August 2007 Federal Election Commission Volume 33, Number 8

Table of Contents

Compliance Court Cases

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

 Compliance

 1 MURs 5577 and 5620: Prohibited 

Contributions and Failure to 

Register

 Court Cases

 1 FEC v. WRTL

 3 Bialek v. Gonzales

Public Funding

 4 Democratic and Republican Parties 

Certified for Convention Funding

 Audit

5 Gephardt for President

 Administrative Fines

 6 Committees Fined for Late and 

Nonfiled Reports

 ADR

 7 ADR Update

 Reports

 8 Massachusetts Special Election 

Reporting

 9 Advisory Opinions

 Outreach

 10 FEC Fall Regional Conferences

 10 Index

MURs 5577 and 5620:

Prohibited Contributions 

and Failure to Register as a 

Political Committee 

On June 19, 2007, the Commission announced a settlement with 

the National Association of Realtors 

527 Fund (NAR 527) in connection 

with violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) during 

the 2004 election cycle. NAR 527, 

which is associated with the Chicago-based National Association of 

Realtors (NAR), will pay $78,000 to 

settle charges that it failed to register 

and file disclosure reports as a federal political committee and accepted 

contributions in violation of federal 

limits and source prohibitions.

Background

During the 2004 election cycle, 

NAR 527 received $2.9 million from 

NAR and received no other funds. 

NAR 527 spent approximately 

$2.8 million to create and distribute various public communications 

that clearly identified nine federal 

candidates, including direct mail 

pamphlets and newspaper ads. The 

Commission concluded that certain 

of these public communications 

expressly advocated the election of 

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to 

Life, Inc.

On June 25, 2007, the Supreme 

Court upheld a district court ruling 

that the electioneering communication (EC) financing restrictions of 

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act were unconstitutional “as applied” to ads that Wisconsin Right 

to Life, Inc., a 501(c)(4) nonprofit 

corporation, intended to run before 

the 2004 elections. The Supreme 

Court concluded that the EC financing restrictions are unconstitutional 

as applied to these ads because:

• The ads are not express advocacy 

or its functional equivalent; and 

• The Court found no sufficiently 

compelling governmental interest to justify burdening WRTL’s 

speech.

Background

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

regulations, an EC is defined, with 

some exceptions, as any broadcast, 

cable or satellite communication that 

refers to a clearly identified federal 

candidate and is publicly distributed 

within 60 days before the general 
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2007

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Robert D. Lenhard, Chairman

David M. Mason, Vice Chairman

Hans A. von Spakovsky, 

 Commissioner

Steven T. Walther, Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner

Patrina M. Clark,

 Staff 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

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

election or 30 days before a primary 

election or a nominating convention for the office sought by the 

candidate. 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3) and 

11 CFR 100.29. Corporations may 

not make ECs using their general 

treasury funds.1 2 U.S.C. 441b(a)-(b) 

and 11 CFR 114.2 and 114.14. 

WRTL originally filed suit in the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia on July 28, 2004, asking 

the court to find the prohibition on 

the use of corporate funds to pay 

for ECs unconstitutional as applied 

to what it calls “grassroots lobbying” communications planned for 

the period before the 2004 elections. 

After the district court both denied 

WRTL’s motion for a preliminary 

injunction and dismissed WRTL’s 

complaint, WRTL appealed to the 

Supreme Court. On January 23, 

2006, the Supreme Court vacated 

the judgment and remanded to the 

district court to reconsider the merits 

of WRTL’s “as applied” challenge. 

District Court Decision

The three communications in 

question were two radio advertisements and one television advertisement WRTL had planned to 

run before the 2004 primary and 

general elections concerning anticipated filibusters of President Bush’s 

federal judicial nominees. The ads 

encouraged Wisconsin listeners and 

viewers to contact their Senators 

(Senators Feingold and Kohl) to urge 

them to oppose the filibusters. Senator Feingold was up for reelection in 

2004, but Senator Kohl was not.

A three-judge panel of the District 

Court considered the “as applied” 

challenge to the EC provisions based 

on two main arguments: whether 

the ads contained express advocacy 

for or against a federal candidate 

or the “functional equivalent” of 

express advocacy; and, if they did 

not, whether the government had 

demonstrated a compelling interest 

in regulating these ads.

Express advocacy. To determine 

whether WRTL’s 2004 anti-filibuster 

ads contained express advocacy, or 

its functional equivalent, the court 

considered only the text and images 

of the ads and declined to consider 

contextual factors bearing on the 

ads’ purpose or likely effect. The 

court’s evaluation was based upon 

whether the ads: 

1. Described an issue that was 

or “likely” soon would be a 

“subject of legislative scrutiny”; 

2. Referred to the prior voting 

record or current position of 

the named candidate on the 

described issue; 

3. Exhorted the audience to do 

anything other than contact the 

candidate about the described 

issue;

4. Promoted, attacked, supported 

or opposed the named 

candidate; and

5. Referred to an upcoming 

election, candidacy or party of 

the candidate.

Considering those five factors, the 

court found that the anti-filibuster 

ads did not contain express advocacy 

or its functional equivalent and thus 

were not “intended to influence the 

voters’ decisions.” The court noted 

that the ads did not mention an election, a candidacy or the individual’s 

“fitness for office.” While the ads 

discussed the filibuster issue, the 

court stated that they did not reference the Senators’ voting records, 

current or past, on this issue, and 

that they did not promote, attack, 

support or oppose either Senator. 

Additionally, the court noted the ads 

asked the audience to contact both 

Senators, not just the Senator up for 

reelection. 

Government interest in regulating issue ads. In McConnell v. FEC, 

540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Supreme 

Court found that the compelling 

government interest in regulating 

the communications covered by the 

definition of electioneering communication was sufficient to uphold 

the statute on its face. However, the 

district court stated that by permitting “as applied” challenges to the 

provisions of the BCRA, the Supreme Court left open the question 

as to whether there is a compelling 

government interest in regulating 

“genuine issue ads” covered by the 

statute. In light of its finding that 

WRTL’s anti-filibuster ads did not 

contain express advocacy, or its 

functional equivalent, the threejudge panel evaluated the government interest in regulating these 

ads. The court found no compelling 

government interest and rejected the 

1

 Commission regulations provide an 

exception allowing “qualified nonprofit 

corporations” to pay for electioneering 

communications. 11 CFR 114.2(b)(2). 

However, WRTL alleges that it does not 

meet the definition of a qualified nonprofit corporation. 11 CFR 114.10.
August 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

argument that the need for a “bright 

line” test is a basis for regulating 

“genuine issue ads,” noting that the 

“virtues of the bright line test cannot 

alone justify regulating constitutionally protected speech.”

On December 29, 2006, the Commission filed a Notice of Appeal to 

the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision

On June 25, 2007, the Supreme 

Court issued a decision upholding the District Court ruling that 

the EC financing restrictions of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

were unconstitutional as applied to 

WRTL’s ads. The Supreme Court 

also rejected the FEC’s argument 

that the case was moot.

Mootness. The FEC argued that 

the cases involving WRTL’s ads 

were moot because the 2004 election has passed and WRTL has no 

continuing interest in running its 

ads. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the case fits within 

the established exception to mootness for actions “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” The Court 

noted that WRTL could not have 

obtained complete judicial review 

of its claims in time to air its ads in 

the period prior to the 2004 election 

and that WRTL had credibly claimed 

that it intended to run materially 

similar ads during future EC periods.

Electioneering communication 

financing restrictions unconstitutional “as applied” to WRTL ads. The 

Court rejected the FEC’s argument 

that WRTL has the burden of demonstrating that the EC provisions 

are unconstitutional as applied to its 

ads. The Court reasoned that the EC 

provisions burden political speech 

and, as such, are subject to strict 

scrutiny. Therefore, the government 

must prove that applying the EC 

provisions to WRTL’s ads “furthers 

a compelling governmental interest 

and is narrowly tailored to achieve 

that interest.” The Court stated that 

while in McConnell v. FEC the EC 

provisions had satisfied the standard 

of strict scrutiny for the regulation of 

express advocacy and its functional 

equivalent, the Court in McConnell

did not formulate a test for future 

as-applied challenges. The Court rejected the use of an intent-and-effect 

test for determining when an ad is 

the functional equivalent of express 

advocacy and instead explained that 

the inquiry should focus on the substance of the communication.

The Court found that WRTL’s 

ads may reasonably be interpreted 

as something other than an appeal to 

vote for or against a specific federal 

candidate and, as such, did not constitute the functional equivalent of 

express advocacy. The Court noted 

that the content of the ads was consistent with that of a “genuine issue 

ad” focused on a specific legislative 

issue and urging the public to take 

action regarding that issue. Also, the 

Court noted, the ads’ content lacked 

“indicia of express advocacy” because they made no mention of “an 

election, candidacy, political party, 

or challenger . . . and [took no] 

position on a candidate’s character, 

qualifications, or fitness for office.” 

In the decision, the Court cited its 

long recognition of the governmental interest in preventing corruption 

and the appearance of corruption in 

elections. The Court acknowledged 

that McConnell had upheld the 

EC financing restrictions on their 

face, but the Court determined that 

that anti-corruption interest did not 

justify application of the restrictions 

to the advertisements proposed by 

WRTL. 

The Court concluded that because 

WRTL’s ads are not express advocacy or its functional equivalent, and 

because the Court found no compelling governmental interest to justify 

the burden on WRTL’s speech, the 

EC financing restrictions are unconstitutional as applied to these ads. 

The Court also noted that this case 

does not present the occasion to 

revisit McConnell’s facial upholding 

of the EC financing restrictions.

 —Gary Mullen

Bialek v. Gonzales

On June 28, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Commission’s motion 

to dismiss the suit by Barry Bialek 

against the U.S. Attorney General 

and the FEC, holding that the Attorney General has discretion over 

whether to investigate and prosecute 

criminal violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

is not required to wait for a referral 

of a case from the Commission.

Background

According to the complaint filed 

February 14, 2007, Plaintiff Barry 

Bialek made contributions towards 

John Edwards’ 2004 Presidential 

campaign. In November 2005, the 

U.S. Attorney General began an 

investigation into possible violations 

of the Act by the plaintiff. See April 

2007 Record, page 5. 

The plaintiff filed a complaint 

with the District Court in Colorado, 

alleging that the Commission must 

refer, by a vote of the majority of the 

Commission, a matter to the Attorney General prior to the Attorney 

General investigating or prosecuting 

a violation of the Act. 

Court Decision

The District Court held that the 

Act does not limit the Attorney 

General’s authority to investigate 

and prosecute criminal violations of 

the Act and that the Commission’s 

actions are not a prerequisite to the 

Attorney General’s investigation.

Upon creating the Federal Election Commission, Congress gave the 

Commission exclusive jurisdiction 

to enforce the civil provisions of the 

Act. 2 U.S.C. 437c(b)(1). The Commission may refer a violation to the 

Attorney General if, by four votes of 

the Commissioners, the Commission 

determines that there is probable 

cause to believe that a “knowing and 

willful” violation occurred. 2 U.S.C. 

437g(a)(5)(C).

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

4

The plaintiff claimed that because the Act grants the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over civil 

violations and contains a referral 

provision, criminal violations must 

first be handled by the Commission, 

and the Attorney General may only 

become involved in the matter once 

the Commission has voted to refer 

the violation. The court rejected the 

plaintiff’s argument, holding that 

there is a presumption against any 

limitation on the Attorney General’s 

prosecutorial authority and Congress 

must show “clear and unambiguous” intent to restrict the Attorney 

General’s authority to investigate 

and prosecute criminal offenses. 

The Act does not explicitly restrict 

the Attorney General in any way. 

The court held that nothing in the 

plain language of the Act required a 

referral prior to prosecution by the 

Attorney General.

Additionally, the court held that 

the legislative history of the Act does 

not show Congressional intent to 

limit the prosecutorial authority of 

the Attorney General.

The district court granted the 

Commission’s motion to dismiss and 

dismissed the case with prejudice 

against the plaintiff.

Bialek v. Gonzales, U.S. District 

Court for the District of Colorado, 

07:CV-00321-WYD-PAC.

 —Meredith Metzler

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

federal candidates and that NAR 

527’s spending indicated that its sole 

purpose was to advocate the election 

of federal candidates.

The Act and Commission regulations require a group whose major 

purpose is to influence federal elections to register with the Commission as a political committee within 

ten days of receiving contributions 

or making expenditures that exceed 

$1,000 per calendar year. All political committees must file regular 

reports disclosing the committee’s 

receipts and disbursements, and 

such committees may not accept any 

contributions from corporations and 

may accept no more than $5,000 per 

calendar year from an individual or 

another PAC.

NAR 527 registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a “Section 

527” organization—a tax exempt 

group whose function is to influence 

the selection, nomination, election 

or appointment of any individual to 

federal, state or local public office 

or office in a political organization, 

or the election Presidential electors. 

However, NAR 527 failed to register 

as a political committee with the 

FEC, even though it met the statutory threshold for political committee status and had federal campaign 

activity as its major purpose.

NAR 527 agreed to pay the civil 

penalty, register as a political committee and disclose its activities to 

the public in reports filed with the 

Commission.

 —Amy Pike

Democratic and Republican 

Parties Certified for 

Convention Funding

The Democratic and Republican 

convention committees each received $16,356,000 from the U.S. 

Treasury for planning and conducting their respective 2008 Presidential 

nominating conventions. The Commission has certified that the parties’ 

convention committees have met all 

eligibility requirements for public 

funding. 26 U.S.C. §9008(g) and 11 

CFR 9008.3(a)(3) and (4). 

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act permits all eligible 

national committees of major and 

minor parties to receive public funds 

to pay the official costs of their 

Presidential nominating conventions. Each major party convention 

committee is entitled to receive $4 

million,1 plus an adjustment for 

inflation (since 1974). 26 U.S.C. 

§9008(b)(1) and 11 CFR 9008.4(a). 

Initial payments are made by the 

U.S. Treasury on or after July 1 of 

the year preceding the Presidential 

election. Payments for an additional 

cost-of-living adjustment will be 

made in 2008. In exchange for 

public funding of the conventions, 

committees agree to certain requirements, including spending limits, the 

filing of periodic disclosure reports 

and detailed audits by the Commission.

The public funding portion of 

Presidential elections is financed by 

the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund, which receives funds through 

dollars voluntarily “checked off” 

by taxpayers on federal income tax 

forms. The major parties received 

$14,924,000 for the 2004 conventions and $13,512,000 for 2000. 

The 2008 Democratic National 

Convention Committee, Inc., will 

hold its convention in Denver, 

Colorado, August 25-28, 2008. The 

Committee on Arrangements for the 

2008 Republican National Convention will have its convention in 

Minneapolis-Saint Paul, Minnesota, 

September 1–4, 2008.

 —Amy Kort

1

 Originally, the limit was $2 million, 

plus COLA. That figure was increased 

to $3 million, plus COLA, for the 1980 

conventions and to $4 million, plus 

COLA, for the 1984 conventions.

Public 

Funding
August 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Audit

Gephardt for President Audit

On May 31, 2007, the Commission approved the final audit report 

of Gephardt for President, Inc. (the 

Committee). Gephardt for President, Inc. was the principal campaign committee of Representative 

Richard A. Gephardt, a candidate for 

the Democratic Party’s nomination 

for President in 2004.

The Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act (the 

Matching Payment Act) requires 

the Commission to audit political committees that receive public 

funding in order to ensure that those 

funds were spent in accordance with 

Commission rules and that accurate 

reports were filed by those committees. If a committee received funds 

in excess of its entitlement, incurred 

non-qualified campaign expenses, 

had surplus funds or committed an 

apparent violation of the law, the 

committee must repay public funds 

to the U.S. Treasury, as determined 

by the Commission.

The Committee received 

$4,104,320 in federal matching 

funds.

The Committee’s audit included 

four findings and recommendations, 

three of which resulted in payments 

owed to the U.S. Treasury totaling 

$323,102. The audit found that the 

committee:

• Received federal matching funds in 

excess of its entitlement;

• Received contributions that exceeded the 2004 contribution limits; and 

• Has outstanding stale-dated checks.

Funds in Excess of Entitlement

Under the Matching Payment Act, 

a candidate who receives matching 

funds for the primary elections must 

submit a statement of “net outstanding campaign obligations” within 15 

days of his or her date of ineligibility to receive further matching fund 

payments. However, the candidate 

may continue to receive matching 

fund payments if he or she still has 

net outstanding campaign obligations. 

Representative Gephardt’s date of 

ineligibility was January 20, 2004. 

The Committee’s estimated winding 

down costs were substantially higher 

than the actual amount the committee spent. Thus, the Commission 

determined that $250,304 in funds in 

excess of the Committee’s entitlement must be repaid to the U.S. 

Treasury.

Excessive Contributions

The Commission also determined 

that the Committee failed to resolve 

$60,556 in excessive contributions 

and must therefore pay that amount 

to the U.S. Treasury. 

Expenditures in Excess of Iowa 

Spending Limit

Candidates who receive matching 

funds must comply with state-bystate spending limits. The Audit 

staff determined that the Committee 

exceeded the spending limit in Iowa 

despite measures the committee had 

taken to ensure that it spent within 

the limits. The Commission determined that the Committee was not 

required make repayments based on 

these expenditures.

Stale-Dated Checks

The Commission identified staledated (uncashed) checks issued by 

the Committee totaling approximately $12,242. The Commission 

determined that this amount is payable to the U.S. Treasury.

Copies of the audit reports are 

available on the FEC’s web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/audits/audit_reports_pres.shtml.

 —Myles Martin

Enforcement Query 

System Available on 

FEC Web Site

 The FEC continues to update 

and expand its Enforcement 

Query System (EQS), a webbased search tool that allows 

users to find and examine public 

documents regarding closed 

Commission enforcement matters. 

Using current scanning, optical 

character recognition and text 

search technologies, the system 

permits intuitive and flexible 

searches of case documents and 

other materials. 

 Users of the system can search 

for specific words or phrases 

from the text of all public case 

documents. They can also 

identify single matters under 

review (MURs) or groups of 

cases by searching additional 

identifying information about 

cases prepared as part of the 

Case Management System. 

Included among these criteria 

are case names and numbers, 

complainants and respondents, 

timeframes, dispositions, legal 

issues and penalty amounts. The 

Enforcement Query System may 

be accessed on the Commission’s 

web site at www.fec.gov.

 Currently, the EQS contains 

complete public case files for all 

MURs closed since January 1, 

1999. In addition to adding all 

cases closed subsequently, staff is 

working to add cases closed prior 

to 1999. Within the past year, 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) cases were added to the 

system. All cases closed since the 

ADR program’s October 2000 

inception can be accessed through 

the system.
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2007

6

1

 This civil money penalty has been paid.

2

 This civil money penalty has been reduced due to the report’s level of activity.

Administrative

Fines

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed 

 1. Agri-Mark, Inc. Legislative and Educational Committee $2501

 2. Al Green for Congress 2006 October Quarterly $7871

 3. Al Green for Congress 2006 12 Day Pre-General $1,3501

 4. Allegheny Energy Inc. Federal PAC 

 (Allegheny PowerPAC- Federal) $7501

 5. Allete PAC $6001

 6. Anderson for Congress $5,1001

 7. Armor Holdings, Inc. PAC (Armor Holdings PAC) $5001

 8. Canseco for Congress Committee $02

 9. Chevy Chase Bank FSB PAC $9001

10. Citizens for Sherman Parker $1901

11. Citizens to Elect Phillip Jackson 2006 July Quarterly $3001

12. Citizens to Elect Phillip Jackson 2006 October Quarterly $1871

13. Coburn for Senate Committee $33,1701

14. Committee for a Better Future ___3

15. Committee for a Democratic Future $9001

16. Committee to Elect Matt Miller $9001

17. Council for a Livable World Candidate Fund $14001

18. Croplife America PAC $1601

19. David Pfeffer Campaign $1001

20. District No. 1-PCD MEBA Political Fund (MEBA PAF) $14001

21. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc. PAC (DTAG PAC) $5001

22. Electric Power Supply Association PAC $5001

23. Florida Congressional Committee $8001

24. Food Products Association PAC (FPA-PAC) $5001

25. Friends for Dix $9,5001

26. Friends of Joe Nation $3401

27. Friends of Joe Ortega III for Congress $02

28. Gilliland for Congress $0

29. Green for Change $1351

30. Growth and Prosperity PAC $9001

31. Growth and Prosperity PAC $9001

32. IA Vets for Congress $2,0251

33. John Konop for Congress $9001

34. Kevin Zeese for U.S. Senate $2101

35. Kiser 4 Congress $2,7001

36. L A PAC $6,0001

37. Liberty P.A. Pac $9001

38. Local 401 Iron Workers Political Action Fund $9001

39. Maloney for Congress $2,4001

40. Michigan Doctors PAC–Michigan State Medical Society $1,1251

41. Monroe County Democratic Committee $9,6251

42. Mountjoy for U.S. Senate $2,5501

43. MS Consultants Inc. PAC $4001

44. Murray Energy Corporation PAC $9751

45. National Association for Home Care PAC $2901

3

 The Commission took no further action in this case.

Committees Fined for 

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently publicized its final action on 69 new 

Administrative Fines cases, bringing 

the total number of cases released to 

the public to 1,411 with $1,951,529 

in fines collected by the FEC.

Civil money penalties for late 

reports are determined by the number of days the report was late, the 

amount of financial activity involved 

and any prior penalties for violations under the administrative fines 

regulations. Penalties for nonfiled 

reports—and for reports filed so late 

as to be considered nonfiled—are 

also determined by the financial 

activity for the reporting period and 

any prior violations. Election sensitive reports, which include reports 

filed prior to an election (i.e., 12-day 

Pre-Election, October Quarterly and 

October Monthly reports), receive 

higher penalties. Penalties for 

48-Hour Notices that are filed late 

or not at all are determined by the 

amount of the contribution(s) not 

timely reported and any prior violations.

The committee and the treasurer 

are assessed civil money penalties 

when the Commission makes its 

final determination. Unpaid civil 

penalties are referred to the Department of the Treasury for collection.

The committees listed in the adjacent charts, along with their treasurers, were assessed civil money 

penalties under the administrative 

fines regulations.

Closed Administrative Fine case 

files are available through the FEC 

Press Office and Public Records Office at 800/424-9530.

 —Amy Kort
August 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

(continued on page 8)

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed, cont.

46. Ohio Association of Mortgage Brokers PAC (OAMB PAC) $2501

47. Oregon Republican Party $3,7501

48. Penske Truck Leasing Co., L.P. PAC $6001

49. Plumbers Local 519 PAC $2871

50. Regula for Congress Committee 2004 ___3

51. Republicans for Choice PAC $4,050

52. Rightmarch.com PAC Inc. $5001

53. Road to Victory PAC $9001

54. San Antonio Police Officers Association PAC 

 2006 July Quarterly $1,3501

55. San Antonio Police Officers Association PAC 

 2006 October Quarterly $9621

56. Sardo for Congress ’06 $1601

57. Simon Pristoop for Congress Committee ___3

58. TERRIPAC $1,3501

59. Tesoro Petroleum Corporation PAC $9001

60. The Air Transport Association of America PAC $1651

61. The Byrne for Congress Committee $6001

62. The Committee to Elect Jake Ford for Congress $2,4001

63. The Fred D. Thompson PAC $4501

64. Tom Barlow for Congress ’06 $4501

65. United Assoc. of Journeymen & Apprentices/Plumbing 

 & Pipe Fitting Industry Local Union 335 $1,2001

66. United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association 

 Fresh PAC (FRESH PAC) $1451

67. Utility Workers Union of America Political 

 Contributions Committee $3,0001

68. Warner for Congress $3001

69. Zandstra for U.S. Senate Committee $1401

1

 This civil money penalty has been paid.

2

 This civil money penalty has been reduced due to the report’s level of activity.

3

 The Commission took no further action in this case.

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission has successfully resolved nine campaign finance 

enforcement matters through its 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program. The respondents, 

the alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and * Cases marked with an asterisk were 

internally generated within the FEC.

the final disposition of the cases are 

listed below.

1. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the Friends of John 

Conyers and M. Mickey Williams, 

as treasurer, regarding the failure to 

disclose receipts properly, deposit 

receipts in a timely manner and 

properly disburse funds. The respondents acknowledged inadvertent 

errors and omissions, but contended 

that they worked with Audit staff to 

implement all recommendations and 

hired an accounting firm to assist 

with compliance. The respondents 

agreed to pay a $3,000 civil penalty 

and to work with Commission staff 

to terminate the committee. (ADR 

339*)

2. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the Republican State 

Committee of Delaware and Thomas 

J. Shopa, as treasurer, regarding 

the failure to properly disclose all 

financial activity on their 2004 Post 

General Report. The respondents 

amended the Post General Report 

twice, disclosing an additional 

$81,584.05 in disbursements. The 

respondents acknowledged an inadvertent violation and contended that 

the additional disbursements were 

the result of data input errors. The 

respondents agreed to pay a $1,500 

civil penalty and send a representative to an FEC-sponsored seminar. 

(ADR 351*)

3. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the International 

Association of Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Political 

Action Committee and James P. 

McCourt, as treasurer, regarding 

the failure to disclose all financial 

activity on their 2005 Mid-Year 

Report. An amended Mid-Year 

Report disclosed additional receipts 

totaling $90,088.01. The respondents acknowledged an inadvertent 

violation and agreed to pay a $1,200 

civil penalty and designate a compliance specialist to train staff on the 

Act. (ADR 344*)

4. The Commission reached 

an agreement with the Indiana 

Democratic Congressional Victory 

Committee and Linda Buzinec, as 

treasurer, regarding the failure to 

disclose all financial activity on their 

2005 September Monthly Report. 

An amended report filed in December of that year disclosed additional 

receipts of $65,166.94 and additional disbursements of $61,791.56. 

The respondents contended that additional receipts and disbursements 

disclosed in the amended report 
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2007

8

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

(continued from page 7)

FEC Accepts Credit 

Cards

 The Federal Election 

Commission now accepts 

American Express, Diners Club 

and Discover Cards in addition 

to Visa and MasterCard. While 

most FEC materials are available 

free of charge, some campaign 

finance reports and statements, 

statistical compilations, indexes 

and directories require payment.

 Walk-in visitors and those 

placing requests by telephone may 

use any of the above-listed credit 

cards, cash or checks. Individuals 

and organizations may also place 

funds on deposit with the office 

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

card or funds placed on deposit 

can speed the process and delivery 

of orders. For further information, 

contact the Public Records Office 

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

were the result of a data importing 

error and an allocation error on the 

state portion of items paid. The 

respondents agreed to pay a $1,000 

civil penalty and develop a compliance manual to avoid future similar 

errors. (ADR 342*)

5. The Commission reached an 

agreement with Independent Action, 

Inc. and Ralph Santora, as treasurer, 

regarding the failure to disclose all 

financial activity on their 2005 Year 

End Report. The respondents filed 

an amended Year End Report that 

disclosed an additional $95,197.78 

in disbursements. The respondents 

acknowledged an inadvertent violation of the Act due to problems with 

their data management vendor. The 

respondents agreed to attend an FEC 

seminar and develop a compliance 

manual for staff. Due to mitigating circumstances pertaining to the 

respondents’ financial hardship, the 

Commission did not assess a civil 

penalty. (ADR 345*)

6. The Commission reached an 

agreement with EMILY’S LIST 

and Ranny Cooper, as treasurer, 

regarding the failure to forward a 

small percentage of its earmarked 

contributions within 10 days of 

receipt during 2005. Review of the 

Committee’s 2005 monthly reports 

revealed the respondents distributed 

$35,698.44 in deposited earmarked 

contributions to various campaign 

committees more than 10 days after 

receipt. The respondents acknowledged the mistake and agreed take 

steps to prevent similar future mistakes and to send a representative to 

an FEC-sponsored seminar. (ADR 

352*

7. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the Citizens for 

Altmire and Joanne L. Clarke, as 

treasurer, regarding the failure to include adequate disclaimers on print 

communications. The respondents 

acknowledged the inadvertent omission of adequate disclaimers on billboard advertisements and contended 

that appropriate disclaimers were 

added one week after the signs were 

originally posted. The respondents 

agreed to designate a communications compliance specialist to review 

communications prepared by the respondents to ensure compliance with 

the Act and to send a representative 

to a FEC-sponsored seminar within 

12 months. (ADR 360/MUR 5828)

8. The Commission dismissed allegations against the Braxton County 

Democratic Executive Committee 

and Callaghan for Congress. The 

complaint centered on radio ads 

placed by the Braxton Committee 

that advocated the election of Congressional candidate Mike Callaghan 

(WV/02) and allegedly violated 

disclaimer, coordination and contribution source provisions of the Act. 

(ADR 378/MUR5832)

Massachusetts Special 

Election Reporting: 5th

District

Massachusetts will hold Special 

Elections to fill the U.S. House seat 

in Massachusetts’ 5th Congressional 

District vacated by Representative 

Martin T. Meehan. The Special 

Primary Election will be held on 

September 4, 2007, and the Special 

General Election on October 16, 

2007.

Candidate committees involved in 

one or both of these elections must 

follow the reporting schedule on 

page 9. 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 semiannual schedule and 

participate in one or both of these 

elections must follow the same 

schedule on page 9. PACs and party 

committees that file monthly should 

continue to file according to their 

regular filing schedule.

Filing Electronically

Reports filed electronically must 

be received and validated 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 

9. The Commission sent a letter 

of admonishment and dismissed 

the matter concerning Wynn for 

Congress’s failure to disclose all 

financial activity on its 2006 July 

Quarterly Report. (ADR 368*) 

 —Kathy Carothers

Reports
August 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

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 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.

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.

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. 2 U.S.C. 

434(a)(5) and 11 CFR 104.5(e). Paper forms are available at the FEC’s 

web site (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 authorized committees 

that receive contributions of $1,000 

or more between August 16 and 

September 1, for the Special Primary 

Election; and between September 

27 and October 13, for the Special 

General Election.

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.

Massachussetts 5th District Special Election 

Reporting

Committees Involved in Only the Special Primary Must 

File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date1 Date

Pre-Primary August 15 August 20 August 23 

October Quarterly September 30 October 15 October 15

Committees Involved in Both the Special Primary and 

Special General Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date1 Date

Pre-Primary August 15 August 20 August 23 

Pre-General September 26 October 1 October 4 

October Quarterly September 30 October 15 October 15

Post-General November 5 November 15 November 15

Year-End December 31 January 31 January 31

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.

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 

August 16 and September 2, for the 

Special Primary, and between September 27 and October 14, 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 at 

other times during a calendar year.

Electioneering Communications

The 30-day electioneering communications period in connection 

with the Special Primary Election 

runs from August 4 through September 4, 2007. The 60-day electioneering communications period for 

the Special General Election runs 

from August 17 through October 16, 

2007.

—Elizabeth Kurland

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2007-09

GELAC fund’s reimbursement of 

compliance costs related to disclaimers in television advertisements paid 

by publicly funded Presidential campaign committee (Kerry-Edwards 

Advisory

Opinions

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2007

10

FEC Fall Regional 

Conferences 

Each year the Federal Election 

Commission sponsors conferences where Commissioners and 

staff conduct a variety of technical 

workshops on the 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. The schedule in the box at right lists the dates 

and locations for conferences to be 

held in Fall 2007.

Regional Conference in Seattle 

for House and Senate Campaigns, 

Political Party Committees and 

Corporate/Labor/Trade PACs

The Commission will hold a 

regional conference in Seattle, WA, 

Fall Conference 

Schedule

Conference for Campaigns, 

Party Committees and 

Corporate/Labor/Trade PACs

September 26-27, 2007

Red Lion Hotel on Fifth Avenue 

Seattle, WA

Conference for Campaigns, 

Party Committees and 

Corporate/Labor/Trade PACs

November 6-7, 2007

Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark 

St. Louis, MO

The first number in each citation 

refers to the numeric month of the 

2007 Record issue in which the article appeared. The second number, 

following the colon, indicates the 

page number in that issue. For example, “1:4” means that the article 

is in the January issue on page four.

Advisory Opinions

2006-33: Association May Compensate State Affiliate Collecting 

Agents, 2:6

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

2006-35: Legal Fees Paid with 

Campaign Funds, 3:4

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

3:5

2006-37: Campaign May Reimburse Candidate’s Misreported 

Loans, 3:6

2006-38: Officeholder’s Use of 

State Campaign Funds, 3:7

2007-1: Federal Officeholder May 

Raise Nonfederal Funds to Retire 

Index

Outreach

2004, Inc. and Kerry-Edwards 2004 

General Election Legal and Compliance Fund, June 20, 2007)

AOR 2007-10

Recognizing the corporate employers of individual contributors at 

a golf tournament fundraiser (The 

Silvestre Reyes Campaign Committee, June 22, 2007)

AOR 2007-11

Advertising federal candidate/

officeholder’s appearance at state 

party fundraiser in pre-event material that references solicitations for 

nonfederal funds (California Republican Party and California Democratic Party, June 26, 2007) 

AOR 2007-12

Disaffiliation of corporate SSFs 

after spinoff of subsidiaries (Tyco 

International Management Company, June 26, 2007)

on September 26-27, for House and 

Senate campaigns, political party 

committees and corporations, labor 

organizations, trade associations, 

membership organizations and their 

respective PACs. The Seattle conference will be held at the Red Lion 

Hotel on Fifth Avenue in downtown 

Seattle. For additional information, 

or to register for the conference, 

please visit the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/info/conferences/2007/seattle07.shtml. 

Hotel Information. The Red 

Lion Hotel is located at 1415 Fifth 

Avenue, within walking distance of 

Seattle’s famed Pike Place Market 

and near the monorail to tourist attractions such as the Space Needle 

and the Experience Music Project. A 

room rate of $169 (single or double) 

is available to conference attendees 

who make reservations on or before 

August 31. To make your hotel reservations, please call 206-971-8000 

or 1-800-504-3909 and indicate that 

you are attending the FEC conference. The FEC recommends that 

you wait to make your hotel and air 

reservations until you have received 

confirmation of your conference 

registration from Sylvester Management Corporation.

Registration Information

The registration fee for this 

conference is $450, which covers 

the cost of the conference, a reception, materials and meals. A $25 

late fee will be added to registrations 

received after August 31. Complete 

registration information is available 

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

conferences/2007/seattle07.shtml. 

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

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

tonis@sylvestermanagement.com). 

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

notification of upcoming conferences and workshops, call the 

FEC’s Information Division at 

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

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

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

Conferences@fec.gov.

 —Dorothy Yeager
August 2007 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

(continued on page 12)

State Campaign Debt, 5:7

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

2007-3: Private Contributions Do 

Not Preclude Public Funding, 4:8

2007-4: Credit Card Processing 

Services Provided to Political 

Committees, 7:7

2007-5: Officeholder’s Chief of 

Staff Raising Nonfederal Funds 

as Chairman of State Party Committee, 6:5

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

2007-7: Candidate’s Loans Initially 

Misreported as Contributions, 7:9

Audits

Bush/Cheney ’04 and Clark for 

President, 5:8

Gephardt for President, 8:5

Kerry/Edwards, 7:10

Compliance

527 Organizations Pay Civil Penalties, 1:1

Administrative Fine Update, 4:9; 

8:6

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

Update, 8:7

Comments Sought on Proposed 

Probable Cause Hearings, 1:5

Comments Sought on Sua Sponte 

Proposal, 1:5

MUR 5358: Jamie Jacob Morgan, 

6:1

MUR 5487: Progress for America 

Voter Fund, 4:1

MURs 5511 and 5525: Swift Boat 

Veterans and POWs for Truth, 1:3

MUR 5634: Express Advocacy 

Leads to Prohibited Corporate 

Expenditure, 1:4

MUR 5645: Prohibited In-Kind 

Corporate Contributions, 5:4

MUR 5690: Reporting Joint 

Fundraising Proceeds, 5:4

MUR 5702: Colorado Democratic 

Party, 6:2

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

MUR 5754: MoveOn.org Voter 

Fund, 1:4 

MURs 5577/5620: Prohibited Contributions and Failure to Register 

as a Political Committee, 8:1 

Policy Statement on Treasurer’s 

Best Efforts, 7:1

Policy Statement on Embezzlement 

Misreporting Safe Harbor, 5:1

Policy Statement Establishing Probable Cause Hearings, 3:1

Policy Statement on Initial Stage of 

Enforcement Process, 4:3

Policy Statement on Reporting of 

“Purpose of Disbursement,” 2:5

Policy Statement on Self-Reporting 

of Violations, 5:2

Policy Statement on Internal Controls for Political Committees, 

5:3

Court Cases

______ v. FEC

– CREW, 2:3

– Unity ‘08, 2:4

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 2:1; 8:1

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

FEC v. ______ 

– Reform Party of the USA, 7:12

Fieger v. Gonzales, 3:3

Legislation

Legislative Recommendations Approved, 5:11

Information

2007-2008 Contribution Limits, 2:1

Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits for 2007, 3:9

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

Staff Director Testifies on Senate 

E-Filing, 4:10

Telephone Excise Tax Refunds, 

1:11

Public Funding

Democratic and Republican Parties 

Certified for Convention Funding, 

8:4

Estimated Presidential Spending 

Limits, 5:6

Outreach

Conferences Scheduled for 2007, 

3:10, 6:10; 7:13; 8:10

Roundtable Workshops, 4:12

State Outreach Workshops, 6:10; 

7:13

Washington, DC Conference for 

Corporations and SSFs, 3:10, 

4:10

Washington, DC Conference for 

House and Senate Campaigns and 

Political Party Committees, 4:11; 

5:14

Washington, DC Conference for 

Trade Associations, Membership 

Organizations and Labor Organizations, 5:14

Regulations

2007 Rulemaking Priorities, 4:4

Best Efforts Defense Replaces 

Extraordinary Circumstances 

Defense, 5:1

FEC Updates AO 

Search System

This past March, the FEC 

launched a new Advisory Opinion 

Search System on its web site 

at www.fec.gov. This improved 

search function allows users to 

search for advisory opinions 

(AOs) by the AO number or name 

of requestor, or to enter search 

terms or perform an advanced 

search for documents. 

 The new system quickly 

provides relevant AOs, along with 

all related documents including 

advisory opinion requests, 

comments and any concurring 

or dissenting opinions issued 

by Commissioners. The search 

function also provides summary 

material and links to other AOs 

cited in the opinion. 

 When the search system was 

first launched, it included AOs 

issued from 1997 to the present. 

The system has now been updated 

to include AOs dating back to 

1990. The AO search system is 

available at http://saos.nictusa.

com/saos/searchao.
Federal Election Commission RECORD August 2007

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Federal Election Activity and 

Nonfederal Elections, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 7:6

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 

Hybrid Communication, 6:1

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

Supplemental E&J on Political 

Committee Status, 3:1

Reports

April Reporting Reminder, 4:1

California Special Election, 6:7

Georgia Special Election, 5:10

July Reminder, 7:1

Massachusetts Special Election, 8:8

Reports Due in 2007, 1:7

Update, 7:3

Staff

FEC Names New General Counsel, 

6:9

General Counsel and Deputy Resign, 2:6

Statistics

Detailed Presidential Fundraising 

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

Party Financial Activity, 4:10; 7:10

Index

(continued from page 11)