May 2010 Federal Election Commission Volume 36, Number 5

Table of Contents

(continued on page 6) (continued on page 2)

Regulations 

1 Final Rules on Debt Collection

 

 Court Cases

1 SpeechNow.org v. FEC

3 RNC v. FEC

5 FEC v. Novacek

7 Advisory Opinions

 Statistics

7 PAC Activity Remains Steady in 

2009

 

 Outreach

7 Conference for Trade Associations, 

Membership Organizations and 

Labor Organizations

 

8 Index

Regulations Court Cases

SpeechNow.org v. FEC

On March 26, 2010, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit ruled in SpeechNow.org. v. FEC that the contribution limits of 2 U.S.C. §441a 

are unconstitutional as applied to 

individuals’ contributions to SpeechNow. The court also ruled that the 

reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. 

§§432, 433 and 434(a) and the organizational requirements of 2 U.S.C. 

§431(4) and §431(8) can be constitutionally applied to SpeechNow.

Background

SpeechNow is an unincorporated 

nonprofit association registered 

as a “political organization” under §527 of the Internal Revenue 

Code. SpeechNow intends to raise 

funds solely through donations by 

individuals and intends to operate 

exclusively through independent expenditures, which are defined by the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act) as expenditures that expressly 

advocate the election or defeat of 

a clearly identified federal candidate and are not made in concert or 

cooperation with, or at the request 

or suggestion of such candidate, the 

candidate’s authorized committee 

or their agents or a political party 

committee or its agents. 2 U.S.C. 

§431(17). SpeechNow intends to run 

Final Rules on Debt 

Collection

On April 16, 2010, the Commission published final rules and 

their Explanation and Justification 

in the Federal Register implementing statutory and regulatory provisions regarding the collection of 

delinquent debts owed to the United 

States Government. The final rules 

also integrate existing regulations 

regarding the collection of debts 

arising solely from the Administrative Fine program into the new rules.

Background

The Commission is promulgating new rules to implement the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

(DCIA), which governs the federal 

government’s debt collection activities and mandates that all nontax 

debts or claims owed to the United 

States that have been delinquent for 

a period of more than 180 days shall 

be referred to the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury or a Treasury-designated collection center for appropriate action to collect or terminate 

collection of the claim or debt. 

The Federal Claims Collection 

Standards (FCCS), which were 

promulgated by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. 

Department of Justice, prescribe the 

standards that federal agencies must 
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 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

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

Myles G. Martin, 

 Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

(continued on page 3)

ads for the 2010 election cycle if it is 

not subject to the contribution limits 

of the Act.

In November 2007, SpeechNow 

filed an advisory opinion request 

with the Commission, asking 

whether it must register as a political committee under the Act and if 

donations to SpeechNow would 

qualify as “contributions,” as defined 

by the Act, which are subject to 

the amount limitations of 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(1)(C) and §441a(a)(3). At 

the time, the Commission did not 

have enough Commissioners to issue 

an opinion, but the Commission’s 

Office of General Counsel did issue 

a draft advisory opinion which stated 

that SpeechNow would be a political committee and contributions to 

it would be subject to the political committee contribution limits. 

SpeechNow filed a complaint in the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia, alleging that the restrictions applicable to political committees would be unconstitutional as 

applied to SpeechNow.

The Act defines a political committee as “any committee, club, 

association, or other group of 

persons” that receives contributions 

or makes expenditures in excess of 

$1,000 in a calendar year. 2 U.S.C. 

§431(4). Once a group qualifies as 

a political committee, contributions 

to that committee are restricted 

to $5,000 from an individual in 

a calendar year; additionally, an 

individual’s total contributions to 

all political committees are limited, 

currently to $69,900 biennially. 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(C) and §441a(a)

(3). A political committee must 

also comply with all applicable 

recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the Act, which include, 

among other things, filing periodic 

campaign finance reports with the 

Commission. See 2 U.S.C. §434(a)

(4) and §434(b).

Appellate Court Decision

Contribution Limits. The court of 

appeals held that when the government attempts to regulate the 

financing of political campaigns and 

express advocacy through contribution limits, it must have a countervailing interest that outweighs the 

limit’s burden on the exercise of 

First Amendment rights. In light of 

the Supreme Court’s recent decision 

in Citizens United v. FEC, in which 

the Supreme Court held that the 

government has no anti-corruption 

interest in limiting independent 

expenditures, the appeals court ruled 

that “contributions to groups that 

make only independent expenditures 

cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption.” As a result, 

the court of appeals held that the 

government has no anti-corruption 

interest in limiting contributions 

to an independent group such as 

SpeechNow. Contributions limits 

as applied to SpeechNow “violate 

the First Amendment by preventing [individuals] from donating to 

SpeechNow in excess of the limits 

and by prohibiting SpeechNow from 

accepting donations in excess of 

the limits.” The court noted that its 

holding does not affect direct contributions to candidates, but rather 

contributions to a group that makes 

only independent expenditures.

Disclosure and Reporting Requirements. The appeals court held 

that, while disclosure and reporting 

requirements do impose a burden 

on First Amendment interests, they 

“‘impose no ceiling on campaignrelated activities’” and “‘do not 

prevent anyone from speaking.’” 

Furthermore, the court held that the 

additional reporting requirements 

that the Commission would impose 

on SpeechNow if it were organized 

as a political committee are minimal, 

“given the relative simplicity with 

which SpeechNow intends to operate.” Since SpeechNow already has 

a number of “planned contributions” 

from individuals, the court ruled 

that SpeechNow could not compare 

itself to “ad hoc groups that want to 

create themselves on the spur of the 

moment.” Since the public has an 

interest in knowing who is speaking 

about a candidate and who is funding that speech, the court held that 

requiring such disclosure and organization as a political committee are 

sufficiently important governmental 

interests to justify the additional 

reporting and registration burdens on 

SpeechNow.

The court’s decision is available 

at http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/

speechnow_ac_opinion.pdf.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit, 

Case Nos. 08-5223 and 09-5342.

—Myles Martin
May 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Court Cases

(continued from page 2)

(continued on page 4)

RNC v. FEC

On March 26, 2010, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted the FEC’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment and denied 

the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment in RNC v. FEC. The court 

concluded that the Plaintiff’s challenge to the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act’s (BCRA) restrictions 

on political party fundraising confl ict 

with the Supreme Court’s decision 

in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 

(2003). The court concluded that 

the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. FEC does 

not affect McConnell’s holding with 

respect to BCRA’s limits on contributions to political parties.

Background

Sections 323(a) and (b) of 

the BCRA, codifi ed at 2 U.S.C. 

§441i(a)-(b), prohibit national parties from soliciting, receiving or 

spending any nonfederal funds. They 

also require state, district and local 

party committees to fund certain 

“federal election activity” (FEA) 

either with federal funds or with a 

combination of federal and Levin 

funds. 

On November 13, 2008, the 

Republican National Committee, the 

Chairman of the RNC, the California 

Republican Party and the Republican Party of San Diego County (the 

Plaintiffs) fi led a complaint in the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia challenging the constitutionality of these soft money provisions. The Plaintiffs intended to use 

unlimited nonfederal funds to support candidates in elections where 

only state candidates appeared on 

the ballot, and to take part in other 

activities that the Plaintiffs characterized as insuffi ciently connected to 

federal elections. The Plaintiffs argued that the soft money provisions 

as applied to their intended activities 

FEC Record to Become a News Site

 In an effort to provide more timely and user-friendly information, the FEC 

Record will transition this summer from a print-based online publication to 

a wholly web-based format that better utilizes the medium. We’re excited to 

improve this already useful resource in a way that will help our readers keep up 

with FEC-related news even better than before.

 Converting the Record into a continuously updated news site will allow us to 

provide campaign fi nance information in a more timely and responsive manner, 

adding stories as regulations are approved, advisory opinions are issued and 

court cases are decided. We will be able to add links within articles that point to 

related resources, including audio of Commission meetings, advisory opinion 

documents, Federal Register notices and helpful web-based training materials 

devoted to new or complex areas of the law.

 The new Record will be more searchable than the old PDF version, with a 

custom search bar for the site providing more useful results. The categories 

and tags we’ve added will make browsing and navigating the Record faster 

and more convenient than before, and you will be able to subscribe to the RSS 

feed to receive automatic updates as stories are posted. We look forward to our 

transition this summer and hope you’ll let us know how we can continue to 

improve and better serve our readers.
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2010

4

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

(continued on page 5)

Screen-Fillable 

Forms 1 and 2 

Available on the FEC 

Website

FEC Form 1 (Statement of 

Organization) and FEC Form 2 

(Statement of Candidacy) are 

now available in screen-fillable 

format on the FEC website. This 

will allow those committees 

who are registering for the first 

time or those committees who 

are filing amendments to these 

forms to fill them out by typing 

the required information on their 

computer rather than handwriting 

them. Screen-fillable Form 1 is 

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

pdf/forms/fecfrm1auth.pdf and 

screen-fillable Form 2 is available 

at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/

fecfrm2cand.pdf.

are overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. 

Court Decision

In denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment, the court 

first rejected their argument that it 

should apply a “strict scrutiny” level 

of analysis to their claims. The court 

referenced the Supreme Court’s 

decision in McConnell which held 

that the appropriate level of scrutiny for limitations on contributions 

to candidates and political parties 

is a “closely drawn” standard that 

validates regulations if they meet a 

sufficiently important governmental 

interest. 

Next, the RNC asserted that 

323(a) could not constitutionally be 

applied to activities that are not unambiguously related to the campaign 

of a particular federal candidate. It 

also argued that 323(a) violates the 

First Amendment to the extent that 

it applies to contributions that would 

be used for nonfederal elections, 

and that there was no viable theory 

of corruption to justify limits on 

contributions to political parties. It 

asserted that if it pledged not to sell 

preferential access to federal officeholders and candidates in exchange 

for soft-money contributions, it 

would eliminate McConnell’s concerns about the corrupting influences 

of soft-money contributions. The 

court rejected all of these arguments, 

stating that McConnell not only 

upheld BCRA’s ban on nonfederal 

contributions to national political 

parties, but also held that 323(a) is 

not overbroad simply because it subjects all funds raised and spent by 

national parties to Federal Election 

Campaign Act’s limits. Although 

the court found that the RNC’s asapplied argument may have merit if 

the selling of access for soft-money 

contributions were eliminated, it 

pointed out that in upholding the 

323(a) limits, the Supreme Court 

in McConnell also was concerned 

about the close relationship between 

federal officeholders and national 

parties. The McConnell Court felt 

that because they were inextricably 

intertwined, federal officeholders 

and candidates may value contributions to their national parties, and 

that those contributions have the 

same tendency to result (or appear 

to result) in quid pro quo corruption. 

Although the court acknowledged 

that the McConnell opinion is ambiguous as to whether the “unity of 

interests” rational was an independently sufficient standard to uphold 

the ban on soft-money contributions 

to national parties, it stated that it 

didn’t possess the authority to clarify 

or refine McConnell’s holding on 

this issue.

The California Republican Party 

and the Republican Party of San 

Diego County claimed that 323(b) 

unconstitutionally prohibited them 

from raising soft money contributions to participate in certain federal election activity that does not 

target, but may incidentally criticize 

or oppose, federal candidates. The 

court rejected this claim as already 

having been considered and rejected 

in McConnell. The court pointed out 

that whether 323(b) can be constitutionally applied to a particular state 

or local party activity depends on 

whether the activity would provide 

a direct benefit to a federal candidate, not on who the party’s primary 

target is. Since the party committees 

did not deny that the activities could 

benefit federal candidates, the court 

rejected their as-applied challenge.

Finally, the RNC chairman 

claimed that 323(a) is unconstitutional as applied to his efforts to 

(continued on page 5)

solicit soft money contributions to 

the RNC, state parties and state candidates. In rejecting the chairman’s 

claim, the court stated that, although 

the chairman, in his individual 

capacity, may solicit soft-money 

donations on behalf of state and local party committees and candidates, 

McConnell upheld 323(a)’s prohibition against national party committees and their officers acting in their 

official capacities from soliciting or 

directing soft-money contributions.

On April 2, 2010, the Plaintiffs 

filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

The text of the court’s opinion 

is available on the Commission’s 

website at http://www.fec.gov/law/

litigation/rnc_opinion_3judge.pdf.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 08-1953 (BMK)(RJL)

(RMC).

—Zainab Smith
May 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Court Cases

(continued from page 4)

(continued on page 6)

FEC v. Novacek

On April 14, 2010, the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted the 

Commission’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment against the Defendants, 

Jody L. Novacek, Republican Victory Committee, Inc. (“RVC”), 

BPO, Inc., and BPO Advantage, LP 

(Defendants). The court found that 

Ms. Novacek and the RVC knowingly and willfully violated 2 U.S.C 

§441h(b)(1) by fraudulently misrepresenting themselves as acting 

for, or on behalf of, a political party 

for the purpose of soliciting contributions. The court also found that 

BPO, Inc., and BPO Advantage, LP, 

knowingly and willfully violated 2 

U.S.C §441h(b)(2) by participating 

in Novacek and RVC’s plan, scheme 

or design to fraudulently misrepresent themselves as acting for, or 

on behalf of, a political party for 

the purpose of soliciting contributions. Finally, the court found that 

Ms. Novacek and RVC violated 2 

U.S.C § 441d(a) and (c) by failing to 

include on their communications the 

required disclaimer information in 

the manner specified by the statute. 

The court ordered the Defendants to 

pay a civil penalty of $47,414.15.

Background

On June 29, 2004, the Republican National Committee filed an 

administrative complaint with the 

Commission that alleged certain 

solicitations made by RVC violated 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act) because these solicitations 

contained misrepresentations that 

RVC was acting on behalf of the 

Republican Party. 

The Commission began its own 

investigation in 2005 and found 

probable cause that the Defendants 

had knowingly and willfully violated 

the Act. In October 2008, the Commission sent letters to the Defendants which proposed a conciliation 

agreement. The Commission was 

unable through informal methods 

to secure an acceptable conciliation 

agreement with the defendants.

On March 6, 2009, the Commission filed a Complaint in the U.S. 

District Court for Northern Texas 

against the Defendants for violations 

of the Act. On November 30, 2009, 

the Commission filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment. The Commission argued that the Defendants 

made fundraising solicitations by 

phone and in mailers that fraudulently misrepresented the source of 

the solicitation as the Republican 

National Committee and the Republican Party in what constitutes a 

knowing and willful violation of the 

Act. Ms. Novacek created and operated the RVC, as well as BPO, Inc., 

and BPO Advantage, LP. Through 

these entities, Ms. Novacek made 

misrepresentations to vendors and 

the general public stating or implying that RVC was raising money 

for the Republican Party and the 

Republican National Committee. In 

addition, Ms. Novacek and RVC violated the Act by failing to include on 

their communications some of the 

required disclaimer information in 

the manner specified by the Act. 

District Court Decision

The court granted the Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment against the Defendants.

The court found that the Defendants had violated 2 U.S.C. 

§441h(b)(1) and (2). The court noted 

that Ms. Novacek and RVC had 

knowingly and willfully misrepresented themselves as acting for, or 

on behalf of, the Republican Party 

and the Republican National Committee for the purpose of soliciting 

contributions. The court also found 

that the defendants BPO, Inc., and 

BPO Advantage, LP, had willfully 

and knowingly participated in Ms. 

Novacek and RVC’s scheme, design 

or plan to fraudulently misrepresent themselves for the purpose of 

soliciting contributions. The court 

found that the Defendants failed to 

argue any of the material facts of the 

allegations and that the Defendants 

admitted to authoring scripts and 

follow-up letters to potential contributors for solicitation purposes. 

The court rejected the Defendants’ claim that the call transcripts 

obtained by the Commission may 

not be an accurate sample of the 

calls made by call centers on behalf 

of the Defendants. The court also 

denied the Defendants’ request for 

additional discovery regarding further evidence from the call centers. 

The court rejected the Defendants’ claim that Ms. Novacek did 

not commit any “knowing and intentional” fraud and misrepresentation 

because the “RNC does not own the 

term ‘Republican Party.’” FEC v. 

Novacek, No. 09-00444 (N.D. Tex. 

April 14, 2010). The court found the 

Defendants’ position unsupportable 

in light of the script’s clear implication that donations were solicited 

for the Republican Party and/or the 

Republican National Committee. 

Finally, the court found that Defendants violated 2 U.S.C. § 441d(a) 

and (c) by failing to include a 

disclaimer in their communications. 

The Defendants failed to include 

RVC’s permanent address, phone 

number or website address, or state 

that the solicitation was not authorized by a candidate or candidate 

committee. In RVC’s mailings, the 

written material failed to properly 

format that information in clearly 

readable type size in a printed box 

set apart from the content of that 

communication. The court dismissed 

the Defendants’ arguments that the 

violations were unintentional since 

intent is not an element of the offense and the Commission did not 

request higher civil penalties that 

would become available if Ms. Novacek had acted with “knowing and 

willful” intent for those violations. 

The court ordered the Defendants to pay a civil penalty in the 

amount of $47,414.15. The court 

also ordered that any funds raised 

by these solicitations and held by 
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2010

6

Court Cases

(continued from page 5)

(continued on page 7)

a non-party, the call center Apex 

CoVantage, L.L.C., shall be turned 

over to the Commission for return to 

the contributors. 

The text of the court’s opinion is 

available at http://www.fec.gov/law/

litigation/novacek_opinion.pdf.

U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas (No. 

3:09cv00444-M)

—Stephanie Caccomo

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

use in the administrative collection, 

offset, compromise and suspension 

or termination of collection activity for civil claims of money, funds 

or property. 31 CFR 900-904. The 

FCCS clarifies and simplifies federal 

debt collection procedures and prescribes the steps that an agency must 

take before initiating debt collection 

to ensure that individuals’ rights 

are protected, which include notifying the debtor of the debt and the 

consequences of failing to resolve 

the debt.

The Commission published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) in the Federal Register on 

February 24, 2010, requesting comment on the proposed rules. (See the 

April 2010 Record). The comment 

period closed on March 26, 2010, 

and the Commission received one 

comment on the proposed rules. 

Collection of Administrative Debts

The Commission is adding new 

part 8 and new subpart C to 11 

CFR Part 111 to provide for debt 

collection. Together, both parts are 

designed to cover all types of debt 

that the Commission must collect. 

The regulations in part 8 cover only 

those debts that are either owed to 

the U.S. government by current or 

former Commission employees, or 

arise from the provision of goods or 

services by contractors or vendors 

doing business with the Commission. New 11 CFR 8.3 states that the 

Commission will collect the claims 

or debts covered by 11 CFR part 8 

in accordance with the DCIA, the 

FCCS and certain other Treasury 

regulations governing debt collection. The new rules also state that 

the Commission will refer all debts 

to the Treasury Department that are 

more than 180 days delinquent and 

may, at its discretion, transfer delinquent debts prior to the end of the 

180 day period. 11 CFR 8.3(c). 

Additionally, the Commission’s 

final rules provide for instances 

where a debtor has sought bankruptcy protection, which may require the 

Commission to take different action 

pursuant to bankruptcy law. 11 CFR 

8.4.

The Commission shall also assess 

interest, penalties and administrative 

costs on debts owed to the United 

States, in accordance with federal 

law. The final rules state that the 

Commission shall waive collection 

of interest and administrative costs 

on debts that are paid within 30 

days after the date on which interest 

begins to accrue. The final rules also 

provide that the Commission may, 

at its discretion, waive collection of 

interest, penalties or administrative 

costs on any debt, and sets out the 

criteria for waiver. 11 CFR 8.5.

Collection of Debts Arising from 

Enforcement and Administration 

of Campaign Finance Laws

The Commission’s final rules 

remove 11 CFR 111.45, which governed debt collection with respect to 

the Administrative Fine program. Instead, the new regulations at 11 CFR 

part 111, subpart C, now govern the 

Commission’s collection of debts 

arising from compliance matters, administrative fines, alternative dispute 

resolution, repayments of public 

funds and court judgments arising 

from the Commission’s enforcement 

of the campaign finance laws. The 

new regulations cover the collection 

of debts only, and will be invoked 

only after the completion of existing Commission processes during 

which respondents or other parties 

have had a full and fair opportunity 

to demonstrate that no civil penalty 

or repayment should be imposed. 

See 11 CFR parts 111 and 9038, and 

9008.11-9008.15.

Like new 11 CFR part 8, the new 

regulations at 11 CFR part 111, 

subpart C, state that the Commission 

will collect claims or debts covered 

by the new regulations in accordance with the DCIA, the FCCS and 

certain other Treasury regulations 

governing debt collection, and will 

refer debts to the Treasury Department that have been delinquent for 

more than 180 days and may, at its 

discretion, transfer delinquent debts 

prior to the end of the 180 day period. 11 CFR 111.52.

The new regulations at 11 CFR 

part 111, subpart C, also contain the 

same provisions governing the impact of bankruptcy law on debt collection and assessment and waiver of 

interest, penalties and administrative 

costs contained in new 11 CFR part 

8, discussed above. 11 CFR 111.54 

and 111.55.

The new regulations also note 

that nothing in new 11 CFR part 

111, subpart C, precludes the Commission from filing suit in court to 

enforce compliance with a conciliation agreement, seek a civil money 

penalty, petition the court for a 

contempt order or otherwise exercise 

its authority to enforce or administer 

the Federal Election Campaign Act, 

the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund Act or the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act. 11 

CFR 111.53.

Additional Information

The Final Rules and Explanation 

and Justification were transmitted 

to Congress on April 12, 2010, and 

published in the Federal Register on 
May 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Advisory 

Opinions

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2010-05

Sale of advertising time on 

foreign-owned television station to 

candidates (Starchannel Communications, Inc., March 2, 2010) 

AOR 2010-06 

Affinity type program between 

corporation and political committees 

to provide an Internet web-based 

platform (Famos LLC, April 2, 

2010)

AOR 2010-07

Federal candidate solicitation for 

a State ballot initiative committee 

under 2 U.S.C. §441i(e) (Yes on 

FAIR, April 7, 2010)

PACRONYMS Now 

Available

 The December 2009 edition 

of PACRONYMS, a list of 

the acronyms, abbreviations 

and common names of federal 

political action committees 

(PACs), is available on the 

Commission’s website. 

 PACRONYMS is available 

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

pacronyms/pacronyms.shtml and 

is also available from the FEC’s 

Public Records Office at (202) 

694-1120.

Statistics

PAC Activity Remains 

Steady in 2009

The 4,618 federally-registered 

political action committees (PACs) 

raised $555.7 million, spent $464.6 

million and contributed $174.4 

million to candidates, according to 

reports filed with the Commission 

for January 1 through December 

31, 2009, the first calendar year 

of the 2009-2010 election cycle. 

While the total number of federal 

PACs increased by almost 3 percent 

compared to 2007, the first calendar 

year of the previous election cycle, 

receipts decreased by less than 1 

percent, disbursements increased by 

nearly 2 percent and contributions to 

candidates grew by almost 1 percent. 

This is the first time in almost two 

decades that total receipts of federal 

PACs were lower than in the previous odd-numbered year. 

Labor PACs had the most significant increase in financial activity 

compared to 2007, reporting $128.9 

million in receipts, $95.7 million in 

disbursements and $26.3 million in 

contributions to candidates, gains 

of 12 percent, 22.5 percent and 9 

percent, respectively. Nonconnected 

PACs (PACs not sponsored by 

particular corporations, labor organizations, trade or membership 

groups, etc.) reported $154.9 million 

in receipts and $146.3 million in 

disbursements, the highest totals 

when compared to the other PAC 

categories in 2009. Corporate PACs 

reported making $72.1 million in 

contributions to candidates in 2009, 

exceeding the totals of the other PAC 

categories. 

PAC contributions made to Senate 

Democratic candidates totaled $27.8 

million and $82.8 million for House 

Democratic candidates, representing 

an increase from 2007 totals of 39 

percent and 5 percent, respectively. 

PAC contributions to Senate Republican candidates were $19.4 million, 

a decrease of 18 percent from 2007 

totals. Contributions made by PACs 

to House Republican candidates 

were $44.5 million, a decrease of 

almost 13 percent compared to 2007. 

Generally, historical data show that 

PACs tend to contribute more to 

the party controlling each house of 

Congress.

PACs ended 2009 with $403.5 

million cash-on-hand, up 6 percent 

from 2007 and the highest cash 

balance total reported for an oddnumbered year since the FEC began 

keeping records. PACs reported total 

outstanding debts of $5.8 million, 

down 16 percent from 2007.

The Commission’s press release on PAC activity is available at http://www.fec.gov/press/

press2010/20100406PAC.shtml.

 —Myles Martin

Regulations

(continued from page 6)

Outreach

Washington, DC, Conference 

for Trade Associations, 

Membership Organizations 

and Labor Organizations

The Commission will hold its 

annual conference for trade associations, membership organizations 

and labor organizations and their 

PACs in Arlington, VA, on June 8-9, 

2010. Commissioners and staff will 

conduct a variety of technical workshops on federal campaign finance 

law. Workshops are designed for 

those seeking an introduction to the 

basic provisions of the law as well as 

for those more experienced in campaign finance law. For additional 

information, to view the conference 

agenda or to register for the conference, please visit the conference 

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

conferences/2010/tradememberlabor10.shtml.

Hotel Information. The conference will be held at the DoubleTree 

(continued on page 8)

April 16, 2010. The Federal Register

Notice is available on the Commission’s website at http://www.fec.

gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2010/

notice_2010-10.pdf. The rules are 

effective on May 17, 2010.

—Myles Martin
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2010

8

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

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

Message from the Chairman, 2:1

Compliance

Nonfilers, 3:12

Court Cases

______v. FEC

 - Cao, 3:1

 - Citizens United, 2:1

 - Fieger, 4:4

 -RNC, 5:3

 -SpeechNow.org, 5:1

 - Unity08, 4:1

 -Utility Workers, et. al, 4:3

FEC v. ______

 - Novacek, 5:5

Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, VA 

(near the Pentagon). A room rate of 

$226 single/$246 double is available 

to conference attendees who make 

reservations on or before May 7, 

2010. To make your hotel reservations and reserve this group rate, 

call 1-800-HHONORS and identify 

yourself as attending the Federal 

Election Commission conference. 

The hotel is in walking distance (10 

minutes) from the Pentagon City 

Metro subway station. The FEC 

recommends waiting to make hotel 

and air reservations until you have 

received confirmation or your conference registration from Sylvester 

Management Corporation. 

Registration Information. The 

registration fee is $499 per attendee, 

which includes a $25 non-refundable 

transaction fee. A late registration 

fee of $51 will be added to registrations received after 5 p.m. EDT on 

May 7. For additional information, 

or to register for the conference, 

please visit the conference website 

at http://www.fec.gov/info/conferences/2010/tradememberlabor10.

shtml.

FEC Conference Questions

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 toni@sylvestermanagement.com. For all questions 

about the conference program, or to 

receive e-mail notification of upcoming conferences and workshops, call 

the FEC’s Information Division at 

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

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

to Conferences@fec.gov.

—Dorothy Yeager

Outreach

(continued from page 7)

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

Nonconnected Committee Seminar, 

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

Roundtable on new travel rules, 1:15; 

2:6

Year-End reporting roundtable, 1:14

Regulations

Final Rules on campaign travel, 1:1

Final Rules on debt collection, 5:1

Final Rules on funds received in 

response to solicitations; allocation 

of expenses by PACs, 4:8

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

Petition for rulemaking on Citizens 

United, 3:7

Public hearing rescheduled for March 

16, 3:7

Supplemental NPRM on Coordinated 

Communications, 3:7

Reports

Florida Special Election Reporting: 

19th District, 1:12

Georgia Special Election Reporting: 

9th District, 4:4

Hawaii Special Election Reporting: 

1st District, 4:7

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

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

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

Index