April 2010 Federal Election Commission Volume 36, Number 4

Table of Contents

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 3)

Court Cases

1 Unity08 v. FEC

3 Utility Workers Union of America 

v. FEC

4 Fieger v. FEC

 Reports

1 April Reporting Reminder

4 Georgia Special Election: 9th 

District

6 Pennsylvania Special Election: 

12th District

7 Hawaii Special Election: 1st 

District

 Regulations 

8 Final Rules on Funds Received 

in Response to Solicitations; 

Allocation of Expenses by PACs

9 NPRM on Debt Collection

 

9 Comments Sought on Volunteer 

Materials Exemption Policy

10 Advisory Opinions

 

 Statistics

 12 House and Senate Campaign 

Fundraising

13 Party Committee Fundraising

 Outreach

14 Nonconnected PAC Seminar

14 Conference for Campaigns and 

Party Committees

14 Conference for Trade Associations, 

Membership Organizations and 

Labor Organizations

 

15 Index

Reports Court Cases

Unity08 v. FEC

On March 2, 2010, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the district 

court’s decision in Unity08 v. FEC

(Case No. 08-5526) and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Unity08. The appeals court found that Unity08 is not 

subject to regulation as a political 

committee unless and until it selects 

a “clearly identified” candidate.

Background

Unity08, a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of 

the District of Columbia, described 

itself as a “political movement” 

formed for the purpose of nominating and electing a “Unity Ticket” 

in the 2008 Presidential election. 

Unity08 intended to solicit funds 

via the Internet in order to qualify 

for a position on the ballot in approximately 37 states and planned to 

hold an “Internet online nominating 

convention” to select its candidates 

for President and Vice President. 

Unity08 submitted an advisory 

opinion (AO) request asking whether 

it would be considered a “political committee” before the conclusion of its online convention in the 

summer of 2008. In AO 2006-20 

(See November 2006 Record, page 

4), the Commission concluded 

that Unity08 would be a politiApril Reporting Reminder

The following reports are due in 

April:

•	 All principal campaign committees of House and Senate candidates must file a quarterly report 

by April 15, 2010. The report covers financial activity from January 

1 (or the day after the closing date 

of the last report) through March 

31; 

•	 Principal campaign committees

of Presidential candidates must 

file a report by April 15, if they 

are quarterly filers (the report 

covers financial activity from 

January 1 through March 31), or 

by April 20, if they are monthly 

filers (the report covers activity 

for the month of March); and

•	 National party committees, political action committees (PACs) following a monthly filing schedule 

and state, district and local party 

committees that engage in reportable “federal election activity” 

(see “State, District and Local 

Party Committees, on page 5) 

must file a monthly report by 

April 20. This report covers activity for the month of March. 11 

CFR 104.5.
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2010

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530 (Toll-Free)

202/694-1100 (Information Div.)

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Matthew S. Petersen, 

 Chairman

Cynthia L. Bauerly, 

 Vice Chair

Caroline C. Hunter, 

 Commissioner

Donald F. McGahn II, 

 Commissioner

Steven T. Walther,

 Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, 

 Commissioner

Alec Palmer,

 Acting Staff Director

Thomasenia Duncan, 

 General Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division of the Office of 

 Communications

Greg J. Scott, 

 Assistant Staff Director

Amy L. Kort,

 Deputy Assistant Staff Director

Myles G. Martin, 

 Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

cal committee once it spent more 

than $1,000 for ballot access, since 

spending money for ballot access is 

considered an expenditure under the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act), Commission regulations and 

prior advisory opinions. See 11 CFR 

100.111(a). Additionally, the Commission determined that Unity08’s 

“major purpose” was the nomination 

or election of federal candidates, 

and therefore the FEC was not 

prevented by the First Amendment 

from finding that Unity08’s activities 

qualified it as a political committee. 

Unity08 filed suit seeking to enjoin 

the FEC from enforcing AO 2006-20 

against it and seeking a declaratory 

judgment that the advisory opinion 

violated its First Amendment rights. 

The FEC filed for summary judgment, arguing that Unity08 lacked 

standing to bring the action and that, 

even if Unity08 had standing, the 

FEC’s decision was neither arbitrary 

nor capricious, nor did the decision infringe on the Plaintiff’s First 

Amendment rights.

District Court Decision

On October 16, 2008, the district 

court held that, since Unity08 sought 

to obtain ballot access merely as a 

placeholder for its candidates, it was 

reasonable for the Commission to 

conclude that any monies Unity08 

spent to qualify for the ballot 

would be considered expenditures 

under the Act. The court held that 

Unity08’s ballot access was certain 

to benefit its candidates, who would 

be identified by party affiliation and 

office sought, and who would have 

declared their intentions to run for 

federal office when this benefit was 

conferred upon them. Large, unregulated disbursements made to obtain 

such access would therefore present 

the possibility of actual or apparent 

corruption that the Act was intended 

to limit. The court also concluded 

that the FEC’s determination that 

Unity08 would qualify as a political committee did not violate the 

First Amendment because Unity08’s 

major purpose was to nominate and 

support candidates for federal office. 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia, 1:07-cv-00053-RWR.

Appellate Court Decision

The appeals court reversed the 

district court’s decision and ruled in 

favor of the Plaintiff. 

The appeals court rejected 

the Commission’s argument that 

the case was moot once Unity08 

ceased activity. The court noted 

that Unity08 claims it will continue 

operations if it wins this appeal. The 

court also rejected the Commission’s 

argument that the Administrative 

Procedure Act does not authorize 

review of advisory opinions because 

the opinion is not “final agency action.” The court, quoting Chicago 

& Southern Air Lines v. Waterman 

Steamship Corp, 333 U.S. 103, 113 

(1948), noted that administrative 

orders are final when “they impose 

an obligation, deny a right or fix 

some legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process.” In this case, the court found 

that the advisory opinion procedure 

is complete and deprives the Plaintiff of a legal right—2 U.S.C. § 

437f(c)’s reliance defense, which 

the Plaintiff would enjoy if it had 

obtained a favorable resolution in 

the advisory process. Additionally, 

the court rejected the Commission’s 

argument that the text and structure 

of the Act indicated Congressional 

intent to preclude judicial review 

of Commission advisory opinions. 

The court stated it was “improbable 

that Congress’s imposition of some 

procedural rules for investigations 

should, with little else, be read as 

an intention to implicitly preclude 

judicial review, particularly in contexts implicating First Amendment 

values.” Slip op. at 10. 

Additionally, the court agreed 

with the Plaintiff’s argument that 

Unity08 is not subject to regulation 

as a political committee unless and 

until it selects a “clearly identified” 

candidate. The court applied its 

ruling in FEC v. Machinists NonPartisan Political League, 655 F.2d 

380 (D.C. Cir. 1981), which found 

that draft groups were outside of 

the scope of the Act. In Machinists, 

the court used the “major purpose” 

test in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 

79 (1976), to determine that draft 

groups “whose activities are not 

under the control of a ‘candidate’ 

or directly related to promoting or 

defeating a clearly identified ‘candidate’” enjoyed protection from 

regulation under the Act. 655 F.2d at 

393. Similar to Machinists, Unity08 

did not fulfill the “major purpose” 

(continued on page 3)
April 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Court Cases

(continued from page 2)

(continued on page 4)

test from Buckley. The court also 

found the risk of corruption from 

Unity08’s activities no greater 

than the risk presented by the draft 

groups in Machinists.

Finally, the court rejected the 

Commission’s argument that accepting Unity08’s reading of Machinists

would exempt political parties from 

regulation as political committees 

each election cycle until they actually nominated their candidates. 

According to the court, Unity08’s request for an AO “presented only the 

question of whether a group that has 

never supported a clearly identified 

candidate—and so far as appears 

will not support any candidate after 

the end of its ‘draft’ process—comes 

within the holding of Machinists.” 

The court found that Unity08 stands 

in contrast to political parties that 

have previously supported “clearly 

identified” candidates and almost 

invariably intend to support their 

nominees.

The text of the court’s opinion is 

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

litigation/u08_ac_opinion.pdf

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (No. 

08-5526).

—Stephanie Caccomo

Utility Workers Union of 

America, Local 369, AFLCIO v. FEC

On March 8, 2010, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia denied the Commission’s 

motion to dismiss and denied Utility 

Workers Union of America, Local 

369’s (Plaintiff’s) oral motion for 

summary judgment regarding the 

Plaintiff’s suit against the FEC for 

dismissing an administrative complaint alleging that Covanta Energy 

Corporation (“Covanta”) unlawfully solicited contributions to its 

separate segregated fund (SSF) in 

its employee handbook. The district court remanded the case to the 

Commission for further explanation 

and proceedings consistent with the 

court’s opinion.

Background

The Plaintiff filed an administrative complaint with the Commission in October 2008 alleging 

that Covanta violated the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) by 

including language in its employee 

handbook that solicited contributions 

from employees to Covanta’s SSF. 

Under the Act, SSFs may only solicit 

contributions from a corporation’s 

“restricted class,” which consists of 

stockholders, executive and administrative personnel and the families of 

both groups. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b). The 

Plaintiff alleged that the handbook 

violated the Act by impermissibly 

soliciting all employees and by not 

following other requirements. 

The FEC dismissed the Plaintiff’s 

complaint. Applying the standard set 

forth in Commission advisory opinions for determining whether a communication amounts to a solicitation, 

the Commission concluded that the 

language in Covanta’s employee 

handbook was not a solicitation 

because it did not encourage support 

for the [SSF] or facilitate the making 

of contributions to the [SSF], but 

“merely convey[ed] information that 

might engender inquiry.”

The Plaintiff brought suit challenging the Commission’s dismissal 

of its administrative complaint under 

2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A), which 

states that any party aggrieved by an 

order of the Commission dismissing a complaint may file a petition 

with the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff argued that the 

Commission’s dismissal of the 

administrative complaint was flawed 

and that the Commission’s Explanation and Justification (E&J) on 

SSF solicitations calls into question 

the Commission’s order. That E&J 

explains that an SSF “may accept 

unsolicited contributions from persons otherwise permitted by the Act 

to make contributions. Informing 

persons of the right to accept such 

contributions is, however, a solicitation.” H.R. Doc. No. 95-44, 109 

(January 12, 1977).1

District Court Decision

The district court held that it 

could not sustain the Commission’s 

administrative decision because 

neither the Factual and Legal Analysis explaining the decision nor the 

precedent it cites enables the court 

to discern the Commission’s rationale in determining that the Covanta 

handbook did not inform persons of 

the SSF’s right to accept contributions, and thus that is was not a solicitation as interpreted by the E&J.

The court held that a remand to 

the Commission for further explanation is the appropriate remedy in this 

situation because, on remand, the 

Commission may be able to supply a 

reasoned analysis for its dismissal of 

the Plaintiff’s complaint in a manner 

consistent with the E&J. The court 

also held that the Commission did 

not improperly rely on its own past 

advisory opinions when it cited them 

in its order.

The text of the court’s opinion 

is available on the Commission’s 

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

litigation/uwu_opinion.pdf. 

United States District Court for 

the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 09-01022.

—Myles Martin

1 The Commission’s Explanation and 

Justification is available on the FEC’s 

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

ej_compilation/1977/95-44.pdf.
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2010

4

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

Fieger v. FEC

On February 26, 2010, the 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan granted the 

Commission’s motion for summary 

judgment in Fieger v. FEC and 

dismissed the case, finding that the 

court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Geoffrey Fieger (Plaintiff) was not the party who made the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

requests at issue and so Plaintiff 

lacked standing to file suit.

Background

In July of 2008, Michael Deszi, 

an attorney with the law firm Fieger, 

Fieger, Kenney, Johnson, and Giroux, PC, made a formal request to 

the Commission for records under 

FOIA. Mr. Deszi made a second request to the Commission in October 

2008. These requests sought documents related to the Commission’s 

interactions with the Department of 

Justice and the White House.

The Commission provided responsive material, but the Plaintiff’s 

lawsuit asked the district court to 

order the Commission to do further 

searching and make further disclosures. The Commission filed a motion for summary judgment arguing 

that the Plaintiff lacked standing, 

that the agency had made a goodfaith effort to locate the requested 

items, and that the agency’s withholding of certain material was 

justified.

District Court Decision

The district court held that it was 

not possible to discern from the two 

letters Mr. Deszi sent to the Commission that they were requests for 

documents by or on behalf of Mr. 

Fieger, since Mr. Fieger did not sign 

the letters, and nowhere in either 

letter was there a statement or suggestion that Mr. Deszi had made the 

requests on Fieger’s behalf. 

The court held that a plaintiff 

cannot show injury-in-fact when he 

has not made a request for information on his own or explicitly through 

counsel. The court explained that a 

plaintiff who bases a FOIA lawsuit 

upon the request for information by 

another person does not satisfy the 

constitutional standing requirement, 

which requires that he must assert a 

violation of his own legal rights.

Although the Plaintiff argued that 

Mr. Deszi was acting as counsel in 

a representative capacity, the court 

held that federal FOIA jurisprudence 

leaves no doubt that a lawyer’s 

request for information must plainly 

spell out the representative capacity and the identity of the client 

before that client can bring a FOIA 

action in his or her own name and 

that when an attorney files a FOIA 

request on behalf of a client, the 

attorney is the one to whom courts 

have granted standing to sue. 

Accordingly, the court granted the 

Commission’s motion for summary 

judgment and dismissed the case for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Additional Information

The court’s decision is available 

on the Commission’s website at 

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

fieger08_opinion.pdf.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan, Southern Division, Case No. 2:08-cv-1425.

—Myles Martin

Reports

(continued from page 1)

Notification of Filing Deadlines

In addition to publishing this 

article, the Commission notifies 

committees of filing deadlines on its 

website, via its automated Faxline 

and through reporting reminders 

called prior notices. Prior notices are 

distributed exclusively by electronic 

mail. For that reason, it is important that every committee update 

its Statement of Organization (FEC 

Form 1) to disclose a current e-mail 

address. To amend Form 1, electronic filers must submit Form 1 filled 

(continued on page 5)

out in its entirety. Paper filers should 

include only the committee’s name, 

address, FEC identification number 

and the updated or changed portions 

of the form.

Treasurer’s Responsibilities

The Commission provides 

reminders of upcoming filing dates 

as a courtesy to help committees 

comply with the filing deadlines set 

forth in the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission 

regulations. Committee treasurers 

must comply with all applicable 

filing deadlines established by law, 

and the lack of prior notice does 

not constitute an excuse for failing 

to comply with any filing deadline. 

Accordingly, reports filed by methods other than electronically, or 

other than Registered, Certified or 

Overnight Mail (see page 5) must be 

received by the Commission’s (or 

the Secretary of the Senate’s) close 

of business on the last business day 

before the deadline.

Filing Electronically

Under the Commission’s mandatory electronic filing regulations, 

individuals and organizations that 

receive contributions or make expenditures, including independent 

expenditures, in excess of $50,000 in 

a calendar year—or have reason to 

Georgia Special 

Election: 9th District 

Georgia will hold a special general election on May 11, 2010, 

to fill a vacancy caused by the 

resignation of Rep. Nathan Deal. 

Under Georgia law, should no 

candidate receive a majority of 

votes, a special runoff election 

will be held between the top two 

vote-getters on June 8, 2010. The 

reporting dates for committees involved in these elections are available at http://www.fec.gov/info/

report_dates_2010.shtml#special.
April 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

expect to do so—must file all reports 

and statements with the FEC electronically.1

 Reports filed electronically must be received and validated 

by the Commission by 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Standard/Daylight Time 

on the applicable filing deadline. 

Electronic filers who instead file on 

paper or submit an electronic report 

that does not pass the Commission’s 

validation program by the filing 

deadline will be considered nonfilers 

and may be subject to enforcement 

actions, including administrative 

fines. 11 CFR 104.18(e).

Senate committees and other 

committees that file with the Secretary of the Senate are not subject to 

the mandatory electronic filing rules, 

but may file an unofficial copy of 

their reports with the Commission in 

order to speed disclosure. 

The Commission’s electronic 

filing software, FECFile, is free and 

can be downloaded from the FEC’s 

web site. FECFile Version 6.4.1.2 

is available for download from the 

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

elecfil/updatelist.html. All reports 

filed after July 8, 2009, must be filed 

in Format Version 6.4.1.2. Reports 

filed in previous formats will not be 

accepted. Filers may also use commercial or privately developed software as long as the software meets 

the Commission’s format specifications, which are available on the 

Commission’s web site. Committees 

using commercial software should 

contact their vendors for more 

information about the Commission’s 

latest software release.

Timely Filing for Paper Filers

Registered and Certified Mail. 

Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked on or 

before the mailing deadline to be 

considered timely filed. A committee sending its reports by certified 

or registered mail should keep its 

mailing receipt with the U.S. Postal 

Service (USPS) postmark as proof 

of filing because the USPS does 

not keep complete records of items 

sent by certified mail. See 2 U.S.C. 

§434(a)(5) and 11 CFR 104.5(e).

Overnight Mail. Reports filed via 

overnight mail2

 will be considered 

timely filed if the report is received 

by the delivery service on or before 

the mailing deadline. A committee 

sending its reports by Express or 

Priority Mail, or by an overnight delivery service, should keep its proof 

of mailing or other means of transmittal of its reports. See 2 U.S.C. 

§434(a)(5) and 11 CFR 104.5(e).

Other Means of Filing. Reports 

sent by other means—including first 

class mail and courier—must be 

received by the FEC (or the Secretary of the Senate) before close of 

business on the filing deadline. See 

11 CFR 100.19 and 104.5(e).

Paper forms are available for 

downloading at the FEC’s website 

(http://www.fec.gov/info/forms.

shtml) and from FEC Faxline, the 

agency’s automated fax system 

(202/501-3413). The 2010 Reporting Schedule is also available on the 

FEC’s website (http://www.fec.gov/

info/report_dates_2010.shtml), and 

from Faxline. For more information on reporting, call the FEC at 

800/424-9530 or 202/694-1100.

State, District and Local Party 

Committees

State, district and local party 

committees that engage in certain 

levels of “federal election activity” 

must file on a monthly schedule. 

See 11 CFR 300.36(b) and (c)(1). 

Committees that do not engage in 

reportable “federal election activity” 

may file on a quarterly basis in 2010. 

See 11 CFR 104.5(c)(1)(i).

National Party Committees

National committees of political 

parties must file on a monthly schedule in all years. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(4) 

(B) and 11 CFR 104.5(c)(4). 

Political Action Committees

PACs (separate segregated funds 

and nonconnected committees) 

that filed on a semi-annual basis 

in 2009 file on a quarterly basis in 

2010. Monthly filers continue on 

the monthly schedule. PACs may 

change their filing schedule, but 

must first notify the Commission in 

writing. Electronic filers must file 

this request electronically. A committee may change its filing frequency only once a year, after giving 

notice of change in filing frequency 

to the Commission. The committee 

will receive a letter indicating the 

Commission’s acknowledgment of 

the request. All future reports must 

follow the new filing frequency. 11 

CFR 104.5(c).

Additional Information

For more information on 2010 

reporting dates:

•	 See the reporting tables in the

January 2010 Record;

•	 Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 or 202/694-1100;

•	 Fax the reporting tables to

yourself using the FEC’s Faxline 

(202/501-3413, document 586); 

or

•	 Visit the FEC’s web page at

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

dates_2010.shtml to view the 

reporting tables online.

—Elizabeth Kurland

2

“Overnight mail” includes Priority or 

Express Mail having a delivery confirmation, or an overnight service with 

which the report is scheduled for next 

business day delivery and is recorded in 

the service’s on-line tracking system. 

1

The regulation covers individuals and 

organizations required to file reports of 

contributions and/or expenditures with 

the Commission, including any person 

making an independent expenditure. 

Disbursements for “electioneering 

communications” do not count toward 

the $50,000 threshold for mandatory 

electronic filing. 11 CFR 104.18(a). 

Reports

(continued from page 4)

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2010

6

Pennsylvania 12th District Special Election 

Reporting 

Committees Involved in the Special General (05/18/10) 

Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books1 Mailing Date Date

Pre-General April 28 May 3 May 6

Post-General June 7 June 17 June 17

July Quarterly June 30 July 15 July 15

1 This date indicates the end of a reporting period. A reporting period 

always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the 

committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must 

cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered.

Reports

(continued from page 5)

Pennsylvania Special 

Election Reporting: 12th

District

Pennsylvania will hold a Special 

Election to fill the U.S. House seat in 

the 12th Congressional District held 

by the late Representative John P. 

Murtha. The Special General Election will be held on May 18, 2010. 

Candidate committees involved in 

this election must follow the reporting schedule above. Please note that 

the reporting period for the PostGeneral election report spans two 

election cycles. For this report only, 

authorized committees must use the 

Post-Election Detailed Summary 

Page rather than the normal Detailed 

Summary Page.

PACs and party committees that 

file on a quarterly schedule and participate in this election must also follow the schedule at right. PACs and 

party committees that file monthly 

must continue to file according to 

their regular filing schedule.

Filing Electronically

Reports filed electronically must 

be received and validated by the 

Commission by 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the applicable filing deadline. Electronic filers who instead 

file on paper or submit an electronic 

report that does not pass the Commission’s validation program by the 

filing deadline will be considered 

nonfilers and may be subject to enforcement actions, including administrative fines.

Timely Filing for Paper Filers

Registered and Certified Mail. 

Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked on or 

before the mailing deadline to be 

considered timely filed. A committee 

sending its reports by registered or 

certified mail should keep its mailing 

receipt with the U.S. Postal Service 

(USPS) postmark as proof of filing 

because the USPS does not keep 

complete records of items sent by 

certified mail. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(5) 

and 11 CFR 104.5(e).

Overnight Mail. Reports filed via 

overnight mail1

 will be considered 

timely filed if the report is received 

by the delivery service on or before 

the mailing deadline. A committee sending its reports by Express 

or Priority Mail, or by an overnight 

delivery service, should keep its 

proof of mailing or other means of 

transmittal of its reports. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(a)(5) and 11 CFR 104.5(e).

Other Means of Filing. Reports 

sent by other means—including 

first class mail and courier—must 

be received by the FEC before the 

Commission’s close of business on 

the filing deadline. 11 CFR 100.19 

and 104.5(e).

Forms are available for downloading and printing at the FEC’s 

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

forms.shtml) and from FEC Faxline, 

the agency’s automated fax system 

(202/501-3413). 

48-Hour Contribution Notices

Note that 48-hour notices are 

required of the participating candidate’s principal campaign committee if it receives any contribution of 

$1,000 or more per source between 

April 29 and May 15, 2010, for the 

Special General Election.

24- and 48-Hour Reports of 

Independent Expenditures

Political committees and other 

persons must file 24-hour reports of 

independent expenditures that aggregate at or above $1,000 between 

April 29 and May 16, 2010, for 

the Special General Election. This 

requirement is in addition to that of 

filing 48-hour reports of independent 

expenditures that aggregate $10,000 

or more during a calendar year.

Electioneering Communications

The 60-day electioneering communications period in connection 

with the Special General Election 

runs from March 19 through May 

18, 2010.

Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling 

Activity

Campaign committees, party 

committees and leadership PACs 

that are otherwise required to file re1

“Overnight mail” includes Priority or 

Express Mail having a delivery confirmation, or an overnight service with 

which the report is scheduled for next 

business day delivery and is recorded in 

the service’s on-line tracking system. (continued on page 7)
April 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

(continued on page 8)

Hawaii 1st District Special Election 

Reporting 

Committees Involved in the Special General (05/22/10) 

Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books1 Mailing Date Date

Pre-General May 2 May 7 May 10

Post-General June 11 June 21 June 21

July Quarterly June 30 July 15 July 15

Reports

(continued from page 6)

ports in connection with the special 

elections must simultaneously file 

FEC Form 3L if they receive two 

or more bundled contributions from 

lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess 

of $16,000 during the special election reporting period (see reporting 

schedule chart on page 6). 11 CFR 

104.22(a)(5)(v). For more information on these requirements, see the 

March 2009 Record.

—Elizabeth Kurland

Hawaii Special Election 

Reporting: 1st District

Hawaii will hold a Special Election to fill the U.S. House seat in 

Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District 

vacated by Representative Neil 

Abercrombie. The Special General 

Election will be held on May 22, 

2010.

Candidate committees involved 

in this election must follow the 

reporting schedule at right. Please 

note that the reporting period for the 

Post-General election report spans 

two election cycles. For this report 

only, authorized committees must 

use the Post-Election Detailed Summary Page rather than the normal 

Detailed Summary Page.

PACs and party committees that 

file on a quarterly schedule and 

participate in this election must also 

follow the schedule above. PACs and 

party committees that file monthly 

must continue to file according to 

their regular filing schedule.

Filing Electronically

Reports filed electronically must 

be received and validated by the 

Commission by 11:59 p.m. Eastern 

Time on the applicable filing deadline. Electronic filers who instead 

file on paper or submit an electronic 

report that does not pass the Commission’s validation program by the 

filing deadline will be considered 

nonfilers and may be subject to enforcement actions, including administrative fines.

Timely Filing for Paper Filers

Registered and Certified Mail. 

Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked on or 

before the mailing deadline to be 

considered timely filed. A committee 

sending its reports by registered or 

certified mail should keep its mailing 

receipt with the U.S. Postal Service 

(USPS) postmark as proof of filing 

because the USPS does not keep 

complete records of items sent by 

certified mail. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(5) 

and 11 CFR 104.5(e).

Overnight Mail. Reports filed via 

overnight mail1

 will be considered 

timely filed if the report is received 

by the delivery service on or before 

the mailing deadline. A committee sending its reports by Express 

or Priority Mail, or by an overnight 

delivery service, should keep its 

proof of mailing or other means of 

transmittal of its reports. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(a)(5) and 11 CFR 104.5(e).

Other Means of Filing. Reports 

sent by other means—including 

first class mail and courier—must 

be received by the FEC before the 

Commission’s close of business on 

the filing deadline. 11 CFR 100.19 

and 104.5(e).

Forms are available for downloading and printing at the FEC’s 

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

forms.shtml) and from FEC Faxline, 

the agency’s automated fax system 

(202/501-3413). 

48-Hour Contribution Notices

Note that 48-hour notices are 

required of the participating candidate’s principal campaign committee if it receives any contribution of 

$1,000 or more per source between 

May 3 and May 19, 2010, for the 

Special General Election.

24- and 48-Hour Reports of 

Independent Expenditures

Political committees and other 

persons must file 24-hour reports of 

independent expenditures that aggregate at or above $1,000 between 

May 3 and May 20, 2010, for the 

Special General Election. This 

requirement is in addition to that of 

filing 48-hour reports of independent 

expenditures that aggregate $10,000 

or more during a calendar year.

1

“Overnight mail” includes Priority or 

Express Mail having a delivery confirmation, or an overnight service with 

which the report is scheduled for next 

business day delivery and is recorded in 

the service’s on-line tracking system.

1 This date indicates the end of a reporting period. A reporting period 

always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the 

committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must 

cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered.
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2010

8

Reports

(continued from page 7)

Electioneering Communications

The 60-day electioneering communications period in connection 

with the Special General Election 

runs from March 23 through May 

22, 2010.

Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling 

Activity

Campaign committees, party 

committees and leadership PACs 

that are otherwise required to file reports in connection with the special 

elections must simultaneously file 

FEC Form 3L if they receive two 

or more bundled contributions from 

lobbyists/registrants or lobbyist/registrant PACs that aggregate in excess 

of $16,000 during the special election reporting period (see reporting 

schedule chart on page 7). 11 CFR 

104.22(a)(5)(v). For more information on these requirements, see the 

March 2009 Record.

—Elizabeth Kurland

Regulations

Final Rules on Funds 

Received in Response to 

Solicitations; Allocation of 

Expenses by PACs

On March 11, 2010, the Commission approved final rules regarding 

funds received in response to solicitations and the allocation of certain 

expenses by separate segregated 

funds (SSFs) and nonconnected 

political action committees (PACs). 

The rules were adopted in response 

to a decision by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in EMILY’s List 

v. FEC (EMILY’s List). See the November 2009, Record, page 1.

Background

On September 18, 2009, the 

court of appeals held that Commission regulations at 11 CFR 100.57, 

106.6(c) and 106.6(f) violated the 

First Amendment and also held that 

100.57, 106.6(f) and one provision 

of 106.6(c) exceeded the Commission’s authority under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act). At 

the direction of the court of appeals, 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that these 

rules be vacated.

On December 29, 2009, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the 

Federal Register in which it sought 

public comment on the proposed 

removal of the rules vacated by the 

court. The Commission received two 

comments on the proposed rules, 

which are available on the Commission’s website at http://www.

fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.

shtml#emilyslistrepeal.

Final Rules

Funds Received in Response to 

Solicitations. Commission regulations at 11 CFR 100.57 specified 

that funds provided in response to a 

communication were to be treated 

as contributions if the communications indicated that any portion of 

the funds received would be used to 

support or oppose the election of a 

clearly identified federal candidate. 

11 CFR 100.57(a). All of the funds 

received in response to a solicitation 

that referred both to a clearly identified federal candidate and a political party, but not to any nonfederal 

candidates, were to be treated as 

contributions. 100.57(b)(1). Finally, 

if a solicitation referred to at least 

one clearly identified federal candidate and one or more clearly identified nonfederal candidate(s), then 

at least fifty percent of the funds 

received in response to that solicitation had to be treated as contributions. 100.57(b)(2). The regulation 

provided an exception for certain solicitations for joint fundraisers conducted between or among authorized 

committees of federal candidates 

and the campaign organizations of 

nonfederal candidates. 100.57(c).

The Commission removed 11 

CFR 100.57 in its entirety because 

the court of appeals held that it is 

unconstitutional and that it exceeded 

the Commission’s statutory authority 

under the Act. 

Allocation of Expenses. Commission regulations at 11 CFR 106.6 

provided SSFs and nonconnected 

PACs making disbursements in 

connection with both federal and 

nonfederal elections with instructions as to how to allocate their administrative expenses and costs for 

federal and nonfederal activities. 

The rule at 106.6(c) required 

nonconnected committees and SSFs 

to use at least fifty percent federal funds to pay for administrative 

expenses, generic voter drives and 

public communications that referred 

to a political party, but not to any 

federal or nonfederal candidates. 

The rule at 106.6(f) specified that 

nonconnected committees and SSFs 

had to pay for public communications and voter drives that referred to 

both federal and nonfederal candidates using a percentage of federal 

funds proportionate to the amount of 

the communication that was devoted 

to the federal candidates. 

The Commission removed 

106.6(c) and 106.6(f) in their entirety, as the court of appeals held that 

both provisions are unconstitutional. 

The deletion of the regulations apply 

both to nonconnected committees 

and to SSFs.

Additional Information

The Final Rules were published 

in the Federal Register on March, 

19, 2010, and are effective on April 

19, 2009. The Federal Register 

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

gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2010/

notice_2010-08.pdf.

 —Myles Martin

(continued on page 9)
April 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Regulations

(continued from page 8)

(continued on page 10)

Commission Seeks 

Comments on 

Volunteer Materials 

Exemption Policy

 The Federal Election 

Commission seeks public 

comment on alternative drafts 

of a Volunteer Materials 

Exemption Policy. Commenters 

are encouraged to review the 

drafts and submit comments to 

VMEpolicy@fec.gov. 

 Comments on the drafts are due 

by 5:00pm on April 13, 2010. The 

drafts are available on the FEC’s 

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

law/policy.shtml.

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Debt 

Collection

On February 24, 2010, the 

Commission published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding implementation of statutory 

provisions regarding the collection 

of debts owed to the U.S. Government. The Commission also proposes integrating its rules regarding 

the collection of debts arising solely 

from the Administrative Fine program into the new proposed rules.

Background

The Commission is proposing 

new rules to implement the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

(DCIA), which governs the federal 

government’s debt collection activities, and mandates that all nontax 

debts or claims owed to the United 

States that have been delinquent 

for 180 days shall be referred to the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury or a 

Treasury-designated collection center for appropriate action to collect 

or terminate collection of the claim 

or debt. 31 U.S.C. §3711(g)(1).

The Federal Claims Collection 

Standards (FCCS) were promulgated by the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury and the U.S. Department of Justice, which prescribe the 

standards that federal agencies must 

use in the administrative collection, 

offset, compromise and suspension 

or termination of money, funds or 

property. 31 CFR parts 900-904.

The Commission’s proposed 

regulations would incorporate by 

reference the relevant provisions of 

the DCIA and the FCCS, and the 

Commission sought comment on all 

aspects of the proposed rules. The 

comment period closed on March 

26, 2010.

Proposed Rules on Collection of 

Administrative Debts

The Commission proposes to add 

new part 8 and new subpart C to 11 

CFR Part 111 to provide for debt 

collection. Together, both parts are 

designed to cover all types of debt 

that the Commission must collect. 

The proposed regulations in part 

8 cover only those debts that are 

either owed to the U.S. government 

by current or former Commission 

employees, or arise from the provision of goods or services by contractors or vendors doing business with 

the Commission. Proposed 11 CFR 

8.3 states that the Commission will 

collect the claims or debts covered 

by the proposed 11 CFR part 8 in 

accordance with the DCIA, the 

FCCS and certain other Treasury 

regulations governing debt collection. The proposed rule also states 

that the Commission will refer debts 

to the Treasury Department no later 

than 180 days after the debts become 

delinquent. 11 CFR 8.3(c). During 

the 180 days before the mandatory 

transfer of a debt to the Treasury Department, the Commission may take 

any action authorized by the DCIA, 

the FCCS and Commission regulations to attempt to collect the debt.

Additionally, the Commission’s 

proposed rules at 11 CFR part 8 

provide for instances where a debtor 

has sought bankruptcy protection, 

which may require the Commission 

to take different action pursuant to 

bankruptcy law. 

The Commission shall also assess 

interest, penalties and administrative 

costs on debts owed to the United 

States, in accordance with federal 

law. The proposed rules state that the 

Commission shall waive collection 

of interest and administrative costs 

on debts that are paid within 30 

days after the date on which interest 

begins to accrue. The proposed rules 

also provide that the Commission 

may, at its discretion, waive collection of interest, penalties or administrative costs on any debt, and sets 

out the criteria for waiver.

Proposed Rules on Collection of 

Debts Arising from Enforcement 

and Administration of Campaign 

Finance Laws

The Commission proposes to remove current 11 CFR 111.45, which 

governs debt collection with respect 

to the Administrative Fine program. 

Instead, the proposed regulations at 

11 CFR part 111, subpart C, would 

govern the Commission’s collection 

of debts arising from compliance 

matters, administrative fines, alternative dispute resolution, repayments 

of public funds and court judgments 

arising from the Commission’s 

enforcement of the campaign finance 

laws. The proposed regulations 

cover the collection of debts only, 

and will be invoked only after the 

completion of existing Commission 
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2010

10

Regulations

(continued from page 9)

processes during which respondents 

or other parties have had a full and 

fair opportunity to demonstrate that 

no civil penalty or repayment should 

be imposed.

Like proposed 11 CFR part 8, the 

proposed regulations at 11 CFR part 

11, subpart C state that the Commission will collect claims or debts covered by the proposed 11 CFR part 

111, subpart C, in accordance with 

the DCIA, the FCCS and certain 

other Treasury regulations governing 

debt collection, and will refer debts 

to the Treasury Department no later 

than 180 days after the debts become 

delinquent. 11 CFR 111.51.

The proposed regulations at 

11 CFR part 111, subpart C, also 

contain the same provisions governing the impact of bankruptcy law 

on debt collection and assessment 

and waiver of interest, penalties and 

administrative costs contained in 

proposed 11 CFR part 8, discussed 

above. 11 CFR 111.54 and 111.55.

The proposed regulations also 

note that nothing in proposed 11 

CFR part 111, subpart C, precludes 

the Commission from filing suit in 

court to enforce compliance with a 

conciliation agreement, seek a civil 

money penalty, petition the court 

for a contempt order or otherwise 

exercise its authority to enforce 

or administer the Federal Election 

Campaign Act, the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund Act or the 

Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. 11 CFR 111.53.

Additional Information

The full text of the NPRM is 

available on the FEC’s website at 

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/debtcollection/notice_2010-04.pdf.

 —Myles Martin

AO 2010-01

State Party Activity on 

Behalf of Presumptive 

Nominee

Payments by the Nevada State 

Democratic Party (the State Party) 

for campaign materials may be exempt from the definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” if the 

materials are distributed by volunteers on behalf of the State Party’s 

presumptive nominees.

Background

The State Party plans to purchase 

campaign materials to be used in 

connection with volunteer activities 

on behalf of candidates seeking to 

become the State Party’s nominees 

in the general election. Specifically, 

the State Party plans to have volunteers distribute campaign materials on behalf of federal candidates 

whom the State Party believes will 

either run unopposed in the Nevada primary election, or whom the 

State Party believes are “assured of 

winning the nomination.” The State 

Party asked whether these proposed 

disbursements will be exempt from 

the Federal Election Campaign Act’s 

(the Act’s) definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure.”

Analysis

Under the Act and Commission 

regulations, certain disbursements 

by a state or local committee of a 

political party are exempt from the 

definitions of “contribution” and 

“expenditure” when they are made 

in connection with volunteer activities. 2 U.S.C. §§431(8)(B)(ix) and 

(9)(B)(viii); 11 CFR 100.87 and 

100.147. This “volunteer materials exemption” is limited in several 

respects. In this instance, the most 

important limitation is that the 

materials purchased by the state or 

local party committee must be used 

Advisory 

Opinions

(continued on page 11)

in connection with volunteer activities “on behalf of nominees of such 

party.” 2 U.S.C. §§431(8)(B)(ix) 

and (9)(B)(viii); 11 CFR 100.87, 

100.147.

Although neither the Act nor 

Commission regulations define the 

term “nominee,” the Commission 

has previously determined that the 

volunteer materials exemption may 

apply before the nominee is formally 

selected through the primary process if the party is able to identify 

its nominee “as both a matter of fact 

and as a matter of state law.” See 

Matter Under Review (MUR) 4471.

Under Nevada law, a candidate 

of a major political party must be 

nominated in the primary election. 

In 2010, the Nevada primary will 

be held on June 8th. However, the 

the period to file as a candidate in 

the primary closes on March 12, 

2010, in effect closing the ballot and 

establishing the field of candidates 

seeking major party nominations. At 

this point, any candidate of the State 

Party who is on the state ballot and 

has no primary opponent will be the 

State Party’s presumptive nominee. 

Any candidate who does have an opponent in the primary will not be the 

State Party’s presumptive nominee.

Therefore, payments made by the 

State Party Committee, for materials that are used in connection 

with volunteer activities on behalf 

of candidates not facing primary 

challengers, will qualify for the 

volunteer exemption if those activities take place after March 12. These 

payments will not count against 

the State Party’s coordinated party 

expenditure limit or $5,000 per candidate contribution limit. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a) and §441a(d). By contrast, 

payments made by the State Party, 

for materials that are used in connection with volunteer activities on 

behalf of candidates, will not qualify 

for the volunteer materials exemption if those activities take place 

before March 12, 2010. Such pay-
April 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

ments would either count against the 

State Party’s contribution limit or its 

coordinated party expenditure limit, 

if the expenditures are in connection 

with the general election. 

Date Issued: March 1, 2010;

Length: 5 pages.

—Christopher B. Berg

AO 2010-02

State Party Committee May 

Use Nonfederal Funds To 

Purchase Office Building

A state party committee may use 

a building fund account containing 

nonfederal funds to purchase a state 

party office building if it enters into 

a land sale contract with the building’s owner. However, since the 

State Party Committee does not yet 

know the key terms of the eventual contract, the Commission did 

not have sufficient information to 

determine if the particular contract 

would in fact constitute a land sale 

contract, and would therefore qualify 

as a “purchase” of an office building 

under federal law.

Background

The West Virginia Republican 

Party, Inc. (State Party Committee), 

is a political committee registered 

with the Commission as a state committee of a political party. 2 U.S.C. 

§431(15) and 11 CFR 100.14. The 

State Party Committee rents its 

current party headquarters under a 

lease with an option to purchase. To 

pay the rent on this building, it uses 

funds derived from the sale of its 

previous headquarters. 

Shortly before November 6, 2002, 

the effective date of the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), 

the West Virginia State Republican 

Executive Committee, the predecessor committee to the current State 

Party Committee, received corporate 

contributions that it deposited in a 

building fund account to be used 

to purchase an office building to be 

used as the state party’s headquarters, which it purchased in January 

2003. In February 2008, the State 

Party Committee sold the building and some of the proceeds were 

placed in the building fund account, 

which is segregated from the State 

Party Committee’s federal account. 

Beginning in September 2009, the 

State Party Committee began to 

lease a different office building. This 

lease included an option to purchase 

the building.

The State Party Committee 

proposes to use the proceeds from 

the sale of its previous headquarters 

(plus accrued interest on the proceeds) to pay the rent on the current 

lease. If the State Party Committee 

is unable to use solely nonfederal 

funds from the sales proceeds to pay 

for such rent, the state party committee proposes to exercise the option to 

purchase and enter into a “land sales 

contract” with the building’s owner. 

The State Party Committee would 

then use the remaining proceeds in 

the building fund account to make 

payments on the land sales contract.

Under the land sales contract, the 

State Party Committee would hold 

the equitable title to the property, 

and the seller would retain legal 

title to the property until the final 

payment on the contract is made. 

The State Party Committee could 

not provide additional information 

about the possible land sale contract 

because the terms of the contract 

have not yet been negotiated with 

the owner of the building.

Analysis

The State Party Committee may 

use its building fund account, which 

contains nonfederal funds, to make 

the payments required on a land 

sales contract on the current office 

building. The Federal Election Campaign Act and Commission regulations permit a state party committee 

to use exclusively nonfederal funds 

to purchase an office building, provided that the use of such funds is 

permitted under state law. 2 U.S.C. 

§453(b) and 11 CFR 300.35. The 

Commission has previously treated 

a land sale contract as a contract to 

purchase a building. See AO 1993-9.

Since the State Party Committee 

has not yet entered into a contract, 

the Commission could not make a 

definitive conclusion as to whether 

an eventual contract between the 

current owner and the state party 

committee would qualify as a “purchase” for the purposes of 2 U.S.C. 

§453(b) and 11 CFR 300.35.

The Commission could not approve a response by the required 

four affirmative votes as to whether 

the State Party Committee could use 

only the proceeds of the sale of its 

previous office building (which consisted of nonfederal funds), to make 

payments on its lease with an option 

to buy its current office building.

Date Issued: March 12, 2010;

Length: 4 pages.

 —Myles Martin

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 10)

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2010-03 

Fundraising by federal candidates 

and officeholders for redistricting 

trust (National Democratic Redistricting Trust, February 19, 2010).

AOR 2010-04

Composition of restricted class 

(Wawa, March 11, 2010).
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2010

12

House and Senate 

Campaigns Raise Nearly 

$600 Million in 2009

Congressional campaign receipts 

totaled $597.5 million from January 1 through December 31, 2009, 

the first calendar year of the 2009-

2010 election cycle. This reflects an 

increase of almost 18 percent over 

2007 (the first calendar year of the 

2007-2008 election cycle), according to reports filed with the Commission. Congressional Democratic, 

Republican and other party candidates increased their fundraising 

totals by raising $321.3 million, 

$275.9 million and $384,000, 

respectively, when compared to the 

same one-year period in the previous 

election cycle.

Senate candidates raised $236.3 

million in 2009, an increase of 43.7 

percent from 2007. During 2009, 

Senate candidates reported expenditures of $102.6 million, up from 

$57.9 million spent during 2007, and 

ended 2009 with a cash balance of 

$203.6 million. Six years ago, when 

the same Senate seats were up for 

election, candidates raised $166.7 

million during the year before the 

mid-term elections. However, there 

are two additional open seats this 

election cycle due to the vacancies 

created by the Senate resignations of 

Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In addition, a Senate vacancy occurred in 

Massachusetts after Senator Edward 

Kennedy’s death.

Candidates for the U.S. House 

of Representatives raised $361.2 

million in 2009, an increase of over 

5 percent compared to 2007 levels. 

These campaigns spent $195.9 million, more than 5 percent over total 

expenditures in 2007. They entered 

the election year with cash-on-hand 

of $326.2 million, up 10 percent 

from the $296.6 million reported at 

the end of 2007. 

Receipts for House Democratic 

campaigns were $199.9 million 

in 2009, a decrease of less than 1 

percent from their 2007 total. While 

Democratic House incumbents increased their fundraising total compared to 2007, Democratic House 

challengers and open seat candidates 

reported a decrease in the amount of 

contributions received compared to 

2007. Republican House candidates 

raised $161 million in 2009, a 12.9 

percent increase from 2007. Unlike Democratic House candidates, 

Republican House challengers and 

open seat candidates reported an 

increase in contributions in 2009, 

while incumbents reported a decrease in contributions compared to 

2007.

Individual contributions remain 

the largest source of Congressional 

campaign revenues. The $363.9 

million contributed by individuals 

in 2009 was almost 31 percent more 

than in 2007 and represented 61 

percent of all fundraising during the 

year, up from 55 percent in 2007. 

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (BCRA) increased 

campaign contribution limits for 

individuals from $1,000 per election to $2,000 and indexed them for 

inflation. The limit for individual 

contributions in 2009-2010 is $2,400 

per election, or a total of $4,800 for 

a primary and general election. 

Although contribution limits to 

Congressional campaigns from political action committees (PACs) and 

other candidate committees were 

left largely unchanged under BCRA, 

contributions from these entities 

increased by 1.5 percent to $159.8 

million in 2009. Contributions and 

loans made by candidates to their 

own campaigns totaled $51.5 million 

or 8.6 percent of all funds raised, an 

increase of $23.4 million from 2007.

Receipts include contributions, 

transfers from other committees, 

loans, refunds from vendors, interest 

income and other revenue.

The full text of the Commission’s press release on candidate fundraising in 2009 is 

available on the Commission’s 

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

press2010/20100322Candidate.

shtml.

—Myles Martin

PACRONYMS Now 

Available

 The December 2009 edition 

of PACRONYMS, a list of 

the acronyms, abbreviations 

and common names of federal 

political action committees 

(PACs), is available on the 

Commission’s website. 

 PACRONYMS is available 

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

pacronyms/pacronyms.shtml and 

is also available from the FEC’s 

Public Records Office at (202) 

694-1120.

Campaign Guides 

Available

 For each type of committee, a 

Campaign Guide explains, in clear 

English, the complex regulations 

regarding the activity of political 

committees. It shows readers, 

for example, how to fill out FEC 

reports and illustrates how the law 

applies to practical situations.

 The FEC publishes four 

Campaign Guides, each for a 

different type of committee, 

and we are happy to mail your 

committee as many copies as 

you need, free of charge. We 

encourage you to view them on 

our web site (www.fec.gov).

 If you would like to place an 

order for paper copies of the 

Campaign Guides, please call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530.

Statistics

(continued on page 13)
April 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Party Committees Report 

Slight Increase in 2009 

Receipts

The national, state and local 

committees of the Republican and 

Democratic parties collected a total 

of $425.8 million in contributions 

in the first calendar year of the 2010 

election cycle, an increase of 1.5 

percent over the same period in the 

2008 election cycle, according to 

reports filed with the Commission. 

Republican party committees reported raising $206.2 million in federal funds in 2009, down less than 1 

percent from the $208.3 million they 

raised in 2007. Their Democratic 

counterparts reported raising $219.5 

million—4 percent more than the 

$211.3 million they raised during the 

same period in the last cycle. 

National committees of the 

major parties are required to submit 

financial reports on a monthly basis. 

As a result, it is possible to compare 

their activity over a 13-month period 

from January 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. During this period, 

the three national committees of the 

Democratic party—the Democratic 

National Committee (DNC), the 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign 

Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign 

Committee (DCCC) —reported 

raising a total of nearly $202 million. This represents an increase of 

6 percent over the same period in 

2007-2008 and 33 percent over the 

first 13 months of the 2006 election 

cycle. The three Republican national 

party committees—the Republican 

National Committee (RNC), the 

National Republican Senatorial 

Committee (NRSC) and the National 

Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) —reported raising 

a combined $188.7 million during 

the same period. This represents 

an increase of over 1 percent from 

2007-2008 and a decrease of more 

than 17 percent from 2005-2006.

The DSCC and DCCC each 

reported a decrease in their total 

receipts compared to the same 

13-month period in prior cycles, 

while the DNC reported an increase. 

The DSCC and DCCC reported a total of $48.7 and $60.3 million in receipts—a drop of 18 percent and 16 

percent, respectively, from the last 

cycle. The DNC raised nearly $93 

million through January 31, 2010, 

representing a 54 percent increase 

in receipts from the same period in 

2007-2008 and a 52 percent increase 

from that period in 2005-2006. 

Of the six national party committees, the RNC raised the most, 

disclosing $101.7 million in receipts, 

an increase of over 4 percent from 

its 13-month total in 2007-2008, but 

a decrease of almost 15 percent from 

its 2005-2006 total for the same 

period. The NRSC saw its receipts 

increase by 31 percent over its 

2007-2008 period total, disclosing 

$46.3 million in receipts. The NRCC 

reported receiving $40.7 million, a 

decrease of almost 24 percent from 

the amount raised for the same 

13-month period in the last cycle. 

The full text of the Commission’s 

press release on party committee fundraising in 2009 is available at http://www.fec.gov/press/

press2010/20100309Party.shtml.

—Myles Martin

Millions of Dollars Millions of Dollars

Democratic Party Receipts Republican Party Receipts

National Party Committee Receipts in Non-Election Years, 2003-2009

Statistics

(continued from page 12)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Millions of Dollars

2003 2005 2007 2009

Non-Election Year 

Democratic Party Federal 

Receipts 1999-2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2005 2007 2009

Non-Election Year 

Democratic Party Federal 

Receipts 1999-2009
Federal Election Commission RECORD April 2010

14

Conferences in 2010

Nonconnected Committees 

Seminar

April 7, 2010

FEC Headquarters

Washington, DC

Conference for Candidates and 

Party Committees

May 3-4, 2010

Omni Shoreham Hotel

Washington, DC

Conference for Trade 

Associations, Membership 

Organizations, Labor 

Organizations and their PACs

June 8-9, 2010

Doubletree Crystal City

Arlington, VA

Outreach

Seminar for Nonconnected 

Political Action Committees

On April 7, 2010, the Commission will hold a one-day seminar 

for nonconnected committees (i.e., 

PACs not sponsored by a corporation, union, trade association or 

incorporated membership organization) at its headquarters at 999 E 

Street, NW, in Washington, DC. This 

seminar is recommended for:

•	 Treasurers of leadership PACs,

partnership PACs and other 

nonconnected PACs;

•	 Staff of the above organizations who have responsibility for 

compliance with federal campaign finance laws;

•	 Attorneys, accountants and consultants who have clients that are 

nonconnected PACs or unregistered “section 527”organizations; 

and

•	 Anyone who wants to gain

in-depth knowledge of federal 

campaign finance laws, including the recently enacted lobbyist 

bundling and disclosure rules, as 

they apply to leadership PACs 

and other types of nonconnected 

committees.

The seminar will address issues 

such as fundraising and reporting, 

as well as the FEC’s rules on when 

section 527 organizations trigger 

federal reporting requirements. 

Experienced FEC staff will specifically discuss recent changes to the 

campaign finance law, as well as the 

rules specific to leadership PACs and 

partnership PACs.

The registration fee for this seminar is $100 per attendee. Payment 

by credit card is required prior to 

the seminar. A full refund will be 

made for all cancellations received 

before 5 p.m. EDT on April 2. 

Complete information is available 

on the FEC website at http://www.

fec.gov/info/conferences/2010/

nonconnected2010.shtml, along 

with the seminar agenda and a list of 

hotels located near the FEC. Further 

questions about the seminar should 

be directed to the Information 

Division by phone at 800/424-9530 

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

or via e-mail to Conferences@fec.

gov. 

—Katherine Carothers

Washington, DC, Conference 

for Campaigns and Party 

Committees

The Commission will hold a 

conference for House and Senate 

campaigns and political party committees in Washington, DC, on May 

3-4, 2010. Commissioners and staff 

will conduct a variety of technical 

workshops on federal campaign finance law. Workshops are designed 

for those seeking an introduction 

to the basic provisions of the law 

as well as for those more experienced in campaign finance law. For 

additional information, to view the 

conference agenda or to register 

for the conference, please visit the 

conference website at http://www.

fec.gov/info/conferences/2010/candparty10.shtml.

Hotel Information. The conference will be held at the Omni Shoreham hotel in northwest Washington, 

DC, near the National Zoo and the 

Woodley-Park-National Zoo Metro 

subway station (Red Line). To make 

your hotel reservations and reserve 

this group rate, call 1-800-THE-OMNI and identify yourself as attending 

the Federal Election Commission 

conference. (Alternatively, click the 

link on the FEC’s conference website.) The FEC recommends waiting 

to make hotel and air reservations 

until you have received confirmation 

or your conference registration from 

Sylvester Management Corporation. 

Registration Information. The 

registration fee for this conference 

is $550, which includes a $25 nonrefundable transaction fee. Complete 

registration information is available 

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

conferences/2010/candparty10.

shtml. 

FEC Conference Questions

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

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

toni@sylvestermanagement.com). 

For questions about other conferences and workshops in 2010, please 

call the FEC’s Information Division 

at 1-800/424-9530 (press 6) or (202) 

694-1100, or send an e-mail to Conferences@fec.gov. 

—Katherine Carothers

Washington, DC, Conference 

for Trade Associations, 

Membership Organizations 

and Labor Organizations

The Commission will hold its 

annual conference for trade associations, membership organizations 

and labor organizations and their 

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

2010. Commissioners and staff will 

(continued on page 15)
April 2010 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

Index

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

the 2010 Record issue in which the 

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

the page number in that issue. For 

example, “1:4” means that the article 

is in the January issue on page four.

Advisory Opinions

2009-29: Membership organization 

may establish SSF without vote of 

its membership, 2:4

2009-30: Trade association corporate 

members may use treasury funds to 

assist their SSFs, 3:9

2009-31: Employees may use credits 

to make contributions to SSF, 3:10

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

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

2010-02: State party committee may 

use nonfederal funds to purchase 

office building, 4:11

Commission

Commission statement on Citizens 

United v. FEC, 3:1

FEC Elects Chairman and Vice 

Chair for 2010, 1:1

FEC Introduces new compliance 

map, 2:2

Message from the Chairman, 2:1

Compliance

Nonfilers, 3:12

Court Cases

______v. FEC

 - Cao, 3:1

 - Citizens United, 2:1

 - Fieger, 4:4

 - Unity08, 4:1

 - Utility Workers, et. al, 4:3

Inflation Adjustments

2010 Coordinated party expenditure 

limits, 3:5

Lobbyist bundling threshold unchanged for 2010, 3:6

Outreach

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

13; 4:14

Nonconnected Committee Seminar, 

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

Roundtable on new travel rules, 1:15; 

2:6

Year-End reporting roundtable, 1:14

Regulations

Final Rules on campaign travel, 1:1

Final Rules on funds received in 

response to solicitations; allocation 

of expenses by PACs, 4:8

Hearing on proposed federal election 

activity (FEA) rules, 3:8

NPRM on debt collection, 4:9

NPRM on federal candidates’ and 

officeholders’ participation in party 

fundraisers, 1:5

NPRM on funds received in response 

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

Petition for rulemaking on Citizens 

United, 3:7

Public hearing rescheduled for March 

16, 3:7

Supplemental NPRM on Coordinated 

Communications, 3:7

Reports

Florida Special Election Reporting: 

19th District, 1:12

Georgia Special Election Reporting: 

9th District, 4:4

Hawaii Special Election Reporting: 

1st District, 4:7

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

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

Statistics

House and Senate campaigns raise 

nearly $600 million in 2009, 4:12

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

Outreach

(continued from page 14)

conduct a variety of technical workshops on federal campaign finance 

law. Workshops are designed for 

those seeking an introduction to the 

basic provisions of the law as well as 

for those more experienced in campaign finance law. For additional 

information, to view the conference 

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

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

outreach.shtml#conferences.

Hotel Information. The conference will be held at the DoubleTree 

Crystal City Hotel in Arlington, VA 

(near the Pentagon). A room rate of 

$226 single/$246 double is available 

to conference attendees who make 

reservations on or before May 7, 

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

call 1-800-HHONORS and identify 

yourself as attending the Federal 

Election Commission conference. 

The hotel is in walking distance (10 

minutes) from the Pentagon City 

Metro subway station. The FEC 

recommends waiting to make hotel 

and air reservations until you have 

received confirmation or your conference registration from Sylvester 

Management Corporation.

Registration Information. The 

registration fee is $499 per attendee, 

which includes a $25 non-refundable 

transaction fee. A late registration 

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

May 7. For additional information, 

or to register for the conference, 

please visit the conference website 

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

shtml#conferences.

FEC Conference Questions

Please direct all questions about 

the June conference registration 

and fees to Sylvester Management 

Corporation at 1-800/246-7277 or 

by e-mail to toni@sylvestermanagement.com. For all questions 

about the conference program, or to 

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

the FEC’s Information Division at 

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

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

to Conferences@fec.gov.

—Dorothy Yeager