January 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 1

Table of Contents

Court Case

1 McConnell v. FEC

Commissioners

1 Message from the Chairman

2 Chairman and Vice Chair Elected

Compliance

6 Enforcement Disclosure Initiatives

7 MUR 5229: Collecting Agent’s

Failure to Transfer Contributions

Reports

9 Reports Due in 2004

9 Kentucky Special Election

Regulations

18 Final Rules on Leadership PACs

18 Federal Register Notices

19 Final Rules on Public Financing of

Presidential Candidates and

Nominating Conventions

19 Final Rules on Travel on Behalf of

Candidates, Political Committees

20 Advisory Opinions

Public Funding

22 Primary Matching Certifications

23 Shortfall Not Expected

Election Administration

23 Voting Systems Brochures

24 Administrative Fines

25 Alternative Dispute Resolution

Outreach

26 Roundtables

26 Conferences

27 Public Appearances

Compliance Commissioners

Message from the Chairman

On December 10, 2003, the

Supreme Court, with only minor

exceptions, upheld the constitutionality of the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

(BCRA), thus opening a new era in

federal campaign finance law. As

this era begins, the Commission

remains dedicated to providing

citizens with the information needed

to comply with the law, and to

effective and understandable

regulation and enforcement.

The Commission has long prided

itself on its outreach efforts. In

2003, the Commission introduced a

web searchable database of past

enforcement matters, and that

database will be expanded throughout 2004. The Commission will

also update our web site

(www.fec.gov) to be easier to use,

and to include an easy reference for

frequently asked questions from the

public. We have scheduled our

usual array of workshops and

seminars in locations across the

country. We will continue to

explain the law through this and

other publications (many of which

are available on our web site or

through Faxline, our automated faxon-demand system at 202-501-

Court Cases

McConnell v. FEC

On December 10, 2003, the

Supreme Court issued a ruling

upholding the two principal features

of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act of 2002 (BCRA): the control of

soft money and the regulation of

electioneering communications. The

Court found unconstitutional the

BCRA’s ban on contributions from

minors and the so-called “choice

provision,” which provides that a

party committee cannot make both

coordinated and independent

expenditures on behalf of a candidate after that candidate’s general

election nomination.1

 The Supreme

Court’s decision affirmed in part

and reversed in part the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia’s

decision in this matter. See the June

2003 Record page 1.

Background

Congress passed the BCRA in

order to eliminate soft money

donations to national parties and to

ensure that electioneering communi1 The Court additionally ruled on a

number of other challenges from the

plaintiffs, including finding their

challenge to the so-called Millionaire’s

Amendment to be nonjusticiable.

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

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)

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

3413), and to answer questions

through our toll-free number, 800-

424-9530.

In addition to its successful court

defense of BCRA’s substantive

provisions, the Commission was

pleased that the Supreme Court

repeatedly cited with approval the

Commission’s regulations implementing BCRA. Already, the

Commission has dealt with numerous Requests for Advisory Opinions

interpreting BCRA, and we will

continue to provide guidance

through the advisory opinion

process in 2004.

The Commission has, in recent

years, undertaken a number of

initiatives to improve the enforcement process. Programs such as

Administrative Fines and Alternative Dispute Resolution have helped

the Commission handle far more

cases than in the past. The Commission enters 2004 in the midst of an

ongoing review of our traditional

enforcement practices. This review

has already led to several significant

changes that have been well received in the community. At the

same time, the Commission has

reduced the average processing time

for Matters Under Review (MURs)

by over 25 percent. Total penalties

assessed and collected, and the total

number of large fines, have increased dramatically.

The Commission enters the postBCRA era strong, effective, and

with renewed respect. BCRA

provides a new legal framework for

the Commission, but our goals

remain the same: to provide fair,

effective enforcement of the new

law, and to see that the public has

available the information it needs to

comply with that law.

—Bradley A. Smith

FEC Chairman

Commissioners

(continued from page 1)

New Chairman and Vice

Chair Elected

On December 18, 2003, the

Commission elected Bradley Smith

as its Chairman and Ellen

Weintraub as Vice Chair for 2004.

Before joining the Commission in

2000, Chairman Smith was Professor of Law at Capital University

Law School in Columbus, Ohio,

where he taught Election Law,

Comparative Election Law, Jurisprudence, Law & Economics and

Civil Procedure. Prior to joining the

faculty at Capital in 1993, he had

practiced with the Columbus law

firm of Vorys, Sater, Seymour &

Pease, served as United States Vice

Consul in Guayaquil, Ecuador,

worked as a consultant in the health

care field and served as General

Manager of the Small Business

Association of Michigan—a position in which his responsibilities

included management of the

organization’s political action

committee. Commissioner Smith

received his B.A. cum laude from

Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo,

Michigan, and his J.D. cum laude

from Harvard Law School.

Vice Chair Weintraub joined the

Commission in 2002 and served as

its Chair in 2003. Before joining the

Commission, she was Of Counsel at

Perkins Coie, LLP, in Washington,

DC. There, she counseled clients on

federal and state campaign finance

laws, political ethics, nonprofit law

and lobbying regulation. Prior to

her work at Perkins Coie, she was

Counsel to the House Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct (the

Ethics Committee). In that capacity,

she served as editor-in-chief of the

House Ethics Manual and as a

principal contributor to the Senate

Ethics Manual. Commissioner

Weintraub received her B.A. cum

laude from Yale College and her

J.D. from Harvard Law School.✦

—Amy Kort

cations immediately before election

day are financed with regulated

money and properly disclosed to the

public. The BCRA, among other

things:

• Bans national party committees

from raising or spending money

outside the limits and prohibitions

of the Federal Election Campaign

Act (FECA);

• Limits state and local party

committees’ use of such funds for

activities affecting federal elections;

• Prohibits solicitations and donations by national, state and local

party committees for §501(c) tax

exempt organizations that make

expenditures in connection with

federal elections and §527 organizations that are not federal political

committees or state or local party

or candidates’ committees;

• Prohibits federal candidates and

officeholders from soliciting,

receiving, directing, transferring or

spending soft money in connection

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

with federal elections and limits

their ability to do so in connection

with state elections;

• Bans state and local candidates and

officers from raising and spending

nonfederal funds for public

communications that promote,

attack, support or oppose a federal

candidate;

• Defines and regulates “electioneering communications;”

• Implements the party “choice

provision;”

• Increases the hard money contribution limits;

• Permits even higher contribution

limits for candidates opposed by

“millionaires” who use their own

funds for campaign expenditures;

• Defines coordination with a

candidate or party committee; and

• Bans minors from making contributions to federal candidates and

political party committees.

Most provisions of the BCRA

took effect on November 6, 2002.

As soon as the BCRA was enacted

in March 2002, however, a number

of parties filed challenges to the

constitutionality of several BCRA

provisions, including those listed

above. These cases were consolidated around McConnell v. FEC and

heard by a three-judge panel of the

U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia. On May 2, 2003, the

District Court determined that

certain provisions were constitutional, while a number of others

were unconstitutional or

nonjusticiable. The District Court

issued a stay of its ruling on May

19, 2003, while the case received an

expedited appellate review by the

Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision

National party committees’ use of

soft money. The BCRA bans national party committees and their

agents from soliciting, receiving,

directing or spending any funds that

are not subject to the FECA’s limits,

prohibitions and reporting requirements. 2 U.S.C. §§441(a)(1) and (2).

The Court found that this provision

did not violate the Constitution

because the governmental interest in

“preventing the actual or apparent

corruption of federal candidates and

officeholders” was sufficiently

important to justify contribution

limits. The Court noted that the

“record is replete with examples of

national party committees’ peddling

access to federal candidates and

officeholders in exchange for large

soft-money donations.” The Court

was also not persuaded by the

plaintiffs’ argument that this

provision unconstitutionally interferes with national party committees’ ability to associate with state

and local committees. The Court

found that nothing on the face of the

provision “prohibits national party

officers from sitting down with state

and local party committees or

candidates to plan and advise how to

raise and spend soft money, so long

as the national officers do not

personally spend, receive, direct, or

solicit soft money.”

State and local party committees’

use of soft money. The Court also

upheld the BCRA’s limits on state

and local party committees’ use of

soft money for activities affecting

federal elections, finding that this

provision was closely drawn to

match the governmental interest of

preventing corruption and the

appearance of corruption. 2 U.S.C.

§441i(b). This provision of the

BCRA provides that state and local

party committees cannot use

nonfederal funds to finance “federal

election activity” (FEA), which is

defined as:

1. Voter registration activity during

the 120 days before an election;

2. Voter identification, get-out-thevote and generic campaign

activity “conducted in connection with an election in which a

[federal] candidate. . . appears on

the ballot;”

3. A public communication that

refers to a clearly identified

federal candidate and promotes,

attacks, supports or opposes that

candidate; and

4. The services of a state committee

employee who spends more than

25 percent of his or her compensated time on activities in

connection with a federal election.

Instead, party committees must

finance these activities with federal

funds or, in some cases, they may

finance them with a combination of

federal and Levin funds, which are a

new category of funds defined in the

BCRA.2

 The Court found that

Congress had “concluded from the

record that soft money’s corrupting

influence insinuates itself into the

political process not only through

national party committees, but also

through state committees, which

function as an alternate avenue for

precisely the same corrupting

forces.” The Court concluded that

preventing “corrupting activity from

shifting wholesale to state committees and thereby eviscerating the

FECA clearly qualifies as an

important governmental interest.”

2 The limitations, restrictions and

reporting requirements for raising

Levin funds differ from those for raising

federal funds. See 11 CFR 300.31 and

300.32(a)(4). Each state, district and

local party committee has a separate

Levin fund donation limit, and such

committees are not considered to be

affiliated for the purposes of determining Levin fund donation limits. Levin

funds spent by a given state or local

party committee must be raised solely

by that particular committee, and these

committees cannot raise Levin funds

through joint fundraising efforts or

accept transfers of Levin funds from

other committees. Additionally, these

committees cannot accept or use as

Levin funds any funds that come from,

or in the name of, a national party

committee, federal candidate or federal

officeholder. 11 CFR 300.31 and

300.34(b). For more information, see

the April 2003 Record page 5, and the

September 2003 Record, page 1.

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

4

The Court further determined that

the fact that FEA captures some

activities that affect campaigns for

nonfederal office is not sufficient to

render the provision unconstitutionally overbroad. Activities that are

considered FEA under the BCRA

were also covered by the pre-BCRA

allocation rules, and the Court

concluded that “[a]s a practical

matter, BCRA merely codifies the

FEC’s allocation regime principles

while justifiably adjusting the

applicable formulas in order to

restore the efficacy of FECA’s

longstanding restriction on contributions to state and local committees

for the purpose of influencing

federal elections.” The Court

determined that the first two types

of FEA listed above substantially

benefit federal candidates by

encouraging like-minded voters to

go to the polls. The third type of

FEA, involving public communications that support or oppose a

federal candidate, directly affects

the election in which the candidate

is running, and the regulation of

funds used for these communications is “closely drawn to the

anticorruption interest it is intended

to address.” Similarly, the final

FEA, regarding the payment of

party committee staff, is justified by

Congress’ interest in preventing

circumvention of the law.

Moreover, the Court found the

Levin amendment to be constitutional insofar as the associational

burdens created by its restrictions on

transfers of Levin funds between

party committees are far outweighed

by the need to prevent the circumvention of the overall scheme.

Additionally, the Court determined

that evidence suggesting that the

Levin fund restrictions might

prevent parties from amassing the

funds needed to make themselves

heard was merely speculative.

Party solicitations for and

donations to §501(c) and §527

organizations. The BCRA bans

national, state and local party

committees and their agents from

soliciting funds for or making or

directing donations to:

• §501(c) tax-exempt organizations

that make expenditures in connection with federal elections; and

• §527 organizations, unless they are

federal political committees or

state or local party or candidate

committees. 2 U.S.C. §441i(d).

The Court found the restriction

on solicitations to be a valid

anticircumvention measure: “Absent

this provision, national, state, and

local party committees would have

significant incentives to mobilize

their formidable fundraising apparatuses, including the peddling of

access to federal officeholders, into

the service of like-minded taxexempt organizations that conduct

activities benefiting their candidates.” The Court also found that

the restrictions on donations were

not unconstitutionally overbroad so

long as the prohibition was not

construed to prevent party committees from donating funds already

raised in compliance with the

FECA.

Federal candidates and officeholders. The BCRA additionally

bars federal candidates and officeholders from soliciting, receiving,

directing, transferring or spending

soft money in connection with

federal elections, and it limits their

ability to do so for state and local

elections. 2 U.S.C. §§441i(e)(1)(A)

and (B). The Court found that these

restrictions were closely drawn to

prevent the corruption or the

appearance of corruption of federal

candidates and officeholders while

at the same time accommodating

these individuals’ speech and

associational rights.

State and local candidates and

officeholders. The BCRA bars state

and local candidates and officeholders from raising or spending

nonfederal funds to pay for public

communications that promote or

attack federal candidates. 2 U.S.C.

§442i(f). The Court found this to be

a valid anticircumvention measure

because, rather than limiting the

amounts the state candidate/officeholder can spend, it merely places

restrictions on the contributions that

they can draw on to fund communications that directly affect federal

elections. Moreover, by regulating

only public communications, the

provision “focuses narrowly on

those soft-money donations with the

greatest potential to corrupt or give

rise to the appearance of corruption

of federal candidates and officeholders.”

Electioneering communications.

In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1

(1976), the Supreme Court construed the FECA’s disclosure

requirements for certain entities’

independent expenditures as limited

to communications expressly

advocating the election or defeat of

a clearly identified federal candidate. However, the BCRA defines a

new category of communication—

“electioneering communications”—

that encompasses any broadcast,

cable or satellite communication

that clearly identifies a federal

candidate, airs within 30 days of a

federal primary or 60 days of a

federal general election and is

targeted to the relevant electorate. 2

U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(A)(i). The BCRA

requires persons who fund electioneering communications to disclose

the source of the funds in certain

circumstances and bars the use of

corporate and union moneys to fund

the communications.

The plaintiffs argued that Buckley

v. Valeo drew a constitutionally

mandated line between express

advocacy, which contains “magic

words” such as “vote for” or “vote

against,” and issue advocacy. The

Court, however, found that the

express advocacy restriction is not a

constitutional command: “Both the

concept of express advocacy and the

class of magic words were born of

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

an effort to avoid constitutional

problems of vagueness and overbreadth in the statute before the

Buckley Court.” The Court found

that the components of the definition of electioneering communication are objective and easily

understood and, thus, “the vagueness objection that persuaded the

Buckley Court to limit FECA’s

reach to express advocacy is inapposite here.”

The Court upheld the restrictions

on the use of corporate or union

treasury funds to finance electioneering communications. Corporations and unions may still finance

such communications through their

separate segregated funds, and thus

the provision does not result in an

outright ban on expression. The

Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims

that arguments in support of the

longstanding ban on express advocacy communications financed by

corporations and unions cannot be

applied to the larger quantity of

speech captured in the definition of

electioneering communication. The

Court found instead that “issue ads

broadcast during the 30- and 60-day

periods preceding federal primary

and general elections are the functional equivalent of express advocacy.” The Court further explained

that the “justifications for regulating

express advocacy apply equally to

those ads if they have an electioneering purpose, which the vast

majority do.”

The Court also upheld the

BCRA’s requirement for the disclosure of the names of persons who

contributed $1,000 or more to the

individual or group paying for the

communication, finding that “the

evidence here did not establish the

requisite reasonable probability of

harm to any plaintiff group or its

members resulting from compelled

disclosure.” The Court was also not

persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments against the requirement to

disclose executory contracts for

communications that have not yet

aired.3 The Court determined that the

probability that harm might result

from requiring such disclosure was

outweighed by the public’s interest

in obtaining full disclosure prior to

the election.

“Choice provision.” The Court

found that the BCRA’s provision

requiring political parties to choose

between coordinated and independent expenditures on behalf of a

candidate once he or she receives

the party’s nomination places an

unconstitutional burden on the

parties’ right to make unlimited

independent expenditures. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d)(4). The Court explained

that “[a]lthough the category of

burdened speech is limited to

independent expenditures for

express advocacy—and therefore is

relatively small—it plainly is

entitled to First Amendment protection. . . . The fact that the provision

is cast as a choice rather than an

outright prohibition on independent

expenditures does not make it

constitutional.”4

3 The Court made a similar determination in response to the plaintiffs’

challenge of the BCRA’s requirement

for the disclosure of certain executory

contracts for independent expenditures.

2 U.S.C. §434.

4 The Court also voiced concerns about

the fact that for the purposes of the

choice provision all political committees established and maintained by a

national party and all committees

established and maintained by a state

party are considered a single committee. 2 U.S.C. §441a(d)(4)(B). The Court

determined that as a result “it simply is

not the case that each party committee

can make a voluntary and independent

choice between exercising its right to

engage in independent advocacy and

taking advantage of the increased limits

on coordinated spending under

§§315(d)(1)-(3). Instead, the decision

resides solely in the hands of the first

mover, such that a local party committee can bind both state and national

parties to its chosen spending option.”

BCRA on the FEC’s

Web Site

 The Commission has a section

on its web site (www.fec.gov)

devoted to the Bipartisan

Campaign Reform Act of 2002

(BCRA).

The page provides links to:

• The Federal Election Campaign

 Act, as amended by the BCRA;

• Summaries of major BCRA-

 related changes to the federal

 campaign finance law;

• Summaries of litigation

 involving challenges to the new

 law;

• Federal Register notices

announcing new and revised

Commission regulations that

 implement the BCRA;

• BCRA-related advisory

 opinions; and

• Information on educational

 outreach offered by the

Commission, including

upcoming Roundtable sessions

 and the Commission’s

2004 conference schedule.

 The section also allows

individuals to view the

Commission’s calendar for

rulemakings, including dates for

the Notices of Proposed

Rulemaking, public hearings,

final rules and effective dates for

regulations concerning:

• Soft money;

• Electioneering Communications;

• Contribution Limitations and

 Prohibitions;

• Coordinated and Independent

 Expenditures;

• The Millionaires’ Amendment;

• Consolidated Reporting rules;

 and

• Other provisions of the BCRA.

 The BCRA section of the web

site will be continuously updated.

Visit www.fec.gov and click on

the BCRA icon.

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

6

Compliance

Enforcement Disclosure

Initiatives

As part of a continuing effort to

improve the public’s access to and

understanding of FEC compliance

actions, the Commission recently

implemented several disclosure

initiatives, including the launch of a

new searchable database and the

approval of an interim policy

regarding the placement of documents from closed enforcement

cases on the public record. Together

these initiatives represent an effort

to improve the transparency of

Coordination. The BCRA

extended the FECA’s coordination

rules governing expenditures

coordinated with a candidate to

those coordinated with a party

committee and directed the Commission to promulgate rules that did

not require “agreement or formal

collaboration” in order to establish

coordination. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(7)(B)(ii). The Court found

this provision to be constitutional,

noting that the absence of an

agreement requirement does not

render the provision unconstitutionally vague and that the plaintiffs had

provided no evidence to suggest that

this definition of coordination has

chilled political speech.

Contributions from minors. The

Court found the BCRA’s ban on

political contributions from individuals under 18 years old unconstitutional because it violates the First

Amendment rights of minors.

Additional Information

The complete text of the Supreme

Court’s ruling in this case is available on the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/bcra/

litigation.htm.✦

—Amy Kort

Court Cases

(continued from page 5)

Commission actions by raising

enforcement disclosure to the same

high level the Commission has

sought for campaign finance reports

and other public information.

Enforcement Query System

On December 11, 2003, FEC

Staff Director James Pehrkon

unveiled the agency’s new 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. Previously,

these documents were available only

at the Commission’s offices in

Washington, and only on paper or

microfilm. 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, 2002.

In addition to adding all cases

closed subsequently, staff is working to add cases closed prior to

2002. All MURs closed in 2001

will be included in the system by

July 2004, and cases closed in 2000

will be available by the end of 2004.

Other FEC compliance actions

(Alternative Dispute Resolution

cases and Administrative Fines) will

also be included in the system at a

later date.

Press Release Policy

In addition, the Commission has

approved an expanded structure for

news releases regarding completed

enforcement actions. The new

structure adds explanatory material

to provide a more complete description of the statutory framework of

the allegations and the resolution of

the matter.

Disclosure Policy

On December 11, the Commission also approved a Statement of

Policy Regarding Disclosure of

Closed Enforcement and Related

Files that identifies the categories of

records that will be released to the

public once enforcement cases are

closed. Until 2001, the FEC construed the “confidentiality provision” of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (2 U.S.C.

437g(a)(12)(A)) regarding enforcement matters as ending with the

termination of a case. In AFL-CIO

v. FEC, 177 F. Supp. 2d. 48 (D.D.C.

2001), however, the district court

disagreed with this interpretation

and, as a result, the Commission

placed on the public record only

those documents that reflected the

agency’s “final determination” with

respect to enforcement matters. The

Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit affirmed the judgment of the

district court but suggested that

some flexibility in release of

documents would be permissible.

On December 4, 2003, the Department of Justice decided not to ask

the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the

case.

Consistent with the appeals court

ruling, the new FEC policy provides

for the release of additional documents when enforcement cases are

closed. These will include original

complaints or internal FEC referrals

that initiate enforcement actions,

along with reports and briefs from

the Office of General Counsel

(OGC) and responses to those

reports and briefs by respondents.

The Policy Statement is an interim
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

MUR 5229: Collecting

Agent’s Failure to Transfer

Contributions

The Commission recently entered

into conciliation agreements with

New York’s Health and Human

Service Union 1199/SEIU, AFLCIO1

 (1199), two of its separate

segregated funds and Service

Employees International Union

Political Campaign Committee

(SEIU COPE), resulting in $262,500

in civil penalties. The conciliation

agreements primarily resolve

violations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) stemming

from 1199’s failure to transfer

timely to its separate segregated

funds and its international union’s

separate segregated fund political

contributions collected from 1199’s

members. This cumulative civil

penalty is the largest ever assessed

in an enforcement matter arising

from the review of political committee disclosure reports by the

Commission’s Reports Analysis

Division.

1 1199 is also known as Local 1199NY,

Service Employees International Union

and frequently known as 1199, the

National Health and Human Service

Employees Union.

measure, and the Commission

intends to conduct a rulemaking in

2004 to address materials to be

placed on the public record. The

Policy Statement is available on the

Commission’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov/agenda/

agenda20031211.html#03-100.

Enforcement Profile

In addition to enhancing its

disclosure programs, the Commissioners also recently examined the

agency’s “Enforcement Profile,”

which reviews the impact of measures taken by the FEC to improve

the focus and speed of processing

enforcement actions, including:

• The Enforcement Priority System,

implemented in 1993, which

classifies and prioritizes cases

based on complexity and importance;

• The Administrative Fine program

that removes routine late and nonfiling matters from the full enforcement process; and

• The Alternative Dispute Resolution program that manages matters

that are “less serious breeches of

law” but that are not “simple” late

and nonfiler issues.

The Enforcement Profile found,

among other things, that:

• The total number of cases closed

has increased substantially since

2000;

• The total amounts of fines and

penalties assessed have increased

steadily and substantially since

1999;

• The percentage of cases closed

with substantive action increased

by more than 20 percent during

2001-2003 when compared with

the period 1995-2000;

• OGC has reduced the average and

median number of days required to

close a substantive case by 18

percent and 28 percent, respectively, even though a greater

proportion of cases have dealt with

more complex issues; and

• A greater number of reporting

violations have been resolved as a

result of the Administrative Fine

and ADR programs.

These changes, coupled with new

programs and internal management

controls, allow the Commission to

focus its legal resources on more

complex enforcement matters while

using administrative processes to

handle less complex matters, which,

in turn, speeds the disposition of

cases and the public’s access to

information about Commission

compliance matters.✦

—Amy Pike

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 at www.fec.gov/

pages/pacronym.htm.

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., NW.

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

8

Background

Under the Act, a labor organization may not make contributions or

expenditures in connection with

federal elections. However, it may

establish and administer an SSF and

solicit contributions to the SSF from

the union’s members and their

families. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)(c).

The SSF may only accept funds that

are within the Act’s limit and

prohibitions, and these funds may

not be commingled with union dues

and assessments. 11 CFR 102.5(a).

The union may also support its

SSF by acting as a “collecting

agent.” Under Commission regulations, a collecting agent is an

organization or committee that

collects and transmits contributions

to an SSF to which the collecting

agent is related. See 11 CFR

102.6(b)(1). Contributions of less

than $50 must be forwarded to the

SSF’s treasurer within 30 days, and

contributions over this amount must

be forwarded within 10 days along

with the name and address of the

contributor and the date the contribution was received. 11 CFR

102.8(b)(1) and (b)(2).

The SSF is responsible for

ensuring that its collecting agent

complies with Commission regulations and must disclose contributions it receives through a collecting

agent, along with its other financial

activity, in its regularly scheduled

reports. See 11 CFR 102.6(c)(1).

The SSF must also report the

identification of any person who

makes a contribution aggregating

more than $200 during the calendar

year, together with the date and

amount of the contribution. 2 U.S.C.

§434(b)(3).2

Conciliation Agreements

On October 17, 2003, the Commission entered into a conciliation

agreement with 1199, two of its

SSFs, Local 1199 Federal Political

Action Fund and 1199 Service

Employees International Union

Federal Political Action Fund, and

the committees’ treasurers. According to the conciliation agreements,

between at least January 1997 and

September 1999, 1199 collected

approximately $3.9 million in a

general bank account and kept large

amounts of unreported contributions

in this account for many months.

When 1199’s leadership decided to

spend money on a federal activity,

the necessary funds were transferred

to Local 1199 PAC and used

immediately to make a contribution.

After spending the funds, Local

1199 PAC would report a zero cashon-hand balance. 1199 also transferred contributions from the

general fund to other political

committees, including SEIU COPE,

after the 30-day transfer window

had closed. As a result, over $1.9

million in contributions were not

reported in a timely fashion, and the

separate segregated funds consistently understated their available

cash-on-hand in reports filed with

the Commission.

On December 9, 2002, the

Commission entered into a conciliation agreement—prior to finding

probable cause to believe that the

Act had been violated—with SEIU

COPE and its treasurer. This

agreement settled violations of Act

resulting from SEIU COPE’s role in

the transmittal violations by 1199

and its separate segregated funds.

This agreement remained confidential until the resolution of the related

action against 1199 and its separate

segregated funds.

The agreements also settled

violations resulting from 1199’s

commingling of union treasury

funds with the political contributions of its members, 1199’s failure

to forward contributor information

to the separate segregated funds for

contributions exceeding $50, the

separate segregated funds’ failure to

itemize contributions exceeding the

$200 threshold for itemization and

other reporting violations made by

1199 Service Employees International Union Federal Political

Action Fund.

Pursuant to these conciliation

agreements, SEIU COPE paid

$75,000 in civil penalties, and 1199

and its SSFs paid $187,500 in civil

penalties. In addition, the respondents agreed, among other things, to

cease and desist from similar

violations of the Act and to have

representatives attend an appropriate

FEC training conference.✦

—Amy Kort

2 For a “person” other than a natural

person, identification means the

person’s full name and address. 2

U.S.C.§431(13)(B).

Compliance

(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.
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Reports Due in 2004

This article on filing requirements for 2004 is supplemented by

the reporting tables on the following

pages.

It is the responsibility of the

committee treasurer to file required

reports on time. To assist treasurers,

the Commission sends committees

notices of upcoming reporting

deadlines. Please note that filing

deadlines are not extended in cases

where the filing date falls on a

weekend or federal holiday. In such

cases, reports filed by first-class

mail, overnight delivery or courier

must be received by the Commission on the business day preceding

the filing date. Reports filed electronically must be received by the

Commission and pass the validation

test by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on

the filing date.

Under the Commission’s mandatory electronic filing regulations,

individuals and organizations1

 that

receive contributions or make

expenditures in excess of $50,000 in

a calendar year—or expect to do

so—must file all reports and statements with the FEC electronically.

Electronic filers who instead file on

paper or submit an electronic report

that does not pass the validation test

will be considered nonfilers and

may be subject to enforcement

actions (including administrative

fines).

Committees that file with the

Secretary of the Senate2

 are not

Reports

1 The regulation covers individuals and

organizations required to file reports

with the Commission, including any

person making an independent expenditure. However, these rules do not apply

to persons reporting electioneering

communications.

2 See “Where to File” on page 11.

Kentucky Special Election Reporting

 The Special General Election to fill the U.S. House seat vacated by

Representative Ernie Fletcher in the Sixth Congressional District will be held

on February 17, 2004. Committees involved in this election must follow the

reporting schedule below, unless they file on a monthly schedule.1 PACs and

party committees that file monthly should continue to file according to their

regular filing schedule. Note that 48-hour notices are required of authorized

committees that receive contributions of $1,000 or more between January 29

and February 14, 2004. The 60-day electioneering communications period in

connection with this election runs from December 19, 2003, through February

17, 2004.2

Committees Involved in the Special General Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert. Filing

Books Mail Date Date

Year-End —waived—

Pre-General January 28 February 2 February 53

Post-General March 8 March 18 March 184

April Quarterly March 31 April 15 April 15

1Reports filed electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filing

date. A committee required to file electronically that instead files on paper

reporting forms will be considered a nonfiler. Reports filed on paper and

sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date;

reports sent by any other means (including reports sent via first class mail

and overnight delivery) must be received by the Commission’s close of

business on the filing date.

2 Individuals and other groups not registered with the FEC who make

electioneering communications costing more than $10,000 in the aggregate

in the calendar year must disclose this activity to the Commission within 24

hours of the distribution of the communication. See 11 CFR 100.29 and

104.20. For more information, see the December 2003 Record, page 5.

3 Because disclosing financial activity from two different calendar years

would conflict with the calendar-year aggregation requirements for

unauthorized committees, PACs and party committees filing the PreGeneral report must file this report on two separate forms. One form should

cover only 2003 activity and should be labeled as the “Year-End Report.”

The other form should cover only 2004 activity and should be labeled as the

“Pre-General Report.” Both forms must be filed by February 5, 2004.

4 The reporting period for the Post-General election report spans two

election cycles. For this report only, principal campaign committees should

use the Post-Election Detailed Summary Page (FEC Form 3, Pages 5-8)

rather than the normal Detailed Summary Page.

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

10

subject to the mandatory electronic

filing rules, but are encouraged to

file an unofficial electronic copy of

their reports with the FEC in order

to speed disclosure. 11 CFR 104.18.

The Commission’s electronic

filing software, FECFile 5, can be

downloaded from the FEC’s web

site at www.fec.gov (click on the

Electronic Filing icon). Filers may

also use commercial or privatelydeveloped software as long as the

software meets the Commission’s

format specifications, which are

available on the Commission’s web

site.

Paper forms are available on the

FEC’s web site (http://

www.fec.gov/reporting.html) and

from FEC Faxline, the agency’s

automated fax system (202/501-

3413). The 2004 Reporting Schedule is also available on the FEC’s

web site (http://www.fec.gov/pages/

report.htm) and from Faxline

(request document 586). For more

information on reporting, call the

FEC at 800/424-9530 (press 1, then

3) or 202/694-1100.

Year-End Reports Covering 2003

Activity

All committees must file a 2003

year-end report due January 31, 2004.

The coverage and reporting dates are

found on page 13.

Reports Covering 2004 Activity

To find out which reports your

committee must file in 2004, check

the Guide to 2004 Reporting on

page 12. Then check the tables on

page 13 for reporting dates. Please

note that committees active in

special elections in 2004 may have

to file additional special election

reports, as explained on page 13.

Authorized Committees

of Candidates

House and Senate Candidates.

All campaigns that raise or spend

more than $5,000 (and thus trigger

registration and reporting requirements) must file quarterly reports in

2004. Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA),

principal campaign committees may

no longer file on a semiannual basis

in non-election years. 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(2)(B). The authorized

committees of House and Senate

candidates must also file preprimary election and pre-general

election reports before any election

in which the candidate runs in 2004.

These committees must also file a

post-general election report if the

candidate runs in the general

election. 11 CFR 104.5(a)(2).

Committees that wish to terminate must continue filing reports

until notified in writing that their

termination report has been accepted

by the Commission.

Presidential Candidates. Presidential committees active in the

2004 race that have received

contributions or made expenditures

aggregating $100,000 or that

anticipate this level of activity file

on a monthly basis. 11 CFR

104.5(b)(1)(i) and (iii). If the

candidate runs in the general

election, the campaign must file preand post-general election reports in

lieu of the November and December

monthly reports. 11 CFR

104.5(b)(1)(i)(C).

Presidential committees active in

the 2004 race with financial activity

under $100,000 file on a quarterly

basis. They must also file preprimary reports for the primaries in

which they appear on the ballot and

pre- and post-general election

reports if they are candidates in the

general election. 11 CFR

104.5(b)(1)(ii).

Presidential committees that are

not active in 2004 but are retiring

debts from previous campaigns may

file on either a monthly or a quarterly schedule. A Presidential

committee wishing to change its

filing schedule should notify the

Commission in writing. 11 CFR

104.5(b)(2).

State, District and Local Party

Committees

State, district and local party

committees that engage in reportable “federal election activity” must

file on a monthly schedule. 11 CFR

300.36(c)(1). Committees that do

not engage in reportable “federal

election activity” may file on a

quarterly basis in 2004. 11 CFR

104.5(c)(1)(i).

National Party Committees

Under the BCRA, national

committees of political parties must

file on a monthly schedule in all

years. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(4)(B).

Political Action Committees

PACs (separate segregated funds

and nonconnected committees) that

filed on a semiannual basis during

2003 file on a quarterly basis in

2004. Monthly filers continue on the

monthly schedule. PACs may change

their filing schedule, but must first

notify the Commission in writing.

Electronic filers must file this

request electronically. A committee

may change its filing frequency only

once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

Pre- and Post-Election Reports

Please note that in 2004, party

committees and PACs that generally

file monthly reports file a pregeneral election report and a postgeneral election report in lieu of the

reports otherwise due in November

and December. Party committees

and PACs that generally file quarterly reports file:

• A pre-primary election report and

a pre-general election report before

any election in which the committee makes a contribution to or an

expenditure on behalf of a candidate in that election; and

• A post-general election report.

Waiver of State Filing

Under the Commission’s State

Filing Waiver program, qualified

states are relieved of the requirement to make paper copies of FEC

reports available to the public. As a

Reports

(continued from page 9)
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

(continued on page 13)

result, political committees no

longer have to file copies of their

federal reports at the state level in

most states.3 Committees in states

not certified for the waiver must

continue to file copies of their

reports with the appropriate state

election office. The addresses for

the federal offices (FEC and Secretary of the Senate) appear in the

instructions for the Summary Page

of FEC Forms 3 and 3X. A list of

state filing offices is available from

the Commission. Please note that

this exemption does not apply to

state filing requirements for the

disclosure of state or local campaign

finances.

Where to File

Committee treasurers must file

FEC reports with the appropriate

federal office. State filing requirements also apply to reports filed by

the principal campaign committees

of candidates seeking office in

Guam, Montana and Puerto Rico4

and to reports filed by PACs and

3 The Commission has certified that the

following states and territories qualify

for filing waivers: Alabama, Alaska,

American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas,

California, Colorado, Connecticut,

Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,

Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,

Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska,

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,

U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington, West

Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Guam, Montana and Puerto Rico are

not currently in the State Filing Waiver

Program.

party committees who support these

candidates. 2 U.S.C. §439(a)(2)(B).

House Candidate Committees.

Principal campaign committees of

House candidates file with the FEC.

11 CFR 105.1.

Senate Candidate Committees.

Principal campaign committees of

Senate candidates file with the

Secretary of the Senate. 11 CFR

105.2.

Presidential Committees. Principal campaign committees of Presidential candidates file with the FEC.

11 CFR 105.3.

Candidate Committees with More

Than One Authorized Committee. If

a campaign includes more than one

authorized committee, the principal

campaign committee files, with its

own report, the reports prepared by

the other authorized committees as

well as a consolidated report (FEC

Form 3Z). 11 CFR 104.3(f).

PACs and Party Committees.

Generally, PACs and party committees file with the FEC. 11 CFR

105.4. However, committees

supporting only Senate candidates,

and the national Democratic and

Republican Senatorial committees,

file with the Secretary of the Senate.

11 CFR 105.

Late Filing

The Federal Election Campaign

Act does not permit the Commission

to grant extensions of filing deadlines under any circumstances.

Filing late reports can result in

enforcement action by the Commission.

The agency pursues compliance

actions against late-filers and

nonfilers under the Administrative

Fine program and on a case-by-case

basis. For more information on the

Administrative Fine program, visit

the FEC web site at www.fec.gov/

adminfines1.html.

Independent Expenditures

The BCRA requires political

committees and other persons who

make independent expenditures at

any time during the calendar year—

up to and including the 20th day

before an election—to disclose this

activity within 48 hours each time

that the expenditures aggregate

$10,000 or more. This reporting

requirement is in addition to the

requirement to file 24-hour notices

of independent expenditures each

time that disbursements for independent expenditures aggregate at or

above $1,000 during the last 20

days—up to 24 hours—before an

election. 2 U.S.C. §§434(b), (d) and

(g). Political committees must report

independent expenditures that do

not trigger the 48- or 24-hour

reporting thresholds on their regularly scheduled disclosure reports.

Other persons report these expenditures once they exceed $250. 11

CFR 104.4(b)(1) and 109.10(b).

All individuals, persons and

committees, including Senate

FEC Accepts Credit

Cards

 The Federal Election

Commission now accepts

American Express, Diners Club

and Discover Cards in addition to

Visa and MasterCard. While most

FEC materials are available free

of charge, some campaign finance

reports and statements, statistical

compilations, indexes and

directories require payment.

Walk-in visitors and those

placing requests by telephone

may use any of the above-listed

credit cards, cash or checks.

Individuals and organizations

may also place funds on deposit

with the office to purchase these

items. Since pre-payment is

required, using credit cards or

funds placed on deposit can speed

the processing and delivery of

orders. For further information,

contact the Public Records Office

at 800/424-9530 (press 3) or 202/

694-1120.

4 These requirements also apply to the

principal campaign committees of

Presidential candidates who make

campaign-related expenditures in

Guam, Montana or Puerto Rico. See 11

CFR 108.3.
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

12

Guide to 2004 Reporting

All committees must also file a 2003 Year-End Report, due January 31, 2004.

Required Reports

Pre- Pre- PostType of Filer Semiannual Quarterly Monthly Primary 1 General General

House and Senate Campaigns ✓ ✓✓✓

required only if candidate runs in election

Presidential Campaigns 2 ✓ ✓✓

Anticipating Activity required only if candidate

of at Least $100,000 runs in election

Presidential Campaigns 2 ✓ ✓✓ ✓

With Activity required only if candidate runs in election

Less Than $100,000

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓✓

Filing Monthly filed in lieu of November and

 December monthly reports

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓✓✓

Filing Quarterly 3 required only if committee required

 makes contributions or regardless

expenditures in connection of activity

 with election during the

 reporting period 4

1Category also includes pre-convention and pre-runoff reports.

2Presidential committees that wish to change their filing frequency during 2004 should notify the Commission in writing.

3PACs and party committees that filed on a semiannual basis in 2003 file on a quarterly basis in 2004. To avoid the need to file

pre-primary and pre-runoff reports, these committees may change to monthly filing if they first notify the Commission in writing.

Committees may change filing frequency only once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c). National party committees and state and local party

committees with reportable receipts or disbursements for federal election activity must file on a monthly schedule. 11 CFR

300.36(c)(1).

4A reporting period begins with the close of books for the last report filed and ends with the closing date for the applicable

report.
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

2003 Year-End Report

Note: All committees file this report.

Report Period Covered Filing Date 1

Year-End Closing date January 31, 20042

of last report

through 12/31/03

2004 Monthly Reports

Report Period Covered Filing Date 1

February January 1-31 February 20

March February 1-29 March 202

April March 1-31 April 20

May April 1-30 May 20

June May 1-31 June 202

July June 1-30 July 20

August July 1-31 August 20

September August 1-31 September 20

October September 1-30 October 20

Pre-General 3 October 1-13 October 21

Post-General Oct. 14-Nov. 22 December 2

Year-End Nov. 23-Dec. 31 January 31, 2005

2004 Quarterly Reports3

Report Close of Books Filing Date 1

1st Quarter March 31 April 15

2nd Quarter June 30 July 15

3rd Quarter September 30 October 15

Year-End December 31 January 31, 2005

Pre- and Post-Election Reports

for November 2 General Election

Report Close of Books Filing Date 1

Pre-General 4 October 13 October 21

Post-General November 22 December 2

1Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the filing date

(except in the case of the pre-general election report; see footnote 3). Reports sent

by other means must be received by the filing date. 11 CFR 104.5(e).

2Note that the filing date falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended when

they fall on weekends or federal holidays.

3 Principal campaign committees must also file a pre-primary report if the candidate

is running in a primary, and all quarterly filers must file pre-primary reports before

any primary in which they make a contribution or expenditure on behalf of a

candidate in that primary. Primary reporting dates are listed on pages 14-17.

4 If sent by registered or certified mail, the pre-general must be postmarked by

October 18.

Reports

(continued from page 11)

committees, must file 24- and 48-

hour notices of independent expenditures with the Commission. 11

CFR 104.4, 109.10, 105.1 and

105.2.

Committees Active in Special

Elections

Committees authorized by

candidates running in any 2004

special election must file pre- and

post-election reports in addition to

regularly scheduled reports. 11 CFR

104.5(h). They are also required to

comply with the 48-hour notice

requirement for contributions of

$1,000 or more (including loans)

received shortly before an election.

See 11 CFR 104.5(f).

PACs and party committees

supporting candidates running in

special elections may also have to

file pre- and post-election reports—

unless they file on a monthly basis.

11 CFR 104.5(c)(3) and 104.5(h).

All PACs are subject to 24-hour

reporting of independent expenditures made shortly before an election. See 11 CFR 104.4(b) and (c)

and 104.5(g).

When timing permits, the Record

will alert committees to special

election reporting dates.

Electioneering Communications

Additionally, individuals and

other persons who make “electioneering communications”5

 that

aggregate in excess of $10,000 must

file disclosure statements with the

Commission within 24 hours of

5

“Electioneering communications” are

a new category of communication

under the BCRA, defined at 11 CFR

100.29. For more information, see the

November 2002 Record, page 3, or visit

the FEC web site at http://www.fec.gov/

pages/bcra/rulemakings/

electioneering_communications.htm.

(continued on page 18)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

14

Pre-Election Reporting Dates:

2004 Primary and Runoff Elections

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*Alabama June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20

Runoff: June 29 June 9 June 14 June 17

*Alaska August 24 August 4 August 9 August 12

American Samoa November 2 October 13 October 18 October 21

Runoff: November 16 October 27 November 41 November 4

*Arizona September 7 August 18 August 23 August 26

*Arkansas May 18 April 28 May 3 May 6

Runoff: June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*California March 2 February 11 February 16 2 February 19

*Colorado August 10 July 21 July 26 July 29

*Connecticut August 10 July 21 July 26 July 29

Delaware September 11 August 22 August 27 August 30

District of Columbia September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

*Florida August 31 August 11 August 16 August 19

* States holding 2004 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the

filing date.

1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mail date would fall one day before the primary is held.

2Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*Georgia July 20 June 30 July 52 July 8

Runoff: August 10 July 21 July 26 July 29

%Guam September 4 August 15 August 20 August 23

*Hawaii September 18 August 29 September 3 September 63

*Idaho May 25 May 5 May 10 May 13

*Illinois March 16 February 25 March 1 March 4

*Indiana May 4 April 14 April 19 April 22

*Iowa June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*Kansas August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22

*Kentucky May 18 April 28 May 3 May 6

*Louisiana August 64 July 17 July 22 July 253

Runoff: December 4 November 14 November 19 November 22

Maine June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*Maryland March 2 February 11 February 16 2 February 19

Massachusetts September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

Michigan August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22

Minnesota September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

* States holding 2004 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the

filing date.

% This state or territory is not yet part of the State Filing Waiver program.

2Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.

3Notice that this filing deadline falls on a federal holiday. Filing dates are not extended for holidays.

4 In AO 2000-29, the Commission determined that the last day to qualify for a position on the general election ballot in Louisiana—in this case August 6, 2004—must be considered the primary election date for Louisiana candidates. See 11 CFR

100.2(c)(4)(i). Additionally, under state law if no candidate in the November 2 general election receives over 50 percent of the

vote, a runoff election will be held on December 4, 2004. If the runoff is held, a pre-runoff report will be due on November 22,

2004. The close of books for this report will be November 14, and the mailing date for reports sent by registered or certified mail

will be November 19.
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

16

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

Mississippi March 9 February 18 February 23 February 26

Runoff: March 30 March 10 March 15 March 18

*Missouri August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22

%Montana June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

Nebraska May 11 April 21 April 26 April 29

*Nevada September 7 August 18 August 23 August 26

*New Hampshire September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

New Jersey June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

New Mexico June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20

*New York September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

*North Carolina May 4 April 14 April 19 April 22

Runoff: June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20

*North Dakota June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

*Ohio March 2 February 11 February 162 February 19

*Oklahoma July 27 July 7 July 12 July 15

Runoff: August 24 August 4 August 9 August 12

*Oregon May 18 April 28 May 3 May 6

*Pennsylvania April 27 April 7 April 12 April 15

%Puerto Rico November 9, 2003 October 20, 2003 October 25, 2003 October 28,

2003

 Rhode Island September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

*South Carolina June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

Runoff: June 22 June 2 June 10 1 June 10

* States holding 2004 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

% This state or territory is not yet part of the State Filing Waiver program.

1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mail date would fall one day before the primary is held.

2Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

17

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*South Dakota June 1 May 12 May 17 May 20

Runoff: June 15 May 26 May 312 June 3

 Tennessee August 5 July 16 July 21 July 244

Texas March 9 February 18 February 23 February 26

Runoff: April 13 March 24 March 29 April 1

*Utah June 22 June 2 June 7 June 10

*Vermont September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

Virginia June 8 May 19 May 24 May 27

Virgin Islands September 11 August 22 August 27 August 30

Runoff: September 25 September 5 September 131 September 13

*Washington September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

West Virginia May 11 April 21 April 26 April 29

*Wisconsin September 14 August 25 August 30 September 2

Wyoming August 17 July 28 August 2 August 5

* States holding 2004 Senate elections.

† This date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the day after the closing date of the last

report filed. If the committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred

before the committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mail date would fall one day before the primary is held.

2Notice that this registered/certified mailing date falls on a federal holiday. The report should be postmarked before that date.

4Notice that this filing deadline falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended for weekends.
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

18

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office, on the FEC web

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

register.htm and from the FEC

faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2003-22

Final Rules and Explanation and

Justification on Leadership PACs

(68 FR 67013, December 1,

2003).

Notice 2003-23

Announcement of Effective Date

and Corrections to Public

Financing of Presidential

Candidates and Nominating

Conventions (68 FR 66699,

November 28, 2003)

Notice 2003-24

Final Rules and Explanation and

Justification on Travel on Behalf

of Candidates and Political

Committees (68 FR 69583,

December 15, 2003)

Regulations

Final Rules on Leadership

PACs

On November 20, 2003, the

Commission approved final rules to

address the relationship between a

federal candidate’s authorized

committee and entities that are

associated with the federal candidate

or officeholder but are not authorized committees, often known as

leadership PACs. The final rules

state that authorized committees and

leadership PACs will not be considered affiliated. As a result, certain

disbursements by a leadership PAC

will be treated as in-kind contributions to the candidate associated

with it.

Background

In previous advisory opinions and

compliance matters, the Commission examined leadership PACs

whose activities were significantly

intertwined with the activities of a

federal candidate’s authorized

committee. In these circumstances,

the Commission could either

consider whether the leadership

PAC’s actions made it affiliated

with the authorized committee, or

the Commission could consider the

committees unaffiliated and determine whether the leadership PAC

made in-kind contributions to the

authorized committee. The Commission declined in many of these

instances to find that a leadership

PAC was affiliated with a

candidate’s authorized committee,

even when it was apparent that the

committees were controlled by the

same person. See AOs 2003-12,

1984-46 and 1978-12 and MURs

3740, 2897 and 1870. See also 11

CFR 100.5(g).

New Rules

New 11 CFR 100.5(g)(5) clarifies

the relationship between an authorized committee and a leadership

PAC by removing the possibility

that a candidate’s authorized

committee can be affiliated with an

entity that is not another authorized

committee, even if the candidate

established, financed, maintained or

controlled that entity.1

 Thus, a

leadership PAC that provides funds,

goods or services to any authorized

committee will make a contribution

to that committee subject to the

Federal Election Campaign Act’s

(the Act) contribution limits.2

The new regulation also applies

to entities that are not political

committees. Thus, for example, if a

federal officeholder or candidate

established an entity that was not a

political committee under the Act,

such as a state ballot initiative

committee, the Commission would

not examine the transactions between the federal candidate/officeholder and the ballot initiative

committee to determine whether that

committee was affiliated with the

candidate/officeholder’s authorized

campaign committee. See AO 2003-

12. Instead, the Commission would

consider whether the ballot initiative

committee made in-kind contributions to the federal candidate/

officeholder.

Statement of Organization

Under the Commission’s previous reporting regulation at 11 CFR

102.2(B)(1)(i), a principal campaign

committee was required to disclose

the names and addresses of any

1 This decision does not affect affiliation

between an authorized committee and a

joint fundraising committee under 2

U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(ii) and 11 CFR

102.13(c), nor does it affect the ability

of a national party committee to be

designated as the principal campaign

committee for the party’s Presidential

nominee under 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(i)

and 11 CFR 102.12(c)(2).

2 The Commission additionally noted

that one complication in any scheme to

make authorized committees and

leadership PACs affiliated is that these

types of committees are subject to

different contribution limits and, thus,

requiring them to abide by a singe

contribution limit would mean choosing

a limitation that was is not intended for

one of the committees. Consequently, it

is logical to view an authorized

committee and a leadership PAC as

separate committees.

distribution to the public. Charts

detailing the electioneering communication periods for Presidential

primary elections and caucuses and

Congressional primary and runoff

elections are available on the FEC

web site at www. fec.gov/pages/

refer.htm. ✦

—Amy Kort

Reports

(continued from page 13)
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

19

unauthorized committees with

which it was affiliated. Because the

new rule eliminates the possibility

of such a relationship, the Commission has revised this regulation to

require only that the names and

addresses of affiliated authorized

committees be disclosed.

Additional Information

The full text of the final rules and

their Explanation and Justification

were published in the December 1,

2003, Federal Register (68 FR

67013) and are available on the FEC

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

register.htm, along with the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking and public

comments on this rulemaking. See

the February 2003, Record, page 4.

The final rules will take effect on

December 31, 2003.✦

—Amy Kort

Final Rules on the Public

Financing of Presidential

Candidates and Nominating

Conventions Take Effect

The Commission’s new rules

governing the public funding of

Presidential campaigns and nominating conventions took effect on

November 28, 2003. 11 CFR parts

9001-9039. See the Federal Register Announcement of Effective Date

(68 FR 66699, November 28, 2003).

The revised rules, which the Commission approved on July 24, make

a number of changes to the treatment of publicly funded Presidential

campaigns and nominating conventions, including:

• Applying certain parts of the

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

of 2002 (BCRA) to Presidential

nominating conventions;

• Harmonizing the rules governing

municipal funds and host committees;

• Subjecting municipal funds to the

same disclosure rules as host

committees;

• Deleting the requirement that only

“local” individuals and “local”

entities may donate to host committees and municipal funds;

• Modifying several provisions

governing the General Election

Legal and Accounting Compliance

Funds (GELAC);

• Limiting the use of public funds

for winding down costs for primary and general election Presidential candidates; and

• Creating a new “shortfall bridge

loan exemption” from a primary

candidate’s overall expenditure

limit.

The full text of the final rules

were published in the August 8,

2003, Federal Register (68 FR

47386) and are available on the FEC

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

register.htm. See the September

2003 Record, page 1, for more

information.✦

—Amy Kort

Final Rules on Travel on

Behalf of Candidates and

Political Committees

On December 4, 2003, the

Commission approved new and

revised rules governing the rates and

timing for payment for travel via

non-commercial means of transportation, such as a corporate jet, on

behalf political committees and

candidates. The new rules establish

a uniform valuation scheme for

campaign travel that does not

depend on whether the service

provider is a corporation, labor

organization, individual, partnership, limited liability company or

other entity. The final rules apply to

federal candidates, including

publicly funded Presidential candidates, and other individuals traveling on behalf of candidates, party

committees and other political

committees where the travel is in

connection with a federal election.

General Rule

New 11 CFR 100.93(b) sets forth

the general rule for how a person,

including a corporation, partnership,

individual or other entity, may

provide a candidate or political

committee travel on a conveyance

that is not offered for commercial

passenger service.1

 Generally, to

avoid receiving a contribution, the

candidate’s authorized committee

must pay the service provider2

 for

all campaign travelers3

 traveling on

behalf of that candidate. Likewise,

other political committees must pay

the service provider for any campaign travelers who are traveling on

their behalf. In the alternative, under

the new rules a candidate or political

committee may choose to receive an

in-kind contribution from the

service provider rather than making

a reimbursement, so long as the

service provider may make an inkind contribution and the amount of

the contribution does not exceed the

limitations of the Federal Election

Campaign Act.

1 Campaign travel on airplanes and

other conveyances where commercial

service is offered, such as a commercial

airline or taxi, must be reimbursed at

the “usual and normal charge” to

avoid receiving a contribution. 11 CFR

100.52(d).

2 The final rules at 11 CFR

100.93(a)(3)(ii) clarify that the “service

provider” is the person making the

airplane or other conveyance available

to the campaign traveler or otherwise

providing the transportation to the

campaign traveler. Thus, a service

provider may be the owner, a person

leasing the airplane or other conveyance from the owner or another person

with a legal right to offer the use of the

airplane or other conveyance to the

campaign traveler.

3 The final rules at 11 CFR

100.93(a)(3)(i)(A) define “campaign

traveler” to include any individual

traveling in connection with a federal

election on behalf of a candidate, a

political party committee or any other

political committee. Members of the

news media are included in the definition of “campaign traveler” when they

travel with a candidate.

(continued on page 20)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

20

Regulations

(continued from page 19)

Air Travel

The new rules apply to all

airplanes not licensed by the FAA to

operate for compensation or hire.4

The regulations provide three

valuation methods that apply in

different situations, requiring:

• The lowest unrestricted and nondiscounted first-class airfare

available for the dates traveled, or

within seven calendar days, for

travel between two cities with

regularly scheduled first-class

airline service;5

• The lowest unrestricted and nondiscounted coach airfare available

for the dates traveled, or within

seven calendar days, for travel

between cities served by regularly

scheduled coach airline service but

not regularly scheduled first-class

airline service; and

5 See Advisory Opinion 1999-13 for a

discussion of travel to a city served by

first-class airline service. In addition,

a special provision in 11 CFR

100.93(e) permits the use of a firstclass airfare rate for travel on a

government airplane to or from a

military base.

4 See 14 CFR parts 121, 129, or 135.

11 CFR 100.93(a)(1).

• The charter rate for a comparable

commercial airplane of sufficient

size to accommodate all of the

campaign travelers, including

members of the news media, and

security personnel for travel

between two cities not served by

regularly scheduled first-class or

coach airline service, or between

such a city and a different city with

regularly scheduled first-class or

coach commercial airline service.

The new rules do not require a

campaign traveler to pay in advance

of travel, but they establish a strict

deadline of payment within seven

calendar days of the departure of the

flight. For multi-stop travel over a

period of more than one day, a

campaign traveler may elect to pay

for separate flights at different times

by calculating the separate sevenday periods for each flight departing

on a different day. See new 11 CFR

100.93(c).

Other Means of Transportation

For other means of travel not

operated for commercial passenger

service, such as limousines, other

automobiles, trains, helicopters and

buses, a political committee must

pay the service provider an amount

equal to the normal and usual fare or

rental charge for a comparable

commercial conveyance that is

capable of accommodating the same

number of campaign travelers,

including any members of the news

media, and security personnel.

Payment for travel must be made

thirty calendar days from the receipt

of the invoice, but no more than

sixty calendar days following the

date the travel commenced.

Other Issues

In addition, the new rules specify

the reporting and recordkeeping

requirements for candidates and

political committees traveling by air

or by other means. The rules also

specifically address travel on

government conveyances and travel

by publicly funded Presidential

candidates.

Additional Information

The full text of the final rules and

their Explanation and Justification

were published in the December 15,

2003, Federal Register (68 FR

69583) and are available on the FEC

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

register.htm. Revisions to 11 CFR

parts 100, 106, 114 and 9034 take

effect on January 14, 2004. The

effective date for revisions to 11

CFR 9004 will be published in the

Federal Register after the new

regulations have been before

Congress for 30-legislative days.✦

—Amy Kort

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.

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2003-28

LLC’s Nonconnected PAC

May Become SSF

Horizon Lines Associates Good

Government Fund (HLAGGF), a

nonconnected committee established

by an LLC owned entirely by

corporations, may name its corporate parent as its connected organization and become a separate

segregated fund (SSF). Alternatively, HLAGGF may opt to terminate as a nonconnected committee

and be re-established by the corporate parent of the LLC as a new SSF

with the same name. In either case,

the LLC may pay the administrative

and solicitation expenses of

HLAGGF and may solicit contributions from the restricted class of its

affiliates.

Background

Horizon Lines is an LLC treated

as a partnership for federal tax

purposes. Through a holding

company (Delian Holdings LLC),

84.5 percent of the voting interests

of Horizon Lines are owned by

Carlyle-Horizon Holdings Corpora-
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

21

tion (Carlyle-Horizon). The remaining voting interests are owned,

through holding companies, by the

CSX Corporation. Carlyle-Horizon

also wholly owns a subsidiary,

Horizon Lines of Puerto Rico

(HLPR). Horizon Lines is the

sponsoring organization for a

federal nonconnected political

committee, Horizon Lines Associates Good Government Fund

(HLAGGF).

Horizon Lines wishes to establish

an SSF for which it may pay the

administrative and solicitation

expenses, and for which it may

solicit members of its restricted

class and its affiliates, including

Carlyle-Horizon and HLPR.

Converting to SSF

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations provide that political

committees that are established,

financed, maintained or controlled

by the same corporation, person or

group of persons are affiliated. 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(5); 11 CFR

100.5(g)(2) and 110.3(a)(1)(ii). The

Commission has held that affiliates

may include partnerships and LLCs.

AO 2001-18. Also, the Commission

considers organizations with a

majority of ownership held by a

corporation to be affiliated per se

with the corporation. Because

Carlyle-Horizon owns, through

Delian Holdings, 84.5 percent of the

voting interests of Horizon Lines,

Carlyle-Horizon and Horizon Lines

are considered per se affiliated.

In the past, the Commission has

permitted a partnership or LLC

owned entirely by corporations and

affiliated with one of the corporations to pay the administrative and

solicitation costs of the partnership’s

SSF. In such cases, the Commission

required the SSF to list the affiliated

corporate owners as the connected

organizations. AO 2001-18. Therefore, HLAGGF may amend its

Statement of Organization to

identify Carlyle-Horizon as its

connected organization. As an

affiliate of Carlyle-Horizon, Horizon Lines may pay HLAGGF’s

administrative and solicitation

expenses and may solicit the

restricted class of its affiliated

corporations, including HLPR, for

contributions to HLAGGF.

Alternatively, HLAGGF may

terminate and Carlyle-Horizon (or

Horizon Lines) may establish a new

SSF. For purposes of the Act and

Commission regulations, such an

SSF would be indistinguishable

from the SSF discussed above.

Whether the new SSF is established

by Carlyle-Horizon or by Horizon

Lines, it must name Carlyle-Horizon

as its connected organization, but it

may retain Horizon Lines Good

Government Fund as its name.

Date Issued: November 24, 2003;

Length: 6 pages.✦

—Gary Mullen

AO 2003-29

Transfer of Funds from a

Nonfederal PAC to a Federal

PAC of an Incorporated

Membership Organization

National Fraternal Order of

Police (NFOP) PAC may receive a

transfer of $5,000 from the Ohio

FOP PAC, an affiliated nonfederal

PAC established by one of NFOP’s

state lodges. The Ohio FOP PAC

must take steps to ensure that the

transferred funds comply with

federal contribution limits and

solicitation restrictions, and, as a

result of the transfer, it must register

with the FEC as a federal committee

affiliated with NFOP PAC.

Background

The National Fraternal Order of

Police (NFOP) is an incorporated

tax-exempt organization under

section 501(c)(8) of the Internal

Revenue Code. NFOP has a number

of affiliated state organizations or

“lodges.” The Ohio FOP lodge has

a nonfederal political committee

(Ohio FOP PAC) from which it

intends to transfer $5,000 to the

federal political committee of

NFOP. The money comprising the

transfer was solicited for the Ohio

FOP PAC and was not solicited in

accord with federal law.

Affiliation

Under federal law, political

committees that are established,

financed, maintained or controlled

by the same person or organization

are affiliated. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(5)

and 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2). Ohio FOP

is a state chapter of NFOP, and the

two organizations share overlapping

membership, as members of Ohio

FOP are automatically members of

NFOP. The organizational and

membership overlap of the two

organizations is sufficient for Ohio

FOP to be considered a “subsidiary,

branch, division, department, or

local unit” of NFOP. 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(5) and 11 CFR

100.5(g)(2). Since both committees

have been established by the same

membership organization (NFOP),

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.

(continued on page 22)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

22

they are considered affiliated and, as

such, may make unlimited transfers

to each other. 11 CFR

100.5(g)(3)(iv) and 102.6(a).

Accordingly, the Ohio FOP PAC

may make unlimited transfers to the

NFOP PAC, provided the transferred funds comply with federal

contribution limits and solicitation

restrictions.

Additionally, since a political

committee established by an incorporated membership organization

qualifies as a separate segregated

fund as soon as it engages in any

federal activity, the Ohio FOP PAC

must register with the FEC within

10 days of its transfer to the NFOP

PAC.

Upon becoming a political

committee, the Ohio FOP PAC must

exclude any contributions not

permissible under the Act from its

cash on hand, which is assumed to

be composed of those contributions

most recently received. 11 CFR

104.12. Any contributions that are

not within the limits and from

sources permitted by federal law

may not be included in the cash on

hand.

Because the Ohio FOP PAC and

NFOP PAC would become two

affiliated federal PACs, they would

share the same contribution limits

for both contributions made and

received. 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(5) and

11 CFR 110.3(a)(1). Accordingly,

the contributions of any person

included in the $5,000 transfer must

be aggregated with any contributions previously made to NFOP

PAC in the same year.

Notification of Contributors

The solicitations made by Ohio

FOP PAC were not in accord with

federal law, because contributors

were not informed:

• That their contributions might go

to support NFOP PAC;

• Of the political purpose of NFOP

PAC; and,

• Of their right to refuse to contribute without reprisal.

11 CFR 114.5.

Therefore, prior to transferring

funds to NFOP PAC, the Ohio FOP

PAC must send written notification

to the original contributors informing them that the transferred funds

will be used in connection with

federal elections and will be subject

to the limits and prohibitions of

federal law. The original contributors must also be informed of the

political purpose of NFOP PAC,

their right to object to the transfer of

their contributions without reprisal

and the proper method for submitting any objections.

After sending the notification,

Ohio FOP PAC may either:

• Provide contributors a 30-day time

period to submit any objections

and then transfer the remaining

funds when that period has expired; or

• Make the transfer at any time after

sending the written notification

and then honor any subsequent

objections by having NFOP PAC

return the funds of any objecting

contributors to Ohio FOP PAC.

Date Issued: November 25, 2003;

Length: 13 Pages.✦

—Gary Mullen

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 21)

Public Funding

Commission Certifies Clark,

Edwards, Gephardt and

Kucinich for Primary

Matching Payments

The Commission has certified

that Wesley K. Clark, John R.

Edwards, Richard A. Gephardt and

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2003-34

Permissibility of televised reality

program depicting individuals

participating in simulated Presidential campaign (Viacom, Inc.,

November 6, 2003)

AOR 2003-35

Permissibility of a Presidential

candidate, who applied for primary

matching funds and was certified

eligible, refusing public funds prior

to payment date; candidate’s

adherence to conditions of public

funding program; treatment of

contributions received by such a

candidate (Gephardt for President,

Inc., November 5, 2003)

AOR 2003-36

Federal candidate/officeholders’

participation in fundraising activities for nonfederal committee

supporting gubernatorial candidates

(Republican Governors Association,

November 24, 2003)

AOR 2003-37

Permissibility of fundraising and

political activities by organization

established to support the election of

a particular named federal candidate

(Americans for a Better Country,

December 2, 2003)

AOR 2003-38

Federal candidate/officeholder

raising and spending funds in

connection with redistricting and

reapportionment activities (Engel

for Congress, December 15, 2003)✦

FECFile Help on Web

 The manual for the Commission’s FECFile 5 electronic filing

software is available on the

FEC’s web site. You can download a PDF version of the manual

at http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/

electron.html.
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

23

Shortfall Not Expected for

January Primary Matching

Payments

Based on the current balance in

the Presidential Election Campaign

Fund (the Fund), FEC Staff expect

that candidates participating in the

public funding program will be paid

their full entitlement on January 2,

2004. Under the Presidential

Primary Matching Payment Account

Act, the federal government will

match up to $250 of an individual’s

total contributions to an eligible

1 A candidate must establish eligibility

to receive matching payments by

raising in excess of $5,000 in each of at

least 20 states (i.e., over $100,000).

Only a maximum of $250 per individual

applies toward the $5,000 threshold in

each state.

2 This amount includes deposits made to

the Fund through October 2003.

Presidential primary candidate.1

Presidential candidates may make

submissions for primary matching

payments on the first business day

of the month, but no payments may

be made before January 1 of the

Presidential election year. The

Commission reviews submissions

and forwards a certification for

payment to the Treasury Department. Barring a shortfall in the

Fund, a payment is wired to the

committee on the first business day

of the next month.

On December 1, 2003, six

Presidential candidates submitted

matching fund requests, which

totaled over $15 million. These

requests were the first received from

any candidates for the 2004 election

cycle. The Fund reports a balance of

$16.7 million, after setting aside

funds for general election and

national convention payments.2

Thus, all candidates will be paid

their full entitlement on January 2,

2004.

However, a shortfall in the Fund

is possible for the February 2004

payments. The amount available in

February will consist of the balance

remaining after the January payments and deposits made to the

Fund in November and December

2003. If the payment amounts that

the Commission certifies to the

Treasury for the February payouts

exceeds the balance in the Fund, the

Treasury will make pro rata payments to the committees on February 2. Additional pro rata payments

will be made in mid-February when

the January deposits are posted to

Web Access to

Senate Candidates’

Campaign Finance

Reports

Senate campaign finance reports

are available to the public on the

FEC web site. All Senate reports

received after May 15, 2000, are

currently accessible on the site,

and the FEC will make future

reports available within 48 hours

of receiving them.

To view these reports, go to

www.fec.gov, click on

“Campaign Finance Reports and

Data,” and then select “View

Financial Reports.”

Voting System Brochures

The Commission’s Office of

Election Administration has produced three new brochures on

voting system usability. They are

designed to meet the needs of

vendors, buyers and election

officials.

“Developing a User-Centered

Voting System” is written for voting

system developers and helps them

design systems that are easier for

voters to use.

“Procuring a User-Centered

Voting System” is for state and local

officials who need a system best

suited for their constituents’ needs.

It helps them to identify those

characteristics which make a voting

system easier to use.

“Usability Testing of Voting

Systems” assists both developers

Election

Administration

Dennis J. Kucinich are eligible to

receive Presidential primary matching payments for their Presidential

primary committees. 26 U.S.C.

§9033(a) and (b); 11 CFR 9033.1

and 9033.3.

Under the Presidential Primary

Matching Payment Account Act, the

federal government will match up to

$250 of an individual’s total contributions to an eligible Presidential

primary candidate. A candidate

must establish eligibility to receive

matching payments by raising in

excess of $5,000 in each of at least

20 states (i.e., over $100,000).

Although an individual may contribute up to $2,000 to a primary

candidate, only a maximum of $250

per individual applies toward the

$5,000 threshold in each state.

Candidates who receive matching

payments must agree to limit their

spending and submit to an audit by

the Commission.

No payments may be made from

the Matching Payment Account

before January 1 of the Presidential

election year. In December 2003,

the Secretary of the Treasury

certified eligible candidates’ full

entitlements based on a review of

the matching payment submissions

through December 1, 2003.✦

—Amy Kort

the Fund. FEC Staff do not anticipate that any shortfall in the Fund

will last beyond April 2004.✦

—Amy Kort

(continued on page 24)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

24

Committees Fined for

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently

publicized its final action on 64 new

Administrative Fine cases, bringing

the total number of cases released to

the public to 833, with $1,145,184

in fines collected by the Commission.

Civil money penalties for late

reports are determined by the

number of days the report was late,

the amount of financial activity

involved and any prior penalties for

violations under the administrative

fines regulations. Penalties for late

reports—and for reports filed so late

as to be considered nonfiled—are

also determined by the financial

activity for the reporting period and

any prior violations. Election

sensitive reports, which include

reports and notices filed prior to an

election (i.e., 12 day pre-election,

October quarterly and October

monthly reports), receive higher

penalties. Penalties for 48-hour

notices that are filed late or not at all

are determined by the amount of the

contribution(s) not timely reported

and any prior violations.

The committees and the treasurers are assessed civil money penalCommittees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1

This civil money penalty has not been collected.

2 This penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the report.

3

The Commission took no further action in this case.

 1. Akram for Congress, Inc. $6501

2. American Furniture Manufacturers Association PAC $900

 3. Bank of New York Company PAC (BNY PAC)

30 Day Post-General 2002 $1,800

 4. Bank of New York Company PAC (BNY PAC)

Year-End 2002 $550

5. Barve for Congress Committee $2,700

6. Bi-County PAC (formerly Suffolk PAC) $1,250

7. Bill Martin Congressional Committee $1,125

 8. Bob Herriott for U.S. Congress $5,500

9. Colonial Bancgroup Inc. Federal PAC

(Colonial Fed PAC) $1,000

10. Committee to Elect Frank W. Ballance, Jr. $500

11. Committee to Elect Ross Moen $1,8001

12. Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBC-PAC) $1,312

13. Cozen O’Connor PAC $700

14. Cynthia McKinney for Congress $7,050

15. Dan Blue Senate Committee $3,500

16. Delay for Congress $275

17. Dick Armey Campaign Committee $1,750

18. Diedrich for Congress $9002

19. Dornan for Congress $825

20. Elect Life October Quarterly 2002 ____3

21. Elect Life 30 Day Post-General 2002 ____3

22. Enz for Congress $161

23. Florida Rock Industries Inc. Good

Government Committee $900

24. Friends of Frank Thomas $325

25. Friends of George E. Irvin $316

26. Georgia Medical PAC $1,200

27. Giordano for United States Senate ____3

28. Heartland PAC (FKA Youngstown) $1,000

29. Herseth for Congress $2,900

30. International Federation of Professional and

Technical Engineers Legislative Education

Action Program-PAC $1,000

31. Iowans for Jim Leach $275

32. IUOE Local 542 Operating Engineers

Political Action Fund $1,125

33. Irma Muse Dixon Congressional

Campaign Committee, Inc. $550

34. Jay Blossman for U.S. Senate $3,5001,2

35. Jim Tso for Congress $240

36. KPMG Partners/Principals & Employees PAC $3,000

Administrative

Fines

Election Administration

(continued from page 23)

and election officials in their

evaluation of voting system usability. It provides guidance on how to

test varied systems for ease of use.

Brochures are available through

the Office of Election Administration, the Information Division or in

PDF form on the Commission’s web

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

elections.html#usability.✦

—Phillip Deen
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

25

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed, cont.

1

This civil money penalty has not been collected.

37. Libertarian Party of Illinois $7,8751

38. Local 617 COPE Committee $1,800

39. Maryland Association for Concerned

Citizens PAC $900

40. Max Burns for Congress $5,350

41. Mid Manhattan PAC (Mid PAC) $2,000

42. National Italian American PAC $3,6001

43. Oz Bengur for Congress $4,200

44. Pearce for Congress $3,348

45. Philip Lowe for Congress $11,8751

46. Political Action Committee of Focal

Communications Corporation $1,800

47. The Rally for Leadership Fund $1,900

48. Republicans for Choice $2,700

49. Rhode Island Republican State Central Committee $743

50. Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., for Congress $2,025

51. S C Johnson & Son PAC (SCJPAC) $575

52. Sean Mahoney for Congress $531

53. St. Louisians for Better Government $1,0001

54. Strickland for Colorado, Inc. $8,650

55. Summit PAC $4,100

56. Supporters of Engineers Local 3 Endorsed

Candidates (SELEC) $937

57. Syed Mahmood for Congress $1,8001

58. TECO Energy Inc. Employees’ PAC $937

59. Thelen Reid & Priest PAC $9001

60. United Association of Journeymen &

Apprentices/Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry $1,000

61. U.S. Bancorp Political Participation Program $650

62. Watts for Congress $4,225

63. White & Case PAC $1,0001

64. 15th District Democratic Party $1,8001

Alternative

Dispute

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently

resolved four additional cases under

the Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR) program. The respondents,

the alleged violations of the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and the penalties assessed are listed

below.

1. The Commission reached

agreement with Friends of Dave

Rogers, its treasurer Christian

Winthrop and David Rogers concerning the committee’s failure to

file 48 hour notices. The respondents agreed to pay a $250 civil

penalty and to take steps to terminate the committee. (MUR 5326/

ADR 120)

2. The Commission closed the

case involving Friends of Joe

Marine and its treasurer John Carlin

concerning the committee’s alleged

failure to include required disclaimers. The ADR Office recommended

the case be closed and the Commission agreed to close the file. (MUR

5332/ADR 142)

3. The Commission reached

agreement with One Hundred

Women Committee and Mary

Ohsam, its treasurer, regarding the

committee’s failure to register and

report. The respondents acknowledged that they unknowingly

violated the Act by failing to

register with the Commission after

contributing more than $1,000 to

federal election campaigns, and they

agreed to pay a $750 civil penalty

and to establish and maintain in the

committee’s offices a file on FEC

regulations. (MUR 5310/ADR 129)

4. The Commission closed the

case involving Central Minnesota

AFL-CIO Trades Labor Assembly,

ties when the Commission makes its

final determination. Unpaid civil

money penalties are referred to the

Department of the Treasury for

collection.

The committees listed in the chart

at right, along with their treasurers,

were assessed civil money penalties

under the administrative fines

regulations.

Closed Administrative Fine case

files are available through the FEC

Press Office, at 800/424-9530 (press

2), and the Public Records Office, at

800/424-9530 (press 3).✦

—Amy Kort

(continued on page 26)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

26

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

January 14 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon9:30 - 11 a.m. PACs and Party Committees, sible for filing FEC

Reception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for PACs and

11-11:30 a.m. reception Parties (Up to 30 may

(Session number 0401A) attend)

January 14 Election Year Reporting for Individuals respon1:30 - 3 p.m. Candidates and their Committees, sible for filing FEC

Reception plus “Meet Your Analyst” reports for Candidate

3-3:30 p.m. reception Committees (Up to 30

(Session number 0401B) may attend)

Reporting Roundtables

On January 14, 2004, the Commission will host two roundtable

sessions on election year reporting,

including new disclosure requirements under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The first

session, for PACs and party committees, will begin at 9:30 a.m. and

will last until 11:00. The second

session, for candidates and their

committees, will begin at 1:30 p.m.

and last until 3:00. Both sessions

will be followed by a half-hour

reception at which each attendee

will have an opportunity to meet the

campaign finance analyst who

reviews his/her committee’s reports.

Conference Schedule

for 2004

Conference for House and

Senate Campaigns, Political

Party Committees and

Corporate/Labor/Trade PACs

February 11-12, 2004

Tampa, FL

Conference for House and

Senate Campaigns and Political

Party Committees

March 16-17, 2004

Washington, DC

Conference for Corporations

and their PACs

April 22-23, 2004

Washington, DC

Conference for Trade

Associations, Membership

Organizations and their PACs

May 25-26, 2004

Boston, MA

Outreach

Granite City Machinists’ and

Mechanics’ Union Local Lodge 623

and Granite City Machinists’ and

Mechanics’ Union District Lodge

165 concerning alleged union

contributions. The ADR Office

recommended the case be closed

and the Commission agreed to close

the file. (MUR 5370/ADR 143)✦

—Amy Kort

Attendance is limited to 30

people per session, and registration

($25) will be accepted on a firstcome, first-served basis. Please call

the FEC before registering or

sending money to ensure that

openings remain. Prepayment is

required. The registration form is

available on the FEC’s web site at

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

infosvc.htm 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.✦

—Jim Wilson

Campaign Finance Law

Training Conference in

Tampa, Florida

The FEC will hold a conference

February 11-12, 2004, for House

and Senate campaigns, political

party committees and corporations,

labor organizations, trade associations, membership organizations and

their respective PACs. The conference will consist of a series of

workshops conducted by Commissioners and experienced FEC staff

who will explain how the federal

campaign finance law, as amended

by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform

Act of 2002 (BCRA), applies to

each of these groups. Workshops

will specifically address rules for

fundraising and reporting, and will

explain the new provisions of the

BCRA. A representative from the

IRS will also be available to answer

election-related tax questions.

The conference will be held at the

Wyndham Harbour Island Hotel in

Tampa, Florida. The registration fee

is $385, which covers the cost of the

conference, materials and meals. A

$10 late fee will be assessed for

registration forms received after

January 19.

The Wyndham Harbour Island is

located at 725 South Harbour Island

Boulevard. A room rate of $159 per

night is available for conference

attendees who make reservations on

or before January 19. To make

reservations call 813/229-5000 and

state that you are attending the FEC

conference, or access the Wyndham

Alternative Dispute

Resolution

(continued from page 25)
January 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD

27

Harbour Island’s reservations web

page via the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences.

Registration

Complete conference registration

information for this conference is

available online. Conference

registrations will be accepted on a

first-come, first-served basis. FEC

conferences are selling out quickly,

so please register early. For registration information concerning any

FEC conference:

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2004 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

2003-28: Nonconnected PAC

established by LLC composed

entirely of corporations may

become an SSF with LLC as its

connected organization, 1:20

2003-29: Transfer of funds from a

nonfederal PAC to a federal PAC

of an incorporated membership

organization, 1:21

Compliance

ADR program cases, 1:25

Administrative Fine program cases,

1:24

Enforcement Query System, disclosure policy for closed enforcement matters and press release

policy for closed MURs; “enforcement profile” examined, 1:6

MUR 5229: Collecting agent’s

failure to transfer contributions,

1:7

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

McConnell v. FEC, 1:1

Regulations

Leadership PACs, final rules, 1: 18

Public financing of Presidential

candidates and nominating

conventions, correction and

Public Appearances

January 7-10, 2004

Southern Political Science

Association

New Orleans, LA

Commissioner Toner

January 12, 2004

National PAC Conference

Tampa, FL

Dorothy Yeager

January 20-21, 2004

National Conference for Political

Involvement of Professionals

Captiva Island, FL

Chairman Smith

January 26, 2004

American University

Washington, DC

Chairman Smith

January 29-30, 2004

American Conference Institute

Washington, DC

Chairman Smith

Commissioner Toner

January 29-31, 2004

Campaign Disclosure Project

San Diego, CA

Robert Biersack

• Call Sylvester Management

Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/

infosvc.htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail to

lauren@sylvestermanagement.com.✦

—Amy Kort

effective date, 1:19

Travel on behalf of candidates and

political committees, final rules,

1:19

Reports

Due in 2004, 1:9

Kentucky special election reporting,

1:9
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2004

PRESORTED

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

FEC