March 2007 Federal Election Commission Volume 33, Number 3

Table of Contents

 

Regulations Compliance

Supplemental E&J on 

Political Committee Status

In response to the district court 

decision in Shays v. FEC (Shays 

II),1

 the Commission has published 

a Supplemental Explanation and 

Justification (E&J) for its resolution of the 2004 political committee 

status rulemaking. The E&J provides a more detailed rationale for 

the agency’s decision not to amend 

the regulatory definition of “political committee,” while it revised the 

definition of “contribution” and 

adjusted certain federal/nonfederal 

allocation ratios to capture additional political activity. 

Background

During its 2004 political committee status rulemaking, the Commission held two days of public 

hearings and considered roughly 

100,000 written comments, before 

voting to: 

1. Revise the definition of 

“contribution” at 11 CFR 100.57 to 

clarify that funds resulting from a 

solicitation that indicates that any 

portion of the funds received will 

be used to support or oppose the 

election of a federal candidate are 

considered “contributions” and, 

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 2)

1

 424 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.D.C. 2006). 

Policy Statement Establishing 

Probable Cause Hearings

On February 8, 2007, the Commission established a pilot program under which respondents in 

enforcement matters may request 

a hearing before the Commission 

considers whether there is probable 

cause to believe that they violated 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

or the Commission’s implementing 

regulations. The pilot program is 

intended to address concerns within 

the regulated community regarding 

the transparency of agency actions 

and the lack of direct access to the 

Commission during the enforcement process. 

Under the pilot program, any 

respondent who receives a General Counsel’s Brief in the “probable cause to believe” stage of the 

enforcement process may submit a 

request for a hearing to the Commission with his or her reply brief. 

The request should state why the 

hearing was being requested and 

what issues the respondent expects 

to address. The request for a hearing is optional and the respondent’s 

decision as to whether or not to 

request a hearing will not influence 

the Commission’s decision as to a 

probable cause finding. 

 Regulations

 1 Supplemental E&J on Political 

Committee Status

 Compliance

 1 Policy Statement Establishing 

Probable Cause Hearings

New Litigation

 3 Fieger v. Gonzales

3 Federal Register Notices

4 Advisory Opinions

 Party Activities

 9 2007 Coordinated Party 

Expenditure Limits

Outreach

 10 2007 Spring Conferences

 Information

 10 Reporting Notices Enter the 

Electronic Age

 11 Index 
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 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

Thomasenia Duncan, 

 Acting General Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Meredith E. Metzler, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

consequently, may require an organization to register as a political 

committee; and 

2. Revise its allocation regulations at 11 CFR 106.6 to require 

that voter drives and campaign ads 

that refer to federal candidates be 

paid for entirely with federal funds, 

and that a committee’s administrative costs be paid for with at least 

50% federal funds. 

(For more information on the 

final rules, see the December 2004

Record). 

Representative Christopher 

Shays and others immediately filed 

suit in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia to challenge the Commission’s decision 

not to revise the regulatory definition of “political committee.” In 

its decision in the case (Shays II), 

the district court found that the 

Commission “failed to present a 

reasoned explanation of its decision” not to regulate so-called 527 

organizations as “political committees” specifically by virtue of their 

status under the Internal Revenue 

Code and remanded the case to the 

Commission to explain its decision 

or institute a new rulemaking. (For 

more information on the district 

court decision, see the June 2006

Record). The Commission declined 

to appeal the district court’s ruling 

and instead has issued this Supplemental E&J.

Major Purpose and Political 

Committee Status 

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) defines political committee as “any committee, club, 

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

association, or other group of persons which receives contributions 

aggregating in excess of $1,000 

during a calendar year or makes 

expenditures aggregating in excess 

of $1,000 during a calendar year.” 

2 U.S.C. 431(4)(A). Supreme Court 

decisions have effectively added 

two more requirements for political 

committee status: 

1. When applied to communications made independently of a 

candidate or candidate’s committee, the term expenditure includes 

payments for communications that 

expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified federal 

candidate; and

2. Only organizations whose 

“major purpose” is the nomination 

or election of a federal candidate 

can be considered “political committees.” 

Therefore, determining political committee status under the Act, 

as interpreted by the Supreme 

Court, requires an analysis of both 

an organization’s specific conduct (whether it received $1,000 

in contribution or made $1,000 in 

expenditures) as well as overall 

conduct (whether its major purpose 

is federal campaign activity). 

While the courts have clarified 

that an organization can satisfy the 

major purpose doctrine through 

sufficiently extensive spending 

on federal campaign activity2 and 

through certain public statements,3

determining an organization’s 

major purpose requires a fact-intensive comparison of its campaign 

and non-campaign activities. As 

explained in the Supplemental 

E&J, the Commission determined 

that this need for a case-by-case 

analysis was incompatible with 

the proposed rules amending the 

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

2

 See FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for 

Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238, at 262 (1986). 

3

 See, e.g., FEC v. Malenick, 310 F. 

Supp. 2d 230, 234-36 (D.D.C. 2004); 

FEC v. GOPAC, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 851, 

859 (D.D.C. 1996).

Within 30 days of receiving the 

brief, the Commission will notify 

the respondent whether the Commission has granted the hearing 

request. The Commission will grant 

a request for an oral hearing if any 

two Commissioners conclude that a 

hearing would help resolve significant legal issues or significant 

questions about the application of 

the law to the facts. At the hearing, 

the respondent, or the respondent’s 

counsel, may directly present his or 

her arguments to the Commission, 

and be subject to questions as to 

their position. Hearings are confidential and closed to the public.

The pilot program will last for 

eight months but may be extended 

by a Commission vote. The program can be modified or terminated 

at any time during the eight month 

period by the approval of a majority 

of the Commission. 

More information about this program was published in the Federal 

Register on February 16, 2007, and 

is available on the Commission’s 

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

policy.shtml.

—Meredith Metzler
March 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

regulatory definition of “political 

committee” at 11 CFR 100.5.

527 Status Insufficient Evidence 

The E&J also explains the 

Commission’s decision not to adopt 

a rule singling out 527 organizations based on tax status. The 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

requirements for an organization 

to be entitled to the tax exemption 

as a political organization under 26 

U.S.C. 527 are based on a different 

and broader set of criteria than the 

Commission’s determination of political committee status. In light of 

that fact, an organization’s 527 tax 

status is not sufficient evidence, in 

itself, that the organization satisfies 

the major purpose requirement for 

political committee status.

The Commission also notes 

that Congress has not materially 

amended the definition of “political committee” since 1971, and has 

specifically rejected every effort 

to classify organizations as political committees based on section 

527 status. Congress also twice 

amended the Internal Revenue Code 

to require 527 organizations that are 

not political committees registered 

with the Commission to file disclosure reports to the IRS.

Effective Enforcement

Finally, the Supplement highlights recent enforcement matters 

that demonstrate the sufficiency of 

Commission regulations in determining political committee status 

for 527 (and 501(c)) organizations. See MURs 5511 and 5525 

(Swiftboat Vets); 5753 (League 

of Conservation Voters); 5754 

(MoveOn.org Voter Fund); 5751 

(The Leadership Forum); 5492 

(Freedom, Inc.). In each of these 

matters, the Commission conducted 

a thorough investigation of all 

aspects of the organization’s statements and activities to determine 

if the organization exceeded the 

$1,000 threshold for contributions 

or expenditures and whether the 

organization’s major purpose was 

Fieger v. Gonzales

On February 5, 2007, Geoffrey Fieger, Nancy Fisher and the 

law firm of Fieger, Fieger, Kenney 

& Johnson, P.C. (FFKJ), filed a 

complaint in the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District of Michigan 

alleging that the Commission has 

violated the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and the Administrative Procedures Act (the APA) 

by failing to conduct an investigation into the plaintiff’s activities 

and that Attorney General Alberto 

Gonzales has violated the Act by 

conducting a criminal investigation 

into the plaintiffs’ alleged activities 

even though the Commission has 

not yet completed its investigation. 

New 

Litigation

federal campaign activity. These 

matters are significant because they 

demonstrate that an organization 

may satisfy the political committee 

status threshold based on how the 

organization raises funds. They are 

also significant because they are 

the first major cases to consider the 

reach of the definition of “express 

advocacy” when evaluating an 

organization’s disbursements for 

communications made independently of a candidate to determine if the 

expenditure threshold has been met. 

Finally, these matters also illustrate 

well the Commission’s application 

of the major purpose doctrine to the 

conduct of particular organizations, 

regardless of tax status.

The Supplemental E&J was 

published in the Federal Register 

on February 7, 2007, (72 FR 5595) 

and is available on the FEC’s web 

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

rulemakings.shtml. 

—Amy Pike

Background

Geoffrey Fieger is an attorney 

and president of FFKJ. Ms. Fisher 

is the office manager of FFKJ. 

According to the complaint, on 

September 19, 2006, the Commission found reason to believe 

that the plaintiffs violated the Act 

by making contributions in the 

name of others but has failed to 

investigate the matter. In June 

2005, the Department of Justice, 

with the assistance of the FBI and 

IRS, began an investigation into 

the actual source of the purported 

contributions, including subpoenas 

for documents and for grand jury 

testimony. Many of the individuals 

who testified before the grand jury 

were contributors to and supporters 

of Senator John Edwards’ 2004 vice 

presidential campaign.

Complaint

The plaintiffs assert that by Congress giving “exclusive jurisdiction” 

over the Act to the Commission, 

no criminal investigation can take 

place unless the Commission has 

formally referred the criminal matters to the Department of Justice. 

(continued on 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 2007-2

Price Index Increases for 

Expenditure and Contribution 

Limitations (72 FR 5294, 

February 5, 2007)

Notice 2007-3

Political Committee Status (72 FR 

5595, February 7, 2007)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2007

4

Advisory

Opinions

Advisory Opinion 2006-35:

Legal Fees Paid with 

Campaign Funds

The authorized campaign committee of a former U.S. Representative may use campaign funds to pay 

legal expenses in connection with 

recent inquiries by the House Ethics 

Committee and the Department of 

Justice and resulting questions from 

the press. The use of campaign 

funds for those expenses does not 

constitute “personal use” because the 

inquiries would not exist irrespective 

of the individual’s duties as a federal 

officeholder.

Background

Kolbe for Congress (the Committee) is the principal campaign committee of Representative Jim Kolbe, 

who retired from Congress in 2006. 

The House Ethics Committee established an investigative subcommittee 

that has jurisdiction to conduct a formal inquiry regarding “any conduct 

of House members, officers and staff 

related to information concerning 

improper conduct involving Members and current and former House 

Pages.” A similar inquiry by the Department of Justice concerns, in part, 

information known to or obtained by 

Representative Kolbe and his staff 

relating to the interaction between a 

former House member and current 

or former House Pages. The Department of Justice inquiry also concerns 

an official congressional trip to the 

Grand Canyon attended by, among 

others, Representative Kolbe and two 

former House Pages.

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) allows federal officeholders to use campaign funds for 

“ordinary and necessary expenses 

incurred in connection with duties of 

the individual as a holder of Federal 

New Litigation

(continued from page 3)

office.” 2 U.S.C. 439a(a)(2); 11 CFR 

113.2(a). However, the Act explicitly 

prohibits use of campaign funds for 

“personal use.” 2 U.S.C. 439a(b)(1). 

Personal use includes the use of 

campaign funds to pay for expenses 

that would exist “irrespective of the 

candidate’s campaign of duties as 

a Federal officeholder.” 11 CFR 

113.1(g) and 2 U.S.C. 439a(b)(2).

In previous advisory opinions, the 

Commission has examined on a caseby-case basis whether the payment 

of legal fees and expenses constitute 

personal use and has concluded that 

expenses incurred as a result of legal 

proceedings involving a candidate’s 

campaign activities or duties as a 

federal officeholder would not exist irrespective of the candidate’s 

campaign or capacity as a federal officeholder. Therefore, such expenses 

may be paid with campaign funds.

The Commission concluded that 

legal expenses incurred by Representative Kolbe that are related to the 

House Ethics Committee and Department of Justice inquiries are ordinary 

and necessary expenses incurred in 

connection with his duties as a federal officeholder that would not exist 

irrespective of his duties as a federal 

officeholder. Thus, Representative 

Kolbe’s committee may pay for such 

expenses with campaign funds. 

In addition to legal fees associated with the inquiries themselves, 

Representative Kolbe may also use 

campaign funds to pay for legal 

expenses incurred in responding to 

related press queries, as this is also 

tied to Representative Kolbe’s duties 

as a federal officeholder.

The Committee must maintain 

appropriate documentation of any 

disbursements made to pay legal 

expenses relating to the inquiries and 

report them appropriately on FEC 

reports.

Date Issued: January 25, 2007

Length: 7 pages.

—Myles Martin

The complaint then charges that 

Attorney Gonzales intentionally 

interfered with the Commission’s 

investigation and that the Commission’s failure to conduct its own 

investigation violates the Act and 

the APA. 

Relief

The plaintiffs ask the court to:

• Declare the actions of the Commission and the Attorney General 

unlawful;

• Declare that the Commission has 

failed to uphold the Act;

• Issue a Writ of Mandamus requiring the Commission to conduct its 

own investigation into the matter 

prior to any investigation by the 

Attorney General; and 

• Award costs and attorneys’ fees.

U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan, 

2:07CV10533.

—Meredith Metzler

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.
March 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Advisory Opinion 2006-36: 

Green Senatorial Committee 

Gains National Party Status

The Green Senatorial Campaign 

Committee (GSCC) qualifies as 

a national party committee, specifically as the national senatorial 

campaign committee of the Green 

Party of the United States. 

Background

The Green National Committee 

(GNC) created the GSCC on June 

18, 2006, to promote Green Party 

senatorial candidates and party 

building activities. In July 2006, 

the GNC named seven individuals 

to comprise the GSCC. The GSCC 

met by teleconference and began 

conducting business shortly thereafter. The GSCC filed a Statement of 

Organization with the Commission 

on September 8, 2006. The GSCC 

opened a bank account and deposited over $1,000 in contributions. 

The GSCC has an official web 

site to support its candidates and 

publicize the GSCC’s policy priorities and has offices in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota.

In the 2006 elections, the Green 

Party’s state affiliates placed 11 individuals on the ballot for U.S. Senate in 11 states. At least seven of 

these individuals qualified as candidates under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations. See 2 U.S.C. 

431(2) and 11 CFR 100.2(a). Two 

more individuals running for U.S. 

Senate received the sole endorsement of their state Green Party 

affiliates but appeared on the ballot 

as Independents, not Green Party 

candidates. Additionally, the Green 

party placed seven candidates for 

Senate on the ballot between 1998 

and 2004 in five states. 

The GSCC raised funds and 

made contributions to the 2006 

Green Party candidates for Senate, 

in part, to support party building 

activities including ballot access, 

get-out-the-vote activity, voter registration and voter identification. 

Members of the GSCC also participated in party building activities 

in three States where Green candidates were running for the Senate. 

Also several of the Green Party candidates conducted voter registration 

drives in their respective States to 

“register [new voters] as ‘Green,’” 

and all 11 Green Party candidates 

engaged in voter identification and 

get-out-the-vote activities.

Analysis

The GSCC’s request marks the 

first time that the Commission has 

been asked to recognize the national 

senatorial campaign committee of 

a political party as a national party 

committee.1

To determine whether a political 

committee is the national senatorial 

committee of a political party, the 

Commission employed the analysis 

that it used previously to determine 

whether a political committee was 

the national committee of a political 

party, but taking into account the 

GSCC’s sole focus on electing U.S. 

Senate candidates.

First the Commission must 

determine whether the party itself 

qualifies as a “political party” under 

the Act and regulations. Secondly, 

the Commission must determine 

whether the committee has demonstrated that it has engaged in 

sufficient activity on a national 

level to be considered a national 

party committee. While activity 

includes supporting ongoing party 

building activities and establishing 

national offices, the most important 

component is the degree to which a 

party committee’s successful ballot 

access efforts extend beyond the 

presidential and vice presidential 

level. The Commission has recognized the national party committee 

status of only those committees 

whose activities were broadly 

focused – such as on multiple races 

or offices in more than one State or 

geographical area. Finally, individuals running for federal office 

on a party’s ticket must qualify as 

candidates under the Act and Commission regulations. See AO 1996-

35 (Greens/Green Party USA). See 

also 2 U.S.C. 431(3) and 11 CFR 

100.3(a).

For the initial portion of the 

analysis, the Commission previously recognized the Green Party as 

a national political party in Advisory Opinion 2001-13. Regarding 

the second part of the analysis, the 

GSCC and its Senate candidates 

participated in party building activities, including voter identification 

and registration and get-out-thevote activities in several states. It 

also established a national office, 

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. 

(continued on page 6)

1

 Both the Democratic Senatorial 

Campaign Committee and the National 

Republican Senatorial Committee predate the Act and the Commission.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2007

6

Advisory Opinion 2006-37:

Campaign May Reimburse 

Candidate for Misreported 

Loans

A campaign committee may reimburse the candidate for loans made 

from his personal funds that the 

committee had mistakenly reported 

as contributions.

Background

Barry Kissin was a candidate in 

the 2006 Democratic primary election for the U.S. House of Representatives. This was Mr. Kissin’s 

first candidacy for political office 

at any level. On March 3, 2006, 

Mr. Kissin deposited $5,000 of his 

personal funds into the campaign 

depository of his principal campaign 

committee, Kissin for Congress (the 

Committee). On March 21, 2006, 

Mr. Kissin deposited an additional 

$20,000 of his personal funds into 

the campaign depository. The committee reported both deposits as 

contributions, not loans, from the 

candidate to the Committee. 

Mr. Kissin, the Committee’s 

chairman and the Committee’s treasurer submitted affidavits with the 

Advisory Opinion Request stating 

that Mr. Kissin had always intended 

to be reimbursed for the $20,000. 

The affidavits of Mr. Kissin and the 

Committee’s chairman stated a similar intent regarding the $5,000. The 

committee’s 2006 Year-End report 

disclosed that the committee had 

$15,230.34 in cash on hand with no 

outstanding debts or obligations.

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) provides for acceptable 

uses of campaign funds and prohibits 

the personal use of campaign funds 

by any person. See 2 U.S.C. 439a. 

The repayment of candidate loans is 

permissible, since debt repayment is 

an authorized expenditure in connection with a candidate’s campaign 

for federal office. See 2 U.S.C. 

439a(a)(1) and AO 2003-30.

held meetings, and maintains a web 

site promoting the Green Party and 

its candidates. As for ballot access, in 

the 2006 election eleven Green Party 

candidates (at least seven of whom 

qualified as candidates under the Act 

and Commission regulations) were 

on the ballot in different geographic 

parts of the country out of a total of 

33 U.S. Senate races. The Commission concluded that the GSCC had 

demonstrated the requisite ability 

to gain ballot access in a number of 

states in different geographic areas.

Therefore, considering all the facts 

together, the Commission concludes 

that the GSCC qualifies as a national 

committee of a political party and 

as the national senatorial campaign 

committee of the Green Party.

Contribution Limits

Under the Act, the national party 

committee and the senatorial campaign committee of a national party 

committee share one limit for contributions to candidates for the U.S. 

Senate. 2 U.S.C. 441a(h).2

 Therefore, the GSCC shares with the GNC 

the current $39,900 contribution 

limit to Senate candidates. 11 CFR 

110.2(e)(1). 

Once the GSCC qualifies as a multicandidate committee,3

 the GSCC 

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)

will have a limit of $5,000 per 

election to federal candidates other 

than Senate candidates and $5,000 

per calendar year to other political 

committees. 11 CFR 110.2(b)(1) 

and (d).

The GSCC may receive $15,000 

per calendar year from multicandidate committees and $28,500 from 

all other contributors, including individuals. 11 CFR 110.1(c)(1) and 

110.2(c)(1). Contributions to the 

GSCC do not count against limits 

on contributions to the GNC. See 11 

CFR 110.3(b)(2)(ii).

National and state political party 

committees may make coordinated 

party expenditures on behalf of 

general election candidates. See

2 U.S.C. 441a(d) and 11 CFR 

109.30.4

 Coordinated party expenditures are in addition to contributions that party committees may 

give to their candidates. The national and state committees may assign some or all of their respective 

coordinated party expenditure limit 

to other party committees, such 

as local party committees or the 

national senatorial campaign committee. See 11 CFR 109.33. Thus 

the GSCC may make coordinated 

party expenditures if the GNC or a 

state committee of the Green Party 

assigns in writing the authority to 

make coordinated expenditures to 

the GSCC.

As a national party committee, the GSCC will be required 

to file monthly reports with the 

Commission and comply with all 

other reporting requirements of 2 

U.S.C. 434 and 11 CFR Part 104. 

See 2 U.S.C. 434(e)(1), 11 CFR 

104.5(c)(4) and 105.2.

Date: February 8, 2007

Length: 10 pages

—Meredith Metzler

2

 Both the Republican and Democratic 

senatorial committees (NRSC and DSCC, 

respectively) were named as national 

senatorial committees in 2 U.S.C. 

441a(h). The Commission interpreted 

the Act’s reference to the NRSC and the 

DSCC as merely historical and saw no 

Congressional intent to prohibit other 

bona fide national parties from establishing and maintaining senatorial campaign 

committees.

3

 A multicandidate committee is a political committee with more than 50 contributors which has been registered with 

the FEC for at least six months and, with 

the exception of state party committees, 

has made contributions to five or more 

candidates for federal office. 11 CFR 

100.5(e)(3).

4

 See FEC v. DSCC, 454 U.S. 27 

(1981) (senatorial campaign committees do not have the authority to make 

coordinated party expenditures under 

2 U.S.C. 441a(d) unless they act as 

agents for the national or state party 

committee.)
March 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Advisory Opinion 2006-38: 

Officeholder’s Use of State 

Campaign Funds

A federal officeholder may identify federally permissible funds in his 

dormant state campaign account and 

spend only those funds in connection 

with state and local elections. The 

state committee may also use those 

funds to pay for the senator’s travel 

expenses in connection with state 

and local campaign events.

Background

Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. of 

Pennsylvania was elected to the 

United States Senate in 2006, after 

serving as the Treasurer of Pennsylvania. His state campaign committee 

has surplus funds, some of which 

are from sources and in amounts that 

are prohibited under federal law, but 

permissible under Pennsylvania law. 

The state committee proposes 

to identify its federally permissible 

funds, then to donate those funds to 

state and local candidates and party 

committees, and to pay Senator 

Casey’s travel expenses in connection with attending events on behalf 

of state and local candidates or state 

and local elections.

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) prohibits federal 

candidates and officeholders (including entities directly or indirectly 

established, financed, maintained, 

or controlled by federal candidates 

or officeholders) from raising or 

spending funds in connection with 

a nonfederal election, unless those 

funds are subject to the limitations 

and prohibitions of the Act. 2 U.S.C. 

441i(e)(1)(B) and 11 CFR 300.62. 

Commission regulations also require 

that such transactions be consistent 

with relevant state law. 11 CFR 

300.62.

Applying these statutory and 

regulatory provisions, the Commission concluded that Senator Casey’s 

state committee must use a reasonable accounting method to identify 

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.

The Act requires that all funds 

received from the candidate, including loans made or guaranteed by 

the candidate, as well as contributions, must be disclosed on the 

committee’s regularly scheduled 

reports. 2 U.S.C. 434(b)(2)(B), (G) 

and 434(b)(8). All outstanding debts 

owed by and to a political committee must be reported on every report 

until the debts are repaid. 11 CFR 

104.11(a).

When determining the nature of a 

transaction, the Commission has historically not only looked at the way 

that the transaction was reported, but 

has also considered affidavits from 

the individuals involved explaining 

their intent. See AO 1997-21 and 

Statement of Reasons—Final Repayment Determination of Buchanan for 

President. 

The Commission held that affidavits submitted by Mr. Kissin 

and members of his staff supported 

the conclusion that the $25,000 was 

intended to be a loan to the committee, not a contribution as it was 

mistakenly reported. Therefore the 

funds remaining in the committee’s 

account may be used to repay Mr. 

Kissin’s loans. The Commission 

required the Committee to amend its 

April 2006 report and all subsequent 

reports within 30 days of the date 

of the advisory opinion to show the 

debt owed by the Committee to Mr. 

Kissin. The Committee should continue to report as a debt the amount 

of the loan that remains unpaid or 

report Mr. Kissin’s forgiveness of 

the debt, should he choose to forgive 

the unpaid portion of the loan.

Date: January 25, 2007

Length: 5 pages

—Meredith Metzler

federally permissible funds. The 

Commission has specifically approved the “first in, first out” method 

described in AO 2006-6 (Busby), 

and the “last in, first out” method 

described in AO 2004-45 (Salazar) 

as reasonable accounting methods. 

Once the permissible funds are 

identified, the committee may spend 

those funds in connection with state 

and local elections, subject to state 

law.

Additionally, the state committee 

may use its federally permissible 

funds to pay for Senator Casey’s (or 

one of his agents’) travel expenses 

undertaken solely in connection with 

campaign events for state and local 

candidates or elections, as permitted 

by Pennsylvania law.

Date Issued: February 8, 2007

Length: 7 pages

—Myles Martin

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2007

8

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 2007-3

Presidential candidate’s ability 

to solicit and receive private contributions for general election while 

retaining option to refund contributions and instead to receive public 

funds for general if he receives his 

party’s nomination (Senator Barack 

Obama and the Obama Exploratory 

Committee, February 1, 2007)

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7) Authority to Make Coordinated Party 

 Expenditures on Behalf of House and 

 Senate Nominees

 National Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of House 

and Senate nominees. May authorize 1 other 

party committees to make expenditures 

against its own spending limits. National 

Congressional and Senatorial campaign 

committees do not have separate limits.

 State Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of House 

 and Senate nominees seeking election in the 

 committee’s state. May authorize 1

 other 

 party committees to make expenditures 

 against its own spending limits. 

 Local Party Committee May be authorized 1

 by national or state 

 party committee to make expenditures 

 against its limits.

 Calculating 2007 Coordinated Party 

 Expenditure Limits

Amount Formula

 Senate Nominee See table on The greater of:

 page 9 $20,000 x COLA or

 2¢ x state VAP2

 x COLA3

 House Nominee in States

 with Only One Representative $81,800 $20,000 x COLA

 House Nominee in Other States $40,900 $10,000 x COLA

 Nominee for Delegate or

 Resident Commissioner4 $40,900 $10,000 x COLA

 1 The authorizing committee must provide prior authorization specifying the amount 

the committee may spend.

 2VAP means voting age population. 

 3 COLA means cost-of-living adjustment. The applicable COLA is 4.089. 

 4 American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands elect 

Delegates; Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner.

Commission 

Calendar Always 

Up-to-Date 

 Between issues of the Record, 

you can stay up-to-date on the 

latest FEC activity by visiting 

the Commission Calendar on 

our web site at http://www.fec.

gov/Fec_calendar/maincal.cfm. 

The Calendar lists Commission 

meetings, reporting deadlines, 

conferences and outreach events, 

advisory opinion and rulemaking 

comment periods and other useful 

information. Each calendar entry 

links directly to the relevant 

documents, so you can quickly 

access detailed information on the 

subjects that interest you. 

 While you’re visiting www.fec.

gov, be sure to explore the rest 

of our site to review the latest 

campaign finance reports and 

data, research enforcement actions 

and litigation, read press releases 

and get help complying with the 

law. Visit today and add our site to 

your favorites.
March 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

2007 Coordinated Party 

Expenditure Limits

The 2007 coordinated party expenditure limits are now available. 

The limits are:

• $81,800 for House nominees in 

states that have only one U.S. 

House Representative;

• $40,900 for House nominees in 

states that have more than one 

U.S. House Representative; and 

• A range from $81,800 to 

$2,201,900 for Senate nominees, 

depending on each state’s voting 

age population.

Party committees may make 

these special expenditures on behalf 

of their nominees in any 2007 

general elections that may be held. 

National party committees have a 

separate limit for each nominee1. 

Each state party committee has a 

separate limit for each House and 

Senate nominee in its state. Local 

party committees do not have their 

own separate limit. One party committee may authorize another party 

committee to make an expenditure 

against its limit. Local committees 

may only make coordinated party 

expenditures with advance authorization from another committee. 

Coordinated party expenditure 

limits are separate from the contribution limits; they also differ 

from contributions in that the party 

committee must spend the funds on 

behalf of the candidate rather than 

give the money directly to the campaign. Although these expenditures 

may be made in consultation with 

Party

Activities

1

 The national senatorial and congressional committees do not have separate 

coordinated party expenditure limits, 

but may receive authorization to spend 

against the national limit or state party 

limits.

Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for

2007 Special Election Senate Nominees

 Voting Age Population Expenditure 

State (in thousands) Limit

Alabama 3,485 $285,000

Alaska* 489 $81,800

Arizona 4,538 $371,100

Arkansas 2,120 $173,400

California 26,925 $2,201,900

Colorado 3,584 $293,100

Connecticut 2,687 $219,700

Delaware* 650 $81,800

Florida 14,068 $1,150,500

Georgia 6,909 $565,000

Hawaii 987 $81,800

Idaho 1,072 $87,700

Illinois 9,617 $786,500

Indiana 4,736 $387,300

Iowa 2,272 $185,800

Kansas 2,068 $169,100

Kentucky 3,207 $262,300

Louisiana 3,198 $261,500

Maine 1,041 $85,100

Maryland 4,255 $348,000

Massachusetts 4,988 $407,900

Michigan 7,617 $622,900

Minnesota 3,910 $319,800

Mississippi 2,151 $175,900

Missouri 4,426 $362,000

Montana* 727 $81,800

Nebraska 1,323 $108,200

Nevada 1,861 $152,200

New Hampshire 1,017 $83,200

New Jersey 6,635 $542,600

New Mexico 1,446 $118,300

New York 14,792 $1,209,700

North Carolina 6,701 $548,000

North Dakota* 491 $81,800

Ohio 8,708 $712,100

Oklahoma 2,685 $219,600

Oregon 2,844 $232,600

Pennsylvania 9,636 $788,000

Rhode Island 830 $81,800

South Carolina 3,282 $268,400

South Dakota* 587 $81,800

Tennessee 4,596 $375,900

Texas 17,014 $1,391,400

Utah 1,759 $143,900

Vermont* 491 $81,800

Virginia 5,836 $477,300

Washington 4,870 $398,300

West Virginia 1,429 $116,900

Wisconsin 4,244 $347,100

Wyoming* 393 $81,800

* In these states, which have only one U.S. House Representative, the spending 

limit for the House nominee is $81,800. In other states, the limit for each House 

nominee is $40,900.

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2007

10

2007 Spring Conferences

Conference for Corporations 

and their PACs

April 24-25, 2007

Renaissance Hotel

Washington, DC

Registration $450 by March 30

Conference for Candidate and 

Political Party Committees

May 10-11, 2007

Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill

Washington, DC

Registration $450 by April 13

Conference for Trade Associations, Membership and Labor 

Organization PACs

June 4-5, 2007

Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill

Washington, DC

Registration $450 by May 4

Outreach

Washington, DC, 

Conference for Corporations 

and their PACs

The Commission will hold a conference for corporations and their 

political action committees on April 

24 and 25, 2007, in Washington, 

DC. Commissioners and staff will 

conduct a variety of technical workshops on federal campaign finance 

law designed for those seeking an 

introduction to the basic provisions 

of the law as well as for those more 

experienced in campaign finance 

law. 

Conference Details

The conference will be held at 

the Renaissance on M Street, near 

the Georgetown and Foggy Bottom neighborhoods. Attendees are 

responsible for making their own 

hotel reservations. A room rate of 

$235 (single/double) is available 

for hotel reservations made by April 

2. Call 1-888-803-1298 to make 

your reservations. To receive this 

special rate, you must notify the 

hotel that you are attending the FEC 

campaign finance laws conference. 

The hotel is located within walking distance from both the Dupont 

Circle and Foggy Bottom subway 

stations. Valet parking is available 

for $28 per night. (Note: Please do 

not finalize your travel reservations 

until you have received confirmation of your conference registration from our contractor, Sylvester 

Management Corporation.)

The registration fee is $450 if 

received by March 30. A late registration fee of $25 will be added to 

all registrations received after that 

date. Early registration is highly 

recommended, as this conference 

has previously sold out. For additional information, or to register 

for the conference, please visit the 

conference web site at http://www.

fec.gov/info/conferences/2007/corporate07.shtml.

the candidate, only the party committee making the expenditure—not 

the candidate committee—must 

report them. (Coordinated party 

expenditures are reported on FEC 

Form 3X, line 25, and are always 

itemized on Schedule F, regardless 

of amount.)

The accompanying tables on 

pages 8 and 9 include:

• Information on which party committees have the authority to make 

coordinated party expenditures;

• The formula used to calculate the 

coordinated party expenditure 

limits; and 

• A listing of the state-by-state coordinated party expenditure limits.

—Meredith Metzler

Party Activities

(continued from page 9)

For More Information

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

at 1-800/246-7277 or by e-mail to 

tonis@sylvestermanagement.com. 

For questions about the conference program, or to receive e-mail 

notification of upcoming conferences and workshops, call the 

FEC’s Information Division at 

1-800/424-9530 (press 6) or locally 

at 202/694-1100, or send an e-mail 

to Conferences@fec.gov.

—Dorothy Yeager

Information

Reporting Notices Enter the 

Electronic Age

The FEC has begun to send all 

courtesy materials to committees 

exclusively by electronic mail. 

Reporting reminders and mailings 

concerning changes in the law are 

no longer being 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.
March 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Advisory Opinions

2006-33: Association May Compensate State Affiliate Collecting 

Agents, 2:6

2006-35: Legal Fees Paid with Campaign Funds, 3:4

2006-36: Green Senatorial Committee Gains National Party Status, 3:5

2006-37: Campaign May Reimburse 

Candidate for Misreported Loans, 

3:6

2006-38: Officeholder’s Use of State 

Campaign Funds, 3:7

Compliance

527 Organizations Pay Civil Penalties, 1:1

Comments Sought on Proposed Probable Cause Hearings, 1:5

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

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 

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.

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

Policy Statement Establishing Probable Cause Hearings, 3:1

Court Cases

______ v. FEC

– CREW, 2:3

– Unity ‘08, 2:4

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 2:1

Fieger v. Gonzales, 3:3

Information

Contribution Limits for 2007-2008, 

2:1

Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for 2007, 3:9

Reporting Notices Enter the Electronic Age, 2:7; 3:10

Telephone Excise Tax Refunds, 1:11

Outreach

Conferences Scheduled for 2007, 

3:10

Washington, DC, Conference for 

Corporations and their PACs, 3:10

Regulations

Proposed Rules and Policy Statement 

on Best Efforts, 1:6

Supplemental E&J on Political Committee Status, 3:1

Reports

Reports Due in 2007, 1:7

Staff

General Counsel and Deputy Resign, 

2:6

Enforcement Query 

System Available on 

FEC Web Site

 The FEC continues to update 

and expand its Enforcement 

Query System (EQS), a webbased search tool that allows 

users to find and examine public 

documents regarding closed 

Commission enforcement matters. 

Using current scanning, optical 

character recognition and text 

search technologies, the system 

permits intuitive and flexible 

searches of case documents and 

other materials. 

 Users of the system can search 

for specific words or phrases 

from the text of all public case 

documents. They can also 

identify single matters under 

review (MURs) or groups of 

cases by searching additional 

identifying information about 

cases prepared as part of the 

Case Management System. 

Included among these criteria 

are case names and numbers, 

complainants and respondents, 

timeframes, dispositions, legal 

issues and penalty amounts. The 

Enforcement Query System may 

be accessed on the Commission’s 

web site at www.fec.gov.

 Currently, the EQS contains 

complete public case files for all 

MURs closed since January 1, 

1999. In addition to adding all 

cases closed subsequently, staff is 

working to add cases closed prior 

to 1999. Within the past year, 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) cases were added to the 

system. All cases closed since the 

ADR program’s October 2000 

inception can be accessed through 

the system.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 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