December 1999 Federal Election Commission Volume 25, Number 12

Table of Contents

Regulations

1 Use of the Internet for Campaign

Activity; Notice of Inquiry

3 Membership Organizations;

Effective Date

3 Documentation for Matching

Credit and Debit Card

Contributions; Effective Date

3 Party Coordinated Expenditures

and Media Travel; Effective Date

7 Public Financing; Effective Date

7 Audit Procedures, “Bright Line”

and Vice Presidential Committees;

Final Rules

8 Status of Regulations for 2000

Presidential Election Cycle

Court Cases

1 USA v. Kanchanalak

4 FEC v. California Democratic

Party

6 FEC v. Freedom’s Heritage Forum

6 Public Appearances

9 Advisory Opinions

9 Federal Register

Election Administration

 17 Advisory Panel Votes to Update

Voting Standards

Reports

 17 Waiver of State Office Filings

Outreach

 18 Conference Schedule

 18 Monthly Roundtable Sessions

Publications

 19 Compilation of FEC Court Cases

 19 Index

Regulations Court Cases

Use of the Internet for

Campaign Activity: Notice of

Inquiry

The FEC is seeking comments

from the public on the issues raised

by the use of the Internet to conduct

campaign activity. The Commission is conducting this review in

order to assess the applicability of

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act) and Commission regulations to Internet campaign activity.

The Commission will use the

comments it receives to determine

whether to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which

may include proposed changes to its

regulations. An NPRM would seek

further comment on any proposed

revisions to the regulations. The

Commission has made no final

decisions regarding the issues

discussed in this Notice of Inquiry

(NOI), and may ultimately decide to

take no action on this matter. In this

NOI, the Commission invites

comments on the issues listed

below.

Basic

The fundamental question in this

NOI is whether campaign activity

conducted on the Internet should be

subject to the Act and Commission

 (continued on page 2) (continued on page 4)

USA v. Kanchanalak, et al.

Background

On October 8, 1999, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit reversed a district

court decision to dismiss charges

against Pornpimol Kanchanalak and

Duangnet Kronenberg for illegally

using conduits to disguise donations

from foreign nationals and corporations. The Department of Justice

originally filed suit against Ms.

Kanchanalak and Ms. Kronenberg

for willfully causing the Democratic

National Committee (DNC) and

other committees to file false reports

of hard money contributions and

soft money donations with the

Federal Election Commission

(FEC), in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§2(b), 1001.1

 The defendants were

1

 The court of appeals stated that “hard

money” refers to funds that have been

deposited by the Committee into a

“federal account” and are used to

finance federal election campaigns,

whereas “soft money” refers to funds

that are deposited into a “nonfederal”

account and are supposed to be used

for, among other things, state and local

campaigns.
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

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)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Darryl R. Wold, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Jennifer A. Han, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

tion? If so, how should the value be

determined? What if the hyperlink

is to the Web site of a vendor who

sells items that express support for

the candidate?

Web Sites of Publicly Funded

Candidates

What issues arise when publicly

funded Presidential candidates use

the Internet to promote their candidacies? If the committee uses the

site to solicit funds, should a portion

of the cost of establishing and

maintaining the site be exempt from

the definition of expenditure? If so,

how should that amount be determined?

Web Sites Created by Individuals

Many Web sites created by

individuals contain references to

candidates and political parties.

Some are entirely devoted to

encouraging support or opposition

to one or more candidates, while

others only devote a portion to

candidate advocacy. How should

the definitions of in-kind contribution and independent expenditure be

applied to these Web sites? Are the

costs covered by the Act? If so,

what is the value? What costs

should be taken into account? What

types of contacts between an

individual and a candidate should be

treated as coordination? How

should the regulations address the

republication of candidate materials? How should hyperlinks be

treated? How should Web sites

developed by campaign volunteers

be treated? Should Web sites

include disclaimers? If so, which

ones? Should Web sites created by

individuals be considered general

public political advertising?

Nonconnected Committees and

Other Unincorporated

Organizations

How should Internet activity by

nonconnected political committees

and unincorporated organizations be

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

regulations at all. Are Internet

campaign activities analogous to

campaign activities conducted in

other contexts, or do they differ to

such a degree as to require different

rules? When the Internet is used for

activity relating to federal elections

and candidates, should the activity

be treated as an expenditure or a

contribution? If so, under what

circumstances?

Candidate Web Sites

Candidates are using Web sites to

support their campaigns at an

increasing rate. How should the

candidate’s committee treat costs

associated with establishing a

candidate Web site? Should the

costs be considered expenditures?

Hyperlinks

If a candidate’s Web site contains

a hyperlink to the site of another

candidate or political party, should

that link be treated as a contributreated? Under what circumstances

would Web site activity be considered nonpartisan voter registration

activity under 2 U.S.C. §431

(9)(B)(ii)?

Corporations and Labor Unions

Many corporations and labor

unions have Web sites to communicate with the general public. Under

what circumstances should a

candidate or election-related communication by a corporation or

labor organization be treated as a

prohibited contribution or independent expenditure? When should

communications via the Internet be

treated as communications to the

general public and when should they

be treated as communications to a

more limited audience or restricted

class? How should limits on the use

of corporate or labor facilities

apply? How should press releases

be treated?

News Organizations

Under what circumstances should

an Internet site be considered an

exempted newspaper, magazine, or

other periodical publication? How

should the Act and Commission

regulations be applied when candidates make public appearances via a

web site operated by a news organization? How should online discussions be treated?

Party Committees

Party committee Web sites

usually contain references to

numerous candidates. How should

expenses be allocated between

candidates? How does the

committee’s coordinated expenditure limit come into play?

Reporting and Recordkeeping

Should any additional reporting

requirements be imposed on committees that receive contributions

via the Internet? How should

prohibited and excessive contributions be screened? How should
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

disbursements for expenses incurred

in Internet activity be reported?

How long should records of campaign related Internet activity be

retained?

Electronic Mail

How broadly should the Commission treat e-mail as a substitute for

regular mail? Would e-mail satisfy

the “best efforts” requirements?

Are there circumstances in which

disclaimers should be included on email?

Other Issues

How are online “membership

organizations” to be treated? Are

rules needed on the use of the

Internet by draft committees?

The Commission asks that all

comments be submitted on or before

January 4, 2000. Comments should

be directed to Rosemary Smith,

Assistant General Counsel, in

written or electronic form. Written

comments should be sent to the

Federal Election Commission, 999

E St., NW, Washington, DC 20463.

Faxed comments should be sent to

(202) 219-3923, with printed copy

follow up. Electronic mail comments should be sent to

internetnoi@fec.gov, and must

include the full name, electronic

mail address and postal service

address of the commenter.✦

Definition of Member of

Membership Organization:

Effective Date of New Rules

The FEC’s revised rules governing who qualifies as a “member” of

a membership organization became

effective on November 2, 1999. See

Federal Register Announcement of

Effective Date (64 FR 59113,

November 2, 1999).

The new rules largely address the

internal characteristics of an organization that, when combined with

certain financial or organizational

attachments, qualify the organization for membership status.

You may obtain a free copy of

the final rules as they appeared in

the Federal Register (64 FR 41266,

July 30, 1999) through the FEC

Faxline. Dial 202/501-3413 and

request document 229. For a

summary of the new rules, see page

1 of the September 1999 Record.✦

Documentation Required for

Matching Credit Card and

Debit Card Contributions in

Presidential Campaigns:

New Rules in Effect

The revised rules addressing the

documentation needed for credit and

debit card contributions to publicly

funded Presidential candidates are

effective retroactive to January 1,

1999. See Federal Register Announcement of Effective Date (64

FR 59607, November 3, 1999).

The new rules describe the

documentation required before

contributions made by credit or

debit card, including contributions

made over the Internet, may be

matched under the Presidential

Primary Matching Payment Account

Act (Matching Payment Act).

Matchable contributions are those

which, when received by candidates

who qualify for payments under the

Matching Payment Act, are matched

by the federal government. The

new rules require candidates to

provide sufficient documentation to

ensure that each contribution

submitted for matching was made

by a lawful contributor who intended to make the contribution to

the campaign committee that

submits it for matching fund payments. The rules further note that

additional information on the

documentation required to accompany such contributions will be

found in the Commission’s Guideline for Presentation in Good Order.

The new rules appeared in the

Federal Register on August 5, 1999

(64 FR 42584). For a summary of

the rules, see page 3 of the September 1999 Record. Also, see page 4

of the July 1999 Record for a

discussion of the Commission’s

rules on matchable contributions

made by credit or debit card,

including those made over the

Internet. These rules appeared in

the Federal Register on June 17,

1999 (64 FR 32394). You may

obtain a free copy of both these

rules as they appeared in the Federal Register through the FEC

Faxline. Dial 202/501-3413 and

request document 240.✦

New Rules On Party

Committee Coordinated

Expenditures and Costs of

Media Travel with

Presidential Campaigns:

Effective Date

The FEC’s new rules on party

committee coordinated expenditures

and costs of media travel with

publicly financed Presidential

campaigns became effective on

November 3, 1999. See Federal

Register Announcement of Effective

Date (64 FR 59606, November 3,

1999).

These rules address party committee coordinated expenditures that

are made before the date when the

parties’ candidates receive the

nomination. The new rules also

cover the costs of transportation and

ground services that federally

funded Presidential primary and

general election campaigns may

pass on to the news media covering

their campaigns.

You may obtain a free copy of

the final rules as they appeared in

the Federal Register (64 FR 42579,

August 5, 1999) through the FEC

Faxline. Dial 202/501-3413 and

request document 242. For a

summary of the rules, see page 12 of

the September 1999 Record.✦

 (continued on page 7)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

4

allegedly involved in a scheme in

which permanent U.S. residents

signed checks for both hard and soft

money when the actual source of the

funds was a foreign corporation,

Ban Chang International (USA),

Inc. The U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia dismissed the

charges against Ms. Kanchanalak

and Ms. Kronenberg. In regard to

the hard money counts, the district

court concluded that the government had failed to prove that the

defendants had directly caused the

making of false reports to the FEC.

With regard to the soft money

counts, the court determined that

neither the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) nor Commission

regulations require political committees to report the sources of soft

money donations. The Court of

Appeals reversed on each of these

matters.

Hard Money

The appeals court reinstated the

hard money counts against the

defendants based on its previous

decision in United States v. Hsia,2

which established that the Act

requires political committees to

report the true source of the federal

funds they receive. 2 U.S.C. §441f.

The appellate court ruled that the

defendants’ scheme of illegally

utilizing conduits caused the DNC

and other committees to report the

conduits rather than the true sources

of the contributions on FEC forms.

Because the defendants’ actions

“caused false statements to be made

to a government agency,” the

appeals court summarily reversed

the district court’s decision on these

counts.

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

Reporting Soft Money

The court of appeals also reversed the district court’s ruling

regarding the soft money reporting

regulation. The appellate court did

not question the lower court’s

determination that nothing in the

Act requires soft money reporting,

but pointed to the Commission’s

regulation at 11 CFR 104.8(e),

which requires disclosure about any

entity that “donates an aggregate

amount in excess of $200 in a

calendar year to the committee’s

nonfederal account(s).” In upholding the FEC’s interpretation of its

regulation to require the disclosure

of the true sources of soft money,

the opinion noted the appeals

court’s long history of deferring to

agencies’ interpretations of their

own regulations, and quoted a

Supreme Court opinion which stated

‘“that the [Federal Election] Commission is precisely the type of

agency to which deference should

presumptively be afforded.’”3

Soft Money Donations by Foreign

Nationals

In reversing the district court’s

judgment with regard to the soft

money counts, the appeals court

found that the FEC had reasonably

interpreted the Act to forbid soft

money donations by foreign nationals. While the defendants had

argued that the prohibition applied

only to federal elections, the appellate court ruled that it extends to

state and local elections as well.

The opinion cited 2 U.S.C.41e,

which states that “it shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or

through any other person to make

any contribution...in connection

with an election to any political

office.” While the defendants had

focused on the fact that “contribution” is defined to include “any

gift...made by any person for the

purpose of influencing any election

for Federal office” (2

U.S.C.§431(8)(A)(i)), the appeals

court emphasized the use of the term

“any political office.” The appeals

court compared §441e to §441b,

which differentiates between

contributions in connection with

elections to federal office and those

in connection with election to “any

political office.” The opinion noted

that, “[b]y distinguishing federal

offices from ‘any political office,’

Congress plainly intended to reach

certain contributions made to state

and local offices.” In this regard,

the appellate court again relied on

the FEC’s interpretation of the law,

which has consistently been that

nonfederal offices are included in

the foreign national prohibition.✦

2

 United States v. Hsia, 176 F.3d 517

(D.C. Cir. 1999).

3 FEC v. Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 37

(1981).

FEC v. California

Democratic Party, et al.

On October 14, 1999, the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern

District of California ruled that the

California Democratic Party, the

Democratic State Central Committee of California - federal, and the

Democratic State Central Committee of California - nonfederal

(collectively, the CDP) violated the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act) when it paid for a voter registration drive that was “targeted” at

potential Democratic registrants

entirely with nonfederal funds. On

November 2, 1999, the court issued

a consent order and judgment in

which the CDP agreed to pay a civil

penalty to the FEC in the amount of

$70,000 and to transfer $354,500

from its federal account to its

nonfederal account.

Background

The CDP is the state party

committee responsible for the

operations of the Democratic Party

in California. In 1992 and early

1993, the CDP contributed $709,000

to Taxpayers Against Deception—
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

No on 165 (No on 165), a California

political committee that opposed a

state ballot initiative, Proposition

165. The money, paid from the

party’s nonfederal account, was

given with the knowledge that it

would be used for voter registration

drives for the 1992 general election.

The Commission had argued that

the CDP had violated the Act when

it failed to allocate the costs of its

voter registration drive between its

federal and nonfederal accounts.

Under Commission regulations,

political committees must allocate

expenses for generic voter drives

between their federal and nonfederal

accounts, must pay for the expenses

directly from their federal account

or a special allocation account, and

must disclose the allocation in their

reports to the FEC. 11 CFR

102.5(a)(1)(i), 104.10(b)(4) and

106.5(d) and (g). In this case, the

CDP failed to allocate any of the

voter drive costs to its federal

account, paid for all of the costs

directly from a nonfederal account

and failed to report any of the costs

to the FEC.

Court’s Findings

Applicability of the Act. The

CDP asserted that the “FECA

cannot be stretched beyond its literal

terms to include any activity which

could conceivably have an influence

on a federal election.” The court

stated that the CDP’s argument was

unavailing because it disregarded

the nature of the violations claimed

by the FEC—that the CDP financed

a partisan voter registration drive

with nonfederal funds—and overlooked the allocation rules, which

allow apportionment of the costs of

fundraising activities not associated

with a federal election, including

generic voter drives, to a party’s

nonfederal account.

Nonpartisan Voter Registration

Drive Exemption. The CDP argued

that No on 165’s voter registration

drive was, to its knowledge, nonpartisan and that its funding of the

drive was therefore exempt from the

Act under the Act’s definition of

“expenditure,” which excludes

“nonpartisan activity designed to

encourage individuals to vote or to

register to vote.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(ii). The court rejected

the CDP’s argument, and ruled that

the definition of “expenditure” was

not at issue in the case. The court

also pointed out that there is no

similar exception in the allocation

rules. Further, the court determined

that, in any event, the activities

undertaken by No on 165 clearly

were not nonpartisan and, therefore,

could not fall under the exemption.

Whether the Voter Registration

Drive was Partisan. The CDP

further claimed that there was a

genuine issue of fact as to the

partisan nature of the voter drives,

pointing out that there was no

evidence that Democratic literature

was distributed at the drive sites,

that any worker expressly advocated

registering as a Democrat, or that a

worker refused to accept a nonDemocratic registration card for

filing. The court disagreed, asserting that the undisputed evidence

demonstrated that No on 165’s voter

registration drive was “a targeted

effort to register Democrats to vote

in a general election.”

Whether CDP Knew the Drive

was Partisan. The court further

concluded that the executive director undisputedly knew that No on

165 would target areas in which the

majority of potential registrants

would probably register as Democrats, and that whether she had

“knowledge of all aspects” of the

partisan conduct of the drive was

not material.

Attributing the Drive. Finally,

the CDP had contended that, in light

of the fact that No on 165 devised

its voter drive strategy independently of the CDP, that it raised

approximately $4 million in 1994,

and that No on 165 and the CDP

were “separate entities with separate

interests,” the voter registration

drive could not be attributed to the

CDP. The court, however, concluded that it was unnecessary to

“attribute” the drive to the CDP in

order to find that the CDP had

contributed only nonfederal funds to

No on 165’s voter registration drive

and that its failure to allocate an

appropriate portion of the costs to its

federal account violated the Act and

the allocation rules.

Conclusion and Remedy

Because the FEC showed that the

CDP violated the Act and allocation

regulations by funding a generic

voter drive that targeted Democrats,1

the court granted the FEC’s motion

for summary judgment, ruling that

the CDP violated the Commission’s

allocation and reporting rules at 2

U.S.C. §441b and 11 CFR

102.5(a)(1)(i), 104.10(b)(4) and

106.5.

Through a consent order and

judgment, issued November 2,

1999, the CDP agreed to pay a civil

penalty of $70,000 and to transfer

$354,500 from its federal account to

its nonfederal account.✦

1

 The court, however, did not rule on

one of the voter drives funded by the

CDP. No on 165 had contributed

$59,000 of the CDP’s money to another

California political committee called

The Committee to Protect the Political

Rights of Minorities (which in turn

engaged the Black American Political

Association of California (BAPAC)) for

use in a separate voter registration

drive. The court concluded that there

was insufficient evidence that BAPAC’s

drive was conducted in a partisan

manner and this matter, therefore, was

to go to trial. In the consent order and

judgment, however, the parties resolved

all the issues. Consequently, a trial

was not held.

 (continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

6

Public Appearances

December 10, 1999

Georgia Corporate Counsel

Institute

Atlanta, Georgia

N. Bradley Litchfield, Associate

General Counsel

Court Cases

(continued from page 5)

FEC v. Freedom’s Heritage

Forum, et al.

On September 29, 1999, the U.S.

District Court for the Western

District of Kentucky at Louisville

granted in part and denied in part a

Motion to Dismiss made by the

Freedom’s Heritage Forum (the

Forum) and its treasurer, Frank G.

Simon. The Motion applied to only

a portion of the Commission’s

complaint. Litigation will continue

with respect to the remaining parts

of the complaint.

Background

The Forum is a political committee that promotes pro-life and other

social issues. In 1994, the Forum

made expenditures in connection

with the planning and holding of a

political meeting and the mailing of

four political flyers during the 1994

Republican primary in Kentucky.

The Commission alleged that the

Forum had violated sections

§§§441(a)(1)(A), 434(b) and

441d(a) of the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act) by making

excessive contributions, failing to

report contributions and failing to

include disclaimers on its communications. The Forum had engaged in

political activities supporting

congressional candidate Tim Hardy

during the Kentucky Republican

primary. The Commission maintained that the Forum had made

coordinated expenditures on behalf

of Mr. Hardy that exceeded the

Act’s contribution limits, and that

the Forum had distributed communications containing express advocacy

that required disclaimers under the

Act.

The court ruled that the Forum’s

expenditures were permissible

independent expenditures—not

coordinated expenditures. The court

also maintained that, of the Forum’s

four communications, only one

contained express advocacy and,

thereby, required a disclaimer.

Coordination

The FEC had alleged that the

expenditures supporting Mr. Hardy,

totaling $23,515.81, were not

independent expenditures but

coordinated expenditures, which

resulted in excessive contributions

to his campaign committee. 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A).

The Act defines independent

expenditure as an expenditure that

expressly advocates the election or

defeat of a clearly identified candidate and that is not made in concert

with, or at the request or suggestion

of, the candidate or the campaign. 2

U.S.C. §431(17).

FEC regulations elaborate on this

definition. They add the following

presumption:

“An expenditure will be presumed to be so made [in cooperation

with the campaign] when it is based

on information about the candidate’s

plans, projects, or needs provided to

the expending person by the candidate, or by the candidate’s agents,

with a view toward having an

expenditure made.” 11 CFR

109.1(b)(4)(i)(A).

The Commission alleged two

instances of coordination. The first

was a meeting between Dr. Simon

and the representatives of Mr.

Hardy’s campaign prior to Mr.

Hardy’s entering the primary. The

second took place at a political

event during which Mr. Hardy was

present while Forum members

planned strategies “on how to get

Tim Hardy elected.” Following the

event, the Forum made four separate

direct mailings of campaign literature that supported the election of

Mr. Hardy.

The court rejected the Forum’s

assertion that actual coordination of

a specific disbursement must be

shown in order to consider it a

“coordinated expenditure.” The

court said, “This assertion finds no

support in the statute, the regulations, or the case law.” Further, the

court stated, “...we do not find any

requirement that coordinated

expenditures must contain ‘express

advocacy’ in order for them to fall

within the purview of the statute.”

Nevertheless, the court found that

“the FEC has not sufficiently plead

enough facts that allege that the

expenditures made by the Forum

were coordinated with the Hardy

campaign.”

Regarding the first meeting, the

court said that the FEC had not

alleged that “Hardy actually informed Dr. Simon of his plans,

projects, or needs with a view

toward having an expenditure

made.” As to the direct mailings of

campaign literature, the court held

that there were no allegations made

that the mailings were at the request

or suggestion of Mr. Hardy. The

court stated that, “Hardy’s mere

presence at the meeting, even if his

presence was accompanied by the

giving of a campaign speech, [was]

insufficient to make these expenditures coordinated.” Following its

conclusion that there was no coordination, the court dismissed the

charges that the Forum had failed to

report its expenditures as contributions.

Disclaimer and Express Advocacy

The Forum argued that its four

mailings did not contain “express

advocacy” and therefore did not

constitute contributions to the Hardy

campaign. The court disagreed. It

said, “There is no requirement that a

contribution as defined in 2 U.S.C.

§441a must result in or from ‘ex-
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

press advocacy.’” The Forum

further argued that it was not

required to include disclaimers on

the four mailings because none of

the mailings included “express

advocacy.” (Under 2 U.S.C.

§441d(a), communications containing express advocacy must include

certain disclaimers.) The court

stated that, “although a communication does not have to contain ‘magic

words’ [‘vote for,’ ‘elect,’ ‘support,’

‘cast you ballot for,’ ‘Smith for

Congress,’ ‘vote against,’ ‘reject’]

to constitute express advocacy, it

will ordinarily contain some sort of

functional equivalent of an exhortation, directive, or imperative for it to

expressly advocate the election or

defeat of a candidate.”

The court agreed that all four of

the Forum’s mailings clearly

portrayed Mr. Hardy’s opponent in

an unfavorable light and Mr. Hardy

in a favorable light. Nevertheless,

the court found that only one of the

Forum’s four mailings contained

express advocacy. That mailing

included a sample ballot identifying

candidates the Forum supported,

including Mr. Hardy, which stated,

“Please take this sample ballot to

the polls and vote on Tuesday.” It

explicitly urged the reader to vote

for the “pro-family” candidates

identified, and it showed a vote for

Mr. Hardy. The court held, therefore, that the flyer contained “the

functional equivalent of an exhortation to vote for Hardy.”

With regard to another mailing

that contained a request for volunteers and contributions, the court

concluded that it sought “to persuade the reader to get involved in

soliciting votes for Hardy and to

contribute time and money to the

Forum,” but it did not contain “...an

express exhortation to the reader to

elect Hardy, or to defeat [his

opponent].”✦

Regulations

(continued from page 3)

Rules Governing Public

Financing of Presidential

Primary and General

Election Candidates:

Effective Date

The FEC’s revised rules governing public financing of presidential

primary and general election

candidates became effective on

November 12, 1999, except those

revisions at 11 CFR 9003.3 and

9034.4(e)(6)(i) regarding solicitations to a General Election Legal

and Compliance Fund (GELAC),

which will take effect on June 1,

2000. See Federal Register Announcement of Effective Date (64

FR 61475, November 12, 1999.

The revised regulations implement the provisions of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act

and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. The new

rules address:

• Pre-nomination formation of a

GELAC;

• Transfers from a primary campaign committee to a GELAC;

• Joint primary and GELAC solicitations;

• Winding down costs;

• Lost, misplaced or stolen items;

• Disposition of capital assets; and

• Receipts and disbursements of

convention and host committees.

See page 1 of the October 1999

Record for a more detailed discussion of these new rules. You may

obtain a free copy of the final rules

as they appeared in the Federal

Register (64 FR 49355, September

13, 1999) through the FEC Faxline.

Dial 202/501-3413 and request

document 235.✦

Audit Procedures, Primary/

General “Bright Line” and

Vice Presidential

Committees: Final Rules

Approved

On November 4, 1999, the

Commission approved several

revisions to its rules governing the

public financing of Presidential

primary and general election

campaigns, as follows:

• Modification of the Presidential

audit process to include Commission approval of the Preliminary

Audit Report (11 CFR

9007.1(b)(2)(iii), (c) and (d)(1),

and 9038.1(b)(2)(iii), (c) and

(d)(1));

• The “bright line” between primary

and general election expenses (11

CFR 9034.4(e)(1) and (e)(3)); and

• Contributions to and expenditures

by Vice Presidential committees

prior to nomination (11 CFR

9035.3).

The revised rules, together with

the Explanation and Justification,

were transmitted to Congress on

November 9, 1999, for a 30-legislative day review period and published in the November 15, 1999,

Federal Register (64 FR 61777).

The date the regulations take effect

will be published in the Federal

Register following the review

period.

Audits: Preliminary Audit Report

Changes to paragraphs (b)(2)(iii),

(c) and (d)(1) of sections 9007.1 and

9038.1 replace the Exit Conference

Memorandum with a Preliminary

Audit Report that will be approved

by the Commission before it is

provided to the audited committee

after the exit conference.

 (continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

8

Bright Line Between Primary and

General Election Expenses

Section 9034.4 deals with the use

of contributions and matching

payments. Paragraph (e)(1) has

been modified to state that any

expenditure for goods or services

that are used for the primary election campaign, other than those

listed in paragraphs (e)(2) through

(e)(7) of section 9034.4, will be

attributed to the limits at 11 CFR

9035.1. Similarly, any expenditure

for goods or services that are used

for the general election campaign,

other than those listed in paragraphs

(e)(2) through (e)(7) of section

9034.4, will be attributed to the

limits at 11 CFR 110.8(a)(2), as

adjusted under 11 CFR 110.9(c).

Paragraph (e)(3) has been

amended to resolve questions that

have come up regarding payroll and

overhead costs for the use of

campaign offices prior to the

candidate’s nomination. The

Commission removed the “exclusive

use” exception governing office

overhead and salaries, and also from

the general rule in paragraph (e)(1).

Under the revised rule, salary and

overhead costs incurred between

June 1 of the Presidential election

year and the date of the nomination

are treated as primary expenses.

However, Presidential campaign

committees have the option of

attributing to the general election an

amount of salary and overhead

expenses incurred during this period

up to 15 percent of the primary

election spending limit, which is set

forth at 11 CFR 110.8(a)(1).

Vice Presidential Committees

The Commission added new

section 9035.3 to specify when

contributions to, and expenditures

by, Vice Presidential committees

must be aggregated with contributions to, and expenditures by, the

primary campaign of that party’s

eventual Presidential nominee, for

purposes of the contribution and

expenditure limitations. Paragraph

(a) provides that the aggregation

begins on the date that either the

future Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee publicly indicates that

the two candidates intend to run on

the same ticket. Alternatively,

aggregation of contributions begins

when the Vice Presidential candidate accepts an offer to be the

running mate, or when the committees of these two candidates become

affiliated under 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4).

Paragraph (b) of the new section

lists the following three types of

expenditures which, if incurred by

the party’s Vice Presidential nominee, will not be aggregated with

contributions to and expenditures by

the party’s Presidential candidate:

• The costs of a Vice Presidential

candidate and his or her family and

staff attending the party’s nominating convention, including their

transportation, lodging and subsistence;

• The costs of legal and accounting

services incurred during background checks during the Vice

Presidential selection process; and

• The costs of raising funds for the

two activities listed above.

The full text of the final rules

appears in the November 15, 1999,

Federal Register (64 FR 61777).

This document is available through

the FEC’s Public Disclosure Office

and through the FEC Faxline. Dial

202/501-3413 and request document

245.✦

Status of FEC Regulations

for 2000 Presidential

Election Cycle

The FEC has nearly completed its

regulations for the 2000 Presidential

election cycle. Final rules on

repayments when primary campaigns exceed their spending limits,

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

involving coordinated expenditures,

and a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on General Election

Legal and Compliance Funds

(GELACs) for minor and new party

candidates are still pending.

The status of completed FEC

regulations for the 2000 Presidential

election cycle is listed below.

• Two sets of rules addressing when

credit card and debit card contributions to Presidential candidates

(including those made over the

Internet) can be matched with

public funds, and what documentation is needed for matching.

Effective date: January 1, 1999.

See article on page 4 of the July

1999 Record and article on page 3

of the September 1999 Record for

a discussion of both sets of final

rules.

• Rules on pre-nomination party

committee coordinated expenditures and costs of media travel

with publicly financed Presidential

campaigns. Effective date:

November 3, 1999. See article on

page 12 of the September 1999

Record for a discussion of the final

rules.

• Rules governing public financing

of Presidential primary and general

election candidates (e.g. winding

down costs; lost, misplaced or

stolen items; disposition of capital

assets; and receipts and disbursements of convention and host

committees). Effective date:

November 12, 1999. See article on

page 1 of the October 1999 Record

for a discussion of the final rules.

Regulations

(continued from page 7)
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1999-21

Definition of “Member” of a

Membership Organization;

Announcement of Effective Date

(64 FR 59113, November 2,

1999)

Notice 1999-22

Matching Credit Card and Debit

Card Contributions in

Presidential Campaigns;

Announcement of Effective Date

(64 FR59607, November 3, 1999)

Notice 1999-23

Party Committee Coordinated

Expenditures; Costs of Media

Travel with Publicly Financed

Presidential Campaigns;

Announcement of Effective Date

(64 FR59606, November 3, 1999)

Notice 1999-24

Use of the Internet for Campaign

Activity; Notice of Inquiry (64

FR 60360, November 5, 1999)

Notice 1999-25

Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Candidates; Announcement of

Effective Date (64 FR 61475,

November 12, 1999)

Notice 1999-26

Audit Procedures, Presidential

Primary/General “Bright Line,”

and Vice Presidential

Committees; Final Rules and

Transmittal of Regulations to

Congress (64 FR 61777,

November 15, 1999)

1

 The Commission will publish an

effective date in the Federal Register

after the rules have been before

Congress for 30 legislative days.

• Rules regarding solicitations to a

General Election Legal and

Compliance Fund (GELAC).

Effective date: June 1, 2000. See

article on page 1 of the October

1999 Record for a discussion of

the final rules.

• Final rules governing the Presidential audit process, the “bright line”

between primary and general

election expenses, and contributions to and expenditures by Vice

Presidential committees prior to

nomination. Transmitted to

Congress: November 9, 1999.1

See article on page 7 of this issue

for a discussion of the final rules.✦

Advisory

Opinions

1

 Volunteering services means the

individual provides services without

compensation. 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(i).

 (continued on page 10)

AO 1999-17

Internet Use by Campaign

The Commission’s response to an

advisory opinion request by the

Governor George W. Bush for

President Exploratory Committee,

Inc. (the Committee) addressed

several issues regarding Internet

use, including:

• Web sites established by volunteers;

• Links between Web sites;

• Committee and vendor Internet

activities;

• Disclaimers;

• Internet polling;

• E-mail;

• Solicitation of contributions

through the Internet; and

• Volunteers’ republication of

candidate materials.

Web Sites Established by

Volunteers

Commission regulations provide

that, as an exception to the definition of contribution, no contribution

results where an individual, in the

course of volunteering personal

services1

 for campaign-related

activities, uses his or her home and

provides the use of his or her

personal property. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(4). Therefore, if a volunteer for the campaign prepares a

Web site supporting the campaign,

using his or her personal property at

home, i.e., a home computer, that

activity would not be a contribution.

The ongoing related costs of maintaining a home-run Web site and

registering a domain name for a

Web site would also fall under this

exception. The exception applies to

individuals known to the campaign

who, with the campaign’s permission, engage in volunteer activity

that consists of the Internet activity

described above. Since no contribution results, there are no reporting

requirements.

Web Sites Established by Those

Who Are Not Volunteers

Where the Committee has not

coordinated a particular Internet

activity with individuals who are not

volunteers, and where nothing of

value is provided to the Committee,

the Committee has no reporting

obligation. Nor does the Committee

have an obligation to search the

Web to discover the existence of

pro-Bush activity, given the constantly changing nature of Internet

activity.
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

10

2

 Recently, in Advisory Opinion 1999-7,

the Commission determined that the

exception in the Act at section

431(9)(B)(ii)—for nonpartisan activity

to encourage voting—applied to links

provided to candidates’ Web sites by

the Minnesota Secretary of State’s

office. Consequently, the links were not

considered expenditures or contributions. See also Advisory Opinion 1999-

25.

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

Links Between Web Sites

Providing a link to Web sites

operated by the Committee would

be considered a service and something of value to the campaign and

could, under certain circumstances,

meet the definition of “contribution”

under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2);

11 CFR 114.1(a)(1).

Whether a link to the Committee

Web site would constitute a contribution to the Bush campaign

depends on whether the owner of

the Web page providing the link

normally charges for providing such

a link. If the owner would normally

charge for a link and chooses not to

charge the Committee, or charges

the Committee less than a similarly

situated nonpolitical organization,

the link would be a contribution to

the campaign. 11 CFR

100.7(a)(1)(iii)(A) and

100.8(a)(1)(iv)(A).2

 The amount of

the contribution would be the

difference between the usual and

normal charge and the amount the

Committee paid.

Created by Corporation. If the

owner of the Web site is a corporation, then the contribution is prohibited by section 441b of the Act.

Note, however, that, where a

corporation establishes links to the

Committee, and the links are not

established or maintained at the

request or suggestion of, or in

cooperation, consultation or concert

with the Bush campaign, the Committee has no obligation to request

the removal of the links and no

obligation to report them.

Created by Individuals. In

instances where individuals (who

may or may not be volunteers to the

campaign) create Web sites and

establish links to the campaign

without the Committee’s prior

consent, the link is not a reportable

in-kind contribution to the Committee, assuming that there is no

coordination and that something of

value is not being given to the

Committee.

Committee and Vendor Internet

Activity

The discussion above also applies

to a vendor that sells campaign

materials and provides a link to the

Committee’s Web site. If, however,

the vendor normally charges for the

link, then the committee will have to

pay the usual and normal charge to

avoid receiving a contribution from

the vendor. The Committee must

report the disbursement as an

operating expenditure. See 2 U.S.C.

§434(b)(4) and 11 CFR 104.3(b)(2).

A merchandise vendor who uses

Mr. Bush’s name to sell various

goods may forward to the Committee the names of supporters and also

provide a link to the Bush campaign

from the vendor’s site as long as the

campaign pays the usual and normal

charge for the list of supporters and

for the link (if it is the standard

business practice to be charged for

the link).

Disclaimers

Generally, unless an exemption

or exception applies, disclaimers are

required on Web sites that expressly

advocate the election or defeat of a

federal candidate, as well as on

those that solicit contributions. See

2 U.S.C. §441d; 11 CFR

110.11(a)(1). See AO 1998-22.

Internet Polling

The Committee may use its Web

site or e-mail to support Mr. Bush

via Internet polling. Any costs

associated with this activity would

be operating expenditures.

E-Mail

Volunteers. The above discussion of the use of Web sites applies

to the use of e-mail by Committee

volunteers. Under 11 CFR

100.7(b)(4), the use of e-mail by a

campaign volunteer using his or her

home equipment will not result in a

contribution to the Committee. The

ongoing costs for home e-mail

activity are covered by the same

section.

Corporations. Under 11 CFR

114.9(a), stockholders and employees of a corporation may, subject to

the rules and practices of the

corporation, make occasional,

isolated or incidental use of the

facilities of a corporation for

individual volunteer activity in

connection with a federal election.

Reimbursement of the corporation is

required only if the overhead or

operating costs of the corporation

are increased as a result of the

activity. Therefore, a volunteer may

send e-mails on behalf of the

Committee or prepare Internetrelated materials, such as a Web

site, using corporate-owned equipment or facilities. If such use goes

beyond occasional, isolated or

incidental use, the Committee must

reimburse the corporation within a

commercially reasonable time for

the normal and usual rental charge,

as defined in section 100.7(a)(1)(iii).

Without such reimbursement, a

prohibited corporate contribution

will result.

Best Efforts

Political committees are required

to use “best efforts” to obtain and

report, for each contribution aggregating in excess of $200 per calendar year, any required contributor

information that was not provided

by the contributor. 11 CFR
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

3

 In this opinion, “third party” refers

to an entitiy outside the Bush campaign

(e.g., an individual, a corporation)

whose activities are not made in

cooperation with the Bush campaign.

AO 1999-23

Replacement For Lost Check

American Bankers, Inc., PAC

(ABPAC) may request and receive a

check to replace a 1998 contribution

made by, but never received from,

another PAC. The replacement

check will count against the contributing PAC’s 1998 annual limit.

On December 29, 1999, Arvest

PAC mailed a check for $4,000

payable to ABPAC. This check was

never received by ABPAC and has

not cleared Arvest PAC’s checking

account.

A contribution is considered to be

made when the contributor relinquishes control over the contribution. 11 CFR 110.2(b)(6). A

contribution that is mailed to a

political committee is considered to

be made on the date of the postmark. 11 CFR 110.1(1)(4). Consequently, Arvest PAC’s initial $4,000

contribution is considered to have

been made on December 29, 1998.

Arvest PAC reported its $4,000

contribution to ABPAC in its 1998

year-end report. Neither ABPAC’s

1998 year-end report nor its 1999

mid-year report indicates the receipt

of this contribution. Because the

circumstances for the failure to

receive the first check were beyond

the control of either committee, the

initial making of the contribution is

nullified. Therefore, ABPAC may

request and receive a replacement

check for $4,000 from Arvest PAC

without that replacement check

affecting Arvest PAC’s contribution

limit for 1999.

To ensure that the replacement

check relates back to the earlier

1998 contribution check, Arvest

PAC must stop payment on the

December 29, 1998, check.

ABPAC must receive, with the

replacement check, confirmation of

the stop payment order and a written

 (continued on page 12)

104.7(b)(2). Follow-up efforts

require either a written request sent

to the contributor or an oral request

to the contributor documented in

writing. Furthermore, the Explanation and Justification for the

Commission’s regulations on the

matching of credit card contributions noted the special circumstances of contributions raised

through the Internet. The Commission, citing Advisory Opinion 1995-

9, noted that “in the unique case of a

contribution received over the

Internet, the [follow-up] request

could consist of an electronic

message sent to the contributor’s email address.” Therefore, in

situations where the contribution

was received over the Internet, or

where the Committee has otherwise

obtained reliable information as to a

donor’s e-mail address, the Committee may substitute e-mail communications for written or oral

communications as a means of

exerting best efforts to obtain

missing contributor information.

Republication of Candidate

Materials by Volunteers

Individuals, working as volunteers, may redistribute campaign

materials advocating Mr. Bush’s

election in their Internet fundraising

efforts for the Committee, and the

redistribution of materials will not

be considered a contribution to the

Bush campaign. Activities undertaken by volunteers receive the

benefit of the volunteer exception at

2 U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(i) and section

110.7(b)(4) of Commission regulations.

Third Parties

The Commission did not address

activities by third parties3 in accordance with 2 U.S.C. §437f(a)(1),

which requires that the Commission

respond to a written advisory

opinion request with respect to a

specific transaction or activity by

the person asking for the advisory

opinion. Internet activities by

individuals (not functioning as

volunteers of the campaign),

vendors and corporations that are

not conducted at the suggestion of,

or in cooperation, consultation or

concert with the Bush campaign,

were beyond the scope of this

advisory opinion.

Issued: November 10, 1999;

Length: 19 pages.✦

Change of Address

Political Committees

 Treasurers of registered political

committees automatically receive

the Record. A change of address

by a political committee (or any

change to information disclosed

on the Statement of Organization)

must, by law, be made in writing

on FEC Form 1 or by letter. The

treasurer must sign the

amendment and file it with the

Secretary of the Senate or the

FEC (as appropriate) and with the

appropriate state office.

Other Subscribers

 Record subscribers who are not

registered political committees

should include the following

information when requesting a

change of address:

• Subscription number (located on

the upper left corner of the

mailing label);

• Subscriber’s name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

 Subscribers (other than political

committees) may correct their

addresses by phone as well as by

mail.
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

12

statement from Arvest PAC confirming the initial contribution and

explaining that the Arvest PAC

replacement check is for the lost

contribution originally made in

1998.

Reporting

ABPAC must report the replacement check as a 1998 calendar year

contribution on Schedule A of its

report covering the period when the

replacement check is received. The

report must include a notation

explaining the circumstances of the

lost 1998 contribution check,

making reference to this Advisory

Opinion and the documentation it

has received from Arvest PAC.

Date Issued: October 22, 1999;

Length: 3 pages.✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

AO 1999-25

Corporate Sponsored Web

Site Featuring Information

on Federal Candidates

The League of Women Voters

Education Fund (the League) and

the Center for Governmental Studies

(CGS) may sponsor Democracy

Network (DNet), a Web site providing information with respect to

federal candidates, without making

a corporate expenditure, based on

this opinion’s analysis of the

composition, purpose and activity of

the Web site.

DNet’s Proposed Activities

DNet will contact all registered

candidates and provide them with an

ID and password so they can

prepare their online biographies and

submit their contacts and endorsers’

statements. Candidates may then

submit policy positions and reply to

questions and statements from other

candidates and the public—all done

online.

The major feature of DNet is “a

database of textual, audio and visual

statements, which candidates can

directly and remotely update, and

which voters can access according

to their interests.” Using his or her

ID and password, a candidate can

enter the Web site and write on any

issue he or she chooses, or respond

to questions from other candidates

or from members of the public.

A candidate’s position on an

issue is automatically entered into a

“Candidate Grid,” which indicates

that he or she has stated a position

with a red check mark and states

“no comment” opposite the opponents’ names. The position is then

e-mailed to the opponents who are

thereby encouraged to submit

statements, which are entered into

the Grid. A candidate may continually edit or update his or her position statements, as well as comment

on the positions of the other candidates. To see a candidate’s position

on an issue and responses to viewers’ questions, the viewer clicks on

the check mark on the Grid. Candidate rebuttals to other candidates on

each issue will appear in a separate

“digital debate” section. Viewers

will also be able to compare any two

candidates side by side on the same

screen on a particular issue.

Legal Analysis

As corporations, the League and

CGS are prohibited by the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

from making any contribution or

expenditure in connection with a

federal election. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a);

11 CFR 114.2(b). Moreover, in past

advisory opinions, the Commission

has concluded that the costs associated with creating and maintaining a

Web site could be considered an

expenditure or in-kind contribution,

depending upon the content of the

site and whether certain exceptions

are applicable. Advisory Opinions

1999-7, 1998-22 and 1997-16. At

the same time, however, the term

“expenditure” does not apply to

“nonpartisan activity designed to

encourage individuals to vote or to

register to vote.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(ii). In this case, even

though the statements of the candidates and their endorsers or the

contents of the candidate Web sites

(to which DNet has hyperlinks) are

in connection with a federal election, the DNet Web site is permissible under this exception because

of the composition, purpose and

activities of DNet.

Composition and Purpose of DNet

DNet is a project of two corporations that have qualified as tax

exempt organizations under 26

U.S.C. §501(c)(3). As such, they

may not participate or intervene in

any political campaign on behalf of

or in opposition to any candidate.

Moreover, the League and CGS

were created and operate for the

purposes of providing information

about elections, the electoral process

and government on a nonpartisan

basis. DNet was established for the

purposes of increasing voter understanding of public policy issues and

government, and increasing civic

participation and voter interaction

with candidates on a nonpartisan

basis.

Activities

To determine whether DNet

comes within the nonpartisan voter

registration exception to the definition of expenditure, the Commission

examined the following aspects of

DNet’s activity (in addition to

DNet’s composition and purpose):

the standards for inviting candidates

and the degree of participation by

each candidate; the type of audience; the selection of materials that

comes from sources other than the

campaigns, such as media entities;

the degree of coordination between

DNet and the campaigns; and the

communications of DNet itself.
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Standards for Inviting Candidates and Degree of Candidate

Participation. DNet will invite each

ballot-qualified candidate in an

election—other than a presidential

general election—to post statements, responses, hyperlinks to their

campaign Web sites, and other

information.1

 DNet’s limitation

with respect to presidential candidates in the general election conforms to Commission regulations,

set out in another context, that seek

to ensure that corporate contributions or expenditures do not result.

See the voter guide regulations at 11

CFR 114.4(c)(5)(ii). Similarly, the

space allocations and the positioning

of candidates on the Grid are based

upon objective criteria.

Audience. DNet’s Web site will

be available for viewing and interaction by the general public. No effort

will be made to determine the

political party or candidate preference of the viewers. See 11 CFR

100.8(b)(3). The Web site will not

encourage participation or voting by

a selected group of persons of a

particular party or other group.

Links to Sources Other Than

Candidate Web Sites. In addition to

providing links to neutral sources

(e.g., official ballot and voting

information, campaign finance

information and news services),

DNet’s Web site will have links to

editorial endorsements. DNet will

make efforts on a nonpartisan basis

to link to a representative sample of

newspapers that have made endorsements in a relevant race. If DNet

skews a selection to emphasize

support of a candidate or a party, the

editorials may be construed as

express advocacy by DNet and not

merely the republication of news

media editorials. It is recognized,

however, that links to editorials

showing a preponderance of support

for a particular candidate does not

necessarily mean that DNet is

engaging in express advocacy since

a representative sample may, in

some cases, show a preponderance

of support for one candidate.

Coordination Between DNet and

Campaigns. DNet will communicate with the candidates (or their

campaigns) in order to invite their

participation, to inform them of the

positions, questions and comments

of other candidates, to remind them

to respond, to edit for length or

obscenity, and to provide technological advice as to the use of the

Web site. DNet’s communications

with the candidates, however, will

not pertain to the substance of the

statements or information posted by

the candidates. In engaging in the

above communications, which are

necessary for the effective operation

of the Web site, DNet will not be

discussing the candidate’s plans,

projects, or needs. In view of these

circumstances, DNet’s communication with a campaign would not

constitute acting in cooperation with

or with the prior consent of, or in

consultation with, or at the request

or suggestion of, a candidate, his or

her committee, or his or her agent.

See 2 U.S.C. §§431(17) and

441a(a)(7)(B)(i); 11 CFR 100.16,

109.1(a) and (b)(4)(i)(A). As a

result, DNet’s efforts to provide

candidates with an opportunity to

participate in the Web site would

not constitute an in-kind contribution by DNet to those candidates.

DNet’s Communications. DNet

itself will not score or rate the

candidates or make any statements

expressly advocating the election or

defeat of any clearly identified

candidate, or of the candidates of

any political party. DNet will

function in such a way that none of

the statements made by the candidates or persons supporting the

candidates can be attributed to

DNet.

Based on the above discussion of

the nature of DNet, its sponsors and

the proposed Web site, DNet’s

proposed activity is exempt from the

definition of “expenditure” at 2

U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii) and is therefore permissible under the Act.

Date Issued: October 29, 1999;

Length: 8 pages.✦

1

 This is the same standard approved in

Advisory Opinion 1999-7, which was

issued to the State of Minnesota.

AO 1999-26

Status as State Committee of

Political Party

The State Central Committee of

the Virginia Taxpayers Party (the

Party Committee) meets both of the

Commission’s requirements for

state committee status.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) defines a state committee as “the organization which,

by virtue of the bylaws of a political

party, is responsible for the day-today operation of such political party

at the State level, as determined by

the Commission.” 2 U.S.C.

§431(15).

The definition of a state committee requires the existence of a

political party. A political party is

“an association, committee, or

organization which nominates a

candidate for election to any Federal

office whose name appears on the

election ballot as the candidate of

such association, committee, or

organization.” 2 U.S.C. §431(16).

In a number of advisory opinions,

the Commission has identified two

requirements necessary for state

political committee status. First, the

organization must have a state

affiliate agreement that “delineates

activities commensurate with the

day-to-day operation” of a party at a

state level. Second, the state

affiliate must gain ballot access for

its federal candidates. The state

party’s candidate must qualify as a

candidate under FEC regulations in

 (continued on page 14)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

14

order for the party to satisfy this

second requirement. See AOs 1998-

27, 1998-24, 1998-2, 1997-29,

1997-7 and 1997-3.

The Commission has made clear

that a state political party can

qualify as a state party committee

without an affiliation with a national

political party.

The Virginia Party meets both

requirements. In addressing the first

requirement, the party’s bylaws set

out a comprehensive organizational

structure for the party from the

statewide level down through the

district level. These bylaws do

indeed delineate activity commensurate with the day-to-day operations

of a political party on the state level.

The Virginia Party also satisfies

the second requirement of ballot

access for a federal candidate. The

party’s 1996 Presidential candidate,

Howard Phillips, attained ballot

access in Virginia as the Taxpayers

Party Presidential candidate in the

general election and satisfied FEC

requirements for establishing

himself as a federal candidate under

2 U.S.C. §431(2). It makes no

difference that Mr. Phillips was a

bona fide candidate in a previous

election cycle because the party

continues to pursue its political

objectives and goals in Virginia

during the current election cycle.

Date Issued: October 22, 1999;

Length: 4 pages.✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 13)

AO 1999-27

Conduct of Presidential

Straw Poll

Funds spent by the Alaska

Federation of Republican Women

(the Federation), a party committee,

in connection with a presidential

straw poll will be subject to the

limitations and prohibitions of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Act), but the disbursements will not

be allocable to any particular

presidential candidate. While the

disbursements for the straw poll will

not count as contributions to the

candidates or as expenditures

attributable to any candidate, they

should be reported as operating

expenditures.

The Federation’s Proposal

The Federation proposes to

conduct a nonbinding presidential

preference straw poll, in which

Alaskans will express their preference as to the Republican presidential nominee. The straw poll will

have several of the features of an

election. All publicly announced

candidates for the Republican

presidential nomination in the year

2000 will be listed on the polling

form or “ballot.” All Alaska

registered Republicans will be

permitted to “vote,” and the results

will be totaled and immediately

released to the public. The poll

results are intended to be purely

advisory.

The straw poll will be held in the

same buildings and on the same

evening as the Republican Party of

Alaska’s precinct caucuses, which

will be conducted by the local or

district party organizations. Participation in one event is not a prerequisite to participation in the other

event. The caucus and the poll will

be “physically distinct” from each

other, and everyone present will be

“aware of the separation of the

two.”

To pay for the expenses for the

poll, the Federation will solicit

donations of money and in-kind

goods and services, and will deposit

the funds in a separate bank account

opened specifically to pay for the

poll. The Federation will not use

the funds donated for the poll for

any state or local election purposes,

or to advocate a specific presidential

candidate’s election. Funds will be

solicited through “personal communication over the telephone or in

person.”

Advertising for the poll will be

informational and will not be used

to obtain new Republican registrants

or to advocate voting Republican.

Post cards will be sent to all registered Republicans in the state,

advising them of the straw poll, the

nature of the poll, where they can go

to participate and similar details.

Advertisements in selected newspapers and on radio will encourage

participation and stress that the poll

will be the first held in the election

year and will put Alaska and Alaska

issues before the candidates and the

media. The Federation will also

issue press releases to the media

announcing the poll. Both the ads

and the press releases will contain a

brief reference to the caucuses and a

statement that participation in the

caucus is not required to vote in the

straw poll.

At the straw poll itself, the

Federation will not advocate a vote

for any particular presidential

candidate. The Federation will not

make any general communications

concerning party activities or

events, or party platforms and

positions; nor will it solicit contributions to the party or candidates, or

encourage registration. However, it

is anticipated that individual presidential candidates, or representatives of their campaigns, may be at

the buildings where the caucuses

and straw polls take place and may

advocate their respective candidacies.
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

Allocation

Commission regulations provide

that party committees that make

disbursements in connection with

federal and nonfederal elections

must allocate certain kinds of

expenses between their federal and

nonfederal accounts or, if the parties

wish, pay for them entirely from

their federal accounts. 11 CFR

100.7(b)(9), (15) or (17) and

100.8(b)(10), (16) or (18) and 11

CFR 106.5(a)(2)(i)-(iv).

The straw poll itself is not a

federal election. Nevertheless, the

Federation’s activities for the poll

will be for the purpose of influencing a federal election since the ballot

contains a specific group of named

Republican presidential candidates;

the straw poll “will encourage

voters to select a Republican

candidate for the presidential

nomination;” and the “purpose of

this straw poll is to obtain a valid

expression of Alaska’s choice as the

Republican nominee.”

The straw poll is an event that

pertains exclusively to a federal

election—the presidential election

process: The fundraising and

spending will be separated entirely

from the other activities of the

Federation and the state party;1

fundraising appeals will make clear

that the funds will be used only for

the poll; and, unlike allocable

generic party activities (for which

allocation is permissible), this

activity will focus on a specific

group of candidates and the straw

poll form itself will list specific

candidates. Consequently, to cover

its straw poll activities, the Federation may only raise and spend “hard

dollars,” i.e., funds subject to the

limitations and prohibitions of the

Act; allocation between federal and

nonfederal accounts is not permissible.

Contributions, Expenditures

Since the Federation’s proposed

straw poll activities and related

communications do not appear to

entail acting in cooperation with or

with the prior consent of, or in

consultation with, or at the request

or suggestion of, any candidate or

his or her committee, these activities

would not entail contributions to

any candidate. The expenses for the

activities would, however, be

considered operating expenditures

of the Federation, reportable on line

21b as “Other Federal Operating

Expenditures,” i.e., outside the

allocation formula. Since the

Federation is not participating in an

activity specifically on behalf of the

candidates or in a way that can be

directly attributed to each candidate,

the disbursement need not be

specifically allocated to any of the

presidential candidates, in accordance with 11 CFR 106.1(a) or

(c)(2).

Disclaimer

The Federation does not need to

include a disclaimer in its solicitations of funds for the straw poll

since it will not use any form of

general public advertising. The

public media advertisements

mentioning the straw poll do not

need a disclaimer since they will not

contain any message expressly

advocating the election or defeat of

a candidate.

Issued: October 29, 1999;

Length: 7 pages.✦

1

 Surplus money remaining after the

poll is conducted will be refunded to

contributors on a pro rata basis or

given to charity. None of the funds will

be contributed to any Federal candidate.

AO 1999-28

Solicitation of Restricted

Class of Foreign Parent

Corporation and Its U.S.

Subsidiaries

Bacardi-Martini, USA, Inc.

(BMUSA) may solicit PAC contributions from—and send election

advocacy communications to—the

restricted class of its foreign corporate parent, Bacardi Limited (BL),

and any United States subsidiary of

BL, so long as those individuals are

not foreign nationals.

BL is a Bermuda corporation, and

thus a foreign national. The Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

and Commission regulations

prohibit foreign nationals from

making contributions (directly or

indirectly) in connection with any

United States election.1

 In addition,

it is unlawful to solicit, accept or

receive contributions from a foreign

national. 2 U.S.C. §441e(a); 11

CFR 110.4(a)(1) and (2).

Under 22 U.S.C. §611(b), a

corporation organized under the

laws of any state within the United

States, with it principal place of

business within the United States, is

not a foreign principal. Hence,

under 2 U.S.C. §441e, such an entity

is not considered a foreign national.

Accordingly, BMUSA, which is

organized under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of

business in Florida, is not considered a foreign national under 2

U.S.C. §441e. Consequently,

BMUSA may serve as the connected

organization of its separate segregated fund (SSF), Bacardi-Martini

USA, Inc. Political Action Committee (BAC-PAC), subject to the

1 See United States v. Kanchanalak,

Nos. 99-3019 & 99-3034, 1999 WL

798065, at *9-10 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 8,

1999).

 (continued on page 16)
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

16

conditions of FEC regulations. 11

CFR 110.4(a); 2 see also Advisory

Opinions 1995-15 and 1990-8.

Criteria set out in the Act and

Commission regulations that govern

whether SSFs are affiliated are also

used to determine whether corporations are affiliates of each other.3

 2

U.S.C. §441a(a)(5); 11 CFR

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

also Advisory Opinions 1996-50

and 1988-14. According to Commission regulations, the committees

of a parent corporation and its

subsidiaries are affiliated with each

other per se. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(3)(i)

and 110.3(a)(2)(i); see also Advisory Opinion 1999-10. Hence,

BMUSA is affiliated with all of

BL’s subsidiaries, as well as with its

parent, BL.

In addition to its own restricted

class, a corporation may solicit the

restricted class of its affiliated

entities. A corporation may also

make communications on any

subject, including communications

containing express advocacy, to this

same group of persons. 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2)(A); 11 CFR 114.3(a)

and 114.1(j).

In past Advisory Opinions, the

Commission has recognized that

solicitation rights do not move

merely in one direction, e.g., from

parent to subsidiary. As a result, a

U.S. subsidiary may solicit contributions to its SSF from the individuals

of its foreign parent’s restricted

class who are not foreign nationals,

as well as from the nonforeign

nationals of the restricted class of

any domestic subsidiary.

Consequently, BMUSA may

solicit contributions to BAC-PAC

from the restricted class of BL and

any of its U.S. subsidiaries, so long

as those individuals are not foreign

nationals. BMUSA may also

communicate messages containing

election advocacy to the same group

of individuals.

Date Issued: October 29, 1999;

Length: 6 pages.✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 15)

2

 The regulation at 110.4(a)(3) states,

“A foreign national shall not direct,

dictate, control, or directly or indirectly

participate in the decision-making

process of any person, such as a

corporation, labor organization, or

political committee, with regard to such

person’s Federal or nonfederal

election-related activities, such as

decisions concerning the making of

contributions or expenditures in

connection with elections for any local,

State, or Federal office or decisions

concerning the administration of a

political committee.”

3

 Committees, such as SSFs, affiliated

with each other are treated as a single

committee for the purposes of the

contribution limits in the Act. 2 U.S.C.

441a(a)(5); 11 CFR 110.3(a)(1) and

110.3(a)(1)(ii). In other words, such

committees must aggregate contributions that are made by or to them for

the purposes of those limits. Id.

Transfers between affiliated committees

are not subject to the limits of 2 U.S.C.

441a. 11 CFR 102.6(a)(1)

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1999-30

Application of allocation ratio to

State party in state with only a

single house legislature (Nebraska

Democrats, October 18, 1999; 1

page)

AOR 1999-31

Application of one-third rule to

door prizes for payroll deduction

contributions and to premiums paid

to employees who recruit new

contributors to PAC (Oshkosh

Truck Corporation, October 25,

1999; 8 pages)

AOR 1999-32

Federal contractor status of native

American tribe that provides utility

services to federal agencies (Tohono

O’odham Nation, November 1,

1999; 25 pages)

AOR 1999-33

Delayed deposit and reporting of

payroll deduction contributions to

PAC that were held in general

corporate account for many months

(MediaOne, November 4, 1999; 1

page)

AOR 1999-34

Use of Congressional campaign

funds to finance charitable

fundraising event hosted by member

of Congress (Mike Bilirakis for

Congress, November 9, 1999; 8

pages)

AOR 1999-35

Use of electronic deduction

system for receipt of contributions

to trade association PAC from

solicitable personnel of corporate

members of the association (Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.,

November 9, 1999; 47 pages)

AOR 1999-36

Use of electronic checks and fund

transfers via the Internet to make

contributions to Presidential and

other Federal candidates (Campaign

Advantage, November 16, 1999; 9

pages)

AOR 1999-37

Valuation and reporting of

independent expenditures made by

political committee through Internet

(The Political Action Committee for

Generation X, November 15, 1999;

7 pages)✦
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

17

Election

Administration

Advisory Panel Passes

Resolution to Update Voting

Systems Standards

On August 7, 1999, the FEC’s

Advisory Panel on Election Administration passed a resolution supporting the continued update of the

Voting Systems Standards. The

Advisory Panel, composed of

twenty state and local election

officials selected by the Commission, advises the agency on the

allocation of its resources for the

benefit of election officials at all

levels of government.

The resolution stated, in part,

that:

• The FEC implemented the intent

of Congress and the states by

developing the Standards and

publishing them in 1990.

• Since no one state has the resources to independently develop

and implement voting system

standards, state governments rely

upon federal involvement in the

development of the Standards as

an ideal federal-state compact.

• Over 30 states have adopted the

original—but now outdated—

Standards in order to help election

officials in those states procure

new voting systems.

• Nearly a decade old, the current

standards neither encompass recent

technological developments nor

address the accessibility of voting

systems to the disabled.

• The FEC is the appropriate agency

with the expertise and experience

to update the Standards and

develop new standards.

This is the fourth resolution

passed by the Advisory Panel. The

first, in July of 1977, declared the

federal development of voluntary

voting system standards to be

essential in maintaining the integrity

of the election process. The second,

in February 1981, expressed the

panel’s commitment to adopt and

promote any voluntary standards the

FEC might promulgate. The third,

in March 1983, urged the FEC to

devote funds to the development of

the Standards.

The Advisory Panel on Election

Administration hopes that the 1999

resolution will be an important step

to Congressional recognition that

the Standards program should

remain with the FEC, should be

included as a part of the

Commission’s permanent responsibilities and should be funded

accordingly.✦

Waiver of State Office Filings

On October 14, 1999, the Commission approved a state filing

waiver program, relieving qualified

state offices of the requirement to

receive and maintain paper copies of

campaign finance reports from

Presidential and House candidates

and most political committees. This

also relieves committees of the

obligation to file these paper copies.

Under the new program, qualified

states will disclose campaign

finance information by providing

public access, via computer, to the

FEC’s Web site, which displays the

reports of most federal candidates

and committees.

In order to qualify for the waiver,

states must fulfill the following

criteria to show they have a system

that ensures public Internet access to

the FEC’s Web site, where visitors

can view and copy reports and

statements filed with the Commission:

• The state has at least one computer

terminal that can electronically

access the Commission’s Web

Reports

page, with at least one printer

(connected either directly or

through a network); and

• The state will, to the greatest

extent possible, allow anyone

requesting federal campaign

finance data to use the computer

terminal at any time during regular

business hours.

Note that the waiver would not

apply to reports filed by the campaigns for U.S. Senate candidates

and other political committees that

support only U.S. Senate candidates.

As a result of this waiver, certified states will no longer have to

make paper copies of most reports

available in a state public records

room. Also, Presidential and House

candidates, parties and political

action committees will no longer

have to file duplicate reports at the

state level in those states that qualify

for the waiver. Senate candidates

and other political committees that

support only Senate candidates,

however, will have to continue to

file duplicate reports with the states

since they file with the Secretary of

the Senate, not the FEC.

As part of the program, the

Commission is offering to provide

participating offices with free

computer equipment and free

Internet access for the remainder of

the 2000 election cycle, provided

that the state would continue to

provide the access effective March

1, 2001, at its own expense.

Further details, including the

names of certified states, will be

announced in future issues of the

Record and on the FEC Web site.✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

18

Outreach

FEC Conducts Monthly

Roundtable Sessions

The FEC is conducting monthly

roundtable sessions for the regulated

community at its offices in Washington. The roundtable sessions,

limited to 12 participants per

session, focus on a range of topics.

See the table at right for dates and

topics.

Registration is $25 and will be

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Please call the FEC

before registering or sending money

to be sure that openings remain in

the session of your choice. Prepayment is required. The registration

form is available at the FEC’s Web

site—http://www.fec.gov—and

from Faxline, the FEC’s automated

fax system (202/501-3413, request

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 or 202/694-

1100.

Individuals who have signed up

for a roundtable but who will be

unable to attend are strongly encouraged to call the FEC and cancel

their registration so that the next

person on the waiting list may

attend in their place.✦

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

December 1 Reporting • PACs

9:30 - 11 a.m. Requirements for 2000 • House and Senate

• Deadlines Campaigns

• Pitfalls to Avoid • Political Party

(Code #1299) Committees

• Lawyers, Accountants

and Consultants to

Above

January 5 Supporting Presidential • PACs

9:30 - 11 a.m. Candidates • Corporations, Labor

• PAC Contributions Organizations and

• Independent Trade Associations

Expenditures • Lawyers, Accountants

• Internal and Consultants to

 Communications by Above

 Corporations, Labor

 Organizations and

 Trade Associations

(Code #100)

Candidate Conference

Date: February10-11, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill)

Registration: $265

Regional Conference (includes

candidate, corporate/labor and

party workshops)

Date: March 8-10, 2000

Location: Miami, FL

(Sheraton Biscayne Bay)

Registration: $240

Corporate and Labor

Conference

Date: April 4-5, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

Registration: To be determined

Membership and Trade

Association Conference

Date: May 16-17, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

Registration: To be determined

FEC Conference Schedule

 The FEC continues its series of conferences on campaign finance this fall.

See below for details. To register for any conference, call Sylvester

Management at 800/246-7277 or send an e-mail to

tsylvester@worldnet.att.net. For program information, call the FEC’s

Information Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1100. A regularly updated

schedule for the conferences and a downloadable invitation/registration form

appear at the FEC’s Web site. Go to http://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm for

the latest information.

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain FEC

material fast. It operates 24 hours

a day, 7 days a week. More than

300 FEC documents—reporting

forms, brochures, FEC

regulations—can be faxed almost

immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial

202/501-3413 and follow the

instructions. To order a complete

menu of Faxline documents, enter

document number 411 at the

prompt.
December 1999 Federal Election Commission RECORD

19

Compilation of FEC Court

Cases Available

The FEC has published the latest

edition of Selected Court Case

Abstracts, a collection of summaries

of court decisions pertinent to the

Federal Election Campaign Act.

This latest edition, which covers

court decisions from 1976 through

September 1999, includes:

• The summaries of court opinions,

• An alphabetical list of opinions,

with page references to the summaries, and

• A subject index.

The publication is available free

from the FEC’s Information Division. Call 800/424-9530 or 202/

694-1100 to request a copy. Selected Court Case Abstracts is also

available at the FEC/s Web site—

http://www.fec.gov—as a PDF and

HTML file. You will need Adobe

Acrobat Reader to view the publication once it has been downloaded.✦

Publications

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1999 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “1:4” means

that the article is in the January

issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1998-22: Application of expenditure

definition and disclaimer requirements to web site containing

express advocacy, 1:16

1998-23: Status as state committee

of political party, 1:16

1998-26: Candidate committee’s

acceptance of loan repayment

from contested election trust fund

that contains funds loaned to it by

candidate, 3:5

1998-27: Status as state committee

of political party, 3:6

1999-1: Use of campaign funds to

pay salary to candidate, 4:5; 6:6

1999-2: Use of corporate treasury

funds to provide meals to employees attending candidate forums,

4:6

1999-3: Use of digital signatures by

restricted class to authorize

payroll deductions, 5:5

1999-4: Applicability of contribution limits to local party organization conducting federal activity

and affiliated with state party

committee, 6:3

1999-5: Revising state party ballot

composition ratio for new executive office, 6:4

1999-6: Use and publication of

information about annuity allotment program permitting union

member retirees to make contributions to SSF, 6:4

1999-7: Free hyperlinks on government web site to web sites of

candidates, 6:5

1999-8: Investment of excess campaign funds in mutual funds, 6:6

1999-9: Matching credit card

contributions received by Presidential primary candidates via

Internet, 7:5

1999-10: SSF solicitation of member policyholders of mutual

insurance company, 7:7

1999-11: Federal candidate’s use of

funds from state-level account, 7:7

1999-12: Preemption of Pennsylvania disclosure requirements 8:4

1999-13: Use of corporate aircraft,

8:4

1999-14: Testamentary bequests

that exceed contribution limits,

9:7

1999-15: Membership status of

unincorporated unit of trade

association, 9:7

1999-16: Solicitation of chapter

members of trade association, 9:9

1999-17: Internet use by campaign,

12:9

1999-18: Calculation of allocation

ratio by local party committee,

9:10

1999-19: Contributions from living

trust, 10:5

1999-20: Solicitation of insurance

agents by corporation, 11:4

1999-22: Use of merchant ID

number to collect Internet contributions submitted for matching

payment, 11:5

1999-23: Replacement for lost

check, 12:11

1999-25: Corporate sponsored Web

site featuring information on

federal candidates, 12:12

1999-26: Status as state committee

of political party, 12:13

1999-27: Conduct of Presidential

straw poll, 12:14

1999-28: Solicitation of restricted

class of foreign parent corporation

and its U.S. subsidiaries

Compliance

MUR 4546: Failure to provide

contributor information and

demonstrate “best efforts,” 5:8

MUR 4632: Untimely reports;

failure to amend Statement of

Organization; treasurer’s absence,

7:10

MUR 4750: Excessive contributions, 1:13

MUR 4751: Excessive and improper

transfers of nonfederal funds,

excessive contributions, corporate

contributions, 2:2

MUR 4796: Corporate contributions, contributions in the names

of others, 1:13

MUR 4797/4798: Prohibited

transfers from unregistered party

organization to party committees,

failure to allocate, 8:6

MUR 4834: Foreign national

contribution, contribution in the

name of another, 3:7

MUR 4879: Corporate contributions

in the names of others, 8:6

Index
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD December 1999

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee

(98C-4933), 4:5

– California Democratic Party, 12:4

– Christian Coalition, 9:4, 10:5

– Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, 4:1

– Dave Gentry for Congress Committee, 7:10, 11:4

– Forbes, 4:5

– Freedom’s Heritage Forum, 12:6

– Friends of Jane Harman, 10:4,

11:4

– Public Citizen, 11:2

_____ v. FEC

– Hooker, 10:4

– Judd, 1:3; 4:5

– Judicial Watch, 7:8

– Mariani, 2:1

– National Committee of the Reform

Party, 4:4

– Perot ’96 (98-1022), 6:1

– RNC (98-5263), 1:2

– Virginia Society for Human Life,

10:5

Other

– Burris v. Russell, 1:3

– Cincinnati v. Kruse, 1:3

– Fireman v. United States, 5:7

– USA v. Hsia, 7:9

– USA v. Kanchanalak, 12:1

Regulations

Audit Procedures, Primary/General

“Bright Line” and Vice Presidential Committees, 12:7

Debates, 7:5

Definition of “Member” of Membership Association, 1:10; 3:1;

5:6, 9:1, 12:3

Electronic FOIA, 4:7

Express Advocacy, 3:2; 6:7

Limited Liability Companies, 1:11;

8:1, 11:1

Matching Credit Card and Debit

Card Contributions in Presidential

Campaigns, 7:4, 9:3, 12:3

PAC Disclosure, 11:1

Party Committee Coordinated

Expenditures and Media Travel,

9:12, 12:3

Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Candidates, 1:7; 3:1; 5:6, 10:1,

12:7

Soft money, 1:12

Status of, 3:3, 12:8

Use of the Internet for Campaign

Activity, 12,1

Voter Guide Petition, 9:13

Reports

Electronic filing, 1:6; 2:1

Reports due in 1999, 1:4

Reports due in July, 7:1

Special election, California, 8:9

Special election, Georgia, 2:3

Special election, Louisiana, 4:7

Waiver of State Office Filings,

12:17

Statistics

Congressional, 2:4; 6:8; 11:7

PAC, 3:11; 7:2, 9:18

Party, 3:4; 6:8; 11:7