December 2010 Federal Election Commission Volume 36, Number 12

Table of Contents

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 2)

 Court Cases

1 Bluman v. FEC

1 Advisory Opinions

 Outreach

6 FEC to Host Reporting and 

E-Filing Workshops for the 2010 

Year-End Report

6 Index

 

Court Cases Advisory 

Bluman v. FEC Opinions

On October 19, 2010, two foreign nationals filed suit in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia challenging the constitutionality of 2 U.S.C. §441e and its 

implementing regulations at 11 CFR 

110.20, which prohibit contributions 

and expenditures by foreign nationals. The Plaintiffs ask the court to 

declare §441e and 11 CFR 110.20 

unconstitutional as applied to foreign nationals lawfully residing and 

working in the United States, and to 

enjoin the Commission from enforcing the statute or the regulations 

against such persons.

Background

Benjamin Bluman and Dr. 

Asenath Steiman (Plantiffs) are both 

foreign nationals who lawfully live 

and work in the United States. Both 

Plaintiffs wish to express their political views by making contributions 

to candidates for office in the United 

States, including federal candidates.

Current federal law and Commission 

regulations prohibit foreign nationals (other than those who have been 

admitted to the United States for 

permanent residence) from “directly 

or indirectly” making “a contribution or donation of money or other 

thing of value...in connection with a 

AO 2010-22

Connecticut Working 

Families Party Qualifies as 

State Party Committee

The Connecticut Working Families Party (CT WFP)1

 satisfies the 

requirements for state party committee status under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act), 

even though it is not affiliated with a 

national political party.

Background

The Act defines a “state committee” as “the organization which, 

by virtue of the bylaws of a political party, is responsible for the 

day-to-day operation of such political party at the State level, as 

determined by the Commission.” 2 

U.S.C. §431(15). See also 11 CFR 

100.14(a).

When an organization is not affiliated with a national political party, 

it must meet three requirements to 

achieve state party committee status 

under Commission regulations. 

First, the organization must itself 

qualify as a “political party.” The 

Outreach Plans

 The Commission will soon 

announce its outreach schedule for 

the first half of 2011. If you would 

like to be among the first to know, 

visit our educational outreach web 

page at http://www.fec.gov/info/

outreach.shtml and sign up for our 

e-mail list. 1

 CT WFP is registered with the FEC as 

the Connecticut Working Families Federal PAC d/b/a Take Back Congress CT.
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2010

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530 (Toll-Free)

202/694-1100 (Information Div.)

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Matthew S. Petersen, 

 Chairman

Cynthia L. Bauerly, 

 Vice Chair

Caroline C. Hunter, 

 Commissioner

Donald F. McGahn II, 

 Commissioner

Steven T. Walther,

 Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, 

 Commissioner

Alec Palmer,

 Acting Staff Director

Christopher Hughey, 

 Acting 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

Myles G. Martin, 

 Editor

http://www.fec.gov

(continued on page 3)

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

federal, state or local election;” making “a contribution or donation to a 

committee of a political party;” or 

making an “expenditure,” “independent expenditure,” or “disbursement 

for an electioneering communication” in connection with any federal, 

state or local election in the United 

States. 11 CFR 110.20.

A knowing and willful violation 

of the foreign national ban is punishable by a civil penalty not exceeding 

the greater of $10,000 or 200 percent 

of any contribution or expenditure 

involved in the violation. It is also 

punishable criminally by up to 

five years’ imprisonment. 2 U.S.C. 

§§437g(a)(5) and (d). 

The Plaintiffs claim that the 

foreign national ban violates the 

First Amendment and that since the 

Plaintiffs lawfully reside and work 

in the United States, they are fully 

protected by the First Amendment. 

Plaintiffs also claim that the forms 

of expression that are criminalized 

by the foreign national prohibition 

are core political speech entitled to 

the strongest protection under the 

First Amendment.

Request for Relief

The Plaintiffs request that the 

court declare 2 U.S.C. §441e and 

11 CFR 110.20 unconstitutional as 

applied to foreign nationals who 

lawfully live and work in the United 

States, enjoin the FEC from enforcing those provisions against the 

Plaintiffs or other similarly situated 

foreign nationals, grant costs and 

attorneys’ fees and award any other 

relief that the court deems just and 

proper.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia: 1:10-cv-01766-RMU.

—Myles Martin

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 1)

Act and Commission regulations 

define a “political party” as an “association, committee, or organization that nominates a candidate for 

election to any Federal office whose 

name appears on the election ballot 

as the candidate of the association, committee or organization.” 2 

U.S.C. §431(16); 11 CFR 100.15.

Second, the organization must 

possess an official party structure. 2 

U.S.C. §431(15); 11 CFR 100.14(a).

Third, the organization must be 

responsible for the day-to-day operations of a political party at the state 

level. See 2 U.S.C. §431(15); 11 

CFR 100.14(a). See also AOs 2008-

12 and 2007-23.

Analysis

The Committee meets the three 

requirements and thus qualifies as a 

state committee of a political party 

within the meaning of the Act and 

Commission regulations. 

First, CT WFP qualifies as a 

“political party” because two of its 

candidates qualify as federal candidates and appeared on the November 

2010 Connecticut general election 

ballot as candidates of CT WFP.1

Second, CT WFP’s Rules establish an official party structure and 

CT WFP has qualified for status as 

a “minor political party” under Connecticut law. 

Finally, the Rules of CT WFP 

identify the role of the Committee and its responsibilities for the 

day-to-day functions and operations 

at the state level. The Committee’s 

responsibility for the operations at 

the state level is commensurate with 

the responsibility of other state party 

committees that the Commission has 

previously recognized. 

Date Issues: October 26, 2010;

Length: 5 pages. 

—Katherine Wurzbach

1

 Note that both aforementioned federal 

candidates also appeared on the 2010 

ballot as candidates of the Democratic 

Party. The Commission has concluded, 

in previous advisory opinions, that a 

candidate’s association with more than 

one political party is irrelevant when 

reviewing a party’s qualification for 

state committee status. See AO 2007-23 

at n.6.
December 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Advisory Opinions 

(continued from page 2)

(continued on page 4)

AO 2010-26

Campaign Funds May be 

Used for Moving-Related 

Storage Costs

A retiring Member of Congress 

may use campaign funds to pay for 

temporary storage costs associated 

with his move from Washington, 

D.C., back to his home state. These 

expenses arise from the ordinary and 

necessary duties of a federal officeholder, and can therefore be paid 

with campaign funds. 

Background

Representative Brian Baird plans 

to retire from Congress when the 

current term ends, and return to his 

home state.

To prepare for the move, the 

Baird family has placed nearly half 

of the items from its Washington, 

D.C. residence into a storage facility. 

These items will remain in storage 

from mid-August to mid-December 

2010. Baird for Congress, the 

Congressman’s principal campaign 

committee, seeks to pay the storage 

costs with campaign funds.

The Baird family is paying the 

full, normal rate for the storage and 

neither Representative Baird nor his 

family members have any personal, 

commercial or political relationship 

with the storage company. 

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) prohibits personal use 

of campaign funds. The Act and 

Commission regulations define “personal use” as the use of funds “to 

fulfill any commitment, obligation, 

or expense of a person that would 

exist irrespective of the candidate’s 

election campaign or individual’s 

duties as a holder of Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. §439a(b)(2), 11 CFR 

113.1(g).

The Act and Commission regulations provide a non-exhaustive list 

of items that are considered per 

se personal use. 11 CFR 113.1(g)

(1)(i)(A)-(J). For items not on that 

list, such as the storage expenses 

incurred by Representative Baird 

and his family, the Commission 

determines on a case-by-case basis 

whether the expense is considered 

“personal use.”

In previous advisory opinions, 

the Commission has addressed 

whether Members of Congress can 

use campaign funds to move themselves, their family members and 

their household and office furnishings between Washington, D.C. and 

their home states. AOs 1980-138, 

1987-11, and 1996-14. In each case, 

these expenses were considered to 

be in connection with the duties of 

a federal officeholder, meaning the 

personal use ban did not apply. 

In keeping with these precedents, 

the Commission found the costs of 

temporarily storing the Baird family’s household items to be part of 

the moving process, and thus ordinary and necessary expenses in connection with Representative Baird’s 

duties as a holder of federal office. 

As a result, Baird for Congress may 

use campaign funds to pay the storage expenses. 

The Committee must report the 

payments as “other disbursements.”

Date Issued: November 18, 2010;

Length: 4 pages.

—Isaac J. Baker

AO 2010-27

Transfers Between 

Authorized Committees

The principal campaign committee for a Presidential ticket may 

transfer general election funds to 

retire debts from the Vice-Presidential nominee’s Presidential primary 

campaign.

Background

Former Senator Joseph Biden was 

a candidate in 2008 for the Democratic nomination for President. 

His principal campaign committee, Biden for President (“BFP”), 

received public financing for his 

campaign for the Presidential nomination. On January 3, 2008, former 

Senator Biden ended his campaign 

for the Presidential nomination. 

On August 27, 2008, the Democratic Party nominated former 

Senator Barack Obama for President 

and former Senator Biden for Vice 

President for the upcoming general election. In September 2008, 

the Obama for America (“OFA”) 

campaign committee amended its 

Statement of Organization to list the 

former Senators as the candidates on 

whose behalf it would operate. OFA 

did not elect to receive public financing for the 2008 Presidential primary 

or general elections. 

Following the 2008 Presidential 

election, the Commission conducted 

a mandatory audit of BFP pursuant 

to the rules at 2 U.S.C. §9038(a) and 

11 CFR 9038.1. The Commission 

approved findings requiring BFP 

to make $133,105 in payments to 

the U.S. Treasury within 30 days of 

issuance of the Final Audit Report 

(“FAR”) and to make a payment to 

the U.S. Treasury for $85,900 in 

stale-dated checks, which has not yet 

occurred. The Commission has not 

yet issued the Final Audit Report. 

BFP does not have enough cash on 

hand to pay its outstanding debts and 

obligations, including the expected 

payments to the U.S. Treasury.
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2010

4

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

(continued on page 5)

BFP and OFA asked the Commission whether OFA may transfer 

$138,000 to BFP pursuant to 11 

CFR 110.3(c)(4), or in the alternative, may OFA pay BFP’s debts. The 

requestors also asked whether the 

Commission would toll the running 

of BFP’s 30-day deadline to make 

payments to the U.S. Treasury.

Analysis

The Commission concluded that 

OFA may transfer funds to BFP 

pursuant to 11 CFR 110.3(c)(4) to 

cover BFP’s net debts, including 

its expected payments to the U.S. 

Treasury.

The Commission noted that the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (“the 

Act”) does not limit the transfers of 

funds between principal campaign 

committees of a candidate seeking 

nomination or election to more than 

one federal office so long as: (1) 

such a transfer is not made when 

the candidate is actively seeking 

nomination or election to both such 

offices; (2) the contribution limits 

are not exceeded by such a transfer; 

and (3) the candidate has not elected 

to receive public financing. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(5)(C). Commission regulations provide two sets of rules for 

transfers between a federal candidate’s authorized federal campaign 

committees. 

The Commission determined that 

the rules at 110.3(c)(5) concerning dual-candidacy transfers do not 

apply since former Senator Biden’s 

candidacies were not concurrent. 

He withdrew from the Presidential 

race on January 3, 2008 and his Vice 

Presidential candidacy did not begin 

until August 27, 2008. The Commission noted that former Senator 

Biden’s principal campaign committee for his 2008 Senate candidacy is 

not at issue because he does not seek 

to transfer funds to or from Citizens 

for Biden. 

The Commission found that the 

transfer rules at 110.3(c)(4), which 

permit unlimited transfers between 

previous and current federal campaign committees or between two 

previous federal campaign committees, would apply. The Commission 

noted that both BFP and OFA would 

fulfill the definition of previous 

federal campaigns as they were 

organized to further former Senator Biden’s campaigns for the 2008 

Presidential nomination and VicePresidency, respectively. 11 CFR 

110.3(c)(4)(i).

Since OFA was former Senator 

Biden’s principal campaign committee for the 2008 Presidential 

general election, OFA must be able 

to demonstrate that the transferred 

funds consist only of general election funds. OFA must also be able to 

demonstrate that they do not include 

contributions made in violation of 

the Act. 11 CFR 110.3(c)(4).

Finally, the Commission noted 

that the transferred funds do not 

need to be aggregated with contributions to BFP from the same contributor and would not be aggregated 

for purposes of the contribution 

limits at 11 CFR 110.1, 110.2. However, under the rules at 110.3(c)(4)

(iii), contributions that make up the 

transferred funds would still need 

to be aggregated with contributions 

from the same contributor for the 

next election unless the contributions were designated for another 

election, and the candidate has net 

debts outstanding for the election so 

designated. 

Since OFA may transfer funds 

to BFP, the Commission found the 

requestors’ question about OFA 

paying BFP’s debts moot. The Commission also found the question on 

tolling the 30 day deadline moot as 

the FAR has not been issued.

Date issued: November 18, 2010;

Length: 6 pages.

—Stephanie Caccomo

AO 2010-28

State Party Refund to 

Federal Campaign Not a 

Contribution

A state party committee may 

refund all or a portion of funds transferred to it by a federal campaign 

committee without making a contribution subject to the limitations of 

the Act.

Background

Indiana Democratic Congressional Victory Committee (the State 

Committee) is registered with the 

Commission as a state committee of 

a political party. Hoosiers for Hill is 

the principal campaign committee of 

Representative Baron Hill, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for the 9th Congressional 

District of Indiana.

On September 14, 2010, Hoosiers 

for Hill transferred $34,600 to the 

State Committee’s federal account to 

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 website (www.fec.gov).

 If you would like to place an 

order for paper copies of the 

Campaign Guides, please call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530.
December 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 4)

be used for general party projects on 

behalf of its candidates in connection with the 2010 general election. 

Because the State Committee will 

not be engaging in the activities, 

Hoosiers for Hill requested a full 

refund of the transfer. The State 

Committee asks if it may refund all 

or a portion of the funds transferred 

to it by Hoosiers for Hill without 

making a contribution subject to the 

limitations of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act).

Analysis

A candidate’s authorized committee may transfer an unlimited 

amount of campaign funds to a 

national, state or local party committee. See 2 U.S.C. §439a(a)(4) and 11 

CFR 113.2(c). These provisions do 

not limit the purposes that any transferred funds may be put to, nor do 

they restrict the amount that may be 

transferred. Furthermore, such transfers are not subject to the contribution limitations of 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)

(1)(D) or 11 CFR 110.1(c)(5).

Although the Act and Commission regulations provide for 

the refund of a contribution, the 

Commission acknowledged that 

the regulations do not address the 

specific question presented here. See 

2 U.S.C. §434(b)(4)(F), 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b)(5)(E), 11 CFR 103.3(b). 

Instead, the Commission cited two 

advisory opinions where it previously held that a refund could be 

made notwithstanding the fact that 

the amount of the refund would 

exceed the applicable contribution limits. In Advisory Opinion 

2002-08, the Commission permitted a state exploratory committee 

to refund $700,500 to the federal 

candidate’s principal campaign committee. It concluded that the refund 

was permissible because the federal 

committee raised the funds within 

the limits and prohibitions of the 

Act, and the state committee kept 

the funds in a segregated account 

and had not commingled the funds 

with nonfederal funds. In Advisory 

Opinion 1995-43, the Commission 

determined that a refund by a law 

firm of $150,000 in legal fees that 

were paid by a federal candidate 

would not be a contribution to the 

candidate because the scope of the 

services to be provided by the law 

firm had been “materially altered” 

from those originally contemplated 

by the parties.

In this case, the Commission 

found that Hoosiers for Hill transferred the funds from its federal 

account to the State Committee’s 

federal account, and determined that 

the transferred funds had not been 

commingled with nonfederal funds. 

The Commission also concluded that 

the transfer was made with the understanding that the State Committee 

would undertake certain activities 

that it did not, which materially 

altered the circumstances justifying 

the transfer. Finally, the Commission 

concluded that, since the transfer 

occurred just weeks before the 

committees requested an advisory 

opinion and well within the 30- and 

60-day deadlines for refunding contributions under 11 CFR 103.3(b), 

the parties were seeking a refund 

rather than making a contribution 

subject to the Act.

If the State Committee decides 

to refund the transferred funds to 

Hoosiers for Hill, the Commission advised the State Committee 

and Hoosiers for Hill to maintain 

appropriate documentation of the 

transaction and to disclose the 

refund in their reports. Since the reporting forms do not have a method 

for reporting the specific refund 

here, the Commission advised the 

State Committee to report its refund 

to Hoosiers for Hill on Form 3X, 

Schedule B, Line 28c. Hoosiers for 

Hill should report the receipt of the 

refund on Form 3, Schedule A, Line 

15. The committees should also 

include memo text in their reports 

explaining the circumstances of the 

refund.

Date Issued: October 27, 2010;

Length: 4 pages.

—Zainab Smith

Back Issues of the 

Record Available on 

the Internet

 This issue of the Record and all 

other issues of the Record starting 

with January 1987 are available 

on the FEC website as PDF files. 

Visit the FEC website at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/record.shtml

to find monthly Record issues. 

 The website also provides 

copies of the Annual Record Index

for each completed year of the 

Record, dating back to 1987. The 

Annual Record Index list Record

articles for each year by topic, 

type of Commission action and, in 

the case of advisory opinions, the 

names of individuals requesting 

Commission action.

You will need Adobe® Acrobat® Reader software to view the 

publication. The FEC’s website 

has a link that will take you to 

Adobe’s website, where you can 

download the latest version of the 

software for free.

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2010-29

Recognizing the Working Families Party of Oregon as the state 

committee of a political party 

(Working Families Party of Oregon, 

October 25, 2010)

AOR 2010-30

Sale of e-mail lists by 501(c)(4) 

organization to federal candidates, 

party committees and political committees (Citizens United, November 

1, 2010)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 2010

6

(continued on page 7)

Outreach

FEC to Host Reporting and 

E-Filing Workshops for the 

2010 Year-End Report

On January 12, 2011, the Commission will host roundtable workshops on reporting and electronic 

filing for the 2010 Year-End Report. 

The reporting sessions will address 

common filing problems and provide 

answers to questions committees 

may have as they prepare to file their 

financial reports. The electronic filing sessions will provide hands-on 

instruction for committees that use 

the Commission’s FECFile software 

and will address questions filers may 

have concerning electronic filing. 

Attendance is limited to 50 people 

per reporting workshop and 16 

people per electronic filing workshop; the registration fee is $25 per 

workshop. The registration form is 

available on the FEC’s web site at 

Index

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

the 2010 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.

Advisory Opinions

2009-29: Membership organization 

may establish SSF without vote of 

its membership, 2:4

2009-30: Trade association corporate 

members may use treasury funds to 

assist their SSFs, 3:9

2009-31: Employees may use credits 

to make contributions to SSF, 3:10

2009-32: Proposed sale of art on behalf of committees is not a contribution, 3:10

2010-01: State party activity on behalf of presumptive nominee, 4:10

2010-02: State party committee may 

use nonfederal funds to purchase 

office building, 4:11

2010-03: Members of Congress may 

solicit nonfederal funds for redistricting trust, 6:1

2010-04: Determining composition of 

corporation’s restricted class, 6:3

2010-05: Sale of ad time on a foreign-owned television station, 7:1

2010-06: Political affinity accounts 

for revenue-generating web platform, 7:3

2010-07: Members of Congress may 

solicit funds for state ballot measure, 7:5

Roundtable 

Schedule

Year-End Reporting Workshops

January 12, 2011

FEC Headquarters

Reporting for PACs and Party 

Committees

9:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.

FECFile and E-Filing for 

Candidate Committees

9:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.

Reporting for Candidate 

Committees

1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

FECFile and E-Filing for PACs 

and Party Committees

1:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.

2010-08: Film production, distribution costs qualify for press exemption, 7:6

2010-09: Corporate sponsored IEonly committee may solicit and 

accept unlimited individual contributions, 8:1

2010-10: Attribution of independent 

expenditures, 8:3

2010-11: Contributions to an independent expenditure committee, 

8:4

2010-12: Payroll deduction from 

directors’ compensation for voluntary SSF contributions, 9:1

2010-13: Libertarian Party of Florida 

qualifies as state party committee, 

9:2

2010-14: Using recount funds to pay 

for recount expenses before election day, 10:7

2010-15: Candidate may receive 

refund from his committee, 10:9

2010-16: SSF of corporate-owned 

LLC, 11:1

2010-17: Undesignated contributions may be applied to general or 

special election, 11:4

2010-18: Use of recount funds from 

prior election cycle, 11:5

2010-19: Disclaimers on Internet text 

ads, 11:6

2010-21: Corporate affinity program for purchase of used mobile 

phones, 11:7

2010-22: Connecticut Working Families Party qualifies as state party 

committee, 12:1

2010-26: Campaign funds may be 

used for moving-related storage 

costs, 12:3

2010-27: Transfers between authorized committees, 12:3

2010-28: State party refund to federal 

campaign not a contribution, 12:4

Commission

Commission statement on Citizens 

United v. FEC, 3:1

FEC Elects Chairman and Vice 

Chair for 2010, 1:1

FEC Introduces new compliance 

map, 2:2

http://www.fec.gov/info/outreach.

shtml#roundtables and from Faxline, 

the FEC’s automated fax system 

(202/501-3413, request document 

590). For more information, please 

call the Information Division at 

800/424-9530, or locally at 202/694-

1100.

—Kathy Carothers
December 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Index

(continued from page 6)

Message from the Chairman, 2:1

Policy statement establishes pilot 

program for requesting consideration of legal questions, 8:1

Compliance

Nonfilers, 3:12; 6:10; 7:12; 8:6; 9:7; 

10:13; 11:11

Court Cases

______v. FEC

 - Bluman, 12:1

 - Cao, 3:1; 10:10

 - Citizens United, 2:1

 - CREW, 9:1

 - Fieger, 4:4

 -RNC, 5:3

 -SpeechNow.org, 5:1; 7:11

 - The Real Truth About Obama, 

Inc., 7:10

 - Unity08, 4:1

 -Utility Workers, et. al, 4:3

FEC v. ______

 - Novacek, 5:5

U.S. v. O’Donnell, 7:11

Inflation Adjustments

2010 Coordinated party expenditure 

limits, 3:5

Lobbyist bundling threshold unchanged for 2010, 3:6

Outreach

Conferences in 2010, 1:14; 2:5; 3:12-

13; 4:14; 5:7; 6:12

FEC to host reporting and E-Filing 

workshops for the 2010 Year-End 

report, 11:12; 12:6

June Reporting Roundtable, 6:12

Nonconnected Committee Seminar, 

2:7; 3:13; 4:14-15

October Reporting Roundtable, 8:7; 

9:8; 10:13

Outreach initiatives for 2011-12, 

10:14

Roundtable on new travel rules, 1:15; 

2:6

Roundtable on pre-election communications, 8:7; 9:8

Winding down the campaign reporting roundtable, 10:13; 11:12

Year-End reporting roundtable, 1:14

Regulations

Effective date for amendments to 

travel rules, 8:5

Final Rules on campaign travel, 1:1

Final Rules on coordinated communications, 10:1

Final Rules on debt collection, 5:1

Final Rules for definition of federal 

election activity, 10:3

Final Rules on funds received in 

response to solicitations; allocation 

of expenses by PACs, 4:8

Final Rules on participation by federal candidates and officeholders at 

nonfederal fundraising events, 6:1

Hearings on coordinated communications rules, 6:7

Hearing on proposed federal election 

activity (FEA) rules, 3:8

NPRM on debt collection, 4:9

NPRM on federal candidates’ and 

officeholders’ participation in party 

fundraisers, 1:5

NPRM on funds received in response 

to solicitations; allocation of expenses by certain committees, 2:4

NPRM on standards of conduct, 6:6

Petition for rulemaking on Citizens 

United, 3:7

Public hearing rescheduled for March 

16, 3:7

Supplemental NPRM on Coordinated 

Communications, 3:7

Reports

FEC Form 3L Due in July, 7:9

Florida Special Election Reporting: 

19th District, 1:12

Georgia Special Election Reporting: 

9th District, 4:4

Hawaii Special Election Reporting: 

1st District, 4:7

Illinois Special Election Reporting: 

Senate Vacancy, 9:5

Indiana Special Election Reporting: 

3rd District, 9:6

Pennsylvania Special Election Reporting: 12th District, 4:6

Reports Due in 2010, 1:8; 4:1; 7:1; 

10:1; 11:1

West Virginia Senate Special Election 

Reporting: 8:5

Statistics

House and Senate campaigns raise 

nearly $600 million in 2009, 4:12

PAC activity remains steady in 2009, 

5:7

Party committees report slight increase in 2009 receipts, 4:13

Website

Candidate Disbursements search 

feature available on website, 6:10

800 Line

Disclosing independent expenditures 

on FEC Form 5, 10:12

FEC rules governing public debates, 

10:11

Redesignating and reattributing contributions, 8:7

Winding down your federal campaign, 11:8