November 2007 Federal Election Commission Volume 33, Number 11

Table of Contents

Regulations

(continued on page 8) (continued on page 2)

 Regulations

1 Final Rules on the Use of 

Campaign Funds

1 Advisory Opinions

8 Federal Register

 Court Cases

8 Shays v. FEC

 Outreach

10 FEC Conference

11 Index

Final Rules on the Use of 

Campaign Funds

On September 24, 2007, the 

Commission approved final rules 

that add donations to nonfederal 

candidates, as permitted by state 

law, and “any other lawful purpose” 

other than personal use to FEC 

regulations’ list of permissible uses 

of campaign funds.

Background

The Act broadly prohibits the 

personal use of campaign funds and 

sets forth six specific permissible 

uses of funds by a federal candidate 

or officeholder: 

•	Expenditures in connection with

the candidate’s campaign for federal office;

•	Ordinary and necessary expenses

incurred by a federal officeholder;

•	Donations to charity (organizations

defined in 26 U.S.C. §170(c));

•	Unlimited transfers to a national,

state or local political party;

•	Donations to nonfederal candidates

as permitted by state law; and 

•	Any other lawful purpose other

than personal use. See 2 U.S.C. 

§439a(a)(1)-(6).

Prior to the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2007-12

Disaffiliation of SSFs After 

Corporate Spin-Off

Tyco US PAC, the separate 

segregated fund (SSF) of Tyco

International Management Company 

(Tyco), is disaffiliated from the SSFs

of Covidien U.S. and Tyco Electronics Corporation, which are subsidiaries of parent corporations spun-off 

from Tyco International Ltd. as of 

the close of business on June 29, 

2007.

Background

Tyco US is a wholly owned U.S. 

subsidiary of Tyco International Ltd. 

(Tyco International). On June 29,

2007, Tyco International separated 

into three publicly traded corporations: Covidien Ltd. (Covidien),

Tyco Electronics Ltd. (Tyco Electronics) and Tyco International Ltd.

At the time of the spin-off, Covidien and Tyco Electronics each had 

wholly owned U.S. subsidiaries, 

now identified as Covidien (U.S.)

and Tyco Electronics Corporation, 

respectively. 

In the spin-off, Tyco International 

distributed all of its shares of common stock in Covidien and Tyco 

Electronics to the shareholders of 
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2007

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 impaire

Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman

David M. Mason, Vice Chairman

Hans A. von Spakovsky, 

 Commissioner

Steven T. Walther, Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner

Patrina M. Clark,

Staff Direct

Thomasenia Duncan, 

 General Counsel

Published by the Information

Division of the Office 

 Communications

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

Direct

Amy L. Kort, Deputy Assistant

Staff Direct

http://www.fec.gov

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 1)

Tyco International’s common stock. 

Upon completion of the spin-off, the 

shareholders of Tyco International 

owned almost 100 percent of Covidien and Tyco Electronics, and none 

of the three companies owned any 

shares in either of the other companies. The three companies also 

executed a Separation and Distribution Agreement to effect the separation and provide a framework for the 

relationship among the companies 

after the spin-off.

Tyco US PAC has been registered 

as a political committee since 1979. 

Covidien US PAC and TELPAC are, 

respectively, the SSFs of Covidien 

(U.S.) and Tyco Electronics Corporation. Both SSFs were created in 

anticipation of the spin-off and filed 

their Statements of Organization

with the Commission when Tyco US 

was still the connected organization

for all three SSFs.1 Tyco US PAC 

asked the Commission whether Tyco 

International, Covidien and Tyco 

Electronics are disaffiliated from 

each other under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and

Commission regulations as of June 

29, 2007, so that the SSFs of their 

respective U.S. subsidiaries are no 

longer affiliated with each other as 

of that date.

Legal Analysis and Conclusions

The Act and Commission regulations provide that political committees, including SSFs, that are 

established, financed, maintained 

or controlled by the same corporation, labor organization, person or

group of persons, including any 

parent, subsidiary, branch, division, 

department or local unit thereof, are 

affiliated. See 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2);

110.3(a)(1)(ii). Contributions ma

to or by such political committees 

are considered to have been made 

to or by a single political committee. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(5); 11 C

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

In the absence of per se affiliation, Commission regulations provide for an examination of various 

factors in the context of the overall 

relationship to determine whether 

one sponsoring organization has

established, financed, maintained 

or controlled the other sponsoring organization or committee and,

hence, whether, the respective SSFs 

are affiliated with each other. 11 

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J),

and 110.3(a)(3)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J).

The Commission considered eight of 

these circumstantial factors, plus the 

issue of common shareholders after 

the spin-offs, in determining that 

Tyco US PAC, Covidien US PAC 

and TELPAC are not affiliated. 

Organization owns a controlling 

interest in voting stock or securities. One affiliation factor considers 

whether a sponsoring organization

owns a controlling interest in the 

voting stock or securities of the 

sponsoring organization of another

committee. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)

(A) and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(A). None of 

the three companies owns any stock 

in the other two companies. Before 

the spin-off, Tyco US PAC, Covidien 

US PAC and TELPAC were per se

affiliated because Covidien and Tyco 

Electronics were wholly owned by 

Tyco International, and hence the 

SSFs’ respective connected organizations were also wholly owned

by Tyco International. Immediately 

after the spin-off, Covidien and Tyco 

Electronics, and their wholly owned 

U.S. subsidiaries, were owned by 

Tyco International’s shareholders, not by Tyco International. This 

lack of ownership interest by one 

company in another points toward 

disaffiliation. 

Authority or ability to direct or 

participate in governance or to 

control officers. The law also considers the authority or ability of one 

corporate sponsor to participate in 

the governance of another corporate 

sponsor or to hire, appoint, demote 

or otherwise control the officers, or 

other decision-making employees, of 

another sponsoring organization . 11

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(B); 110.3(a)(3)

(ii)(B); 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(C); 110.3(a)

(3)(ii)(C).

The bylaws of Covidien and Tyco 

Electronics do not contain provisions 

granting authority to Tyco International over operations of Covidien 

and Tyco Electronics. Before the 

spin-off, Tyco International, as the 

lone shareholder, selected the current boards of directors of Covidien 

and Tyco Electronics. The governing 

1 Tyco US PAC, Covidien US PAC and 

TELPAC will comply with the prohibitions placed on foreign national 

participation in the funding and the 

decision-making processes of the SSFs 

by the Federal Election Campaign Act, 

Commission regulations and advisory 

opinions. 2 U.S.C. §441e; 11 CFR 

110.20. AOs 2006-15, 2004-42 and 

2000-17.
November 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

documents of Covidien and Tyco 

Electronics contain certain anti-takeover provisions that would tend to 

preserve these board members’ positions, but also lack other significant 

provisions of this type. The Commission concluded that the effect on 

Covidien and Tyco Electronics of the 

pre-spin-off selection of the boards 

was outweighed by the minimal nature of director, officer and employee 

overlap, the background of the board 

members selected and vigorous trading of the shares in the companies 

resulting in a diversification in the 

groups of persons holding shares in 

the three companies. The Commission also considered the provisions 

of the spin-off agreement that make 

Tyco International the managing 

party for all legal matters related to 

Tyco International, contingent on 

other corporate liabilities assumed 

by Covidien and Tyco Electronics, 

and the companies may decide on an 

annual basis to change the managing 

party. The Commission noted that 

this arrangement would be a natural 

part of a separation arrangement in 

view of the fact that the involvement 

of Covidien and Tyco Electronics in 

such legal affairs would stem from 

activities before the spin-off or from 

the separation itself. 

Common or overlapping officers 

or employees indicating a formal or 

ongoing relationship or the creation 

of a successor entity. The affiliation 

factors also address whether a sponsoring organization has common or

overlapping officers or employees 

with another sponsoring organization indicating a formal or ongoing 

relationship between the organizations. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(E);

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(E). An additional

factor asks whether a sponsoring organization has any members, officers

or employees who were members, 

officers or employees of another 

sponsoring organization indicating

a formal or ongoing relationship or 

the creation of a successor entity. 11 

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(F); 110.3(a)(3)

(ii)(F). The eleven-member boards 

of each of the companies have been 

independent of each other since the 

spin-off. In addition, since the spinoff, there has been only a minimal 

personnel overlap between the 

parent companies. One individual 

serves on both Tyco Electronics’ 

and Tyco International’s boards of 

directors, and Tyco International’s 

Chief Financial Officer serves on 

Covidien’s board of directors. Since 

the spin-off, these two individuals 

represent the only overlap between 

the group of directors, officers and 

employees of one company and its 

subsidiaries and the corresponding 

group of either of the other two companies and their subsidiaries.

In addition, only two of the 

eleven Covidien directors in place 

since the spin-off and only three of 

the eleven Tyco Electronics directors 

in place since the spin-off previously 

served as directors or officers of any 

pre-spin-off Tyco International entities. Moreover, there are no plans 

for any future transfer of officers or 

employees from one company or its 

subsidiaries to another company or 

its subsidiaries. The Commission 

also noted that, after the spin-off 

occurred, amended statements of 

organization were filed indicating

no overlap among Tyco US PAC, 

Covidien US PAC and TELPAC with 

respect to officers or to other SSF 

personnel. 

Providing funds or goods in a 

significant amount or on an ongoing 

basis. The affiliation factors also address whether a sponsoring organization provides funds or goods in a

significant amount or on an ongoing 

basis to another sponsoring organization, and whether a sponsoring

organization causes or arranges for

funds in a significant amount or on 

an ongoing basis to be provided to 

another sponsoring organization. 11

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(G) and (H) and

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(G) and (H).

Tyco International ceased providing either Covidien or Tyco 

Electronics with funds to finance 

their working capital or other cash 

requirements once the spin-off occurred. After the spin-off, the three 

parent corporations will, in accordance with percentages agreed 

to in the Separation Agreement, 

share responsibility for Tyco International’s contingent liabilities 

regarding securities litigation and 

actions brought by third parties as to 

the separation or stock distribution, 

but not with regard to any liabilities 

related to any one of the three companies. However, if any one of t

companies defaults on its payments, 

each of the other companies will be 

required to pay equally the amounts 

in default. 

Separation agreements after 

corporate spin-offs often entail 

restrictions on the activities of the 

companies involved and provide 

for some continuing transactions 

between the companies. The Commission concluded in past advisory 

opinions that such continuing transactions were outweighed by other 

facts or were merely aimed at sorting out the companies’ post-spin-off 

obligations that existed as an outgrowth of the previous relationship 

and were not aimed at continuing 

one company’s control over another. 

AOs 1996-42 and 1993-23. Similarly, any transfers between the companies provided for in the Separation 

and other agreements would be part 

of the normal separation process and 

the contingent liabilities would relate to activities occurring before the 

spin-off or to the separation itself.

Having an active or significant 

role in the formation of another 

sponsoring organization or committee. The factors also address 

whether a sponsoring organization

had an active or significant role in 

the formation of another sponsoring 

organization. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)

(ii)(I); 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(I). Although

Covidien and Tyco Electronics were 

once part of Tyco International, they 

are now subject to agreements separating them into separate publicly 

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2007

4

traded corporations. The previous 

relationship between sponsoring 

organizations is part of the context

for assessing the overall relationship between such organizations.

11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii); 110.3(a)

(3)(ii); see also AO 1996-23. T

Commission noted that a sponsoring 

organization’s involvement in the

formation of a spun-off sponsoring organization does not require a

finding of continued affiliation when 

significant changes in the relevant 

relationships have occurred, such as 

arrangements separating the operations of the companies and apportioning their assets and obligations, 

and the nearly complete separation 

of corporate leadership and personnel.

Common Shareholder Base. Commission regulations provide for per 

se affiliation between committees 

established by “the same person or 

group of persons.” 11 CFR 100.5(

(3)(v); 110.3(a)(2)(v). In pa

advisory opinions, the Commission 

has recognized that a sizeable break

in the common identity of persons 

owning shares in two companies 

supported a conclusion that two 

companies were no longer affiliated after a spin-off, when vigorous 

public trading was anticipated. AOs 

1996-42 and 1993-23; see also AO 

1997-25. 

Upon completion of the spin-off, 

Tyco International shareholders 

owned almost all of the shares of 

Covidien and Tyco Electronics, and 

there was almost a complete overlap 

among the shareholders of the three 

companies. However, this situati

involves a spin-off by a large publicly traded company of subsidiaries, 

resulting in three large, separately 

listed, publicly traded companies 

with very specific plans for operations that are separate from each other and that involve differing business 

sectors. Given that, in general, each 

of the shareholders of these companies will buy and sell shares in 

accordance with such shareholder’s 

own financial interests, it would be 

very difficult for one group of shareholders to maintain purposefully a 

large common ownership in more 

than one publicly traded company. 

The usual consequence of such spinoffs is vigorous public trading by 

shareholders attempting to maximize their own profit, resulting in a

sizeable diversification between the

identity of the shareholders of the 

former parent and each of the spun 

off companies. 

The Commission determined that, 

in this case, there is ample evidence 

to show that significant shareholder 

diversification will result from the 

spin-off. The post-spin-off active 

trading indicates that the large, 

but ever diminishing, overlap still 

existing in the first few weeks after 

the spin-off date should not delay 

disaffiliation past that date. It confirms that a large common identity 

of shareholders in two large publicly traded corporations does not, 

by itself, indicate common control 

of the corporations. This common 

identity does not reflect any effort by 

such a large group of shareholders to 

control the stocks of the corporations 

and dissipates rapidly because of the 

shareholders’ independent interests. 

Conclusion

The Commission noted that, in 

some important respects, the case 

for the current disaffiliation of the 

three companies compares favorably 

with past advisory opinions where 

the Commission found organizations to be disaffiliated. AOs 2003-

21, 2002-12 and 1996-23. In this 

case, based on the application of the 

affiliation factors described above, 

the Commission concluded that 

Tyco US PAC, Covidien US PAC 

and TELPAC are disaffiliated as of 

the completion of the spin-off at the 

close of business on June 29, 2007. 

Date Issued: September 1

2007; Length: 11 pages.

 —Gary Mullen

AO 2007-13

Union and Association SSFs 

Not Affiliated 

The United American Nurses, 

AFL-CIO (the Union) and the

American Nurses Association (the

Association) are not affiliated under

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

and Commission regulations. Thus, 

a separate segregated fund (SS

established by the Union would not 

be affiliated with the Association’s 

SSF.

Background

The Association. The Association 

is a national professional organization dedicated to advancing the 

standing and interests of registered 

nurses (RNs). It is composed of 75

disparate nursing-related organizations,” including the Association’s 

54 constituent member associations (state nursing associations),

the Union, the Center for American 

Nurses, 16 national nursing organizations and three related entities. In

addition, 1,182 individuals who are 

not otherwise members of a state 

nursing association are members of 

the Association. 

The Association’s governmental structure consists of a House

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

New E-Mail Service

 Visitors to the FEC’s web 

site can now sign-up to receive 

personalized e-mail updates on

the latest Commission news 

and information. Subscribers 

can choose to receive messages 

regarding a specific topic, entire 

categories of information, 

multiple categories or all 

subscription items. To see the 

complete list of offerings, visit 

http://service.govdelivery.

com/service/multi_subscribe.

html?code=USFEC.
November 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

of Delegates with 675 delegates,

including 600 who are elected by 

the state nursing associations, fifteen 

Association directors and officers 

and 60 delegates from other Association affiliates, including only one 

delegate from the Union (the Union

president). Of the 675 delegate

approximately 630 have voting 

rights. The Association’s Board of 

Directors, elected by the delegates,

handles the Association’s day-to-day 

operations. 

While the Association itself has 

never made union representation of 

RNs a significant focus, 27 of its 

state nursing association members 

are considered “labor organizations”

under the National Labor Relations 

Act. 29 U.S.C. §152(5). These 

state nursing associations engage in 

collective bargaining on behalf of 

their eligible RN members. 

In 1999, the RNs represented for 

collective bargaining by the state 

nursing associations created the 

Union as an independent organization within the Association to serve 

as the national union for the state 

nursing associations that engaged in 

collective bargaining. The Association granted the Union autonomy 

in all things required by law to be 

addressed by a labor union. 

The Union. The Union is an 

unincorporated national labor 

organization. Its highest governing

body is its National Labor Assembly, comprising delegates elected 

by individual RNs represented in 

collective bargaining by the state 

nursing associations and the national 

bargaining councils. The National 

Labor Assembly has the authority, 

among other things, to develop labor 

policies for Union members, collect 

Union dues and develop the Union’s 

strategic plan. The National Labor 

Assembly also elects, from among 

the Union-represented RNs, the 

Union’s Executive Council, which 

sets Union priorities, policies and 

procedures and determine membership status within the Union.

Originally, the Association’s 

Executive Director had the author1 The AFL-CIO charters only labor 

organizations whose principal function 

is collective bargaining representation. The Association, a professional 

organization, was and is ineligible for a 

charter.

ity to “manage” the Union, including implementing National Labor 

Assembly and Executive Council 

policies and appointing the Union’s 

Program Director. The Association

also provided the Union with staff 

and financial support. 

In 2001 the AFL-CIO granted a 

charter to the Union as a direct affiliate. This charter was granted only 

to the Union, and not to the Association.1

 In 2002 the Union and the 

Association negotiated a new relationship in which the Union became 

a wholly autonomous organization

with its own finances, governance, 

staff and direction. The Association 

created new bylaws following the 

agreement, and the Union drafted 

its own constitution, which now 

excludes the Association from any 

participation in the Union’s governance. 

Analysis

The Act and Commission regulations provide that political committees, including SSFs, that are 

established, financed, maintained 

or controlled by the same corporation, labor organization, person or

group of persons, including any 

parent, subsidiary, branch, division, 

department or local unit thereof, are 

affiliated. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2) and

110.3(a)(1)(ii). Contributions made

to or by such political committees 

are considered to have been made to 

or by a single political committee. 2 

U.S.C. 441a(a)(5); 11 CFR 100.5(g)

(2) and 110.3(a)(1).

In some cases, organizations are

considered to be per se affiliated 

under Commission regulations. For 

example, a national or international 

union is considered per se affiliated 

with its local or subordinate organizations, and a membership organization is considered per se affiliated 

with its state or local subordinate 

organizations. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(3)

(ii), (iv) and (v); 110.3(a)(2)(ii), (iv)

and (v).

In this case, the Association is not 

a “labor organization” and therefore

is not a local union or subordinate organization of the Union. 11

CFR 100.134(b). Similarly, while

the Association might qualify as 

a membership organization, the

Union is not a related state or local 

subordinate organization. 11 CFR

100.134(e). Thus, the Union and the

Association are not per se affiliated.

When entities do not meet any 

definition of per se affiliation, Commission regulations provide for an 

examination of various factors in the 

context of the overall relationship 

to determine whether one sponsoring organization has established,

financed, maintained or controlled 

the other sponsoring organization or

committee and, thus, whether their 

respective SSFs are affiliated. 11 

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J)

and 110.3(a)(3)(ii) and (ii)(A)-(J).

The most relevant affiliation factors 

in this case are discussed below.

Directing or participating in 

governance. One affiliation factor addresses whether a sponsoring 

organization has the authority or

ability to direct or participate in the 

governance of the other through 

provisions of their rules or by laws, 

or through their formal or informal 

practices. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)

(B) and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(B). Under the 

Union’s constitution and the Association’s bylaws, the Association cannot participate in the governance of 

the Union, and the Union can only 

minimally participate in the governance of the Association. The Union 

President has an ex officio seat on 

the Association’s Board of Directors

and, in this capacity, may vote on 

certain matters before the Association’s House of Delegates, representing 0.16 percent of the votes cast by 

delegates. The Union President may 

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2007

6

not vote in the election of the Association’s officers and directors. 

The Union President is also one 

of the Association’s 17 Directors on

the Board. The Association President 

may exclude the Union President 

from business or confidential matters. Apart from the Union President’s participation on the Board, 

no Union representative may direct 

or participate in the governance of 

the Association’s SSF. The Union’s 

current Vice President was elected to 

the Association’s Board of Directors

in her individual capacity and does 

not represent the Union on the Association’s Board. The Union Vice 

President, like the Union President, 

is described as being excluded from 

discussions regarding the Union. 

Overall, each organization has, at

best, a minimal ability to participate 

in the governance of the other, giving neither organization direction

over, or control of, the governance of 

the other organization.

Common or overlapping membership. Another significant affiliation 

factor in this case is whether a sponsoring organization has common

or overlapping membership with 

another sponsoring organization,

which indicates a formal or ongoing 

relationship between the organizations. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(D) and

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(D).

The only Union members who 

are eligible to join the Association directly are those who are not 

also members of a state nursing 

association—fewer than 500 of the 

Union’s 97,000 members are currently described as falling into this 

category. Thus, assuming that each 

eligible Union member becomes an 

individual member of the Association, only 0.5 percent of the Union’s 

membership would directly overlap 

with the Association’s membership. 

There is also some indirect overlap between the individual members 

in the Union and individual members in the state nursing associations 

that are, themselves, members of the 

Association. Approximately 97,000 

individual members of the Union 

are members of the 27 state nursing 

associations that engage in collective 

bargaining. There are approximately 

157,000 individual members in the 

54 state nursing association members of the Association, creating a 

maximum possible indirect overlap 

of about 62 percent. 

In this case, the Commission 

determined that any direct or indirect 

overlap in membership between the 

Union and the Association results 

from the negotiated agreement separating the two organizations. The

Union’s Constitution provides that 

any RN who is a member of the Association’s state nursing associations 

that engage in collective bargaining 

will be eligible for Union membership. The RN is then described as 

being free to join or not to join the 

Union as an individual member, and 

is free to maintain or terminate his or 

her membership in the Association 

through the state nursing association. Thus, even if there is significant 

overlap in membership, the overlap 

alone is not sufficient evidence that 

one organization currently finances,

maintains or controls the other. See 

AO 2004-41. 

Overlapping officers and employees. Two additional affiliation 

factors address whether a sponsoring organization has common or

overlapping officers or employees 

with another sponsoring organization, which indicates a formal or 

ongoing relationship, and whether 

a sponsoring organization has any

members, officers or employees who 

were members, officers or employees of another sponsoring organization, indicating a formal or ongoing 

relationship or the creation of a 

successor entity. 11 CFR 100.5(

(4)(ii)(E) and (F) and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)

(E) and (F).

Initially, the Association’s staff 

performed all of the staff functions 

for the Union. However, the organizations stopped sharing staff after

their relationship was re-negotiated. 

Now the Union and the Association 

have only one official overlapping 

decision-maker, the Union President, and one unofficial overlapping 

officer, the Union Vice-President. 

Any Union member who runs for 

one of the 15 elected seats on the 

Association’s Board of Directors at

the House of Delegates meeting is

described as serving in an individual 

capacity, not as a Union representative. Moreover, only three of the 

Union’s twenty-four staff members 

were formerly employed by the Association. 

Provision of goods and funds. 

The affiliation factors also address 

whether a sponsoring organization provides goods in a significant 

amount or on an ongoing basis to 

another sponsoring organization,

and whether a sponsoring organization causes or arranges for funds 

in a significant amount or on an 

ongoing basis to be provided to 

another sponsoring organization. 11

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(G) and (H) and

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(G) and (H).

Although the two organizations

share office space and the Association performs some administrative 

tasks for the Union, the Union pays 

the Association for the space and 

services, and these payments do not 

represent a significant portion of the 

Association’s receipts. These payments do not suggest affiliation.

The Association also agreed to 

make a one-time grant of $740,000 

in working capital and transitional 

support to the Union upon the restructuring of the two organizations.

The Commission has in past advisory opinions recognized that these

types of transactions can be part of 

the transition to independence for 

one organization, rather than a sign

of affiliation. See AO 2000-28. Here,

the one-time grant is part of the 

process of establishing the Union’s 

independence and separation from 

the Association. 

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)
November 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Role in the formation of another 

organization. Finally, an affiliation 

factor considers whether a sponsoring organization had an active or

significant role in the formation of 

another sponsoring organization. 11

CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(I) and 110.3(a)

(3)(ii)(I). In past advisory opinions,

the Commission has recognized

that one organization’s creation of

another does not, in and of itself, 

make the two organizations permanent affiliates. See AOs 2004-41 and 

2000-36. Considering the steps taken 

in this case to sever operational and 

financial ties, this factor alone does 

not indicate current affiliation.

Conclusion

The Association and the Union 

are not affiliated under the factors 

discussed above, including the separation of the staffs, treasuries and 

functions of the two organizations,

the minimal overlap in governance 

and the minimal direct overlap in 

membership. Accordingly, if the 

Union were to establish an SSF, that 

political committee would not be affiliated with the Association’s SSF.

Date Issued: September 25, 2007;

Length: 12 pages.

 —Amy Kort

AO 2007-14

Trade Associations’ 

Sponsorship of Joint 

Telephone Conferences to 

Restricted Classes

The Associated Builders and 

Contractors, the National Federation 

of Independent Business and the 

National Restaurant Association (the

Trade Associations) may pay for a

series of jointly sponsored telephone 

conferences featuring Presidential 

candidates, which will be made 

available simultaneously to the 

three Trade Associations’ restricted 

classes. The Trade Associations must 

split the costs of the conferences 

on a pro rata basis determined by 

restricted class participation (or by

another reasonable method if it is 

not possible to track participation) to

ensure that no trade association pays 

the costs of candidate appearances to 

a restricted class other than its own.

Background

The Trade Associations plan to 

host telephone conferences open 

to the restricted class members of 

each association. The three restricted 

classes will have access to the 

conferences either by dialing in and 

providing a password or by receiving a phone call connecting them to 

the conference. The Trade Associations will invite several Presidential 

candidates to participate, and the 

candidates will be free to solicit contributions and campaign volunteers 

by asking conference participants 

to visit a web site or call a phone 

number. The Trade Associations 

will split the costs of the conferences, and may be able to track 

restricted class participation in order 

to split costs based on the number of 

restricted class members from each 

trade association participating in the 

conferences. 

Analysis 

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) prohibits corporations

from using their general treasury 

funds to make contributions and 

expenditures in connection with a 

federal election, including giving 

“anything of value” to a campaign. 2 

U.S.C. §441b(a); 11 CFR 114.2(b).

Under an exception to this general 

prohibition, an incorporated trade 

association may sponsor candidate 

campaign appearances, but only if:

•	The audience is limited to the trade

association’s restricted class and 

to employees who are necessary to 

administer the meeting; or 

•	The audience is limited to the trade

association’s employees and their 

families. 

Other guests of the corporation 

who are being honored or speaking 

or participating in the event, and 

representatives of the news media, 

may also attend. 2 U.S.C. §441b(

(2)(A); 11 CFR 114.3(c)(2) and 11

CFR 114.4(b)(1).

In this case, each trade association would use its general treasury 

funds to sponsor candidate appearances to its own restricted class. 

Because the Trade Associations 

would sponsor the same candidate 

to address their restricted classes simultaneously, each trade association 

must pay only the portion of the 

costs of the conferences incurred 

because of its restricted class’s 

participation. So long as the Trade 

Associations split the costs of the 

conferences on a pro rata basis according to the participation of each 

trade association’s restricted class, 

or on another reasonable method 

calculated to closely approximate 

the pro rata participation, the proposed conferences will come within 

the exemptions from the definitions 

of “contribution” and “expenditure” 

for corporate-sponsored candidate 

FEC Accepts Credit 

Cards

 The Federal Election 

Commission now accepts 

American Express, Diners Club

and Discover Cards in addition

to Visa and MasterCard. While 

most FEC materials are available 

free of charge, some campaign 

finance reports and statements, 

statistical compilations, indexes 

and directories require payment.

 Walk-in visitors and those 

placing requests by telephone may 

use any of the above-listed credit 

cards, cash or checks. Individuals 

and organizations may also place

funds on deposit with the office 

to purchase these items. Since prepayment is required, using a credit 

card or funds placed on deposit 

can speed the process and delivery 

of orders. For further information, 

contact the Public Records Office 

at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-1120.

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2007

8

(BCRA), the Act permitted candidates and their committees to use 

their funds for “any other lawful purpose,” as long as that purpose was 

not personal use of the campaign’s 

funds by any person. In BCRA, 

Congress deleted the “any other 

lawful purpose” language, and the 

Commission amended its regulations 

to reflect the change. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, 

Congress restored this provision, 

and added the provision concerning 

donations to nonfederal candidates. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

amended its regulations at 11 CFR 

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2007-22

Volunteer activity by foreign 

nationals (Jim Hurysz for Congress

Campaign Committee, August 7, 

2007)

AOR 2007-23

Qualification as state committee of political party (Independence

Party of New York, September 18, 

2007)

AOR 2007-24

Permissibility of joint campaign 

fundraising and spending (Jeff Walz

and Jim Burkee, October 1, 2007)

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

1 The situation presented here is similar 

to that considered by the Commission 

in AO 1984-13, where the Commission 

concluded that a corporation could host 

candidates as speakers at a conference 

for its restricted class and jointly sponsor the conference with another entity.

campaign appearances to the restricted class.1

Date Issued: September 25, 2007;

Length: 4 pages.

 —Amy Kort

113.2(d) and (e) to add these permissible uses of campaign funds.

The full text of this final rule is 

available in the Federal Register

(72 FR 56245) and on the FEC web

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

ej_compilation/2007/notice_2007-

18.pdf. 

 —Amy Kort

Shays v. FEC

On September 12, 2007, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of

Columbia granted in part and denied 

in part the plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment in this case. The 

court remanded to the FEC a number 

of FEC regulations implementing 

certain provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 

(BCRA). These rules included:

•	The revised coordinated communications content standard at 11 CFR 

109.21(c)(4);

•	The 120-day window for coordination through common vendors and 

former employees under the conduct standard at 11 CFR 109.21(d)

(4) and (d)(5);

•	The safe harbor from the definition of “coordinated communication” for a common vendor that 

establishes a ‘’firewall’’ (11 CFR

109.21(h)(1) and (h)(2)); and

•	The definitions of “voter registration activity” and “get-out-thevote activity” (GOTV) at 11 CFR

100.24(a)(2)-(a)(3).

Background

In response to the court decisions 

and judgment in Shays I, the FEC 

held rulemaking proceedings during 

2005 and 2006 to revise a number 

of its BCRA regulations, including the rules governing coordinated 

communications, certain definitions 

of FEA and the solicitation of soft 

money by federal officeholders and 

candidates at state party fundraising 

events. For more information, see 

the August 2005 Record, page 1, the 

March 2006 Record, page 2, and the 

July 2006 Record, page 1. 

On July 11, 2006, U.S. Representative Christopher Shays and thenRepresentative Martin Meehan (the

plaintiffs) filed another complaint

in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia. The complaint

challenged the FEC’s recent revisions to, or expanded explanations 

for, regulations governing coordinated communications, federal election activity (FEA) and solicitations

by federal candidates and officeholders at state party fundraising events. 

The plaintiffs claimed that the rules 

did not comply with the court’s 

judgment in Shays I or with the 

BCRA. The complaint also alleged 

the FEC did not adequately explain 

and justify its actions. 

Court Decision

The standard for judicial review 

in a case such as this, where one 

party alleges that an agency’s actions 

are contrary to the statute, is called 

Chevron review, after the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., 

Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 

Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 

Chevron review, the court asks first 

whether Congress has spoken to the 

precise issue at hand. If so, then 

Court Cases

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the web 

site at www.fec.gov/law/law_

rulemakings.shtml and from the 

FEC Faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2007-18

Use of Campaign Funds for 

Donations to Non-Federal

Candidates and Any Other Lawful 

Purpose Other Than Personal Use; 

Final Rule (72 FR 56245, October

3, 2007)
November 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

the agency’s interpretation of the 

statute must implement Congress’s 

unambiguous intent. If, however, 

Congress has not spoken explicitly 

to the question at hand, the court 

must defer to the agency’s answer 

unless it rests on an impermissible 

construction of the statute.

In this case, the plaintiffs also 

claimed that in some instances the 

FEC failed to engage in a reasoned 

analysis when it promulgated the 

regulations, or failed to follow 

proper procedures regarding public 

notice and comment. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),

regulations that are promulgated 

without a reasoned analysis may 

be found “arbitrary and capricious” 

and may be set aside by a reviewing 

court. 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A).

Candidate and officeholder solicitation at state party fundraisers. 

Commission regulation 11 CFR 

300.64(b) provides that federal

candidates and officeholders may 

speak at state, district or local party 

fundraising events “without restriction or regulation.” The regulation 

implements 2 U.S.C §441i(e)(3),

which permits federal candidates 

and officeholders to attend, speak 

or be featured guests at such events. 

The court held that the regulation 

passed Chevron review and was 

consistent with the requirements of 

the APA. 

The plaintiffs had argued that 

the Commission had failed to 

explain why this broad exemption 

is uniquely necessary in the state 

party fundraising context and thus 

failed to provide a reasoned basis for 

the exemption. The court, however, 

found that this exemption was both 

supported by the record and rationally explained. The court noted 

that Congress itself treated state, 

district and local party committee 

fundraisers differently from other 

fundraisers when it enacted 2 U.S.C 

§441i(e)(3).

Coordinated communications 

content standard. The plaintiffs 

charged that the Commission’s revised “content standard” impermissibly reduces the pre-election window1

for coordinated communicationsin 

House and Senate races from 120

days to 90 days, in violation of the 

decision in Shays I. The plaintiffs 

also argued that the Commission 

impermissibly retained the election 

year “gap period” in Congressional 

races (which begins on the day of

the primary and runs until 90 days 

before the general election) and

preserved the Presidential 120-day 

pre-primary window that was struck 

down by the court in Shays I. 

The court found the revised content standard to be consistent with 

the statute. However, it ruled that the

Explanation and Justification for the 

revised rule failed to explain how 

the regulation rationally separated 

election-related activity from other 

activity that occurs outside of the 

coordinated communications windows. According to court, the record 

before the FEC “demonstrates that 

candidates do run advertisements—

which do not necessarily include 

express advocacy, but are nevertheless intended to influence federal 

elections—outside of the pre-election windows included in the revised 

content standard. The E&J presents 

no persuasive justification for writing off that evidence and does not 

suggest that it would somehow be 

captured by the ‘functionally meaningless’ express advocacy standard.” 

The court thus found that the revised 

regulation does not meet the APA 

standard of reasoned decisionmaking.

As a separate issue, the plaintiffs challenged the Commission’s 

methodology in determining these 

pre-election windows, alleging that 

the Commission’s use of a set of 

data from TNS Media Intelligence/

CMAG to support its revised coordination regulations was arbitrary and 

capricious because the data set does 

not support the revised regulations 

and, in some instances, actually undermines them. The court, however, 

noted that it lacked “any basis, either 

factual or legal, on which to conclude that the FEC’s very reliance 

on the CMAG data was arbitrary and 

capricious.” The court further noted 

that in drawing a bright-line rule the 

FEC “appears to have drawn the line 

in a reasonable place based on the 

data available to it.”

Common vendor and former 

employee conduct standard. Following the court decisions in Shays I, 

the Commission revised the conduct 

standard of the coordinated communications rules that addresses the 

activities of common vendors and 

former employees of a candidate or a 

political party committee. Under the 

revised rule, this standard can be met 

based on the activities of common 

vendors or former employees during 

a 120-day period, rather than during 

the entire election cycle, as was the 

case in the original rule. 11 CFR 

109.21(d)(4) and (d)(5). The court

found that the standard for “reasoned 

analysis” in a case where an agency 

changes course requires that the 

agency explain that its prior rules are 

being “deliberately changed” rather 

than “casually ignored.” The court 

found that the Commission had not 

adequately explained how the new 

rules would capture the “universe of 

coordinated communications” and 

thus found the rule arbitrary and 

capricious, in violation of the APA.

Firewall safe harbor. During its

rulemaking process, the Commission 

also revised its rules to create a safe 

harbor for an organization using a

common vendor or individuals who 

currently or previously provided services to a candidate clearly identified 

in the organization’s communication

or to that candidate’s opponent or 

to a political party committee. For 

1 A communication that satisfies the 

payment, content and conduct prongs of 

the “coordinated communication test” 

is an in-kind contribution from the entity 

paying for the communication. 11 CFR 

109.21. (continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2007

10

St. Louis Conference 

for House and Senate 

Campaigns, Political Party 

Committees and Corporate/

Labor/Trade PACs

The Commission will hold a 

regional conference in St. Louis, 

Missouri, on November 6-7, 2007, at 

the Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark

Hotel. 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 

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

conferences/2007/stlouis07.shtml. 

Questions

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

the safe harbor provision to apply, 

the vendor, former employee or 

political committee must establish 

a “firewall” between the parts of 

the organization working on each

project. The court found that this 

provision both fails the second part 

of the Chevron test and is arbitrary 

and capricious in violation of the 

APA. 

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), expenditures

count as contributions when they are 

made “in cooperation, consultation, 

or concert, with, or at the request or 

suggestion of, a candidate.” 2 U.S.C. 

§ 441a(a)(7). The court found that

the Commission’s safe harbor completely exempts communications 

when the organization creating them

provides information that a firewall 

is in place. However, the court concluded that the rule fails to provid

“substantive guidance” concerning 

what constitutes an effective firewall. The court further determined 

that the safe harbor might permit 

information to be passed through an 

organization’s leaders or administrative personnel and “sets a high evidentiary standard for overcoming the 

presumption created by the firewall.” 

According to the court, these factors 

together create a potential for gross 

abuse and compromise the purposes 

of the Act. Thus, the court found that 

the rule failed the second step of the 

Chevron test.

The court also found the rule 

arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the APA, because, again, the 

standard for “reasoned analysis” 

is higher when an agency changes 

course, and the Commission’s explanation of this rule had not met that 

standard. 

Definitions of federal election activity. In Shays I, the court held that 

the Commission had not provided 

adequate notice of the approach it 

took in defining FEA “voter registration” and FEA “get-out-thevote activity” (GOTV activity). In

response, the Commission expanded 

its Explanation and Justification for 

the definitions. In the current case, 

the plaintiffs alleged that the Commission unlawfully left intact the 

limitation that only activities that 

“assist” voters by “individualized

means” may constitute FEA “voter 

registration” or FEA “GOTV” activity, and did not revise its definition 

of voter registration activity. 

The court found that the expanded 

Explanation and Justification for the 

regulation defining voter registration 

activity does not “address the vast 

gray area of activities that state and 

local parties may conduct and that 

may benefit federal candidates,” nor 

does it show that activities that fall 

within this gray area do not directly 

benefit candidates or significantly 

affect federal elections. Thus, the 

court ruled that the regulation 

“unduly compromises the Act” and 

therefore violates the second part of 

the Chevron test. The court additionally found that, for this same reason, 

the rule is arbitrary and capricious 

in violation of the APA. The court 

found that the expanded Explanation 

and Justification “focuses on straw 

men, citing only examples falling 

at the far ends of the spectrum of 

potential voter registration activity 

without explaining how its definition, which apparently excludes the 

significant amount of activity in 

between, either supports or does not 

undermine BCRA’s purposes.” As a 

result, the court did not find that the 

rule meets the APA’s requirement of 

reasoned decision-making.

The court also found that the expanded Explanation and Justification 

fails to establish that the Commission’s definition of GOTV activity 

will not “unduly compromise” the 

Act’s purposes. In addition, citing 

the same reasons it gave in finding 

that the Commission failed adequately to explain its definition of 

voter registration activity, the court 

held that the Commission failed to 

provide a reasoned explanation in 

promulgating its definition of GOTV 

activity.

Decision. The court granted in 

part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment in 

this case and remanded these regulations to the Commission for further 

actions consistent with the court’s 

opinion. 

Notices of Appeal

On October 16, 2007, the Commission filed a Notice of Appeal 

seeking appellate review of all of the 

adverse rulings issued by the district 

court. On October 23, Representative Shays cross-appealed the district 

court’s judgment insofar as it denied 

the plaintiff’s “claims or requested 

relief.”

U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia, 06-1247 (CKK).

 —Diana Veiga

Court Cases

(continued from page 9)

Outreach
November 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Index

The first number in each citation 

refers to the numeric month of the 

2007 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

2006-33: Association May Compensate State Affiliate Collecting 

Agents, 2:6

2006-34: Political Committee Sponsored Affinity Program, 4:5

2006-35: Legal Fees Paid with 

Campaign Funds, 3:4

2006-36: Green Senatorial Committee Gains National Party Status, 

3:5

2006-37: Campaign May Reimburse Candidate’s Misreported 

Loans, 3:6

2006-38: Officeholder’s Use of 

State Campaign Funds, 3:7

2007-1: Federal Officeholder May 

Raise Nonfederal Funds to Retire 

State Campaign Debt, 5:7

2007-2: State Party Status for Arizona Libertarians, 4:7

2007-3: Private Contributions Do

Not Preclude Public Funding, 4:8

2007-4: Credit Card Processing 

Services Provided to Political 

Committees, 7:7

2007-5: Officeholder’s Chief of 

Staff Raising Nonfederal Funds 

as Chairman of State Party Committee, 6:5 (continued on page 12)

MUR 5634: Express Advocacy 

Leads to Prohibited Corporate 

Expenditure, 1:4

MUR 5645: Prohibited In-Kind

Corporate Contributions, 5:4

MUR 5690: Reporting Joint 

Fundraising Proceeds, 5:4

MUR 5702: Colorado Democratic

Party, 6:2

MUR 5753: League of Conservation Voters 527 I and II, 1:3

MUR 5754: MoveOn.org Voter 

Fund, 1:4 

MURs 5928 and 5853: Political 

Blogs, 10:11

Policy Statement on Treasurer’s 

Best Efforts, 7:1

Policy Statement on Embezzlement

Misreporting Safe Harbor, 5:1

Policy Statement Establishing Probable Cause Hearings, 3:1

Policy Statement on Initial Stage of 

Enforcement Process, 4:3

Policy Statement on Reporting of 

“Purpose of Disbursement,” 2:5

Policy Statement on Self-Reporting 

of Violations, 5:2

Policy Statement on Internal Controls for Political Committees, 

5:3

Court Cases

______ v. FEC

– Christian Civic League of Maine, 

10:13

– CREW, 2:3

– Davis, 9:1

– Fieger, 10:14

– Shays II, 10:12

– Shays III, 11:8

– Unity ‘08, 2:4

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 2:1; 8:1

Bialek v. Gonzales, Marcus v. Gonzales, Beam v. Gonzales, 4:5; 8:3

FEC v. ______ 

– Adams, 10:15

– Citizens Club for Growth, Inc.,

10:14

– Reform Party of the USA, 7:12

Fieger v. Gonzales, 3:3

Legislation

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, 10:9

2007-6: State Party Status for Libertarian Party of Indiana, 6:6

2007-7: Candidate’s Loans Initially 

Misreported as Contributions, 7:9

2007-8: Encouraging Voluntary 

Performances by Professional 

Entertainers at Campaign Events, 

9:4 

2007-9: Use of GELAC Funds to 

Cover Compliance Portion of 

Broadcast Ads, 10:7

2007-10: Campaign May Not Use 

Corporate Names, Trademarks or 

Service Marks at Golf Fundraiser, 

10:8

2007-11: Pre-Event Communications for State or Local Party 

Fundraisers Featuring a Federal 

Candidate or Officeholder, 10:8

2007-12: Disaffiliation of SS

After Corporate Spin-Off, 11:1

2007-13: Union and Association 

SSFs not Affiliated, 11:4

2007-14: Trade Associations’ Joint 

Sponsorship of Telephone Conferences to Restricted Classes, 11:7

Audits

Bush/Cheney ’04 and Clark for 

President, 5:8

Gephardt for President, 8:5

Kerry/Edwards, 7:10

Compliance

527 Organizations Pay Civil Penalties, 1:1

Administrative Fine Update, 4:9; 

8:6

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Update, 8:7

Comments Sought on Proposed 

Probable Cause Hearings, 1:5

Comments Sought on Sua Sponte 

Proposal, 1:5

MUR 5358: Jamie Jacob Morgan, 

6:1

MURs 5403 and 5466: Use of Prohibited Funds; Failure to Allocate 

and Report Expenses, 10:10

MUR 5487: Progress for America 

Voter Fund, 4:1

MURs 5511 and 5525: Swift Boat 

Veterans and POWs for Truth, 1:3

MURs 5577/5620: Prohibited Contributions and Failure to Register 

as a Political Committee, 8:1 

(Phone: 1-800/246-7277; e-mail:

tonis@sylvestermanagement.com).

For questions about the conference program, or to receive e-mail 

notification of upcoming conferences and workshops in 2008, call 

the FEC’s Information Division at

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

202/694-1100), or send an e-mail to

Conferences@fec.gov.

—Dorothy Yeager
Federal Election Commission RECORD November 2007

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Index

(continued from page 11)

Legislative Recommendations Approved, 5:11

Information

800 Line: Disclosing Multicandidate Committee Status, 9

2007-2008 Contribution Limits, 2:1

Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits for 2007, 3:9

Reporting Notices Enter the Electronic Age, 2:7; 3:10; 7:13

Staff Director Testifies on Senate

E-Filing, 4:10

Telephone Excise Tax Refunds, 

1:11

Public Funding

Democratic and Republican Parties

Certified for Convention Funding, 

8:4

Estimated Presidential Spending 

Limits, 5:6

Matching Fund Certifications, McCain; Tancredo, 10:10

Regulations

2007 Rulemaking Priorities, 4:4

Best Efforts Defense Replaces

Extraordinary Circumstances 

Defense, 5:1

Electioneering Communications, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

10:1

Federal Election Activity and 

Nonfederal Elections, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 7:6

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

for Hybrid Communication, 6:1;

public hearing, 9:3

Proposed Rules and Policy Statement on Best Efforts, 1:6

Supplemental E&J on Political 

Committee Status, 3:1

Use of Campaign funds, NPRM, 

9:1; Final Rules, 11:1

Reports

April Reporting Reminder, 4:1

California Special Election, 6:7

Georgia Special Election, 5:10

July Reminder, 7:1

Massachusetts Special Election, 8:8

October Reporting Reminder, 10:1

Ohio Special Election, 10:3

Reports Due in 2007, 1:7

Update, 7:3

Staff

FEC Names New General Counsel, 

6:9

General Counsel and Deputy Resign, 2:6

Statistics

Detailed Presidential Fundraising

and Spending Information Available on FEC Web Site, 5:12

House and Senate Fundraising,

10:17

PAC Count, 9:6

Party Financial Activity, 4:10; 7:10; 

10:16