September 2005 Federal Election Commission Volume 31, Number 9

Table of Contents

 Regulations

 1 Final Rules on Payroll Deductions 

for Trade Association SSFs

 4 Federal Register

 4 Public Hearing

 Court Cases

 1 Shays and Meehan v. FEC

 3 New Litigation

 6 Advisory Opinions

 Reports

 6 California Special Election 

 Statistics

 8 Six-Month Fundraising

 Administrative Fines

9 Penalties Assessed

 Audits

 10 DRIVE Audit

 Compliance

 10 “Millionaire” Cases

 800 Line

 11 Updating Registration Information

 Alternative Dispute Resolution

 12 ADR Update

 Publications

 13 Federal Elections 2004

 Outreach

 13 FEC Conferences

 14 Nonconnected Committee Seminar

 14 Roundtable

 14 Index

Court Cases

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

Regulations

Shays and Meehan v. FEC

On July 15, 2005, the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the appealed portion of 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s September 18, 

2004, decision invalidating several 

Commission regulations. The district 

court had upheld four of the regulations challenged in this case, but 

found that other regulations implementing provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 

(BCRA) either were inconsistent 

with Congress’s intent in enacting 

the BCRA or violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s rules for 

promulgating regulations. The Commission subsequently appealed the 

district court’s decision concerning 

five of the invalidated regulations. 

(See the November 2004 Record, 

page 1.) 

Background

The standard for judicial review 

in a case such as this, where a party 

alleges that an agency’s actions 

are contrary to the statute, is called 

Chevron review, after the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., 

Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 

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

Chevron review, the court asks first 

Final Rule on Payroll 

Deductions for Trade 

Association SSFs 

On July 14, 2005, the Commission voted to revise its rules to 

allow corporate members of a trade 

association to provide incidental 

services, including the use of a payroll deduction or check-off system, 

to collect and forward voluntary 

employee contributions to the trade 

association’s SSF. The rules require any member corporation that 

provides such incidental services, 

and the corporation’s subsidiaries, 

divisions, branches and affiliates, 

to make the same services available 

to a labor organization representing 

employees of the corporation or the 

corporation’s subsidiaries, divisions, 

branches or affiliates, at cost, upon 

written request of the labor organization.

Background

Under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act), a trade association may solicit contributions to 

its SSF from a corporate member’s 

stockholders and executive and 

administrative personnel and their 

families (the restricted class) so long 

as the corporation approves the solicitation ahead of time and does not 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

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)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Michael E. Toner, Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald, 

 Commissioner

Bradley A. Smith, Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

Meredith Trimble, Associate 

 Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

whether Congress has spoken to the 

precise issue at hand. If so, then the 

agency’s interpretation of the statute 

must implement Congress’s unambiguous intent. If, however, Congress has not spoken explicitly to 

the question at hand, the court must 

consider whether the agency’s rules 

are based on a permissible reading 

of the statute. 

In this case, the district court also 

found that in some instances the 

FEC failed to engage in a reasoned 

analysis when it promulgated its 

regulations. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), regulations that are promulgated without 

a reasoned analysis may be found 

“arbitrary and capricious” and may 

be set aside by a reviewing court. 5 

U.S.C. §706(2)(A).

Appeals Court Decision

The appeals court affirmed the 

district court’s decision to invalidate 

each of the regulations addressed in 

the Commission’s appeal, as discussed below.1

Coordinated communications. 

Under the Commission’s regulations, a communication is considered 

a coordinated communication if it 

meets a three-pronged test regarding 

who paid for the communication, 

the communication’s content and 

whether the payer’s interaction with 

a candidate or party satisfies specified conduct standards. At issue 

here was the element of the conduct 

prong stating that a communication 

made within 120 days of a primary 

or general election and directed to 

the relevant electorate may be a coordinated communication if it refers 

to a political party or clearly identified federal candidate. Before the 

120-day mark, the rule covers only 

communications that republish official campaign materials or contain 

express advocacy. 

The plaintiffs argued in their 

complaint that the 120-day window offers a safe harbor for communications made outside of this 

window, which is not authorized by 

the statute. The district court found 

that, while Congress had not spoken directly to content restrictions, 

the regulation undercut the Federal 

Election Campaign Act’s statutory 

purpose, and, thus, did not pass the 

second step of Chevron review.

The appeals court disagreed in 

part with the district court and found 

that a standard based on content, 

time and place could be permissible. 

Nevertheless, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision to 

invalidate the regulation, finding that 

the rule was arbitrary and capricious 

under the APA. The appeals court 

found that the Commission offered 

no persuasive justification when it 

promulgated the rule for why 120 

days is an appropriate time period 

for the content standard. 

“Solicit” and “direct.” During 

its rulemaking process, the Commission defined “solicit” and “direct” 

to mean “ask.” The district court 

found that these regulations failed 

the second step of Chevron analysis 

because interpreting these terms to 

cover only direct requests created a 

potential for abuse that would defy 

Congress’s purpose in the BCRA. 

However, the appeals court found 

that these regulations failed the first 

stage of Chevron review. According to the appeals court, Congress 

“has clearly spoken to this issue and 

enacted a prohibition broader than 

the one the FEC adopted. In context, 

BCRA’s terms ‘solicit’ and ‘direct’ 

cover indirect requests.” The appeals 

court therefore upheld the district 

court’s invalidating the regulations.

Electioneering Communications. An electioneering communication is defined in the BCRA as 

“any broadcast, cable or satellite 

communication” that (1) refers to 

a clearly identified federal candidate, (2) “is made within” 60 days 

before a general or 30 days before a 

primary election and (3) is “targeted 

to the relevant electorate.” 2 U.S.C. 

§434(f)(3). The appeals court 

agreed with the district court’s finding that the FEC violated the intent 

of Congress by adding a provision in 

its regulations that a communication 

must be made “for a fee” in order 

to be considered an electioneering 

communication—thus exempting 

unpaid broadcasts such as public service announcements. According to 

the court, the Commission added a 

fourth qualification to the definition 

of electioneering communication 

that was not authorized by the statute. As a result, the regulation failed 1

 As a threshold issue, the appeals court 

found that the plaintiffs, Christopher 

Shays and Martin Meehan, have standing to bring this suit and that the issues 

at hand are ripe for judicial decision. 
September 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

the first step of Chevron review.2 The 

appeals court affirmed the district 

court’s invalidation of the regulation.

Salary Allocation. Federal election activity (FEA) is a new concept 

under the BCRA that identifies 

activities that state and local party 

organizations must finance with 

federal funds. One category of FEA 

includes the salaries of state and 

local party employees devoting more 

than 25 percent of their paid time 

in any month to activities related 

to federal elections or FEA. Once 

an employee’s work in a month 

crosses this 25 percent threshold, 

the employee’s entire salary for that 

month must be paid exclusively with 

federally permissible funds. The 

plaintiffs took issue with the fact 

that the regulations eliminated any 

allocation requirement for salaries 

of employees devoting 25 percent or 

less of their time to federal activities, 

thus freeing state and local party 

committees to pay those salaries 

entirely with nonfederal funds. 

The district court invalidated 

this regulation, finding that it did 

not pass the second step of Chevron review. The district court found 

that, because state party committees 

could avoid paying any salaries with 

federal funds by dividing the federal 

election workload among multiple 

employees working 25 percent of 

their time on federal activities, the 

exclusive use of nonfederal funds to 

pay for salaries and wages compromised the purposes of the BCRA. 

The appeals court, in contrast, 

found that the regulation was arbitrary and capricious under APA 

requirements because the Commission did not provide a reasoned justification for not requiring allocation 

of these salaries. The appeals court 

therefore affirmed the district court’s 

invalidation of the regulation.

Levin Funds. The final district 

court finding appealed by the Commission involved the “Levin Amendment,” which allows state and local 

party committees to finance certain 

types of FEA (generic party campaigning, get-out-the-vote activity 

and voter identification and registration drives) with monies called 

Levin funds that are subject to fewer 

controls than federal funds. Generally, party committees must allocate 

these FEA costs between Levin 

funds and federal funds, or use 

entirely federal funds. A regulatory 

exception, however, provides that 

committees need not allocate if they 

spend no more than $5,000 total on 

allocable expenditures, an amount 

the Commission considers to be de 

minimis. The appeals court found 

that the Commission presented no 

justification for this exemption. 

Accordingly, the district court’s 

invalidation was affirmed because 

the regulations fell short of APA 

standards.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, No. 

04-5352.

 —Meredith Trimble

2

 The district court also invalidated other parts of the electioneering communications regulations. However, the “for a 

fee” provision was the only aspect of the 

district court’s ruling on this regulation 

that the Commission appealed.

New Litigation

FEC v. Odzer

On June 27, 2005, the Commission asked the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of New York to 

find that Tzvi Odzer knowingly and 

willfully made excessive contributions and contributions in the name 

of another to Friends of Weiner 

(Weiner Committee) in violation of 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act). 2 U.S.C. §§441a(a)(1)(A) 

and 441f. 

Background. An FEC audit of 

the Weiner Committee found that in 

December 1999, Mr. Odzer gave the 

committee a $1,000 check for the 

2000 primary and in May 2000 gave 

an additional $1,000 check for the 

general election. At the time, these 

contributions represented the maximum amount an individual could 

give to a federal candidate’s campaign.1

 In June 2000, Odzer wrote 

three $2,000 checks, totaling $6,000, 

to the Weiner Committee drawn 

from his personal checking account. Each check was signed “Tzvi 

Odzer,” but bore the name of one 

of Mr. Odzer’s children in the “for” 

line. Upon receipt of the checks, 

the Weiner Committee recorded the 

contributions as having been made 

by Odzer’s children. 

On June 16, 2004, the Commission entered into a conciliation 

agreement with the Weiner Committee, which paid a civil penalty for 

accepting excessive contributions 

and refunded the $6,000 to Odzer. 

During 2004 and 2005, the Commission notified Mr. Odzer that it 

had found reason to believe and then 

probable cause to believe that he had 

knowingly and willfully violated the 

law by making excessive personal 

contributions in the names of his 

children. Mr. Odzer failed to file a 

written response and the Commission was unable to secure an acceptable conciliation agreement with 

him, prompting this suit.

Request for Relief. The Commission requests that the court declare 

that Mr. Odzer knowingly and 

willfully violated the Act by making excessive contributions and by 

making contributions in the names 

of his three children. Additionally, the Commission asks the court 

to permanently enjoin Mr. Odzer 

from violating the Act and assess 

an appropriate civil penalty for each 

violation he is found to have committed.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of New York, 05-CV-3101.

 —Meredith Trimble

1

 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

of 2002 subsequently raised the individual contribution limit and indexed 

it for inflation. The individual limit for 

the 2005-06 election cycle is $2,100 per 

candidate, per election.
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

4

approve a solicitation by any other 

trade association for the same calendar year. 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(D); 

11 CFR 114.8(c). Once these 

conditions are met, the regulations 

do not limit the methods that a trade 

association may use to solicit and 

facilitate the making of voluntary 

contributions to its SSF. Before this 

rulemaking, however, the regulations 

did limit the methods that a consenting member corporation could use 

to collect and forward contributions 

to a trade association’s SSF. Specifically, 11 CFR 114.8(e)(3) stated 

that a “member corporation may not 

use a payroll deduction or check-off 

system for executive or administrative personnel contributing to the 

separate segregated fund of the trade 

association.” 

In 2003, the Commission received a rulemaking petition from 

America’s Community Bankers and 

its SSF, the America’s Community 

Bankers Community Campaign 

Committee, asking the Commission 

to change its rules to allow a corporate member of a trade association to 

make payroll deductions and checkoff systems available to the corporation’s restricted class employees for 

their voluntary contributions to the 

trade association’s SSF. The Commission issued a Notice of Availability for the petition, and received 

30 comments, all of which supported 

the proposed change.

 In December 2004, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) that set forth 

draft rules on the subject. See the 

February 2005 Record, page 2. The 

Commission held a public hearing 

on the proposed rules on May 17, 

2005. The written comments and 

the transcripts of the hearing are 

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

law_rulemakings.shtml.

Final Rules 

After considering public comments and testimony, the Commission issued final rules. The final 

rules:

• Remove the prohibition on corporate use of a payroll deduction or 

check-off system for contributions 

by executive and administrative 

class employees to the SSF of 

a trade association of which the 

corporation is a member (11 CFR 

114.8(e)(3));

• Authorize a member corporation 

to provide incidental services to 

collect and transmit voluntary contributions from its solicitable class 

employees to a trade association’s 

SSF, including a payroll deduction 

or check-off system, upon written 

request of the trade association 

(new 11 CFR 114.8(e)(4));

• Require any corporation that provides these incidental services, and 

its subsidiaries, divisions, branches 

and affiliates, to make the same 

services available upon written 

request to a labor organization representing members who work for 

the corporation or its subsidiaries, 

divisions, branches or affiliates, for 

contributions to the labor organization’s SSF, at a cost not to exceed 

any actual expenses incurred (new 

11 CFR 114.8(e)(4); and

• Clarify that the provision of incidental services pursuant to new 11 

CFR 114.8(e)(4) is not a prohibited 

form of corporate facilitation (new 

11 CFR 114.2(f)(5)).

In making these changes to the 

rules, the Commission focused on 

the special relationship that exists 

between a trade association and its 

member corporations. The Commission also recognized that recent advisory opinions had given corporate 

members of trade associations some 

latitude in collecting and forwarding 

contributions to their trade associations’ SSFs,1

 other than through 

a payroll deduction or check-off 

system, and that technological and 

societal changes support a change in 

the treatment of payroll deductions 

when used by member corporations. 

The final rule was published in 

the July 21, 2005, Federal Register

(70 FR 41939) and is available on 

the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml

and from the FEC faxline, 202/501-

3413.

 —Meredith Trimble

1

 See AO 2003-22, in which the Commission interpreted the regulations to 

permit a corporate member of a trade 

association to collect voluntary contributions in the form of paper checks 

from its solicitable class, and to forward 

those to the trade association’s SSF. 

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FEC’s Public 

Records Office, on the web site 

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

rulemakings.shtml and from the 

FEC faxline, 202/501-3413.

Notice 2005-18

Payroll Deductions by Member 

Corporations for Contributions 

to a Trade Association’s Separate 

Segregated Fund, Final Rules (70 

FR 41939, July 21, 2005)

Public Hearing on Proposed 

Rules

On August 4, 2005, the Commission held public hearings to receive 

testimony on proposed rules regarding the definition of “federal election 

activity” (FEA) and state, district 

and local party committee (state 

committee) payments for the salaries 

and wages of employees who spend 

25 percent or less of their compensated time during a month on activities in connection with a federal 

election or FEA. The proposed rules 

respond to the district court decision 

in Shays v. FEC, which invalidated 

several Commission regulations that 

were found to be inconsistent with 

the intent of Congress or improperly 
September 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

promulgated.1 Of the six individuals 

who testified, three generally supported the Commission’s proposed 

rules as proper interpretations of the 

statute, while the others expressed 

concerns over the proposals’ practical implications.

Definition of FEA

Background. As part of its decision in Shays, the district court 

invalidated portions of the definition 

of FEA that describe voter registration activity, get-out-the-vote activity (GOTV) and voter identification. 

With regard to voter registration and 

GOTV, the court found the definitions were improperly promulgated 

because the initial NPRM did not 

indicate that the definitions would be 

limited to activities that “assist” individuals in registering or voting. The 

court also invalidated the portion 

of the current definition of GOTV 

that excludes communications by 

associations or similar groups of 

state or local candidates and/or officeholders that refer only to state or 

local candidates. With regard to the 

current definition of voter identification, the court found that the exclusion of voter list acquisition and of 

the activities of groups of state and 

local candidates/officeholders runs 

contrary to Congress’s expressed intent. The Commission subsequently 

proposed rules to conform to the 

court’s ruling.

Hearing testimony. Larry Noble, 

representing the Center for Responsive Politics, and Paul Ryan, representing the Campaign Legal Center, 

testified in favor of proposed rules 

that, among other things, expand the 

definitions of voter registration and 

GOTV to include “efforts to encourage” individuals to register and to 

vote and eliminate an exemption for 

associations of state and local candidates. They argued that such changes 

were required by the statute and that, 

while local party committees could 

be adversely affected by the rules, 

possible harm to local committees 

should not outweigh the statute’s 

requirements. 

Mr. Ryan further argued that 

making such changes would not 

overwhelm the Commission from an 

administrative standpoint because 

any additional activities that would 

be captured by the proposed definitions of FEA are already regulated 

by other provisions of the campaign 

finance law that require allocation of 

certain federal/nonfederal activities. 

Donald Simon, from Democracy 21, 

agreed. He additionally suggested 

that unless the rules were changed to 

include “efforts to encourage” voter 

registration or GOTV, there could be 

no guarantee that a court would find 

the rules consistent with Congressional intent.

Joseph Sandler, of Sandler, Reiff 

& Young P.C., argued, to the contrary, that the Commission should 

retain its current voter registration 

activity rules, suggesting that more 

encompassing rules might negatively 

affect voter registration levels. Mark 

Brewer, representing the Association of State Democratic Chairs, 

agreed and argued that many of the 

proposed changes to the regulations might make it harder, and thus 

less likely, for state and local party 

committees to undertake grassroots 

political activity. For example, 

Mr. Brewer noted that, under the 

proposed rules, a local party committee’s placement of voter registration forms in the reception area of 

its office, or even an employee’s 

answers to a caller’s question about 

voter registration procedures, might 

be considered FEA. According to 

Mr. Brewer, many local party committees chose not to undertake any 

activities that could be considered 

FEA during the last election because 

they found the federal campaign 

finance laws too complex. 

Brian Svoboda, representing the 

Democratic Legislative Campaign 

Committee, encouraged the Commission to retain the FEA exemption 

for communications by associations 

or similar groups of state or local 

candidates and/or officeholders that 

refer only to state or local candidates. He discussed how state-level 

legislative caucuses are fundamentally different from other groups 

regulated by the FEC, and noted 

that recent Congressional action 

regarding legislation currently under 

Congressional consideration suggests that Congress recognizes this 

distinction. 

With regard to the current definition voter identification, Mr. Simon 

and Mr. Ryan suggested that, if a 

mailing list is used in connection 

with a federal election, then the 

costs of its purchase or maintenance 

should be considered FEA even if it 

was purchased or enhanced outside 

of the FEA time period. Others, 

however, drew a distinction between 

the purchase or enhancement of a 

list and regular list maintenance, 

suggesting that under this proposed 

rule all list activity would eventually 

become FEA.

Salary Payments. 

Background. Under the current 

regulation, state committees may 

use any funds that comply with the 

requirements of state law to pay the 

salaries and wages of employees 

who spend 25 percent or less of 

their compensated time in a month 

on activity in connection with a 

federal election or FEA. However, 

the district court in Shays ruled that 

this regulation compromised the 

Congress’s purpose of stemming the 

flow of nonfederal money into activities that impact federal elections 

by permitting state committees to 

divide their federal-related workload 

among multiple employees. The 

court of appeals in Shays found that 

the Commission had not adequately 

1

 On July 15, 2005, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the appealed portion of the district 

court’s decision. See the related article 

on page 1. (continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

6

California Special Election 

Reporting

The Special General Election to 

fill the U.S. House seat in California’s 48th Congressional District, 

vacated by Representative Christopher Cox, will be held on October 

4, 2005. Under California law, a 

Reports

Regulations

(continued from page 5) Advisory

Opinions

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2005-09

Use of campaign funds for travel 

expenses of Senator’s minor children when Senator and spouse travel 

between home district and Washington, D.C., to participate in officiallyconnected events (Friends of Chris 

Dodd 2004, June 27, 2005)

AOR 2005-10

Federal officeholders’ and candidates’ ability to raise funds for 

independent committees that solely 

support or oppose ballot initiatives 

in conjunction with a special election in which no federal candidates 

appear on the ballot (U.S. Representative Howard L. Berman and U.S. 

Representative John T. Doolittle, 

June 24, 2005)

AOR 2005-11

Candidate’s use of campaign 

funds for legal expenses stemming 

from grand jury investigation of his 

conduct as federal candidate and 

officeholder (Friends of “Duke” 

Cunningham, August 8, 2005)

AOR 2005-12

Federal officeholder’s solicitation 

and spending of nonfederal funds for 

exploratory committee for nonfederal office (Representative Chaka 

Fattah, August 10, 2005)

justified the regulation and for that 

reason upheld the district court’s 

invalidation of the regulation.

Hearing testimony. Mr. Simon and Mr. Ryan supported the 

Commission’s proposal to require 

state and local party committees to 

allocate salary payments for employees who spend 25 percent or less of 

their compensated time on federal 

activities. Mr. Simon stressed the 

possibility for circumvention of the 

law if party committees were to divide federal activities among several 

employees working on such activities for only 25 percent of their time 

each month. 

Mr. Brewer, on the other hand, 

argued that state committees lack the 

resources to allocate their workload 

among employees in this way. He 

suggested that the Commission 

retain the current rule with a new explanation and justification. Barring 

that, he suggested allowing salaries 

for employees who spend 25 percent 

or less of their time on federal activities to be allocated as an administrative expense. Mr. Sandler agreed 

and additionally suggested that the 

Commission allow for payroll accounts that would function similarly 

to allocation accounts for the payment of salaries. He argued that such 

accounts would aid committees that 

might not know until the end of each 

month what type of funds could be 

use to pay each employee’s salary.

Extended Comment Period

At the request of one of the witnesses, the Commission has extended the comment period for this 

rulemaking until mid-September. 

Additional information is available 

on the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml, 

including the proposed rules and instructions for submitting comments, 

written comments and a transcript of 

this hearing. See also the June 2005 

Record, pages 1 and 3.

 —Amy Kort

majority winner in a special election is declared elected. Should no 

candidate achieve a majority vote, 

a Special Runoff Election will be 

held on December 6, 2005, among 

the top vote-getters of each qualified 

political party, including qualified 

independent candidates. 

Candidate committees involved in 

one or both of these elections must 

follow the reporting schedule on 

page 7. 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 (FEC Form 

3, pages 5-8) rather than the normal 

detailed summary page. These committees must also file the Form 3Z-1 

with their Year-End report.

PACs and party committees that 

file on a semiannual schedule and 

participate in one or both of these 

elections must follow the same 

schedule, except that they need not 

file the October Quarterly report. 

These committees must instead file 

the next scheduled report following 

the Pre-General (the Post-General, 

Pre-Runoff or Year-End report, as 

appropriate) covering a reporting 

period that begins on September 15 

and ends on the “close of books” 

date for that report. PACs and party 

committees that file monthly should 

continue to file according to their 

regular filing schedule. 

Filing Methods

Reports filed electronically must 

be submitted by midnight on the 

filing date. A committee that is 

required to file electronically but instead files on paper reporting forms 

will be considered a nonfiler and 

may be subject to enforcement action, including administrative fines. 

Reports filed on paper and sent 

by registered or certified mail must 

be postmarked by the mailing date. 

Committees should keep the mailing 

receipt with its postmark as proof of 

filing. If using overnight mail, the 

delivery service must receive the report by the mailing date. “Overnight 
September 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

1 Individuals and other groups not registered with the FEC who make electioneering communications costing more 

than $10,000 in the aggregate in the 

calendar year must disclose this activity 

to the Commission within 24 hours of 

the distribution of the communication. 

See 11 CFR 100.29 and 104.20. For 

more information, see the December 

2003 Record, page 5.

mail” includes Priority or Express 

Mail having a delivery confirmation, 

or an overnight delivery service with 

an on-line tracking system. Reports 

sent by other means must be received by the Commission’s close of 

business on the filing date. 

48-Hour Notices of Contributions

Note that 48-hour notices are 

required of authorized committees 

that receive contributions of $1,000 

or more between September 15 and 

October 1, for the Special General 

Election, and between November 

17 and December 3, for the Special 

Runoff Election, if that election is 

held. 

24- and 48 Hour Notices of 

Independent Expenditures

Political committees and other 

persons must file 24-hour notices of 

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

September 15 and October 2, for 

the Special General, and between 

November 17 and December 4, for 

the Special Runoff, if that election is 

held. This requirement is in addition 

to that of filing 48-hour notices of 

independent expenditures that aggregate $10,000 or more at other times 

during a calendar year.

Electioneering Communications

The 60-day electioneering communications1 period in connection 

with the Special General Election 

runs from August 5 through October 

4, 2005, and the electioneering communications period for the Special 

Runoff Election, if that election is 

held, runs from October 7 through 

December 6, 2005.

 —Amy Kort

California Special Election

If Only the Special General Is Held, Committees Involved 

Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date Date

Pre-General September 14 September 19 September 22

October Quarterly September 30 October 15 October 151

Post-General October 24 November 3 November 3

Year-End December 31 January 31, 2006 January 31, 2006

If Two Elections Are Held Committees Involved in Both 

Elections Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date Date

Pre-General September 14 September 19 September 22

October Quarterly September 30 October 15 October 151

Pre-Runoff November 16 November 21 November 242

Post-Runoff December 26 January 5, 2006 January 5, 2006

Year-End December 31 January 31, 2006 January 31, 2006

If Two Elections are Held, Committees Involved in Only 

the Special General Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date Date

Pre-General September 14 September 19 September 22

October Quarterly September 30 October 15 October 151

1 Note that the October Quarterly filing deadline falls on a weekend. Filing deadlines are not extended when they fall on weekends.

2 Note that the Pre-Runoff filing deadline falls on a federal holiday. Filing deadlines are not extended when they fall on holidays.
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

8

0

50

100

150

200

250

Republicans

Democrats

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Thousands of Dollars

House Candidates

50

100

150

200

250

Republicans

Democrats

Thousands of Dollars

House Candidates

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Thousands of Dollars

House Candidates

Incumbent House Candidates’ Total Median Receipts and Median Receipts from

Individuals During First Six Months of Election Cycle, 1995-2005

Total Median Receipts Median Receipts from Individuals

Statistics

2005 Six-Month Fundraising 

Summary

Fundraising by party committees 

in the first half of the year increased 

over fundraising during recent 

comparable periods. Fundraising 

for Congressional campaigns is 

also growing as the 2006 races get 

underway.

Party Committees

During the first six months of 

2005, federally registered Republican party committees raised $142.7 

million and spent $98.1 million, 

while the Democratic committees raised $86.3 million and spent 

$60.2 million. This is a two percent 

increase in receipts for Republicans 

and a 53 percent increase for Democrats when compared to the same 

period in 2003.

Contributions from individuals 

constituted the bulk of the receipts 

for both parties. Democrats reported 

$63.6 million from individuals and 

$11.4 million from PACs, while 

Republicans reported $125.9 million 

from individuals and $11.7 million 

from PACs.

At the end of the reporting period, 

Democrats had $32.7 million in 

cash-on-hand and debts of $4.6 million. Republicans showed a cashon-hand balance of $72.5 million 

and debts of about $800,000.

Congressional Campaigns

Candidates seeking election to 

the 33 Senate seats up in 2006 raised 

$84.8 million and spent $20.2 million in the first six months of 2005. 

These Senate candidates ended the 

period with $103.1 million cash-onhand and debts of $6.9 million, some 

of which remains from previous 

elections.

Campaign finance reports filed 

by House candidates during the 

same six-month period show 428 

House incumbents reporting receipts 

of $116.5 million, a 25.5 percent 

increase from the comparable period 

in 2003. Republican incumbents reported median receipts of $245,137 

compared to $188,745 for Democrats. The charts below detail both 

the total median receipts and the median receipts from individuals raised 

by incumbent House candidates 

through June 30 of the nonelection 

year, dating back to 2005.

Non-incumbents raised a total of 

$14.3 million for House races during 

the first six months of 2005, with 79 

Democrats raising $6.8 million and 

60 Republicans raising $7.5 million.

Additional Information 

More information on campaign 

finance statistics for the first six 

months of 2005 is available in press 

releases dated July 21, 2005, (party 

committees) and July 27, 2005, 

(Congressional). The releases are 

available:

• On the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/press/press2005/

20050721party/20050721party.

html and http://www.fec.gov/press/

press2005/20050727candidate/

20050727candidate.html;

• From the Public Disclosure Office 

(800/424-9530, press 2) and the 

Press Office (800/424-9530, press 

1); and

• By fax through the FEC Faxline 

(202/501-3413).

 —Meredith Trimble
September 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

Committees Fined for 

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently publicized its final action on 33 new 

Administrative Fine cases, bringing 

the total number of cases released to 

the public to 1,105, with $1,486,182 

in fines collected by the FEC during 

the four years that the program has 

been in place.

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 

and notices 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 

charts below at left, 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

Administrative 

Fines 

 1. Americans for Democratic Action Inc. PAC $600 

 2. Arent Fox PLLC PAC (AFPAC) $600 

 3. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company PAC 

 (AXA Equitable PAC) $3,000 

 4. Blue Shield of California PAC $600

 5. Brian Higgins for Congress $4,847 

 6. Calumet PAC $500 

 7. Campbell for Senate $601 

 8. Charlie Comisionado 2004, Inc. $2501

 9. Citizens of Cochran ____2

10. Draft Clark 2004 for President Committee

April Quarterly 2004 $01

11. Draft Clark 2004 for President Committee

 July Quarterly 2004 $01

12. Draft Clark 2004 for President Committee 

 October Quarterly 2004 $01

13. Experian PAC $600 

14. First Citizens Bancshares Inc. PAC 

 (First Citizens Bancshares PAC) $500 

15. Fleming for Congress 2004 $9003

16. Friends of Richard Hoffman $120 

17. Hostetler for Congress $2503

18. IUOE Local 542 Operating Engineers Political Action Fund $900 

19. Livestock Marketing Association PAC (LMA-PAC) $500 

20. Lott for Congress Committee $600 

21. Mark McBride for the U.S. Senate ____2

22. The New Democrat Network-PAC (NDN PAC) $220 

23. Newmont Mining Corporation PAC (NEWPAC) $500 

24. Paul Van Dam for U.S. Senate $170 

25. Randy Camacho for Congress $900 

26. Sparta Inc. Employees’ PAC $500 

27. Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (PAC) $500 

28. Syngenta Corporation PAC (Syngenta PAC) $120 

29. Tashenberg for Congress $01 

30. Welch for Wisconsin $3,200 

31. Women Working for the Future AKA The Future PAC $5001

32. WV Republican State Executive Committee $7,500 

33. United Brotherhood of Carpenters/Joiners of American 

 New England Reg. Carpenters Legis. Emp. Cmte. $1,125 

 

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1 This civil money penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the report.

2 The committee provided documentation to show the report was timely filed, 

and the Commission took no further action in this case.

3 This civil money penalty has not been collected.
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

10

Audits

Audit of the Democratic, 

Republican, Independent 

Voter Education Political 

Campaign Committee

On July 5, 2005, the Commission 

approved the final audit report on the 

Democrat, Republican, Independent 

Voter Education Political Campaign 

Committee (DRIVE). The audit 

found that the committee:

• Received two bank loans that appear to be unsecured;

• Failed to maintain contributor payroll deduction authorizations; 

• Did not deposit contributions in a 

timely manner; and

• Misstated financial activity.

Apparent Prohibited 

Contributions—Bank Loans

A bank’s loan of money to a political committee is not a contribution 

by the lending institution if the loan 

is made in the ordinary course of 

business. A loan is considered to be 

made in the ordinary course of business if it bears the usual and customary interest rate, is made on a basis 

which assures repayment, is evidenced by a written instrument and 

is subject to a due date or amortization schedule. 11 CFR 100.7(b)(11). 

DRIVE received two bank loans in 

October and November 2002 that 

totaled $500,000. Neither loan was 

secured by collateral. The FEC’s 

Audit staff therefore concluded 

that the loans were not made on a 

basis that assured repayment. In 

addition, DRIVE did not properly 

disclose the loans as outstanding on 

its 2002 Year-End report. The Audit 

staff recommended that DRIVE 

either demonstrate that the loans 

were secured, made in the ordinary 

course of business and therefore 

not a prohibited contribution or file 

amended reports disclosing each 

loan as unsecured. To date, DRIVE 

has done neither. 

Failure to Maintain Contributor 

Payroll Deduction Authorizations

A separate segregated fund (SSF) 

must maintain copies of payroll 

deduction authorizations for each 

individual who makes any contribution to the SSF via automatic payroll 

deduction. 11 CFR 104.14(b)(1). 

These authorizations, like other 

committee records, must be kept for 

a period of three years from the date 

of the report to which they relate. 

The Audit staff conducted a sample 

review of DRIVE’s contribution 

deposits and concluded that payroll deduction authorization forms 

were not available for contributions 

totaling $1,235,460. In response 

to the interim audit report, DRIVE 

implemented policy and procedural 

changes to ensure that such authorizations are obtained and maintained 

in the future. These new procedures 

will be subject to review by the 

Audit staff.

Untimely Deposit of Contributions

Under Commission regulations, 

all receipts by a political committee must either be deposited or 

returned to the contributor within 

10 days of the treasurer’s receipt of 

the contribution. 11 CFR 103.3(a). 

Additionally, collecting agents that 

receive contributions on behalf of a 

committee must transmit those funds 

and the necessary records to the 

committee treasurer within a specific 

time period—within 10 days for 

contributions over $50 and within 30 

days for contributions of $50 or less. 

11 CFR 102.6 and 102.8(b).

The Audit staff’s sample review 

of contribution transmittals from 

local unions and/or employers to 

DRIVE showed that contributions 

made via payroll deduction totaling $1,914,970 were not deposited 

timely, and some deposits were 

made up to 64 days late. In response 

to the interim audit report, DRIVE 

implemented new procedures, subject to review by the Audit staff, to 

ensure compliance.

Misstatement of Financial Activity

FEC reports filed by SSFs must 

disclose the amount of cash-onhand at the beginning and end of the 

reporting period, the total amount of 

receipts and disbursements for the 

reporting period and for the calendar year and certain transactions 

that require itemization. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b)(1)-(5). DRIVE’s receipts, 

disbursements and ending cash on 

hand were misstated in 2001 and 

2002. In response to the interim 

audit report, DRIVE filed amended 

reports.

The full audit report can be 

viewed on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/audits/2002/

20050718drivepac.pdf. 

 —Meredith Trimble

FEC Closes First 

“Millionaire” Cases

On July 26, 2005, the Commission announced civil penalties 

totaling more than $50,000 in the 

first two enforcement cases to arise 

from the so-called “Millionaires’ 

Amendment.” Enacted as part of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

of 2002 (BCRA), the Millionaires’ 

provision increases the individual 

contribution limits and—in some 

cases—the coordinated party expenditure limits for qualified candidates 

whose opponent’s personal spending on the campaign exceeds certain 

threshold amounts. 

Background 

Under the Millionaires’ rules, a 

candidate registering to run for a 

House seat must disclose on his/her 

Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 

2) the amount by which he/she 

expects to exceed the applicable 

$350,000 personal spending threshold. 2 U.S.C. §441a-1(b)(1)(B); 

11 CFR 400.20. (Note that the 

thresholds for Senate races are different.) Then, within 24 hours after 

Compliance
September 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

exceeding the threshold through a 

personal expenditure, the candidate 

(or his/her campaign committee) 

must notify the Commission, each 

opposing candidate and the national 

party committee of each candidate 

in the election by filing FEC Form 

10. The opposing candidates then 

use that information to calculate the 

“opposition personal funds amount” 

(OPFA), which compares the overall 

funding of the campaigns to determine whether they qualify for 

increased limits. 

Under the Millionaires’ rules, 

an expenditure of personal funds 

includes not only direct candidate 

expenditures in connection with the 

campaign, but also campaign loans 

secured by the candidate’s personal 

funds. In addition to including loan 

amounts in a potential Form 10 

filing, under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act’s reporting requirements, political committees must report all loans on Schedule C and file 

a Schedule C-1 with the first report 

due after a new loan is obtained by 

either the committee or the candidate to demonstrate that the loan was 

obtained in accordance with normal 

lending practices.

MUR 5623

On July 18, 2005, the Commission entered into a conciliation 

agreement with the Mike Crotts for 

Congress Committee, Inc. and Vicki 

Gibbs, in her official capacity as 

committee treasurer (Respondents). 

According to the agreement, Mike 

D. Crotts filed a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2) on July 8, 2003, 

but failed to complete the declaration of intent to expend personal 

funds. Upon receiving a letter from 

the FEC’s Reports Analysis Division 

(RAD) notifying him of the omission, Mr. Crotts filed an amended 

form declaring his intent to spend no 

personal funds above the threshold. 

In March 2004, however, the Mike 

Crotts for Congress Committee, Inc. 

received a bank loan of $400,000 

drawn on Mr. Crotts’ personal home 

equity line of credit. Although the 

loan amount exceeded the $350,000 

personal spending threshold, the required FEC Form 10 was filed only 

after further correspondence from 

RAD—47 days late. In addition, the 

campaign committee did not subsequently file the required Schedule C1 disclosing the details of the loan.

The conciliation agreement requires the Respondents to pay a civil 

penalty of $40,000 and to cease and 

desist from future violations of the 

Millionaires’ provisions and other 

regulations implicated in this case.

MUR 5488

On July 12, 2005, the Commission entered into a conciliation 

agreement with Brad Smith for Congress, James Bailey in his official 

capacity as treasurer and Bradley 

Smith (Respondents). According 

to the agreement, Bradley Smith’s 

opponent, Gene DeRossett, expended $451,000 in personal funds 

and subsequently filed the required 

Form 10. In calculating the OPFA, 

the Respondents used the correct 

formula as outlined in 11 CFR 

400.10(a)(3)(ii), but they mistakenly 

included only net loans from the 

candidate to determine Mr. Smith’s 

own personal expenditures, rather 

than the gross amount of those loans. 

By using the lesser amount in the 

calculation, the Respondents erroneously believed they were eligible for 

increased contribution limits and, in 

fact, accepted $40,500 in contributions above the normal limits.

The agreement requires the 

Respondents to pay a civil penalty 

of $14,000 and to cease and desist 

from violating 2 U.S.C. §441a(f). In 

addition, Respondents will refund to 

contributors or seek reattribution for 

all contributions they received that 

exceeded the normal limits.

Additional Information

For additional information on 

these cases, please visit the Commission’s Public Records Office or consult the Enforcement Query System

on the FEC’s web site and enter case 

number 5623 or 5488.

 —Meredith Trimble

800 Line

Updating Your Registration 

Information

The material that follows answers 

frequently asked questions about 

changes or corrections to registration 

documents, FEC Forms 1 (Statement 

of Organization) and 2 (Statement of 

Candidacy). 

When must a committee report 

any change or correction to 

information disclosed in its 

registration documents?

A committee must report to the 

Commission any change in its registration information within 10 days 

after the change occurs. 11 CFR 

102.2(a)(2). Candidates must also 

remember that while they may reuse an existing campaign committee 

for the new election cycle, they must 

file a new Statement of Candidacy. 

What types of changes would 

require a committee to file an 

amendment? 

A committee would need to file 

an amendment to report, for example, an updated e-mail address, a 

new fax number, a new treasurer, a 

new assistant treasurer, a change of 

mailing address or a new campaign 

depository. While these are some of 

the most common examples, any erroneous information on Forms 1 or 2 

must be corrected within the 10-day 

deadline.

Why is it important to update 

your contact information? 

The FEC uses the contact information disclosed on Forms 1 and 

2 to provide important compliance 

800 Line

(continued on page 12)
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

12

information to committees. This 

newsletter, for example, is automatically sent to all committee treasurers 

identified on Statements of Organization, as are report notices and 

other official correspondence.

In some cases, other committees 

may also need the information. Under the “Millionaires’ Amendment,” 

for example, campaigns must fax or 

e-mail certain spending information 

to opposing candidate to help them 

determine whether they qualify for 

increased contribution limits. Additionally, campaigns must inform 

national and state party committees 

when they can make coordinated 

expenditures that exceed the limitations. If your committee’s disclosed 

fax or e-mail address is outdated, 

you could miss an opportunity to 

benefit from this provision. 11 CFR 

400.20. 

If these “carrots” aren’t reason 

enough for you to make sure that 

your information is current and 

complete, there is a “stick.” Failure 

to provide required information can 

result in an enforcement action.

What if a committee is no longer 

active?

Even if a committee is no longer 

active, it still is required to keep its 

registration information current, and 

must continue to file regular financial reports with the FEC until the 

committee has been terminated. 

Committees in this situation may 

wish to consider filing a termination 

report. For more information, please 

refer to the appropriate campaign 

guide for your particular committee 

or contact the FEC’s Information Division or Reports Analysis Division 

for assistance. 

How do I actually make a change 

or correction?

If your committee files electronically, submit a completed electronic 

replacement Form 1 or Form 2, as 

appropriate. If your committee files 

800 Line

(continued from page 11)

on paper, submit a new paper FEC 

Form 1 or 2, as appropriate, completing only the committee identification section and any other sections 

of the form that disclose new information. As with other filings, the 

treasurer or designated assistant treasurer must sign the form. Regardless 

of whether you file electronically or 

on paper, be sure to designate the 

filing as an amendment.

For additional information on 

updating your FEC Forms 1 and 2, 

contact the FEC’s Information Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-

1100. 

 —Kathy Carothers

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently resolved ten additional cases under 

the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program. The respondents, 

the alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

the final disposition of the cases are 

listed below. 

1. The Commission reached 

agreement with Jose L. Rivera 

regarding a campaign contribution 

from a foreign national. Mr. Rivera 

acknowledged that he may have 

misspoken when encouraging listeners to become active in the political 

process and to vote. He agreed to 

consult information available from 

the Commission regarding citizen 

and foreign national activity, and he 

will host at least one radio program 

in which he will provide information 

on the campaign finance law and 

the political process to his Spanish 

language speaking audience. 

The additional respondents named 

in this case, Cannon for Congress, 

its treasurer Curtis S. Bramble, 

Christopher Cannon and Marco 

Diaz, acknowledged that the host of 

a Spanish language radio program 

may have misspoken in encouraging 

listeners to become active in the political process. They agreed to have 

Mr. Bramble and Mr. Diaz attend an 

FEC seminar within 12 months of 

the effective date of this agreement. 

(ADR 207/MUR 5464) 

2. The Commission closed the 

case involving Van Hollen for 

Congress and Jennifer L. Smith, its 

treasurer, regarding the committee’s 

alleged use of Congressional staff 

and resources for campaign activity. 

The ADR Office recommended that 

the case be closed, and the Commission agreed and closed the file. 

(ADR 229/MUR 5477) 

3. The Commission closed 

the case involving Von’s Grocery 

Company regarding an alleged 

violation of the Act’s prohibition on 

corporate contributions. The ADR 

Office recommended that the case be 

closed, and the Commission agreed 

and closed the file. (ADR 233/ MUR 

5503) 

4. The Commission reached 

agreement with the Nebraska Republican Party Federal Campaign 

Committee and its treasurer, Demarus Carlson, regarding their failure 

to disclose all of the Committee’s 

financial activity on its 2003 MidYear Report. The respondents 

acknowledged reporting errors and 

agreed to pay a $10,000 civil penalty. In order to avoid similar errors 

in the future, the respondents agreed 

to send a minimum of four officers 

and/or staff to an FEC seminar on 

federal election campaign reporting requirements within 12 months 

of the effective date of this agreement. The respondents will also 

maintain a resource center in the 

committee’s office to guide the committee in complying with the Act’s 

requirements and amend internal 

procedures to provide for additional 

review of the committee’s reports 
September 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

13

prior to submittal to the Commission. (ADR 226*) 

5. The Commission closed the 

case involving Your Art Here, Inc. 

and Owen Mundy, its treasurer, 

regarding an alleged violation of the 

Commission’s disclaimer requirements. The ADR Office recommended that the case be closed, and the 

Commission agreed and closed the 

file. (ADR 250/MUR 5574)

6. The Commission closed the 

case involving the Republican 

National Committee and Michael 

L. Retzer, its treasurer, regarding an 

alleged contribution in the name of 

another. The ADR Office recommended that the case be closed, and 

the Commission agreed and closed 

the file. (ADR 259/MUR 5602)

7. The Commission reached 

agreement with the Tennessee 

Republican Party Federal Election 

Account and Joe Arnold, its treasurer, regarding accepting excessive 

and prohibited contributions and 

depositing nonfederal funds in a 

federal account. The respondents 

acknowledged receiving and depositing excessive contributions. In 

order to conclude this matter and 

avoid similar problems in the future, 

the respondents agreed to pay a 

$30,000 civil penalty and to prepare 

and maintain a procedural manual to 

provide guidance to the committee’s 

staff in complying with Act. They 

also agreed to forward to the Commission copies of paid cancelled 

checks of refunded contributions, 

to disgorge to the U.S. Treasury 

any contributions not refunded to 

contributors and to send a minimum 

of two staff members to an FEC 

seminar on federal election campaign reporting requirements within 

18 months of the effective date of 

this agreement. (ADR 224*) 

8. The Commission closed the 

case involving The Tides Foundation, Senator John Kerry, Teresa 

Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Democratic Justice Fund, Miramax Films 

and Michael Moore/CRM Management regarding matters that were not 

within FEC jurisdiction. The ADR 

Office recommended that the case be 

closed, and the Commission agreed 

and closed the file. (ADR 232/MUR 

5501)

9. The Commission closed the 

case involving Friends of Bill Nojay 

and Eileen Semmler, its treasurer, 

regarding an alleged failure to file 

an accurate Statement of Candidacy 

and alleged failure to accurately 

report contributions. The ADR Office recommended that the case be 

closed, and the Commission agreed 

and closed the file. (ADR 234/MUR 

5484)

10. The Commission closed the 

case involving Jeff Fortenberry for 

U.S. Congress and Keith May, its 

treasurer, and the Nebraska Republican Party and Chris Peterson, its 

Executive Director, regarding an alleged violation of the Commission’s 

disclaimer requirements and failure 

to report operating expenditures and 

in-kind contributions. The ADR 

Office recommended that the case be 

closed, and the Commission agreed 

and closed the file after sending an 

admonishment letter. (ADR 248/

MUR 5528)

 —Meredith Trimble

*This case was internally generated 

within the Commission.

Publications

Federal Elections 2004 

Publication Available

Federal Elections 2004: Election Results for the U.S. President, 

the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House 

of Representatives is now available. 

This biennial publication provides 

an historical record of federal election results, including primary, 

runoff and general elections. This 

year’s edition features color maps 

illustrating the Presidential and Congressional data, as well as summary 

tables presenting the votes cast by 

party, office and state.

The publication is available in 

both PDF and Excel formats from 

the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/general/library.shtml. For 

further information, call the Public 

Records Office at 800/424-9530 or 

202/694-1120.

 —Meredith Trimble

Campaign Finance Law 

Training Conference in San 

Antonio

On October 25 and 26 the Commission will hold a conference in 

San Antonio, TX, for House and 

Senate campaigns, political party 

committees and corporations, labor 

organizations, trade associations, 

membership organizations and their 

respective PACs. The conference 

will consist of a series of workshops 

conducted by Commissioners and 

experienced FEC staff who will 

explain how the federal campaign 

finance law applies to each of these 

groups. Workshops will specifically address recent changes to the 

campaign finance law and will focus 

on fundraising and reporting rules. A 

representative from the IRS will be 

Outreach

(continued on page 14)

Need FEC Material 

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain 

FEC material fast. it operates 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

Hundreds of FEC documents—

reporting forms, brochures, FEC 

regulations—can be faxed almost 

immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial 

202/501-3413 and follow the 

instructions. To order a complete 

menu of Faxline documents, 

enter document number 411 at 

the prompt.
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

14

Upcoming 2005

Conferences and 

Seminars

Conference for Campaigns, 

Parties and Corporate/Labor/

Trade PACs

September 14-15, 2005

Hyatt Regency Islandia

San Diego, CA

Conference for Campaigns, 

Parties and Corporate/Labor/

Trade PACs

October 25-26, 2005

Crowne Plaza Hotel 

San Antonio Riverwalk

San Antonio, TX

Seminar for Nonconnected 

PACs and 527 Organizations

November 16

FEC Headquarters

Washington, D.C.

available to answer election-related 

tax questions.

The conference will be held at the 

Crowne Plaza Hotel San Antonio 

Riverwalk. The registration fee for 

this conference is $350, which covers the costs of the conference, materials and meals. A $10 late fee will 

be added to registrations received 

after September 30.

The Crowne Plaza Hotel is 

located at 111 Pecan Street East, 

San Antonio, TX, 78205, in San 

Antonio’s famous Riverwalk area. A 

$129 room rate, single or double, is 

available for conference participants 

who make reservations on or before 

September 30. To receive this special 

rate, you must mention that you are 

attending the FEC conference. After 

September 30, room rates are based 

on availability. Call 1-888/623-2800 

to make reservations.

Seminar for Nonconnected 

Political Action Committees

On November 16, 2005, the 

Commission will hold a one-day 

seminar for nonconnected committees (i.e., PACs not sponsored by a 

corporation, union, trade association 

or nonprofit membership organization) at the FEC, 999 E Street, NW., 

Washington, D.C. 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 law as it applies to nonconnected PACs and unregistered 

section 527 organizations.

The seminar will address issues 

such as fundraising and reporting. 

Outreach

(continued from page 13)

SOLD OUT

Roundtable Schedule

Date Subject Intended Audience 

July 13

9:30-11 a.m.

Reception

11-11:30 a.m.

Reporting for Candidates 

and Their Committees, 

plus “Meet Your Analyst” 

reception

Individuals responsible 

for filing FEC reports for 

Candidate Committees 

(Up to 30 may Attend)

Reporting Roundtables

On October 5, 2005, the Commission will host a roundtable session 

on reporting, including disclosure 

requirements under the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 

(BCRA) and recent FEC regulations. See the chart below for details. 

The session will be followed by a 

half-hour reception at which each 

attendee will have an opportunity to 

meet the campaign finance analyst 

who reviews his or her committee’s 

reports. Representatives from the 

FEC’s Electronic Filing Office will 

also be available to meet with attendees.

Attendance is limited to 30 people 

and registration is accepted on a 

first-come, first-served basis. Please 

call the FEC before registering or 

Registration Information

Complete registration information for FEC conferences is 

available on the FEC web site at 

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

shtml#conferences.

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

at 1-800/246-7277. For questions 

about the conference program, call 

the FEC’s Information Division 

at 1-800/424-9530 (or locally at 

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

Conferences@fec.gov.

Please note that the FEC suggests that you wait to make your 

hotel and air reservations until you 

have received confirmation of your 

conference registration.

 —Amy Kort

sending money to ensure that openings remain. The registration form 

is available on the FEC web site at 

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

shtml#roundtables and from Faxline, 

the FEC’s automated fax system 

(202/501-3413, request document 

590). For more information, call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530, or locally at 202/694-1100.

 —Amy Kort
September 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

15

Index

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2005 Record issue in which the 

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

the page number in that issue. For 

example, “1:4” means that the article 

is in the January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

2004-40: Status of state party as 

state committee of political party, 

1:8

2004-41: Non-affiliation of SSFs, 

2:4

2004-42: LLC as connected organization for SSF, 2:7

2004-43: Discounted sale of ad time 

not a contribution, 4:6

2004-45: Accounting method for 

determining excess contributions 

under Millionaires’ Amendment, 

3:7

–Friends of Lane Evans, et. al., 8:1

– Odzer, 9:3

Regulations

“Agent” definition for coordinated 

and independent expenditures 

and nonfederal funds regulations, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

3:4; public hearing scheduled, 5:5; 

public hearing, 7:6

BCRA technical amendments, final 

rules, 1:6

Candidate solicitation at state, 

district and local party committee 

fundraisers, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 4:4; public hearing 

scheduled, 5:5; public hearing, 

7:6; Revised Explanation and 

Justification, 8:1

Civil penalties adjusted for inflation, 

7:5

Contributions by minors to candidates and party committees, final 

rules, 3:3

“De minimis” exemption for Disbursement of Levin funds by state, 

district and local party committees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 3:6

“Federal Election Activity” definition, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6:1; public hearing scheduled, 8:3; public hearing held, 9:4 

Filing by Priority Mail, Express 

Mail and overnight delivery, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2:1; 

final rules, 5:4

Internet communications, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 5:1; Hearing on proposed rules, 8:2

Party committee donations to certain 

tax-exempt organizations and 

political organizations, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 1:7; final 

rules, 5:4

Payroll deductions for contributions 

to trade association SSF, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 2:2; public 

hearing scheduled, 5:5; public 

hearing, 7:6; final rules, 9:1

Salaries and wages paid by state, 

district and local party commitCommissioners and experienced 

FEC staff will specifically discuss 

recent changes to the campaign 

finance law, such as new allocation 

and solicitation rules for nonconnected PACs. 

The registration fee for this 

seminar is $100 per attendee, which 

covers the cost of the seminar, materials, a reception and refreshments. 

Payment is required prior to the 

seminar. A full refund will be made 

for all cancellations received before 

November 14. Complete registration 

information is available on the FEC 

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

conference_materials/nonconn_seminar.shtml, along with the seminar 

agenda and a list of hotels located 

within walking distance of the FEC. 

Further questions about this seminar 

should be directed to the Information Division by phone at 1-800/424-

9530 ( or locally at 202/694-1100) 

or via e-mail at Conferences@fec.

gov.

 —Amy Kort

2005-1: Indian tribe not a federal 

contractor, 5:8

2005-2: Fundraising for nonfederal 

committees by federal officeholder 

who is nonfederal candidate, 6:7

2005-3: Affiliation of membership 

organizations, 6:8

2004-4: Reporting court-ordered 

restitution owed to campaign committee, 6:9

2005-5: Federal candidate/officeholder’s use of funds from nonfederal exploratory committee, 7:8

2005-6: Former officeholder may 

donate campaign funds to charity, 

8:5

Compliance

Administrative fines assessed, 2:13; 

6:13; 9:9

ADR program update, 1:9; 2:12; 4:9; 

5:7; 6:10; 9:12

MUR 5020: Corporate facilitation, 

4:6

MUR 5405: Contributions in the 

name of another and corporate 

contributions, 6:5

MUR 5428: Excessive and prohibited contributions, improper allocation and reporting violations, 6:6

MUR 5183: Corporate contributions, 

7:4

MURs 5428 and 5623: “Millionaires’ Amendment,” 9:10

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Alliance for Democracy, 4:4

– Augusti and Augusti for Congress, 

1:12

– Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington (04-2145), 

2:10

– Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington (04-1672), 

7:3

– EMILY’s List, 3:1; 4:1

–Hagelin, 8:4

– Judicial Watch, 4:3

– Kean for Congress, 4:3

– Shays and Meehan, 9:1

– Sykes, 6:5

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 7:1

FEC v. _____ 

– Democratic Party of New Mexico, 

6:1 (continued on page 16)
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2005

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

tees, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 6:3; public hearing scheduled, 8:3; public hearing held, 9:4

Travel rules for certain Presidential 

candidates, effective date, 7:6

Reports

April reporting reminder, 4:1

California special election reporting, 

2:3; 9:6

Due in 2005, 1:3

Electronic filing software, FEC 

Form 3X, updated, 2:1

July reporting reminder, 7:1

Ohio special election, 6:14

Index

(continued from page 15)