May 2008 Federal Election Commission Volume 34, Number 5

Table of Contents

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 5)

 Court Cases

1 FEC v. Adams

2 Tierney v. FEC

3 Marcus v. Mukasey

3 Beam v. Gonzales

 Statistics

1 House and Senate Candidates 

Raise $507 Million in 2007

4 Alternative Dispute Resolution

 Outreach

6 Seminar for Nonconnected 

Political Action Committees

6 June 23-24 Conference for 

Trade Associations, Membership 

Organizations and Labor 

Organizations

7 Index

Court Cases

House and Senate 

Candidates Raise $507 

Million in 2007

Congressional campaigns raised 

a total of $507 million in 2007, an 

eight percent increase from 2005. 

While receipts for House candidates 

increased in 2007, receipts for Senate candidates declined.

Senate candidates raised $164.5 

million in 2007, 14 percent less 

than in 2005. During 2007, Senate 

candidates reported expenditures 

of $57.9 million, down from $69.8 

million spent during 2005. Comparing Senate races between election 

cycles is difficult because states 

hold Senate elections in different 

years. Many states holding Senate elections in 2008 have smaller 

populations that often result in 

lower campaign contributions. Six 

years ago when these same Senate 

seats were up for election, candidates raised $93.8 million in the 

year before the election year.

Candidates for the U.S. House of 

Representatives raised $342.8 million during 2007, an increase of 22 

percent from 2005. The campaigns 

spent $186 million, 26 percent more 

than 2005. The increased receipts 

for House candidates were limited 

to Democratic candidates, who 

raised $200.1 million, 64 percent 

Statistics

FEC v. Adams

On March 6, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 

California denied defendant Stephen 

Adams’ motion to dismiss and granted the Commission’s motion for 

partial judgment on the pleadings. 

Following that decision, the Commission’s counsel and the defendant 

reached a proposed settlement agreement and the court stayed the case. 

Background

In 2004, Stephen Adams contracted for a $1 million advertising campaign to place billboards 

expressly advocating the reelection 

of President George W. Bush in 

four “battleground” states. See the 

October 2007 Record, page 15. The 

billboards first appeared on September 7, 2004, and ran through the 

general election. 

The ads were independent expenditures, and thus required disclosure and proper disclaimers. While 

persons who make independent 

expenditures at any time during the 

calendar year, up to and including 

the 20th day before an election, must 

disclose this activity within 48 hours 

each time the expenditures aggregate $10,000 or more, Mr. Adams 

did not file the required independent 

expenditure reports until October 
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2008

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)

David M. Mason, Chairman

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair

Patrina M. Clark,

 Staff Director

Thomasenia Duncan, 

 General Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division of the Office of 

 Communications

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy L. Kort, Deputy Assistant 

 Staff Director

Meredith E. Metzler, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Tierney v. FEC

On March 12, 2008, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted the FEC’s motion 

to dismiss Thomas P. Tierney’s suit 

against the Commission for lack 

of standing. The court found that 

the FEC’s decision to dismiss Mr. 

Tierney’s administrative complaint 

was not contrary to law.

Background

Mr. Tierney was a candidate for 

Congress in Massachusetts in the 

2004 general election. Shortly before the election, Mr. Tierney filed 

an administrative complaint with 

the FEC asserting that the MassaCourt Cases

(continued from page 1)

28, 2004—only five days before 

the general election. See 2 U.S.C. 

§434(g)(2)(A). Additionally, the 

billboards did not include adequate 

disclaimers. See 2 U.S.C. §441d(a)

(3).

The Commission received two 

complaints regarding Mr. Adams’ 

independent expenditures. Based 

on these complaints and additional 

information obtained in the course of 

carrying out its supervisory duties, 

on November 8, 2006, the Commission found probable cause to believe 

that the violations occurred. After 

the Commission tried but failed to 

reach an acceptable conciliation 

agreement with Mr. Adams, the 

Commission filed a complaint in the 

U.S. District Court for the Central 

District of California on July 6, 

2007.

Court Decision

Motion to Dismiss. The district 

court denied the defendant’s motion 

to dismiss, in which the defendant 

argued that the Commission failed 

to “meet its statutory obligation to 

make a good faith effort to conciliate 

prior to filing suit.” The court found 

that the Commission satisfied the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act) by attempting to conciliate with 

the defendant. The court deferred to 

the Commission’s judgment as to the 

specifics of the proposed conciliation agreements offered by the Commission and the defendant.

Judgment as to Six Affirmative 

Defenses. The district court also 

granted the Commission’s motion 

for partial judgment on the pleadings. The defendant asserted eight 

affirmative defenses, and the Commission sought to strike six of the 

defenses. The court agreed with the 

Commission and found that the six 

challenged defenses had no basis as 

a matter of law. Two of the affirmative defenses dealt with the defendant’s claim that the Commission 

failed to properly conciliate. Since 

the court found that the Commission 

attempted to conciliate adequately, it 

struck these two defenses. 

The other four challenged affirmative defenses involved claims that 

the Act’s independent expenditure 

reporting requirement violates the 

First Amendment and that the Commission’s enforcement of that provision violates the Due Process Clause 

of the Constitution. Regarding the 

First Amendment claim, the court 

followed U.S. Supreme Court and 

Ninth Circuit precedent, dismissing 

the affirmative defenses and holding 

that, while the Act “may infringe on 

some First Amendment freedoms, 

the infringement is minimal and 

reasonable to keep the electorate 

fully informed about the source 

of campaign funds and to deter or 

expose corruption.” 

The court also rejected the 

defendant’s due process defenses, 

stating that the disclosure law was 

sufficiently straightforward. While 

the defendant claimed that “virtually 

no one was aware of [the disclosure] 

requirement at the time of the 2004 

general election,” the court rejected 

this argument because the law was 

promulgated two years before the 

election in question and ten other individuals filed the proper disclosures 

with the Commission. Additionally, the defendant did not present 

any evidence that the Commission 

brought suit based on improper or 

discriminatory grounds.

Case Stayed for Proposed 

Settlement

The parties notified the court on 

April 7, 2008, that Commission 

counsel and Adams had reached a 

proposed settlement agreement. The 

defendant agreed to transfer within 

30 days the full amount of the proposed civil penalty to a trust account 

held by his attorney’s firm. If the 

Commission approves the agreement 

once it has a quorum, the parties will 

file a proposed consent agreement 

and request dismissal of the case. 

The defendant’s attorney will then 

transfer the civil penalty to the Commission. On April 9, 2008, the court 

granted the parties’ request to stay 

the case until the Commission votes 

on the proposed settlement.

U.S. District Court for the Central 

District of California, 2:07-cv04419-DSF-SH.

 —Meredith Metzler
May 2008 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Beam v. Gonzales

On March 7, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois granted the Commission’s 

motion to dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint filed by Jack and Renee Beam (the plaintiffs) against 

the U.S. Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the FEC. The court 

held that it lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, 

that plaintiffs failed to establish 

Article III standing, the case was not 

ripe for review and the FEC did not 

violate the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act).

Background

The Beam case is one of the 

several cases mentioned above 

concerning the investigation into the 

1

 The court specifically rejected the 

plaintiff’s assertion that 1980 amendments to the Act had overturned United 

States v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701, 638 F.2d 1161 

(9th Cir. 1979).

Marcus v. Mukasey

On March 10, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona 

granted the Commission’s motion to 

dismiss the suit filed by Jon Marcus 

against the U.S. Attorney General 

and the Chairman of the FEC, and 

denied the plaintiff’s motion for declaratory judgment, holding that the 

Attorney General has discretion over 

whether to investigate and prosecute 

criminal violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

is not required to wait for a referral 

of a case from the Commission.

Background

This case, which stems from 

the alleged activity of a specific 

Michigan law firm, is related to 

other similar lawsuits: Barry Bialek 

v. Gonzales, et al. (see the August 

2007 Record, page 3), Geoffrey N. 

Fieger, et al. v. Gonzales, et al. (see 

the March 2007 Record, page 3) 

and Beam v. Gonzales, et al. (see 

next column). Each of these plaintiffs made contributions to the John 

Edwards 2004 Presidential campaign. According to the complaints, 

the plaintiffs are being investigated 

by the Department of Justice for 

violations of the Act. In each case, 

the plaintiffs alleged, among other 

things, that the Commission must 

refer, by a vote of the majority of the 

Commission, a matter to the Attorney General prior to the Attorney 

General investigating or prosecuting 

a violation of the Act. 

Court Decision

In this case, the court agreed with 

the court decisions in Barry Bialek 

v. Gonzales, et al. and Geoffrey 

N. Fieger, et al. v. Gonzales, et al.

that the plain language of the Act 

does not “infring[e] the Attorney 

(continued on page 4)

chusetts Republican State Congressional Committee (the Committee) 

unlawfully failed to spend its 

federal funds to support Republican candidates for federal office in 

Massachusetts. He alleged that the 

Committee spent most of more than 

$3 million in federal contributions 

received during the 2004 election 

cycle on state and local campaigns, 

rather than for federal campaign 

activity.

The FEC considered Mr. Tierney’s complaint and concluded that 

the Committee had not violated 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act). The Commission concluded that the Act neither requires 

the Committee to spend its federal 

funds on Congressional candidates 

nor bars it from spending federal 

funds on state and local elections. 

Mr. Tierney then sought review of 

that decision in the district court.

Court Decision

The court concluded that Mr. 

Tierney has not established standing to pursue this action because he 

conceded that the Committee had 

no obligation to provide financial 

support to his particular candidacy. 

Mr. Tierney thus did not have a 

“concrete and particularized” injury 

in fact for standing purposes. Additionally, his alleged injury was 

not caused by the FEC’s conduct in 

dismissing his complaint, but the 

independent decision of the Committee not to spend its federal funds 

to support his candidacy. 

The court also concluded that 

the FEC’s dismissal of Mr. Tierney’s administrative complaint was 

not “contrary to law” because the 

FEC’s decision was based on the 

plain language of the Act. There is 

no provision in the Act that requires 

state political party committees 

to disburse federal funds only for 

the specific purpose of supporting 

federal candidates. The court concluded that it is not for the courts 

to create restrictions on the use of 

federal funds for nonfederal purposes. Any such restrictions should 

instead be considered by the political branches, particularly Congress.

U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia, CV 06-0663 

(JDB).

 —Myles Martin

General’s plenary power to enforce 

criminal violations of the Act.” The 

court further found that the Act’s 

legislative history “demonstrates that 

Congress did not intend to limit or 

displace the Attorney General’s independent authority to pursue criminal 

violations of the Act, and that prior 

case law has held that criminal enforcement may either originate with 

the Attorney General or stem from 

a referral by the Commission to the 

Attorney General.”1

The court denied the plaintiff’s 

motions for a hearing and oral arguments and for declaratory judgment 

and granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss the complaint with 

prejudice.

The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in this case on March 18, 2008. 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Arizona, CV 07-0398-PCT-EHC.

 —Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2008

4

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

ADR Program Update

The Commission has successfully resolved six campaign finance 

enforcement matters through its Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

program. The Commission assessed 

civil penalties totaling $11,450 for 

these six cases. The respondents, 

the alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) 

and the final disposition of the cases 

are listed below.

1. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the Van Taylor for 

Congress committee and Roy Giddens, as treasurer, regarding failure 

to disclose all financial activity on 

its 2006 12-Day Pre-General and 

2006 30-Day Post-General reports. 

The committee filed amended 

reports in January 2007, disclosing additional disbursements of 

$102,808.40 for the Pre-General 

report and $58,836.58 on the PostGeneral. The respondents acknowledged the inadvertent errors on both 

reports. According to the committee, 

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

Michigan law firm of Fieger, Fieger, 

Kenney & Johnson (see Marcus 

v. Mukasey on page 3). According to the complaint filed March 

2, 2007, the Beam plaintiffs made 

contributions to John Edwards’ 2004 

Presidential campaign. The plaintiffs allege that in November 2005, 

the Department of Justice began an 

investigation into possible violations 

of the Act by the plaintiffs and other 

members of the law firm. Plaintiff 

Jack Beam is “Of Counsel” to the 

law firm. On September 26, 2006, 

the Commission notified the plaintiffs that the Commission had begun 

an investigation of potential civil 

violations of the Act. See the April 

2007 Record, page 5.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint 

with the District Court in Illinois, alleging that the Department of Justice 

could not investigate the alleged 

criminal violations of the Act until 

the Commission formally referred 

the matter to the Department of 

Justice. Additionally, the complaint 

alleged that the Commission failed 

to uphold the Act and asked the 

court to require the Commission to 

conduct and conclude an investigation prior to referral to the Department of Justice. This Complaint was 

dismissed on June 22, 2007, but the 

court granted plaintiffs leave to file a 

First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs 

filed their First Amended Complaint 

on June 29, 2007, raising substantially the same allegations contained 

in their initial Complaint, but adding 

new allegations that the Department of Justice and the Commission 

obtained their private bank records 

illegally in violation of the Right 

to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA), 2 

U.S.C. § 3401 et seq., and that the 

defendants retaliated against plaintiffs for engaging in constitutionally 

protected activity. 

Court Decision

The District Court found in 

favor of the Commission and the 

Department of Justice on every issue addressed in the decision. The 

court held that the plaintiffs lacked 

standing necessary for the court 

to have subject matter jurisdiction 

over the suit. The plaintiffs did not 

allege in their complaint that the 

Department of Justice had “raided” 

their own home or seized their 

own bank records, but alleged only 

raids affecting other Fieger associates and employees. The plaintiffs 

did not show that they had suffered 

any harm and thus did not meet the 

judicial requirement of “injury in 

fact.” The Court also found plaintiffs failed to establish standing with 

respect to the RFPA claim because 

they relied only upon “unsubstantiated speculation” that the Commission 

had possession of their private banking records and that the Commission 

had illicitly obtained those records.

The court also found that the 

plaintiffs’ case was not ripe for 

review. The court stated that because 

neither the Attorney General nor 

the FEC had made decisions about 

whether or how to enforce applicable 

laws against the plaintiffs, the court 

could not assess whether any agency 

misconduct affected the plaintiffs. 

Additionally, the plaintiffs identified 

no hardship that they would suffer if 

the court were to wait to decide their 

claims until the alleged investigations were complete.

Although the plaintiffs alleged 

that the Commission violated the 

Act in several ways, the court found 

that the allegations provided no basis 

for relief. The court agreed with 

the other District Court decisions 

in Fieger v. Gonzales and Bialek 

v. Gonzales. The court held that, 

contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, the 

FEC is not required to refer a matter 

to the Department of Justice prior 

to the Attorney General initiating an 

investigation. The Attorney General 

has sole authority to investigate and 

prosecute criminal violations of the 

U.S. Code, unless Congress clearly 

and unambiguously restricts that authority. The court found no evidence 

that Congress intended to limit the 

Attorney General’s authority to prosecute criminal violations of the Act.

Regarding the plaintiffs’ request 

that the court order the FEC to conduct an investigation into the alleged 

illegal activities, the court found 

that “the judiciary has no power to 

dictate the timing or nature of an 

investigation,” or require the FEC to 

conduct an investigation at all. 

 The court granted leave to 

plaintiffs to file a Second Amended 

Complaint. Plaintiffs filed their new 

complaint on March 24, 2008.

U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

1:07-cv-01227.

 —Meredith Metzler
May 2008 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Pohorelsky, P.C. Each of the following respondents made a $1,000 prohibited corporate contribution and 

agreed to pay a $500 civil penalty: 

Bayou Boeuf Electric, LLC; Paul T. 

Finger, M.D., P.C.; Hollander Properties, Inc.; and Sher Garner Cahill 

Richter Klein & Hilbert, LLC. Additionally, Dorignac’s Food Center, 

LLC, made prohibited corporate 

contributions totaling $2,500 to Terrell for Senate and agreed to pay a 

civil penalty of $1,250. (ADR 255*)

4. The Commission reached an 

agreement with Richard Pombo 

for Congress and David Bauer, as 

treasurer, concerning excessive contributions. An FEC audit of Pombo 

for Congress revealed that the committee accepted contributions from 

individuals and Native American 

tribes that exceeded the Act’s contribution limits by $24,400. In response to the audit, the respondents 

provided documentation showing 

that they had refunded excessive 

contributions totaling $22,400 and 

presumptively reattributed a $2,000 

contribution to another donor. The 

Commission dismissed the matter. 

(ADR 421*)

5. and 6. The Commission 

reached an agreement with David 

Mejias, Mejias for Congress and 

Michael Norman, as treasurer of the 

committee, for failure to disclose 

accurate receipts and acceptance of 

corporate contributions. The matters 

were initiated by complaints filed 

with the Commission, alleging inaccurate reporting and failure to obtain 

information about the corporate 

status of some contributors. The respondents contended that the errors 

were inadvertent and due to inexperienced staff. The committee also 

contended that they made efforts 

to amend and correct the reports. 

The Commission determined that 

the matters did not merit further use 

of the Commission’s resources and 

exercised its prosecutorial discretion to dismiss the matters. (ADR 

371/365)

 —Meredith Metzler *Cases marked with an asterisk were 

internally generated within the FEC.

the omission on the Pre-General was 

the result of an omitted media buy 

and two electronic funds transfers, 

and was corrected after discovery 

during an internal audit. The committee contended that the PostGeneral omissions were due to staff 

turnover. The respondents agreed 

to pay a civil penalty of $5,300 and 

work with FEC staff to terminate the 

committee. (ADR 413*)

2. The Commission reached an 

agreement with Blue America PAC 

and Howard Klein, as treasurer, 

regarding failure to file six 24-Hour 

notices for independent expenditures 

totaling $25,005.84. The committee later disclosed the expenditures 

on its 30-Day Post-General report. 

The committee acknowledged the 

inadvertent violation and agreed to 

pay a $900 civil penalty, develop a 

compliance manual for internal use 

and participate in training with FEC 

staff. (ADR 409*)

3. The Commission reached an 

agreement with several contributors 

to Terrell for Senate, the principal 

campaign committee of 2002 Republican Senate candidate Suzanne 

Haik Terrell (LA). The Commission 

conducted an audit of the committee and found that the committee received numerous prohibited 

contributions from limited liability 

companies (LLCs) and corporations. 

The following respondents made a 

prohibited corporate contribution 

of $250 and agreed to pay a civil 

penalty of $125: S.J. Deshotels, Jr., 

M.D.; Todd J. Guerin, Professional 

Accounting Corporation; LaPorte, 

Sehrt, Romig & Hand, Professional Accounting Corporation; and 

Mirabeau Apartments, LLC. Each 

of the following respondents made a 

prohibited corporate contribution totaling $500 and agreed to pay a civil 

penalty of $250: Clovis & Roche, 

Inc.; Delta Medical Equipment & 

Supply, Co.; Gryon, LLC; and Schofield, Gerard, Veron, Singletary & 

more than in 2005. All three types 

of Democratic House candidates 

increased their receipts (incumbents, challengers and open seat 

candidates). Republican House candidates raised $142.6 million, nine 

percent less than in 2005. Much 

of the decline came from incumbent Republican candidates, while 

the Republican challengers raised 

significantly more and Republican 

open seat candidates slightly less 

than in 2005. The charts shown at 

the top of page 6 detail the total 

receipts of all Democratic and 

Republican House candidates in the 

off-year from 1995 to 2007.

Individual contributions remained the largest source of 

Congressional campaign revenues, 

although the $278.9 million contributed by individuals in 2007 was six 

percent less than in 2005 and only 

55 percent of the total contributions 

to Congressional candidates, down 

from 63 percent in 2005.

More information is available in 

an FEC press release dated April 7, 

2008. The release, which is available on the Commission’s web site 

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

2008/20080407candidate/200804

07candidate.shtml includes tables 

detailing fundraising totals for the 

top 50 House and Senate campaigns in the following categories: 

total receipts, contributions from 

individuals, PAC contributions, 

disbursements and cash-on-hand. 

Comparative charts and graphs are 

also included, along with summary 

statistical information for House 

and Senate candidates in the nonelection years from 1995 to 2007.

 —Meredith Metzler

Statistics

(continued from page 1)

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2008

6

Outreach

Seminar for Nonconnected 

Political Action Committees

On May 14, 2008, the Commission will hold a one-day seminar for 

nonconnected committees (i.e., PACs 

not sponsored by a corporation, 

union, trade association or incorporated membership organization) at 

its headquarters at 999 E Street, NW, 

in Washington, DC. This seminar is 

recommended for:

• Treasurers of leadership PACs, 

partnership PACs and other 

nonconnected PACs;

• Staff of the above organizations 

who have responsibility for compliance with federal campaign finance 

laws;

• Attorneys, accountants and consultants who have clients that are 

nonconnected PACs or unregistered 

“section 527”organizations; and

• Anyone who wants to gain in-depth 

knowledge of federal campaign 

finance law (including the new 

provisions of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 

0

50

100

150

$200

95 97 99 01 03 05 07

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

07

05

Number of Candidates 

Millions of Dollars Candidates

0

50

100

150

$200

95 97 99 01 03 05 07

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Number of Candidates 

Millions of Dollars Candidates

0

50

100

150

$200

95 97 99 01 03 05 07

Total Receipts

Number of Candidates 

Chart 2-1

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year

Millions of Dollars Candida

Democratic House Candidates Republican House Candidates

Total Receipts for Democratic and Republican House Candidates in Off-Election Year, 

1995-2007

or via e-mail to Conferences@

fec.gov.

 —Dorothy Yeager

2007 (HLOGA)) as it applies to 

leadership PACs and other types of 

nonconnected committees.

The seminar will address issues 

such as fundraising and reporting, as 

well as the FEC’s rules on when section 527 organizations trigger federal 

reporting requirements. Experienced 

FEC staff will specifically discuss 

recent changes to the campaign finance law made by HLOGA, as well 

as the rules specific to leadership 

PACs and partnership PACs.

The registration fee for this seminar is $150 per attendee, which covers the cost of the seminar, materials, 

a reception and refreshments. Payment by credit card is required prior 

to the seminar. A full refund will be 

made for all cancellations received 

before 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) May 

9. Complete information is available 

on the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/info/conferences/2008/nonconnectedseminar2008.shtml, along 

with the seminar agenda and a list of 

hotels located near the FEC. Further 

questions about the seminar should 

be directed to the Information Division by phone at 1-800/424-9530 

(press 6), or locally at 202/694-1100, 

June 23-24 Conference 

for Trade Associations, 

Membership Organizations 

and Labor Organizations

The Commission will hold a 

conference for trade associations, 

membership organizations and labor 

organizations on June 23-24, 2008, 

at the Embassy Suites Convention 

Center hotel in Washington, DC. At 

the conferences, Commissioners and 

staff conduct a variety of technical workshops on federal campaign 

finance law designed for those 

seeking an introduction to the basic 

provisions of the law as well as for 

those more experienced in campaign 

finance law.

Attendees are responsible for 

making their own hotel reservations. 

A room rate of $249 single/$269 

double is available for hotel reservations made by May 30, 2008. Call 

202-739-2001 or 1-800-EMBASSY 

and identify yourself as attending 

the Federal Election Commission 

conference to reserve this group 
May 2008 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Index

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

the 2008 Record issue in which the 

article appeared. The second number, following the colon, indicates 

the page number in that issue. For 

example, “1:4” means that the article 

is in the January issue on page four.

Administrative Fines

Update, 2:4; 4:9

Advisory Opinions

Alternative Disposition of Advisory 

Opinion Request, AOR 2007-36, 

3:8

2007-19: Nonprofit Corporation 

Qualifies as Membership Organization, 1:15

2007-22: Campaign Committee May 

Accept Volunteer Services from 

Foreign Nationals, 1:16

2007-23: State Party Committee 

Status for Independence Party of 

New York, 1:17

2007-24: Payment for Joint campaign Activities, 1:18

2007-25: Limited Liability Partnership Taxed as a Corporation, 2:7

2007-26: Disposal of Excess State 

Campaign Funds by Federal Candidate, 1:19

2007-27: Nonconnected Committee 

Solicitations for SSF Contributions, 2:8

2007-28: Federal Candidates/Officeholders Fundraising for Ballot 

Measure Committees, 2:8

2007-29: Donation to a Candidate 

for Local Party Office is Not Personal Use, 1:21

2007-30: Matching Credit Card 

Contributions Under Public Funding Program, 1:21

2007-31: Earmarked Contributions Forwarded to a Presidential 

Candidate by a Nonconnected 

Committee’s Checks Not Matchable, 2:9

2007-32: Political Committee Status 

of Independent Expenditure Organization, 3:8

rate. The hotel will also charge 

the prevailing sales tax, currently 

14.5%. Valet parking is available for 

$29 per night. The hotel is walking 

distance from Metro subway (Metro 

Center station); public transportation 

is recommended. (Note: Please do 

not finalize travel reservations until 

you have received confirmation of 

your registration for the conference 

from our contractor, Sylvester Management Corporation.)

The registration fee is $475, 

including a late registration fee of 

$25 added to registrations received 

after 5 p.m. EDT on May 23. For 

additional information, or to register 

for the conference, please visit the 

conference web site at http://www.

fec.gov/info/conferences/2008/tradememberlabor08.shtml.

For More Information

Please direct all questions about 

the June conference registration 

and fees to Sylvester Management 

Corporation at 1-800/246-7277 or by 

e-mail to tonis@sylvestermanagement.com. For all questions about 

the May seminar or June conference 

program, or to receive e-mail notification of upcoming conferences and 

workshops, call the FEC’s Information Division at 1-800/424-9530 

(press 6) or locally at 202/694-1100, 

or send an e-mail to conferences@

fec.gov.

 —Dorothy Yeager

(continued on page 8)

2007-34: Federal Candidate’s Endorsement of Nonfederal Candidate, 2:10

2007-35: Internet Toolbar Affinity 

Program for Political Committees, 

3:8

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Update, 3:4; 5:4

Commission

Commission Amends Rules that 

Govern its Procedures, 3:3

Commission Publishes Notice of 

New and Revised Systems of 

Records, 2:4

Message from the Chairman, 1:1

New Chairman Elected, 1:2

New Vice Chair Elected, 3:2

Compliance

MUR 5888: Failure to File Timely 

Under Millionaires’ Amendment, 

2:1

MUR 5895: Personal Use and Prohibited Contributions, 3:1

Nonfilers, 3:4; 4:9

Correction

2008 Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits, 4:10

Court Cases

______ v. FEC

– Citizens United, 2:1

– Morgan, 1:4

– SpeechNow.org, 4:6

– Tierney, 5:2

Beam v. Gonzales, 5:3

FEC v. ______

– Adams, 5:1

– Hearn, 1:5

– Reform Party of the USA, 4:1

Marcus v. Mukasey, 5:3

Public Funding

Commission Certifies Primary 

Matching Fund Payments, 2:3

Dodd and Biden Certified for Matching Funds, 1:22

Kucinich and Hunter Certified for 

Matching Funds, 2:4

Congressional 

Primary Convention 

Reporting Dates

 

Several states hold conventions 

to nominate a party’s candidate 

for the general election instead 

of holding a primary election. 

These conventions are treated like 

a primary election under federal 

election law. See 11 CFR 100.2. 

Please visit http://www.fec.gov/

info/charts_primary_dates.shtml

for information about upcoming 

state party conventions and 

reporting dates.
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2008

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Outreach

Conference for Corporations and 

their PACs, 2:10

Conferences Scheduled for 2008, 

1:23; 2:11; 3:14; 4:10

June 23-24 Conference for Trade Associations, Membership Organizations and Labor Organizations, 5:6

Orlando Regional Conference for 

House and Senate Campaigns, 

Political Party Committees and 

Corporate/Labor/Trade PACs, 

1:23

Seminar for Nonconnected Political 

Action Committees, 4:10; 5:6

Party Activities

2008 Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits, 3:6; 4:10

Regulations

Final Rules and Explanation for 

Electioneering Communications, 

1:1

Reports

April Reporting Reminder, 4:1

California Special Election Reporting: 12th District, 3:4

Illinois 14th District Special Election Reporting, 1:13

Indiana Special Election Reporting: 

7th District, 2:5

Louisiana Special Election Reporting: 1st and 6th Districts, 2:6 

Mississippi Special Election Reporting: 1st District, 4:3

Reports Due in 2008, 1:5

Statistics

House and Senate Candidate Committees Raise $507 Million in 

2007, 5:1

Number of PACs Increases Slightly 

in 2007, 3:7

Party Committee Contributions 

Update, 4:7

Index

(continued from page 7)