The FEC Record is produced by the Information Division, Office of Communications. Toll free 800-424-9530; 

Local 202-694-1100; E-mail info@fec.gov. 

Greg Scott, Director; Amy Kort, Deputy Director; Dorothy Yeager, Editor

FEC Record September 2011

Commission: Federal Election Commission Names Alec Palmer as New 

Staff Director

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has named D. Alec Palmer 

to be the agency’s new Staff Director. Palmer, who served as Acting Staff Director, also will continue his responsibilities as the FEC’s 

Chief Information Officer (CIO)

“Mr. Palmer has demonstrated exceptional leadership and management skills while serving as Acting Staff Director and also continuing his role as the Commission's Chief Information Officer,” said 

Chair Cynthia L. Bauerly. “The Commission is grateful for his many 

years of service so far and is confident in his ability to continue to 

positively affect the Agency's mission in areas of disclosure, compliance, and educational outreach as our permanent Staff Director.”

Palmer came to the FEC in 2003 as CIO. In that role, he has created new information 

technology initiatives that were designed to improve the agency’s operating efficiency 

along with its disclosure and transparency practices. He drove efforts that allowed for 

the development of new website tools including the addition of the popular campaign 

finance maps to the FEC’s website, the real-time disclosure of independent expenditures, publishing of enforcement case files dating back to 1975, the expansion of the 

advisory opinion search feature and a new searchable rulemaking system.

Prior to joining the FEC, Palmer had 15 years of CIO experience, and has provided leadership to senior management professionals in the public service, hospitality, oil and 

gas, high-tech manufacturing, financial services, publishing and healthcare industries. 

Alec received his bachelor’s degree from Brigham Young University.

As Staff Director, Palmer serves as the chief administration and management officer for 

more than 350 employees and six Commissioners. The position is one of three statutory 

positions at the FEC.

(Posted 8/4/2011; By: Dorothy Yeager)
2

Outreach: Treasurer's Liability

This article answers frequently asked questions about the duties and responsibilities of 

political committee treasurers. Under FEC regulations, a committee’s treasurer is personally responsible for carrying out his or her duties as treasurer. Thus, it is important 

that treasurers understand these duties before taking them on.

Duties of the Treasurer

According to the Federal Election Campaign Act and Commission regulations, a political 

committee must have a treasurer before it can accept contributions or make expenditures. 2 U.S.C. §432(a); 11 CFR 102.7(a) and (b). The treasurer is responsible for registering the committee, depositing receipts within 10 days, authorizing expenditures, 

monitoring contribution limits and prohibitions and signing and filing all reports and 

statements on time.

Although support staff, volunteers or professional consultants may perform these duties, the treasurer remains responsible for the committee's compliance with the Act. 11 

CFR 104.14(d). If a committee's treasurer is absent, the committee cannot make 

expenditures or accept contributions unless it has designated an assistant treasurer or 

designated agent on the committee's Statement of Organization (Form 1). Committees 

are encouraged to name an assistant treasurer to fill any vacancies in the office of 

treasurer.

Treasurer's Liability in Enforcement Actions

In enforcement actions brought against a committee, the Commission names as 

respondents both the committee and the committee treasurer, in his or her official 

capacity, even if the committee has incorporated for purposes of liability. Furthermore, 

the treasurer can be named and found liable in his or her personal capacity if he or she 

knowingly and willfully violates the Act, recklessly fails to fulfill duties imposed by the 

law, or intentionally deprives himself or herself of the operative facts giving rise to the 

violation. Even when an enforcement action alleges violations that occurred during the 

term of a previous treasurer, the Commission usually names the current treasurer as a 

respondent in the action. See Statement of Policy Regarding Treasurers, 70 F.R. 3 

(January 3, 2005).

Treasurer's Liability Under Administrative Fine Program

Similarly, when the Commission makes a final determination and assesses a civil penalty against a committee and its treasurer under the Administrative Fine Program, both 

the committee and the treasurer are liable for the fine. It is therefore important for 

treasurers to understand their obligations and responsibilities under the law. For more 

information, call the FEC's Information Division, 1-800-424-9530 (press 6 when 

prompted).

(Posted 8/11/2011; By: Christopher Berg)

Resources:

 FEC Tips for Treasurers Page

 Committee Treasurers Brochure

 E-Learning Resources

 FEC Training for Treasurers and Committee Staff
3

Outreach: FEC to Host San Diego Conference in October

The Commission will hold a regional conference in San Diego, California, 

on October 25-26, 2011. Commissioners and staff will conduct a variety of technical 

workshops on the federal campaign finance laws affecting federal candidates, parties 

and PACs. 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. To 

view the conference agenda or to register for the conference, please visit the conference website at http://www.fec.gov/info/conferences/2011/sandiego.shtml.

Hotel Information

The conference will be held at the Omni San Diego Hotel, in the heart of the historic 

Gaslamp Quarter, close to the city’s top sites and attractions. For hotel reservations, 

call 1-800-843-6664 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 of your conference registration from Sylvester Management Corporation.

Registration Information

The registration fee is $525 per attendee, which includes a $25 nonrefundable 

transaction fee. Complete registration information is available online at http://

www.fec.gov/info/conferences/2011/sandiego.shtml.

FEC Conference Questions

Please direct all questions about conference registration and fees to Sylvester Management Corporation (Phone: 1-800/246-7277; email: 

rosalyn@sylvestermanagement.com). For questions about the conferences and workshops, call the FEC’s Information Division at 1-800/424-1100, or send an email to 

Conferences@fec.gov.

(Posted 8/18/11; By Kathy Carothers)

Resources:

 FEC Minneapolis Conference, September 7-8, 2011

 FEC Educational Outreach Opportunities
4

Advisory Opinions: AO 2011-13 Party Committee May Revise 

Disclaimers on Solicitation Web Pages

A national party committee may revise the disclaimers that appear on its web pages. 

The disclaimer requirements are the same for the party committee’s website as for the 

version of the website that appears on smartphones, personal digital assistants and 

other mobile devices.

Background

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is a national committee of the 

Democratic Party. DSCC solicits credit card contributions on its website and on the version of its website that appears on smartphones, personal digital assistants and other 

mobile devices (collectively, solicitation web pages).

The DSCC solicitation web pages contain several statements and disclaimers intended 

to comply with requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations. One statement reads: "Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer 

of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year." Another reads: 

“Paid for by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, http://www.dscc.org, and 

not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” DSCC does not propose altering or eliminating any of the above disclaimers and statements.

DSCC’s solicitation web pages also require contributors to check a box to confirm the 

following six statements are true: the contribution is made from the contributor’s own 

funds; the contribution is not made from the general treasury funds of a corporation, 

labor organization or national bank; the contributor is not a foreign national who lacks 

permanent U.S. resident status; the contribution is not made from an entity or person 

who is a federal contractor (this does not apply to personal contributions by subcontractors, employees, partners, shareholders or officers of federal contractors); the contribution is made with a personal credit or debit card for which the contributor has the 

legal obligation to pay, and the contribution is not made on a corporate or business entity card; the contributor is at least 18 years old.

DSCC proposes to modify its solicitation web pages to eliminate the requirement that 

contributors check the box to affirm their eligibility to contribute according to the six 

criteria currently listed. Rather, DSCC proposes to add language below the button that 

contributors click to complete their contributions that would read:

“By clicking this button, I certify that I am at least 18 years old and am making this 

contribution on a personal credit or debit card with my own personal funds – not those 

of another person or entity – and that I meet the eligibility requirements set forth below:

 I am not a foreign national.

 I am not a federal contractor.”

Next to each of the bulleted statements, DSCC also plans to include a link that would 

direct contributors to a more comprehensive definition of each term at the bottom of 

the solicitation web pages.
5

Analysis

The Act and Commission regulations require websites of political committees that are not 

authorized by a candidate, an authorized committee of a candidate or an agent of either, 

to state the full name and permanent address, telephone number or web address of the 

person paying for the communication, and that the communication is not authorized by 

any candidate or candidate’s committee. 11 CFR 110.11(a) and (b)(3).

In addition to this disclaimer requirement, the Act and Commission regulations require political committees to keep account of and report the identification of any person who makes 

a contribution or contributions aggregating more than $200 during a calendar year. 2 

U.S.C. §§432(c) and 434(b); 11 CFR 102.9(a) and 104.3(a)(4). Political committee reports 

will be considered to comply with the Act when committee treasurers exercise best efforts 

to obtain the contributor’s full name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer, 

and include an accurate statement of federal law regarding the collection and reporting of 

contributor identifications. 11 CFR 104.7(b).

The Commission determined that the statements and disclaimers DSCC intends to continue 

including on its solicitation web pages appear to satisfy the regulations concerning disclaimers and best efforts statements.

In several advisory opinions, the Commission has addressed language political committees 

proposed to use in soliciting contributions to ensure contributions are not accepted from 

prohibited sources, including a box for contributors to check. See: Advisory Opinions 2007-

30 (Chris Dodd for President), 1995-35 (Alexander for President) and 1995-09 (NewtWatch 

PAC). The Commission has noted that notice of this type is not required by the Act and 

Commission regulations. However, the Commission has indicated that such notice would 

act as an appropriate safeguard against receiving contributions from prohibited sources. 

The Commission found DSCC’s check box on its current solicitation web pages to be an example of this type of safeguard. Because DSCC is not required to provide a box for contributors to check, but does so as a safeguard, DSCC may revise its solicitation web pages 

as proposed. 

Date Issued: July 21, 2011; Length: 5 pages.

(Posted 8/23/2011; By: Isaac J. Baker)

Resources:

 Advisory Opinion 2011-13 [PDF; 5 pages]

 Commission's consideration of AOR 2011-13
6

Compliance: Consideration of Legal Questions by the Commission

On July 21, 2011, the Commission made permanent a program established in 2010 to 

provide a means for early review of legal questions arising during the report review and 

audit processes. See 76 Fed. Reg. 45798 (August 1, 2011). The now-permanent program became effective on August 1, 2011.

Procedures

Under this program, persons or entities involved in the report review or audit processes 

that are obligated to take corrective action may request consideration of the corrective 

action by the Commission if a material dispute on a question of law exists. The persons 

or entities may seek Commission consideration within 15 business days of a Reports 

Analysis Division or Audit Division determination that the persons or entities are obligated to take the corrective action.

Requests for consideration of legal questions during the report review or audit processes are limited to questions of law on material issues. The Commission classifies a 

matter as a material dispute when:

 The legal issue is novel, complex or pertains to an unsettled question of law;

 There has been intervening legislation, rulemaking or litigation since the Commission last considered the issue; or

 The request to take corrective action is contrary to or otherwise inconsistent with 

prior Commission matters dealing with the same issue.

The request must specify the question of law at issue, why it is subject to Commission 

consideration, relevant court decisions and any other analysis of the issue that may assist the Commission in decision-making.

All requests for Commission consideration of legal questions should be directed to the 

Commission Secretary, Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20463. Upon receipt, the Commission Secretary will forward a copy of the request 

to each Commissioner, the General Counsel and the Staff Director.

Any request for an extension of time to file will be considered on a case-by-case basis 

and will only be granted if good cause is shown, and the Commission approves the extension request by four affirmative votes within five business days of the extension request. Within five business days of notification to the Commissioners, if two or more 

Commissioners agree that the Commission shall consider the issue, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) will prepare a recommendation. Within 15 business days, OGC shall 

circulate that recommendation for Commission action.

In the event of an objection by any Commissioner, the matter shall be automatically 

placed on the next meeting agenda. If, within 60 business days of filing the request for 

consideration, the Commission cannot resolve the issue or provide guidance on how to 

proceed by an affirmative vote of four or more Commissioners, the Office of Compliance 

(the OC, which includes the Reports Analysis Division and the Audit Division) may proceed with the matter. After 60 business days, the Commission will provide any requestor a copy of OGC’s recommendation and either an accompanying vote certification 

or a cover page stating the disposition of the recommendation.
7

After the report review or audit process has concluded, a copy of the request for consideration, as well as the recommendation memorandum and accompanying vote certification or 

disposition memorandum, will be placed on the public record within 30 days.

This program does not circumvent or supplement the Advisory Opinion process. Legal 

questions that qualify for consideration as an Advisory Opinion are not appropriate under 

these procedures. Further, this program does not supersede the procedures for eligibility 

and entitlement to public funds.

Annual Review

By July 1 of each year, the OC and OGC will jointly prepare and distribute to the Commission a written report that summarizes the requests made under the program during the 

previous year, as well as the Commission’s consideration of those requests and resulting 

actions taken. This report will also include an assessment by those offices of whether, and 

to what extent, the program has promoted efficiency and fairness in the report review and 

audit processes. In addition, the report will include the OC and OGC’s recommendations, if 

any, for modifications to the program.

Finally, the Commission may terminate or modify this program through additional policy 

statements at any time upon an affirmative vote of four of its members.

(Posted 8/23/2011; By: Dorothy Yeager)

Resources:

 Federal Register notice [PDF; 2 pages]

 Office of Compliance

 Policy Statements

 Commission's consideration of policy statement

Litigation: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), 

et al. v. FEC

On August 1, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment in 

favor of the Commission in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) et 

al. v. FEC, granting the Commission’s motion to dismiss this case. CREW and its executive 

director Melanie Sloan had filed suit alleging that the Commission had wrongfully dismissed 

their administrative complaint and claiming that the agency had failed to provide timely 

notice of its dismissal as well as the reasons for dismissal.
8

Background

In March 2007, plaintiffs filed an enforcement complaint with the FEC against Peace 

Through Strength Political Action Committee (PTS PAC), a leadership PAC sponsored by 

Representative Duncan Hunter. The complaint alleged that the PAC provided financial 

support in amounts beyond those permitted by the Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act) to Representative Hunter’s Presidential exploratory committee in the form of 

excessive expenditures for advertisements.

The First General Counsel’s report found that, while the expenditures made by PTS PAC 

for ads cited by CREW in its complaint did not appear to constitute violations of the Act, 

other disbursements by PTS PAC did indicate possible violations by the exploratory 

committee. The report recommended that the Commission find reason to believe that 

(1) Representative Hunter failed to timely file a Statement of Candidacy for President 

and to maintain a record of contributions received or expenditures made while he was 

exploring a potential candidacy for President; (2) his Presidential campaign committee, 

Hunter for President, Inc. (HFP), failed to report contributions received or expenditures 

made during the exploratory period; and (3) PTS PAC made, and HFP accepted, excessive in-kind contributions to Representative Hunter’s Presidential campaign, in the form 

of excessive payments for travel to early primary states by Representative Hunter. The 

report recommended taking no action, however, in regard to allegations that PTS PAC 

failed to report its expenditures for advertising. The Commission voted to approve 

these recommendations and commenced an investigation (MUR 5908).

The investigation found that PTS PAC spent a little over $10,000 for Representative 

Hunter’s travel expenses. The Second General Counsel’s report recommended that the 

Commission find that PTS PAC made, and HFP accepted, excessive in-kind contributions. In regard to the late filing of the Statement of Candidacy, because it was only 

three days late, the General Counsel recommended that the Commission not pursue a 

civil penalty. Finally, the General Counsel recommended that the Commission take no 

action in regard to the allegations about PTS PAC expenditures for advertising.

The Commission voted to dismiss MUR 5908 on June 29, 2010. In a Statement of Reasons for its dismissal, the Commission explained that because the amount of any potentially excessive contributions by PTS PAC to HFP was small, and the late filing of the 

Statement of Candidacy was de minimis, the Commission chose to exercise prosecutorial discretion and close the case regarding both allegations. Subsequently, the 

Commission notified CREW of its decision to close the file by letter dated July 23, 2010, 

and sent CREW its Statement of Reasons by letter dated August 24, 2010.

Section 437g(a)(8)(B) of the Act provides that the complainants may petition the court 

to review a Commission decision to dismiss an administrative complaint in an enforcement case within 60 days after that dismissal. On August 11, 2010, CREW filed a complaint (amended on October 28, 2010) with the District Court alleging that the Commission wrongfully dismissed MUR 5908, did not timely notify CREW of its dismissal and 

had an unlawful policy and practice of failing to provide enforcement case complainants 

with what plaintiffs claimed was the “‘statutorily mandated 60 days’ notice of dismissal 

and basis of dismissal.’” The FEC moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that 

CREW lacked standing and failed to state a claim.
9

District Court Decision

In its memorandum opinion, the District Court noted that CREW must establish its standing 

to pursue its claim. The court noted that, while CREW had the right to file an administrative complaint with the FEC, that right did not grant them standing to seek judicial review 

of the disposition of that complaint.

Thus, the court analyzed whether CREW had standing in the case. In its arguments, the 

Commission contended that CREW failed to establish standing to appeal the dismissal of 

MUR 5908 under prongs one and three of the test in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 

U.S. 555 (1992). The court noted that under the first prong of the Lujan test, “the plaintiff 

“must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is 

(a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or 

“hypothetical[.]” The court also noted that under the third prong of the Lujan test, “it must 

be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a 

favorable decision.’”

The court’s review of the complaints, the General Counsel’s reports and the FEC’s Statement of Reasons led the court to find that CREW failed to suffer an “informational injury” 

as the amount spent on travel was publicly disclosed in FEC reports. Since the amended 

complaint filed by CREW demanded amended FEC filings regarding the previously disclosed 

expenditures, the court found that the Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring their claim 

for wrongful dismissal of MUR 5908.

Regarding the claim that the Commission failed to timely notify CREW of its dismissal of 

the case, the court noted that the Act requires that any court challenge be filed within 60 

days of the agency’s dismissal, but it does not contain a timeframe in which a complainant 

must receive notice of the dismissal. In this case, the Commission voted to dismiss the 

case on June 29, 2010, notified CREW of its decision to close the file by letter dated July 

23, 2010 and sent CREW its Statement of Reasons by letter dated August 24, 2010. 

Because the agency notified CREW of its decision to dismiss the administrative complaint 

within the 60-day timeframe, the district court found that CREW did not have standing to 

bring this claim.

The text of the court’s opinion is available at http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/

crew101350_dc_memo_opinion.pdf.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 10-1350 (JEB)), August 1, 

2011.

(Posted 8/23/2011; By: Dorothy Yeager

Resources:

 CREW v. FEC: Ongoing Litigation Page

 CREW v. FEC: Court Decisions and Related Documents

 FEC Enforcement Query System - Enter 5908 into case number search field to see 

related documents
10

Litigation: Bluman v. FEC

On August 8, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the prohibition on foreign nationals making contributions or expenditures in connection with U.S. elections. The court denied the plaintiffs’ 

motion for summary judgment and granted the FEC’s motion to dismiss the case.

Background

The Plaintiffs, Benjamin Bluman and Asenath Steiman, both foreign nationals who lawfully live and work in the United States, filed suit against the FEC on October 19, 2010. 

The suit challenged the constitutionality of 2 U.S.C §441e and its implementing regulations at 11 CFR 110.20, which prohibit contributions, expenditures, and other electionrelated spending by foreign nationals.

Federal law and Commission regulations bar foreign nationals who have not received 

permanent resident status in the United States from “directly or indirectly” making “a 

contribution or donation of money or other thing of value... in connection with a federal, 

state or local election.” Such persons are also prohibited from making “a contribution or 

donation to a committee of a political party,” and from making a disbursement for independent expenditures or electioneering communications. 11 CFR 110.20. A knowing 

and willful violation of the foreign national ban is punishable by a civil penalty not exceeding the greater of $10,000 or 200 percent of any contribution or expenditure involved in the violation. It is also punishable criminally by up to five years’ imprisonment. 2 U.S.C. §§437g(a)(5) and (d). 

The Plaintiffs claimed that the foreign national ban violates the First Amendment as applied to foreign nationals, such as the Plaintiffs, who lawfully reside and work in the 

United States.

Court Decision

The court granted the FEC’s Motion to Dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment. In its Memorandum Opinion, the court cited a long history of Supreme Court case law holding that foreign citizens may be excluded from certain activities that are an integral part of democratic self-government in the United States. The 

opinion listed several examples of activities that foreign citizens may be barred from: 

voting, serving as jurors, working as police or probation officers and teaching at public 

schools. See, e.g., Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 (1982); Ambach v. Norwick, 

441 U.S. 68 (1979); Foley v. Connelie, 435 U.S. 291 (1978). “Under those precedents, 

the federal ban at issue here readily passes constitutional muster,” the court stated.

The court said these cases provide a straightforward precedent: “It is fundamental to 

the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a 

constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.” For purposes of First Amendment analysis, the court stated 

the United States has a compelling interest in limiting the participation of foreign citizens in such activities, and “thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political 

process.” The court found that political contributions and expenditures are a vital aspect 

of the process of American democratic self-government.
11

The court said the ban on foreign election spending was also in line with the 2010 Supreme 

Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: 1:10-cv-01766-RMU.

(Posted 8/26/11; By: Isaac J. Baker)

Resources:

 Bluman v. FEC: Ongoing Litigation Page

 Foreign Nationals brochure

Reporting: Oregon Special Election Reporting: 1st District

Oregon will hold a Special Election to fill the U.S. House seat in Oregon’s 1st Congressional District vacated by Representative David Wu. The Special Primaries will be held 

November 8, 2011, and the Special General will be held on January 31, 2012.

Candidate committees involved in these elections must follow the reporting schedule. 

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 semi-annual schedule and participate in this 

election must also follow the schedule. 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 mail 1 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).
12

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 October 20 

and November 5, 2011, for the Special Primary, and between January 12 and January 28, 

2012, for the Special General.

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 October 20 and November 6, 2011, for 

the Special Primary, and between January 12 and January 29, 2012, for the Special General. 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 30-day electioneering communications period in connection with the Special Primary 

Election runs from October 9 through November 8, 2011. The 60-day electioneering communications period in connection with the Special General Election runs from December 2 

through January 31, 2012.

Disclosure of Lobbyist Bundling Activity

Campaign committees, party committees and leadership PACs that are otherwise required 

to file reports in connection with the special election 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 the lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold during the special election reporting period. 11 CFR 104.22(a)(5)(v).

The lobbyist bundling disclosure threshold for calendar year 2011 is $16,200. This threshold amount may change in 2012 based upon the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA). 

As soon as the adjusted threshold amount is available, the Commission will publish it in the 

Federal Register and post it on its website. For more information on these requirements, 

see March 2009 Record.

(Posted 8/25/2011; By Elizabeth Kurland) 

FOOTNOTE:

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.
13

Resources:

 Federal Register Notice

 FEC Forms and Instructions

 Electronic Filing information

 Independent Expenditure brochure

 Electioneering Communications brochure

House and Senate Campaign Fundraising Through June 2011

2012 candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives reported raising a 

total of $285.2 million from January 1 through June 30, 2011, according to disclosure 

reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Candidates seeking election to 33 

U.S. Senate seats reported raising $103.1 million during the first six months of 2011. 

Candidates for the House of Representatives reported raising $182.1 million in that period.

Senate Candidates

The $103.1 million that 82 individual Senate campaign committees raised in 2011 was 

the highest total ever reported for the first six months in a non-election year, exceeding 

the previous high of $93.2 million raised in the first half of 2009. In 2005, the last time 

this same group of Senate seats was up for election, 85 candidates raised $84.8 million 

during the first six months of the cycle.
14

From January 1 through June 30, 2011, contributions from individuals accounted for $75.8 

million, or 74 percent of the total Senate candidates raised.* Political action committee 

(PAC) contributions to Senate candidates totaled $17.5 million, representing 17 percent of 

the campaigns’ receipts.

Senate candidates ended the first six months of 2011 with $121 million cash-on-hand and 

debts of $5.4 million, some from previous elections.

U.S. House of Representatives

Campaign finance reports filed by House candidates for the period January 1 through June 

30, 2011, show 420 House incumbents with combined receipts of $151.6 million, a $20.5 

million (15.6%) increase from the same period in 2009.

Individual contributions accounted for $75.8 million of House incumbents’ total receipts in 

the first half of 2011, representing a $13.2 million (21.1%) increase from the first six 

months of 2009.* Contributions from PACs amounted to $66.9 million, a slight increase of 

$2.1 million (3.2%) compared to the same time period in the previous election cycle. 

House incumbents reported a combined $217.4 million cash-on-hand total at the end of 

the reporting period, a decrease of $15.5 million (6.7%) from the first half of 2009.

Non-incumbent candidates raised a total of $30.5 million for House races during the first 

six months of 2011, slightly outpacing the $30.3 million raised during the same six-month 

period in 2009. As of June 30, 2011, House non-incumbent candidates had a combined 

cash-on-hand total of $18.1 million, a $500,000 (2.8%) increase from the June 2009 combined total.

For additional information, the full text of the Commission’s press release as well as 

downloadable data in Excel and PDF formats are available at http://www.fec.gov/press/

press2011/20110824_20126mCongCandSum.shtml. Comparative charts and graphs are 

also included, along with summary statistical information for each Senate candidate. Information on financial activity for these Senate candidates in 2007-2008, 2009-2010, and 

2011-2012 is also provided.
15

House freshman incumbents reported receipts of $37.2 million, an increase of $9.5 million 

(34.3%) from the same six-month period in 2009. House freshman incumbents received 

$20.8 million from individual contributors and $14.6 million from PACs and other political 

committees, representing increases of $7 million (50.7%) and $1.4 million (10.6%) from 

2009 six-month totals, respectively. The combined cash-on-hand total for House freshman 

incumbents as of June 30, 2011 equaled $28.2 million, a $6.3 million (28.8%) increase 

compared to the combined total of the first six months of 2009.
16

* The limits on contributions by individuals to candidate committees are indexed for inflation every two years. The current contribution limit for individuals to these committees is 

$2,500 per election.

(Posted 8/26/2011; By: Dorothy Yeager)

Resources:

 August 24, 2011 Press Release with links to data tables

 Disclosure Data Weblog

 Campaign Finance Reports and Data

 Availability of FEC Information (brochure)