February 1997 Federal Election Commission Volume 23, Number 2

Table of Contents

Court Cases

1 James E. Akins et al. v. FEC

3 FEC v. Larry Williams

4 FEC v. Elkin McCallum

5 RNC et al. v. FEC

Reports

1 Electronic Filing Gets Underway

at FEC

5 Advisory Opinions

Information

 6 Flashfax Menu

 7 Index

Court Cases Reports

Electronic Filing Gets

Underway at FEC

Political committees and other

filers can take advantage of the

FEC’s just-implemented voluntary

electronic filing program when they

report financial activity that has

taken place since January 1. This

means that those committees filing

on a monthly basis will have the

first opportunity to use the new

system when they file the report due

February 20.

Electronic filing—mandated by

legislation passed by Congress in

1995 and implemented in an interim

form on January 1, 1997—should

make reporting disclosure information more efficient for both filers

and the FEC.

The process also will make

electronically-filed reports almost

immediately available at the FEC’s

web site for review by the public

and regulated community. The

information will be posted a few

hours after it arrives at the FEC’s

offices. Currently, it takes up to 48

hours before the disclosure information can be processed and put out

for public review.

Exactly how electronic filing will

work has been the subject of much

study and planning by the FEC’s

data division. To smooth the transiJames E. Akins et al. v. FEC

On December 6, 1996, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc,

reversed the district court’s decision

in this case in favor of several

former government officials and

told the FEC to revisit a seven-yearold complaint alleging that the

American Israel Public Affairs

Committee (AIPAC) failed to

register as a political committee in

violation of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act).

The case centers around the

Commission’s interpretation of the

definition of political committee.

The Act defines a political committee as any committee, association or

other group that receives contributions or makes expenditures in

excess of $1,000 during a calendar

year. 2 U.S.C. §431(4)(A).

Over the years, the FEC has

relied on the statute and interpretations in Buckley v. Valeo and FEC v.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life Inc.

(MCFL)—both cases invoked a

“major purpose” test—to determine

whether a group should be considered a political committee.

However, the appeals court said

that, when considering the political

committee status of a group that

makes contributions or coordinated

(continued on page 3) (continued on page 2)
2

Federal Election Commission RECORD February 1997

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

John Warren McGarry, Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliot, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

tion from paper to electronic filing,

committees that plan to file electronically should call the FEC’s data

division before they begin. The

division can provide technical

information to help committees get

started and can tell them what tools

are available—for example, templates for database programs—to

make their current software produce

documents that conform to what the

agency requires. Committees can

reach the data division at 1-800-

424-9530 or 202-219-3730.

Technical specifications, a

validation program and other

information are included in a

downloadable “Electronic Filing

Tool Kit” at the FEC’s web site at

http://www.fec.gov. Committees

also can call the FEC’s data division

to request that technical programs

be mailed to them on diskette.

Currently, there are no programs or

tools designed for Macintosh users,

though the format can be created by

most Macintosh computers.

In addition to using the FEC as a

resource, filers who have purchased

software to help them keep track of

reporting information may want to

telephone their software manufacturer. Many of these companies

have been working with the FEC in

integrating the agency’s requirements into their software packages.

Here is an outline of how the

electronic filing process will work:

• Committees that choose to file

electronically will mail the FEC a

diskette containing all of the

information that should be included on written disclosure

reports for that reporting period.

The information must be formatted

to FEC specifications. 11 CFR

104.18(b).

• Committee treasurers must include

a signed copy of the first page of

the report or include a separate file

on the diskette containing the

signed first page as an image file.

• Committees should run a validation program (the FEC provides

this on its web site) before mailing

the diskette to the FEC. The

program makes sure that the

information on the diskette is in

the form that the FEC accepts. The

program also computes a

“checksum” that can be used by

the FEC to verify that it received

the filing completely and correctly.

FEC staff also will run the validation program on any diskette they

receive. A diskette that is not in the

correct form will not be accepted.

11 CFR 104.18(c). Electronic

reports are subject to the same

deadlines as reports filed on paper.

If incorrectly submitted electronic

filing has to be redone, it will be

considered late if it does not reach

the FEC in the correct format by

the deadline date.

• Each report also will be tagged

with a unique identifier. If there is

a discrepancy between the information sent by the filer and the

information received by the FEC,

the parties can use the unique

identifier to identify the original

disclosure of the information

received by the Commission. The

use of the unique identifier will

help ensure the security of electronically filed reports.

• Committees have the option to

download a program that will

convert their computer-generated

information into printed versions

that look very much like paper

copies of FEC forms. Committees

may want to use this software to

double-check the information on

disk in a more familiar format.

• Once the FEC has received the

reporting disk and verified that it is

in the correct format, the system

will automatically e-mail and fax a

verification notice to committees.

• The reports then are loaded onto

the FEC’s computer system and

onto its web site at a special

section where electronically filed

reports will be stored. Anyone with

internet access will be able to

review and download the disclosure information from the committees.

• At this first stage of the implementation period, the FEC will generate a printout of the information on

the disk, and the paper copy of the

information will be processed

along with conventional paper

filings. This action is to maintain

consistency throughout the disclosure and review process.

In 1998, the Commission intends

to implement the second phase of

electronic filing. Filers will be able

to file disclosure reports via modem

in addition to mailing a diskette.

They also will be able to receive a

diskette from the FEC with rudimentary electronic filing software.

And the FEC will develop a process

that will allow electronically filed

material to be integrated into the

Commission’s current disclosure

and review system without the need

for staff to create a printed copy.

The ultimate goal is to create a

paperless reporting process. ✦

Reports

(continued from page 1)
3

February 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

expenditures to federal candidates—

as opposed to independent expenditures—the FEC should strictly

follow the definition found in the

Act and not use a major purpose

test.

The upshot of the court’s reversal

is that the Commission must again

review the complaint it received

about AIPAC. In 1992, the FEC

found it likely that the group made

more than $1,000 in campaign

contributions to federal candidates,

but did not find probable cause to

believe the group was a political

committee (after using the major

purpose test to evaluate AIPAC’s

activities) and closed the case.

Background

In 1989, James Akins and several

other government officials filed an

administrative complaint with the

FEC against AIPAC. They alleged

that AIPAC, an incorporated, taxexempt organization with a multimillion dollar budget and an active

lobbying effort on behalf of Israel,

had made contributions to and

expenditures on behalf of federal

candidates greater than $1000 and,

therefore, was in violation of the

Act for failing to register as a

political committee.

After the FEC investigated and

dismissed the complaint, Akins filed

a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia against

the FEC for failing to proceed

against AIPAC. Akins

challengedthe Commission’s

interpretation of a political committee.

In district court, the FEC successfully argued that precedents in

Buckley and MCFL held that an

organization that receives contributions or that makes expenditures of

more than $1,000 becomes a

political committee only if its major

purpose is the influencing of federal

elections. In Buckley, for example,

the U.S. Supreme Court said that a

political committee “need only

encompass organizations that are

under the control of a candidate or

the major purpose of which is the

nomination or election of a candidate.” The Supreme Court continued

that line of reasoning in MCFL,

saying “an entity subject to regulation as a ‘political committee’ under

the Act is one that is either ‘under

the control of a candidate or the

major purpose of which is the

nomination or election of a candidate.’”

The district court ruled in favor

of the FEC and Akins appealed. A

three-judge panel of the appeals

court initially affirmed the lower

court ruling. However, the appeals

court determined it would rehear the

case with a full complement of

judges present (en banc).

Appeals Court Decision to

Reverse

The appeals court has now found

that the FEC erred in its interpretation of the two Supreme Court

decisions as they relate to the

definition of political committee.

The court has a different interpretation, which focuses on the constitutional distinction between

independent expenditures and

contributions. 1 It found that both

Buckley and MCFL invoked the

major purpose test within the

context of independent expenditures—not contributions, which is

what was in question in the complaint against AIPAC.

In sum, the court found “There is

no constitutional problem with

applying §431(4)(A) to AIPAC or to

other organizations making campaign contributions (or coordinated

expenditures) exceeding the statutory limits.” Thus, according to the

court, the major purpose test is

applicable for determining political

committee status when evaluating

an organization that has only made

independent expenditures.

The court also rejected the

Commission’s arguments that the

court lacked jurisdiction in this case

because the appellants lacked

standing.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 94-

5088; U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 92-1864. ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

(continued on page 4)

FEC v. Larry Williams

On December 26, 1996, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit reversed a district court

ruling and dismissed this case.

The district court had ruled in the

FEC’s favor, finding that Larry

Williams had made contributions in

the names of 22 others and imposing

an injunction and a $10,000 civil

penalty against him. But the appeals

court reversed that decision after a

2-1 majority of the judges said the

FEC waited too long—approximately nine months after the fiveyear statute of limitations on filing a

lawsuit had expired—before filing

suit against Mr. Williams.

Background

In September 1988, the FEC

received an administrative complaint from a former employee of

Mr. Williams, alleging violations of

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act). The allegations revolved

around a fundraising program for

Jack Kemp’s run for the 1988

Republican nomination for President. Anyone who contributed

$1,000 or more to Mr. Kemp’s

1

 Independent expenditures are funds

used for communications that expressly

advocate the election or defeat of a

clearly identified candidate without

cooperation or consultation with that

candidate or his or her committee.

Contributions include any payment,

service or thing of value given to

influence a federal election and include

coordinated expenditures made in

cooperation or consultation with a

candidate.
4

Federal Election Commission RECORD February 1997

FEC v. Elkin McCallum

On December 11, 1996, the U.S.

District Court in Massachusetts

issued a judgment and consent order

to which both parties agreed. Under

the order, Elkin McCallum must pay

a $50,000 civil penalty to the FEC

for making excessive contributions

to the Tsongas for President Committee.

The FEC filed the lawsuit against

Mr. McCallum alleging that he had

made $250,000 in loans to Paul

Tsongas’s campaign in 1991 and

1992. These loans constituted

excessive contributions. Specifically, the FEC alleged that Mr.

McCallum had made the following

contributions:

• He purchased a ticket for $1,000 to

a Tsongas Committee fundraiser

on April 8, 1991;

• He contributed $100,000 to the

Tsongas Committee on August 13,

1991, and $50,000 on October 21,

1991; and

• He wrote a $100,000 check on

February 10, 1992, payable to Mr.

Tsongas’s chief fundraiser, Nicholas Rizzo, intending it to be a loan

to the Tsongas Committee.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) states that an individual has a $1,000 contribution

limit for a candidate or that

candidate’s authorized committee

per election and that the definition

of contribution includes loans. 2

U.S.C. §§431(8)(A)(i) and

441a(a)(1)(A). Additionally, FEC

regulations make it unlawful for a

person to make a loan that exceeds

the contribution limits whether or

not it is repaid. 11 CFR

100.7(a)(1)(i)(A).

In a settlement agreement, Mr.

McCallum did not contest the

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

1

 The FEC also found reason to believe

that Mr. Williams violated 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(1)(A) in making $1,694 in

contributions in his own name, exceeding the $1,000 cap on individual

contributions per election.

2

 The appeals court cited several cases

to back up its claim that the Act is

indeed subject to 28 U.S.C. §2462: 3M

Co. v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C.

Cir. 1994); FEC v. National Republican

Senatorial Comm., 877 F.Supp. 15

(D.D.C. 1995) and FEC v. National

Right to Work Comm. Inc. 916 F.Supp.

10 (D.D.C. 1996).

3

 Equitable tolling provides that “where

a plaintiff has been injured by fraud

and remains in ignorance of it without

any fault or want of diligence or care

on his part, the bar of the statute does

not begin to run until the fraud is

discovered.” Holmberg v. Armbrecht,

327 U.S. 392, 397 (1946).

campaign was eligible to buy a

Super Bowl ticket for $100. Mr.

Williams purchased 40 Super Bowl

tickets for $4,000 and made them

available to the campaign’s

fundraising program. He solicited

friends and employees to make

$1,000 donations to the Kemp

campaign, and advanced or reimbursed $1,000 to 22 contributors. He

then resold the Super Bowl tickets

and kept the receipts.

The FEC investigated and found

probable cause to believe that Mr.

Williams had violated 2 U.S.C.

§441f.1

 The agency filed suit on

October 19, 1993, after failing to

conclude a conciliation agreement

with Mr. Williams.

On January 31, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the Central

District of California handed down

its decision. Shortly afterward, Mr.

Williams appealed.

Appeals Court Decision

In a split decision, the appeals

court reversed the district court’s

order. The appeals court held that

the general five-year statute of

limitations at 28 U.S.C. §2462

applied to the FEC’s action seeking

to assess civil penalties against Mr.

Williams.2

 The court ruled that the

time limit started running at the time

the alleged offenses occurred—not

at the time they were reported. The

court also found that §2462 barred

the FEC from seeking injunctive

relief because the “claim for injunctive relief is connected to the claim

for legal relief.”

The allegations involved acts that

took place in 1987 and early 1988.

The court found that the statute of

limitations had run out in 1992 and

early 1993. The FEC did not file a

lawsuit against Mr. Williams until

October 1993, though the Commission had begun to respond to the

administrative complaint in late

1988 and had attempted to reach a

conciliation agreement in 1993.

The FEC argued that the statute

of limitations should be temporarily

tolled (i.e., the clock stops ticking)

any time before the agency receives

a complaint and during mandated

periods of review and conciliation

attempts that generally must occur

before a lawsuit can be filed.

However, the court was not moved

by the FEC’s arguments. It said that,

although the doctrine of “equitable

tolling”3 applies in principle to

§2462, it is not applicable to the

Williams case. The Commission had

ample opportunity through its

normal disclosure and investigatory

processes, the court stated, to learn

of Mr. Williams’s alleged violations

of the Act.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit, 95-55320; U.S.

District Court for the Central

District of California, 93-6321-ER

(BX). ✦
5

February 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

AO 1996-48

Use of Press Exemption for

Cable Broadcast of

Candidate Commercials and

Biographies

The C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2

networks are bona fide press entities

and may broadcast candidate

biographies and campaign commercials of congressional and Presidential contenders as part of their

regular programming without those

actions being considered campaign

contributions or expenditures.

National Cable Satellite Corporation (NCSC) is a nonprofit corporation created by the cable television

industry. It produces public affairs

programming throughout the United

States 24 hours a day on its two

cable channels—C-SPAN and CSPAN 2. Inherent in its mission is

providing the public with balanced

and unfiltered news about developments in public policy and the role

officials from local, state and federal

governments play in those endeavors.

In that regard, the cable company

planned to produce a series of

television programs—among them,

“Road to the Capital” and “Road to

the White House”—to provide indepth coverage of elections involving federal candidates. NCSC would

air video biographies and campaign

commercials created by the campaigns at no charge to those campaigns. Neither candidates nor their

campaigns would have any control

over the timing of the broadcasts or

the context in which the campaign

commercials and biographies aired.

In order to avoid the appearance

that NCSC had endorsed any of the

candidates, each presentation would

be introduced by a narrator who

would explain that the commercials

and biographies were produced by

the campaigns. In addition, the size

of the screen image would be

minimized to allow space for a

written message identifying the

campaign commercials as such.

The Act and FEC regulations

prohibit corporations, including

nonprofit corporations, from making

contributions or expenditures in

connection with a federal election.

However, the Act and regulations

exempt expenditures for “any news

story, commentary, or editorial

distributed through the facilities of

any broadcasting station ... unless

such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party,

political committee, or candidate.” 2

U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(i) and 11 CFR

100.7(b)(2) and 100.8(b)(2). Recently revised FEC regulations

make clear that this “press exemption” applies to both cable and

traditional television news programmers. 61 Fed. Reg. 18049 (April 24,

1996).

The programs on the election, the

candidates and the campaign issues,

sponsored by C-SPAN and C-SPAN

2, would qualify for the press

exemption because the cable

stations are considered press entities; they appear not to be controlled

by a party, political committee or

candidate; and they would be acting

in their capacity as “press” entities

in distributing news stories, commentaries or editorials, as evidenced

by the facts that:

• NCSC would retain control over

the timing of the broadcasts and

the context in which they would be

used;

• NCSC would take steps to ensure

that viewers did not conclude that

the programs represented an

endorsement of the candidates

depicted (see above); and

• The campaign commercials and

biographies would be aired because they have significant news

value and assist viewers in understanding the complex issues

discussed by the candidates.

Date Issued: December 6, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

Advisory

Opinions

RNC et al. v. FEC

The U.S. Supreme Court

denied a request from the

Republican National Committee, National Republican

Senatorial Committee and

National Republican Congressional Committee to hear this

case. The U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of

Columbia had upheld most of

the FEC’s “best efforts”

regulations found at 11 CFR

104.7(b). The regulations

instruct committees how to

make their best efforts in

obtaining the name, address,

occupation and employer of

contributors who give more

than $200 in a year. See page

10 of the April 1996 issue of

the Record. ✦

allegations. In addition to the civil

penalty, the court permanently

enjoined Mr. McCallum from

making excessive contributions.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Massachusetts, 96-11418

WGY. ✦
6

Federal Election Commission RECORD February 1997

Information

Flashfax Menu

Flashfax documents may be ordered

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by

calling 202/501-3413 on a touch tone

phone. You will be asked for the

numbers of the documents you want,

your fax number and your telephone

number. The documents will be faxed

shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

301. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

308. Combined Federal/State

Disclosure Directory 1996 on

Disk

309. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

310. Internet Access to the FEC

311. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expenditures320.

Local Party Activity

321. Corporate/Labor Facilities

322. Trade Associations

323. Foreign Nationals

324. The $25,000 Annual Contribution Limit

325. Personal Use of Campaign

Funds

Public Funding

330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

331. The $3 Tax Checkoff

332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

333. Recipients of Public Funding

334. Presidential Fund Tax Checkoff

Status

335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Filing a Complaint

345. 1996 Reporting Dates

346. 1996 Congressional Primary

Dates

347. 1996 Special Election Reporting

Dates

Federal Election Commission

401. The FEC and the Federal

Campaign Finance Law

402. La Ley Federal relativa al

Financiamiento de las Campañas

403. Federal and State Campaign

Finance Laws

404. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408. Index for 1995 Record

Newsletter

409. Free Publications

410. Personnel Vacancy

Announcements

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

424. List of Reports Available

425. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

426. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

427. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an

Electoral System

Money in Politics Statistics

525. 1991-2 Political Money

526. 1995 Mid-Year PAC Count

527. 1993-4 Congressional

528. 1993-4 National Party

529. 1993-4 PAC Finances

530. 1995-6 Congressional

531. 1995-6 National Party

532. 1995-6 PAC Finances

1996 Presidential Election

550. 1996 Presidential Primary Dates

551. Selected 1996 Campaign Names

and Addresses

552. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

553. 1996 Matching Fund Certifications and Convention Fund

Payments

554. 1996 Presidential General

Election Ballots

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

1007. Part 100.7, Contribution

1008. Part 100.8, Expenditure

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

1021. Part 102.17, Joint Fundraising

by Committees Other Than SSFs

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

1047. Part 104.7, Best Efforts

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of

Reports and Statements with

State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

1101. Part 110.1, Contributions by

Persons Other Than Multicandidate Political Committees

1102. Part 110.2, Contributions by

Multicandidate Committees

1103. Part 110.3, Contribution

Limitations for Affiliated

Committees and Political Party

Committees; Transfers

1104. Part 110.4, Prohibited Contributions

1105. Part 110.5, Annual Contribution

Limitation for Individuals

1106. Part 110.6, Earmarked Contributions

1107. Part 110.7, Party Committee

Expenditure Limitations

1108. Part 110.8, Presidential Candidate Expenditure Limitations

1109. Part 110.9, Miscellaneous

Provisions

1110. Part 110.10, Expenditures by

Candidates

1111. Part 110.11, Communications;

Advertising
7

February 1997 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1997 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indicates the

page number in that issue. For

example, “1:4” means that the

article is in the January issue on

page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1996-35: Status of Green Party as

national committee, 1:10

1996-42: SSF disaffiliation following corporate spin off, 1:11

1996-45: Use of campaign funds,

1:12

1996-48: Application of “news

story” exemption, 2:5

373. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent Expenditures

375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated Expenditures

376. Schedules H1 – H4, Allocation

377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

4411. Section 441a

4412. Section 441b

4413. Section 441c

4414. Section 441d

4415. Section 441e

4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

601-41. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-41

700. Brochure

701-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

801-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

901-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

1112. Part 110.12, Candidate Appearances on Public Educational

Institution Premises

1113. Part 110.13, Nonpartisan

Candidate Debates

1114. Part 110.14, Contributions to

and Expenditures by Delegates

and Delegate Committees

111. Part 111, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign

Funds and Funds Donated to

Support Federal Officeholder

Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by

Candidates and Political

Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

201. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Presidential Nominating

Conventions

228. Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Campaigns

229. Candidate Debates and News

Stories

230. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

231. DSCC and DCCC Rulemaking

Petition

Forms

361. Form 1, Statement of Organization

362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

365. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

369. Form 1M, Notification of

Multicandidate Status

Schedules

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

372. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

Back Issues of the

Record Now Available

on the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record from

1996 and 1997 are now 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 “Help for Candidates,

Parties and PACs” to see back issues. Future Record issues will be

posted here 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.

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Christian Action Network, 1:5

– Fund For a Conservative Majority,

1:5

– McCallum, 2:4

– Parisi, 1:4

– Williams, 2:3

_____ v. FEC

– Akins et al., 2:1

– DCCC (96-0764), 1:4

– DNC (96-2506), 1:5

– DSCC (96-2184), 1:2

– Hooker, 1:5

– NRCC (96-2295), 1:2

– Reilly, 1:4

– RNC (94-5248), 2:5

Reports

Electronic Filing, 2:1

Schedule for 1997, 1:6

800 Line

Debt settlement and committee

termination, 1:8
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 February 1997

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, the Clerk of the House 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.