess of $1,000, the

Caucus’s nonfederal committee

must register as a political committee with the Commission.

In the past, the Caucus has only

supported nonfederal candidates;

this year, it plans to support federal

candidates as well and has created a

separate federal committee for this

purpose. It proposes transferring

funds in excess of $5,000 from its

nonfederal committee to its federal

committee.

Under Commission regulations, a

transfer from a nonfederal account

to a federal account is generally

only permissible for the payment of

allocated expenses. 11 CFR

106.5(g) and 106.6(e). However,

the regulations allow for unlimited

transfers between affiliated committees, as long as these transfers are

made only with funds that are

permissible under the Act. In this

case, the two committees are

affiliated because both are controlled by the Caucus. 11 CFR

100.5(g)(2). Thus, the committees

may make unlimited transfers of

permissible funds if they comply

with Commission regulations.

In order to ensure that the funds

transferred from the nonfederal

account to the federal account are

permissible, and to ensure that the

Caucus complies fully with Commission regulations, the Caucus

must take the following steps:

• The Caucus must review the cash

on hand in its nonfederal committee, using a “first in-first out”

(FIFO)1

 analysis to demonstrate

that the account contains sufficient

permissible funds to cover the

amount transferred to the federal

committee and to identify the pool

of permissible funds;

• The Caucus must obtain, from

contributors of permissible funds,

a written redesignation directing

the funds to the federal committee,

and the Caucus must inform the

contributors that the funds will be

subject to the contribution limits

and prohibitions of the Act;2

 and

• The nonfederal committee must

register as a federal political

committee with the FEC if its

transfer to the federal committee

exceeds $1,000.3

 In order to do so,

the nonfederal committee must

disclose the source(s) of all funds

in its cash on hand at the time it

becomes a committee, and remove

from its cash on hand any funds

that are not permissible under the

Act, again using a FIFO analysis to

determine which funds are permissible. 11 CFR 104.12. However, a

committee making a one-time

transfer of permissible funds to an

affiliated committee need not

remove the nonpermissible funds

from its account. Instead, it may

register as a political committee,

transfer the funds, and then

promptly file a termination report

to end its federal committee status.

In this case, the nonfederal committee must exclude all nonfederal

funds from the amount reported in

its cash on hand at the time of

registration and must make its first

report a termination report. 11

CFR 102.3.

Date: October 13, 2000; Length:

7 pages.✦

1

 Political committees that have cash on

hand at the time of registration must

disclose the sources of these funds on

their first report. This cash on hand

balance is assumed to be received from

individuals most recently contributing,

and committees must use these contributors as a starting point to determine which of the funds are permissible. 11 CFR 104.12.

2

 This communication—along with the

donor redesignation—will ensure that

the transfer complies with 11 CFR

102.5(a)(2). The advisory opinion

states that, under this provision,

contributions may only be deposited in

a committee’s federal account if they:

• Have been designated for the federal

account; or

• Are given in response to a solicitation

that expressly states that the funds

will be used in connection with a

federal election; or

• Are from contributors who have been

informed that all contributions are

subject to the prohibitions and

limitations of the Act.

3

 Under the Act and Commission

regulations, an organization or

committee making such transfers must

count these transfers against the

reporting thresholds for determining

whether an organization or committee

is a political committee. 11 CFR 100.5.

An organization that makes expenditures in excess of $1,000 in a calendar

year must register as a political

committee. 2 U.S.C. §431(4) and 11

CFR 100.5(a).

(continued on page 4)

AO 2000-26

Party’s Refund of

Candidate’s Ballot Access

Fee

Funds paid by the Florida Reform

Party (the Party) to the Citizens for

Deckard Committee (the Commit-
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2000

4

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

1

 The Commission cautioned that,

generally, payments and reimbursements to a candidate or his/her committee to pay for ballot qualifying fees are

considered contributions.

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2000-31

Use of terminating committee’s

excess funds for candidate’s moving

expenses (U.S. Representative

Matthew G. Martinez, October 17,

2000)

AOR 2000-32

Reporting uncollectable 1991

loan debt owed by non-Federal

candidate (U.S. Representative

Matthew G. Martinez, October 17,

2000)

AOR 2000-33

Reporting disputed and unenforceable debt from 1992 election

cycle (U.S. Representative Matthew

G. Martinez, October 17, 2000)

AOR 2000-35

Qualification as state committee

of political party (Green Party of

Washington State, October 27,

2000)

The FEC Takes Visa

and Mastercard

 FEC customers can pay for FEC

materials with Visa or

Mastercard. Most FEC materials

are available free of charge, but

some are sold, including financial

statistical reports ($10 each),

candidate indexes ($10) and PAC

directories ($13.25). The FEC

also has a 5¢ per page copying

charge for paper documents and a

15¢ per page copying charge for

microfilmed documents.

 Paying by credit card has its

advantages. For instance, since

the FEC will not fill an order

until payment is received, using a

credit card speeds delivery by

four to five days.

 Visitors to the FEC’s Public

Records Office may make

payments by credit card. Regular

visitors, such as researchers and

reporters, who in the past have

paid for FEC materials out of

their own pockets, may make

payments with a company credit

card.

 The credit card payment system

also reduces costs and paperwork

associated with check processing,

enabling FEC staff to better serve

the walk-in visitor.

AOR 2000-34

Name and acronym of SSF

(SAPPI Fine Paper North America/

S.D. Warren Company, October 25,

2000)

tee), as a refund of the Committee’s

ballot access fee to the Party, are

not considered a contribution to the

Committee. Instead, these funds are

part of the ballot access payment

process and, as a result, fall outside

of the definition of a contribution or

expenditure under the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act).

Under Florida Law, an individual

seeking ballot access must pay a

qualifying fee to the Florida Department of State, which includes a

party assessment. Upon receiving

the fee, the Department of State

remits the party assessment, minus a

surcharge, to the state committee of

the candidate’s political party.

Alternatively, the individual may

pay the party assessment directly to

the party. In early May 2000, the

Committee paid this fee and, in late

June, the Party sent the Committee a

check for the amount of the party

assessment, minus the surcharge.

The Party made similar payments to

all of its federal candidates who had

paid the fee. The Party’s records

show that the last funds it received

before sending payments to these

candidates were the ballot access

fees forwarded by the Department of

State.

Under the Act and Commission

regulations, contributions and

expenditures are defined as anything

of value given or paid to influence a

federal election. 2 U.S.C.

§§431(8)(A)(i) and 431(9)(A)(i); 11

CFR 100.7(a)(1) and 100.8(a)(1).

Certain payments related to ballot

access, however, are excepted from

these definitions:

• A payment by a candidate or

candidate committee to a party

committee as a condition of ballot

access is not a contribution (U.S.C.

§431(8)(B)(xiii) and 11 CFR

100.7(b)(18)); and

• A transfer by a party committee to

another party committee—or a

payment to the appropriate state

official—of fees collected from the

candidate or candidate committee

as a condition of ballot access is

not an expenditure. 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(x) and 11 CFR

100.8(b)(19).

Under these exceptions, the

Committee’s initial payment of the

ballot access fee was neither an

expenditure by the Committee nor a

contribution from the Committee to

the Party. 2 U.S.C.

§§431(8)(B)(xiii) and (9)(B)(x); 11

CFR 100.7(b)(18) and 100.8(b)(19).

See also AO 1988-33. Moreover,

given these specific circumstances,

the payment of funds from the Party

to the Committee was merely the

end point of several transactions in

the ballot access payment process.

Thus, it was not a contribution by

the Party to the Committee, but

rather a refund tied to the ballot

access process.1

 The Committee

should report the funds as a receipt

to offset operating expenditures.

See 11 CFR 104.3(a)(3)(ix)(A) and

(4)(v), and 104.8(d)(4).

Date: October 12, 2000; Length:

4 pages.✦
December 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Alternative Disposition of

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2000-31

On November 9, 2000, the

requester withdrew this request for

an advisory opinion. The request,

submitted on October 17, 2000,

sought the Commission’s opinion on

the use of a terminating committee’s

excess funds for a candidate’s

moving expenses.✦

AOR 2000-36

Disaffiliation of nonconnected

PACs (Andersen Consulting PAC,

October 26, 2000)

AOR 2000-37

Use of campaign funds to purchase and present Liberty Medals to

WW II veterans (U.S. Representative Tom Udall, October 31, 2000)

AOR 2000-38

Reporting obligations for party

organization that has not supported

federal candidates (Democratic

Party of the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, November 1, 2000)

AOR 2000-39

Qualification as state committee

of political party (Pacific Green

Party of Oregon, November 9, 2000)

Court Cases

Christine Beaumont, et al. v.

FEC

On October 3, 2000, the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, Northern

Division, found that the prohibitions

of the Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations against corporate

independent expenditures and

contributions on behalf of federal

candidates violated the plaintiffs’

First Amendment rights. The court

granted the plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment and denied the

FEC’s motions for partial summary

judgment and partial dismissal. The

court stayed the effect of this ruling

until a final order is issued.

On October 26, 2000, the court

also imposed a preliminary injunction barring the FEC from enforcing

the statutory and regulatory provisions against the plaintiffs.

Background

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc.

(NCRL), members of its board of

directors and an unaffiliated individual asserted that Section 441b of

the the Act, which prohibits corporations from making contributions

or expenditures in connection with a

federal election, is unconstitutional

because it makes no exception for

nonprofit, ideological corporations.

The lawsuit also challenged the

constitutionality of two FEC regulations: one that prohibits corporations

from making contributions (11 CFR

114.2(b)) and another that creates an

exemption from the ban on corporate expenditures for certain nonprofit corporations, pursuant to the

Supreme Court’s decision in FEC v.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life. 479

U.S. 238 (1986) (11 CFR 114.10).

Commission regulations at 11

CFR 114.10 provide that certain

“qualified nonprofit corporations”

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain FEC

material fast. It operates 24 hours

a day, 7 days a week. More than

300 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.

may be exempt from the prohibition

on corporate independent expenditures. To be considered a “qualified

nonprofit corporation,” a corporation must meet the following

criteria:

• Its only express purpose is the

promotion of political ideas;

• It does not engage in business

activities;

• It has no shareholders or other

individuals who receive a benefit

that might discourage an individual

from disassociating from the

corporation on the basis of that

corporation’s political positions;

and

• It was not established by a business corporation or labor organization and does not accept direct or

indirect donations from business

corporations.

NCRL argued that it failed to

meet this exemption only because it

accepted a small amount of corporate contributions and participated in

“minor business activities incidental

and related to its advocacy of

issues.” NCRL further argued that,

even though the FEC had conceded

that a Fourth Circuit decision in an

earlier case between NCRL and

North Carolina over a similar

provision in a North Carolina statute

barred enforcement of the Act’s

prohibition against NCRL, its

officers remained subject to criminal

liability and, as a result, their First

Amendment rights were censored.

NCRL also argued that, in this

case, the Act’s ban on corporate

contributions to political candidates

infringed on the organization’s right

to association. While the FEC

argued that NCRL’s ability to

contribute through a separate

segregated fund minimized this

infringement, NCRL contended that

the maintenance of such a fund was

a burden.

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

6

Regulations

Commission Declines

Rulemaking on PAC

Reporting Requirements

On November 2, 2000, the

Commission declined to act on a

petition for rulemaking (Petition)

filed by the Project on Government

Oversight (POGO) on September

20, 1999. The Petition contained six

recommendations that would amend

the Commission’s regulations and

procedures to improve reporting by

political action committees. The

Commission determined that two of

the recommendations addressed

internal procedures and, therefore,

were not appropriate subjects for

rulemaking. The Commission

solicited comments on the remaining four recommendations by

publishing a Notice of Availability

in October of last year. The Commission received 25 comments, all

in support of the Petition.

Since publishing the Notice of

Availability, the Commission has

implemented (or soon will imple1

 The Supreme Court’s decision in FEC

v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life,

permitting qualified nonprofit corporations to make independent expenditures,

extends only to corporate expenditures

and not to corporate contributions.

Decision

The court found no compelling

justification for denying NCRL (a

nonprofit, ideological organization)

the right to make contributions and

independent expenditures solely

because it was an incorporated

entity. Moreover, the court was not

persuaded by the FEC’s argument

that a ban on corporate contributions

was constitutional, as applied to

NCRL, while a ban on corporate

expenditures might not be.1

 The

court found the distinction between

contributions and expenditures

immaterial.

The court declared that the

provisions in question were unconstitutional as applied to NCRL and

suggested that the court may, in its

final order, deem these provisions

facially unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of North Carolina

Northern Division, 2:00-cv-2-

BO(2).✦

Change of Address

Political Committees

 Treasurers of registered political

committees automatically receive

the Record. A change of address

by a political committee (or any

change to information disclosed

on the Statement of Organization)

must, by law, be made in writing

on FEC Form 1 or by letter. The

treasurer must sign the

amendment and file it with the

Secretary of the Senate or the

FEC (as appropriate) and with the

appropriate state office.

Other Subscribers

 Record subscribers who are not

registered political committees

should include the following

information when requesting a

change of address:

• Subscription number (located on

the upper left corner of the

mailing label);

• Subscriber’s name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

 Subscribers (other than political

committees) may correct their

addresses by phone as well as by

mail.

Court Cases

(continued from page 5)

Federal Register

Federal Register Notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 2000-18

(Correction)

Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees;

Announcement of Effective Date

(65 FR 63535, October 24, 2000)

Notice 2000-20

Rules on Election-Cycle

Reporting by Authorized

Candidate Committees;

Announcement of Effective Date

(65 FR 70644, November 27,

2000)

ment) some new disclosure procedures, namely mandatory electronic

filing, election-cycle reporting and

modifications to forms. In light of

these changes, which will help to

achieve POGO’s goal of more

accurate and more timely reporting,

the Commission decided to take no

further action on the Petition.

The Commission published the

Notice of Availability in the October 13, 1999, Federal Register (64

FR 55440) and the Notice of

Disposition in the November 8,

2000, Federal Register (65 FR

66936). The Petition and the

Federal Register notices are available from the following sources:

• FEC’s Public Records Office at

800/424-9530 (press 3);

• FEC Faxline at 202/501-3413

(request document 243); and

• FEC Web site at www.fec.gov (see

link under Campaign Finance Law

Resources).✦
December 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Public Funding

Matching Funds for 2000 Presidential Candidates:

October Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative

 October 2000 Certifications

Gary L. Bauer (R) 1 $21, 611.16 $4,881,778.10

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

Patrick J. Buchanan (Reform) 3 $39,867.28 $4,366,389.72

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

John Hagelin (Natural Law) 5 $26,069.00 $676,416.06

Alan L. Keyes (R) 6 $305,192.40 $4,552,412.00

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D) 7 $37,486.21 $1,412,615.81

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

Ralph Nader (G) 9 $59,156.70 $723,307.65

Dan Quayle(R) 10 $0.00 $2,087,749.46

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

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

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

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

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

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

7

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

2000.

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

9 Ralph Nader became ineligible for matching funds on August 17, 2000.

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

PACronyms, Other

PAC Publications

Available

 The Commission annually

publishes PACronyms, an

alphabetical listing of acronyms,

abbreviations and common names

of political action committees

(PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the

PAC, its city, state, FEC

identification number and, if not

identifiable from the full name,

its connected, sponsoring or

affiliated organization.

 The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

 To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120.

PACronyms also is available on

diskette for $1 and can be

accessed free under the “Using

FEC Services” icon at the FEC’s

web site—http://www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Disclosure Division. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all

 registered PACs showing each

 PAC’s identification number,

 address, treasurer and

 connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs

 arranged by state providing the

 same information as above

 ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of

 organizations sponsoring PACs

 showing the PAC’s name and

 identification number ($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., N.W.

October Matching Fund

Payments

On October 31, 2000, the

Commission certified $430,226.05

in matching funds to five Presidential candidates. The U.S. Treasury

Department made the payments the

first day of November.

With these latest certifications,

the FEC has now declared ten

candidates eligible to receive a total

of $61,094,133.74 in federal matching funds for the 2000 election. The

chart below lists the most recent

certifications and cumulative

certifications (and payments) for

each candidate. ✦

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2000

8

Nonfilers

The campaign committees of the

candidates listed failed to file

required campaign finance disclosure reports. The lists are based on

recent FEC news releases. The FEC

is required by law to publicize the

names of nonfiling campaign

committees. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7).

The agency pursues enforcement

actions against nonfilers under the

administrative fines program and on

a case-by-case basis. For more

information on the FEC’s administrative fines program, see the July

Record, page 1, or visit the FEC

Web site at www.fec.gov and click

on the administrative fines icon.✦

House Candidates

Ahumada, Pat TX/27

Clarke, Una S. NY/11

Clayton, Eva M. NC/01

Ellison, Vince E. SC/06

Farling, Sam FL/14

Gash, Lauren B. IL/10

Kouvelis, Peter CA/48

Lutz, Lisa L. NM/03

Matranga, Jo Ann TX/22

Sanders, Jeffrey L. PA/19

Williams, Paul TX/09

Committees Cited for Failure

to File October Quarterly

Reports

Senate Candidate

Logan, Willie F. FL

Compliance

1

 See for example re Carter-Mondale

Reelection Committee, Inc. and

LaRouche v. FEC. Other relevant

requests to deny a candidate public

funding include:

• Request to Deny Funds to H. Ross

Perot and Perot ’96;

• Petition to Deny Certification of

Matching Funds to Governor Bill

Clinton;

• Petition to Deny Certification of

Matching Funds to the Dole for

President Committee; and

• Petition to Deny Certification of

Matching Funds to the Clinton/Gore

’96 Primary Committee, Inc.

Public Funding

(continued from page 7)

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 (go to www.fec.gov,

then click on “Campaign Finance

Law Resources” and then scroll

down to “Publications”).

 If you would like to place an

order for paper copies of the

Campaign Guides, please call

800-424-9530, press 1, then 3.

Commission Rejects

Requests to Deny Buchanan

Public Funding

On November 2, 2000, the

Commission approved the Statements of Reasons rejecting the

requests, from James Mangia and

the New York delegation to the

Reform Party Convention, that the

Commission withhold certification

of public funding to the party’s

nominees Patrick J. Buchanan and

Ezola Foster. Mr. Mangia had

argued that Mr. Buchanan and his

supporters had submitted false

information to the FEC, assumed the

nomination in violation of the

Party’s rules and committed ballot

fraud. The New York delegation

had argued that Mr. Buchanan was

not the legitimate Reform Party

candidate and, thus, should not

receive the party’s public funds.

The Commission rejected the

requests because they did not meet

the burden necessary in order to

withhold funds. The Commission’s

review of public funding applications is limited to determining

whether the applications meet the

eligibility requirements of the Fund

Act, rather than determining a

candidate’s eligibility for the

nomination within his or her party’s

procedures. Moreover, the law

requires the Commission to make its

initial determination of whether to

certify funding within 10 days of a

candidate’s meeting all applicable

conditions for eligibility. 26 U.S.C.

§9005. In light of the statutory

provisions, its own past decisions

and judicial review of these decisions, the Commission cannot

withhold funding unless it has “a

reasonable belief that patent fraud or

another major violation has occurred.”1

 In the absence of this

belief, the Commission must grant

funding within 10 days to candidates who meet the Fund Act’s

requirements.

Commissioners McDonald,

Thomas and Smith issued a statement for the record on this matter on

October 19, 2000. Commissioner

Sandstrom released a statement on

October 23, 2000.
December 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

House Candidates

Ahumada, Pat TX/27

Balbraith, Gatewood KY/06

Barraza, Jorge L. CA/51

Bishop, David A. NY/02

Brightharp, George L. SC/03

Cantu, Israel TX/15

Clarke, Una S. NY/11

Clayton, Eva M. NC/01

Cruz, Manuel Q. GU/00

D’Apolito, Lou A. OH/17

Demint, James W. SC/04

Dickman, Daniel L. OH/04

Dodd, Douglas J. FL/02

Ellison, Vince E. SC/06

Committees Cited for Failure

to File Pre-General Reports

Senate Candidates

Carroll, John S. HI

Deckard, Joel FL

Lightfoot, Gail K. CA

FEC Roundtables

The Commission will host

roundtable sessions in January and

February. See the table on the

following page for more details.

FEC roundtables, limited to 12

participants per session, are conducted at the FEC’s headquarters in

Washington, DC.

The registration fee is $25, and

participants will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis. Please

call the FEC before registering or

sending money to be sure that

openings remain in the session.

Prepayment is required. The registration form is available at the

FEC’s Web site—http://

www.fec.gov/pdf/rndtabl.pdf—and

from Faxline, the FEC’s automated

fax system (202/501-3413, request

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 (press 1,

then 3) or 202/694-1100.✦

Outreach Ford, Barry D. NY/10

Forthofer, Ronald N. CO/02

Gamble, Alan J. MI/04

Garza, Isidro Jr. TX/23

Gold, Sidney CA/25

Griggs, Joyce M. GA/01

Hauptmann, Joseph A. IN/06

Kennedy, Brian T. NJ/06

Linder, John GA/11

Lowe, Daniel W. OK/01

Matranga, Jo Ann TX/22

McCarthy, Paul MA/06

Miller, Michael C. Sr. DE/00

Mitchel, John R. OH/07

Nolan, David F. CA/47

Osborne, Michael D. VA/09

Pryce, Deborah D. OH/15

Rhodes, Carla Adrienne NY/14

Sanders, Jeffrey L. PA/19

Steele, Timothy W. MI/03

Taylor, Frankie L. MN/05

Tedeschi, Joseph NJ/09

Traficant, James A. OH/17

Vu, Joe TX/29

Walsh, Robert T. NY/02

Willingham, Noble TX/01

Windisch, Anthony J. MO/03

Wynn, Albert R. MD/04

Public Appearances

December 8, 2000

American University

Washington, D.C.

Commissioner Sandstrom

Commissioner Smith

December 8, 2000

The Urban Institute

Washington, D.C.

Bob Biersack

December 13, 2000

BNA Money & Politics Report

Washington, D.C.

Lawrence Noble

(continued on page 10)

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record starting

with January 1996 are available

through the Internet as PDF files.

Visit the FEC’s World Wide Web

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

click on “What’s New” for this

issue. Click “Campaign Finance

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

posted on the web as well. You

will need Adobe® Acrobat®

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

a link that will take you to Adobe’s

web site, where you can download

the latest version of the software

for free.
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2000

10

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2000 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “3:4” means

that the article is in the March issue

on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

Alternative disposition of 2000-09,

10:5

Reconsideration of 2000-08, 10:5

1999-24: Web site sponsored by

LLC featuring information on

candidates, 1:17

1999-29: Fundraising exemption

from state limits for direct mailing

by Presidential committee, 1:19

1999-30: Application of allocation

ratio in state with single house

legislature, 1:20

1999-31: Application of one-third

rule to prizes and premiums used

in connection with payroll

deduction, 1:21

1999-32: Indian tribe’s utility

authority treated as separate from

the tribe, 3:4

1999-33: Delayed transmittal of

payroll deductions, 3:5

1999-34: Use of campaign funds to

finance charity event, 2:2

1999-35: Soliciting for SSF through

electronic deduction system, 2:4

1999-36: Fundraising via electronic

checks and Internet fund transfers,

3:5

1999-37: PAC distribution of

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

1999-38: Reporting disputed and

unpayable debts, 11:4

1999-39: Disaffiliation of SSFs after

corporate restructuring, 4:5

1999-40: Solicitation of members of

rural electric cooperatives, 5:6

2000-1: Paid leave of absence for

attorney seeking federal office,

4:5

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

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

2000-4: Automatic Deductions for

credit union PAC, 5:8

2000-5: Application of $25,000

limit to contributions by Indian

tribe, 7:8

2000-6: Use of federal convention

funds to develop voter data base

and balloting system, 7:9

2000-7: Use of corporate web sites

to provide PAC information and

solicit contributions, 7:9

2000-10: “Permission to solicit

form” placed on trade association

Web page, 8:8

2000-11: Misplaced payrolldeducted contributions, 8:9

2000-12: Using campaign funds to

pay convention expenses of

former presidential candidates,

9:5

2000-13: Internet video coverage of

Republican and Democratic

national conventions, 8:9

2000-14: Status of New York State

Committee of the Working

Families Party as state committee,

9:6

2000-15: Payroll deduction by trade

association’s affiliated member,

9:7

2000-16: Political ads on Internet

for academic study, 10:2

Roundtables

January 10, 2001

9:30 - 11:00 a.m.

February 7, 2001

9:30 - 11:00 a.m.

Candidate Preparations for the Next Election Cycle

• New election cycle reporting rules

• New electronic filing rules for campaigns

• Candidate registration

• Contribution limits and prohibitions

• House and Senate campaigns

• Lawyers, consultants and party

staff who advise campaigns

The New Electronic Filing Rules and FEC

Forms for PACs

Explanation and Q/A about the new electronic

filing requirements and the new forms used by

paper filers

• Corporate/Labor/Trade Association PACs

• Nonconnected PACs

• Lawyers and consultants to PACs

Date Subject Intended Audience

Index

Outreach

(continued from page 9)
December 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

2000-17: Establishment of separate

segregated fund by subsidiary of

foreign corporation, 9:7

2000-18: Closing date for Nader

2000 matching funds, 10:3

2000-19: Retroactively reallocating

ballot composition ratio, 10:4

2000-20: Creation of nonconnected

committee, 11:5

2000-21: New York Conservative

Party as State Committee, 10:5

2000-22: Electronic signature for

trade associations’ “permission to

solicit” authorizations, 11:5

2000-23: Preemption of New York

election code, 11:6

2000-25: Transfers from nonfederal

account to new federal account,

12:3

2000-26: Party’s refund of

candidate’s ballot access fee, 12:3

2000-29: Determining number of

Louisiana federal elections, 11:6

Compliance

Administrative Fines Program,

5:1,7:1, 10:1

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Program, 7:2, 8:10, 11:10

MUR 3774: Failure to allocate

expenses between federal and

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

party, 3:3

MUR 4322 and 4650: Violations by

candidate, campaign committees,

treasurer and relative, 2:1

MUR 4648: Failure to disclose

purpose of expenditures and other

violations, 3:4

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 8:12

– Becker, 8:13, 11:8

– Christine Beaumont, et al., 3:9,

12:5

– Patrick J. Buchanan, et. al., 9:8.

11:10

– DNC, 4:6

– DSCC, 1:2

– Fulani, Lenora B., 11:8

– Hooker, John Jay, 6:9, 7:8

– Natural Law Party, 11:10

– Unified Independent Party,

Committee for, 7:8

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

Inc., 3:8

– Wertheimer, 11:9

FEC v. _____

– Arlen Specter ‘96, 8:14

– Christian Coalition, 4:7

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 7:1, 10:6

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 6:8

– Friend for Fasi, 3:9, 8:14

– Fund for Conservative Majority

(Heckman), 6:8

– National Rifle Association, 6:9

– Salvi for Senate Committee, 6:9

– Toledano, James, 6:9

Other

– Fireman v. USA, 1:13

– Hooker v. All Contributors, 8:15

– Mariani v. USA, 1:3, 7:7

– Missouri Republican Party v.

Charles Lamb, 11:8

– Reform Party v. Gargan, 5:9, 7:8

– Reform Party v. John Hagelin and

Reform Party v. Gerald M. Moan,

11:10

– Shrink PAC v. Nixon, 3:7

Regulations

Administrative Fines, 5:1, 7:1

Coordination, 1:14; 4:3

Election Cycle Reporting, 6:1, 8:4

Electronic Filing, 5:1, 8:1

Electronic Freedom of Information

Act, 4:1

Express Advocacy, 4:2

Presidential Public Funding, 5:3

Repayments by Federally Financed

Presidential Primary Campaign

Committees, 4:2

Rulemaking on PAC reporting

requirements declined, 12:6

State Waivers, 4:3, 7:5

Reports

Georgia special election, 9:4

New forms for 20001, 11:1

New reporting requirements, 11:2

October reporting reminder, 9:1

On-line 48-hour notices, 10:1

Reports due in 2000, 1:5

Reports due in July, 6:1

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

5:5, 6:3, 7:5, 11:4

Virginia Convention Reports, 5:5

Web access to Senate candidates’

campaign finance reports, 10:1
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2000