July 1998 Federal Election Commission Volume 24, Number 7

Table of Contents

Public Funding

1 Insufficient Public Funds Still

Predicted for 2000 Election

Court Cases

1 Akins v. FEC

3 Right to Life of Dutchess County,

Inc., v. FEC

4 Clifton v. FEC

4 Gottlieb v. FEC

5 FEC v. National Medical Political

Action Committee

Compliance

6 MUR 4128/4362

6 MUR 4617

7 Nonfilers

Regulations

7 Commission Seeks Comments on

Requiring Electronic Filing by

Publicly Funded Presidential

Candidates

8 FEC Declines to Initiate

Rulemaking on Expenditures by

Qualified Nonprofit Corporations

8 Federal Register

8 Advisory Opinions

 Audits

 11 Hagelin Audit Reveals No

Compliance Problems

Reports

 11 July Reporting Reminder

Statistics

 12 Republicans Ahead in Fundraising

at 15-Month Mark in 1998

Election Cycle

Information

13 FEC Faxline Menu

14 Index (continued on page 2)

Court Cases

(continued on page 5)

Public Funding

Akins v. FEC

On June 1, the U.S. Supreme

Court ruled that James Akins and

several other former government

officials have standing to challenge

in federal court the Commission’s

dismissal of an administrative

complaint they filed in 1989 against

the American Israel Public Affairs

Committee (AIPAC). The Supreme

Court also referred questions about

the membership status of AIPAC

members to the Commission.

Administrative Complaint

Mr. Akins and his associates filed

an administrative complaint with the

FEC alleging that AIPAC, an

organization that lobbies public

officials and disseminates information about federal candidates and

officeholders, failed to register and

report as a political committee, after

it had made contributions to and

expenditures on behalf of federal

candidates in excess of $1,000.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) defines a political

committee as any committee,

association or other group that

receives contributions or makes

expenditures to influence federal

elections in excess of $1,000 during

a calendar year. 2 U.S.C.

§431(4)(A). However, a statutory

Insufficient Public Funds

Still Predicted for 2000

Election

The number of people who

marked “Yes” in the $3 checkoff

box on their 1997 IRS tax forms is

slightly below the same figure for

last year. With these figures in hand,

FEC officials continue to predict

that a shortfall in the Presidential

Election Campaign Fund is inevitable for the 2000 election.

The FEC routinely monitors the

fund using monthly updates from

the IRS and data from the tax

agency’s IRS Taxpayer Usage

Study. The FEC’s projections, while

speculative, show an increased

demand for those funds from the last

Presidential election in 1996.

According to FEC Staff Director

John Surina, “a serious cash flow

problem looks likely and both

policy makers and candidates

deserve the opportunity to assess the

situation and take such actions as

they deem appropriate.”

The actual dollar figure for

checkoff receipts through May of

this year is about $2 million below

the figure for the corresponding

period last year. At this time,

however, the FEC’s projections are

based on the assumption that this

year’s checkoff receipts will match
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998

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)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

Scott E. Thomas, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

 Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

exception to the definition of

expenditure allows membership

organizations to make disbursements of more than $1,000 for

campaign-related communications

to their members, without their

counting as contributions or expenditures.

AIPAC claimed that its communications to its members fell within

this exception and, therefore, that it

did not have to register as a political

committee or disclose any of its

financial activities to the FEC.

The FEC did not agree. In its

view, AIPAC’s disbursements did

qualify as expenditures because its

members did not qualify as members under the Act. The Commission, nonetheless, concluded AIPAC

was not subject to the registration

and disclosure rules applicable to

political committees. The Commission believed that, because AIPAC’s

major purpose was not influencing

federal elections, it did not qualify

as a political committee even though

it had made expenditures in excess

of $1,000. The Commission dismissed the complaint.

District and Appellate Courts

Decisions

Mr. Akins and the other plaintiffs

filed suit in U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia charging

that the FEC failed to proceed on

the administrative complaint and

challenging the Commission’s

interpretation of what constitutes a

political committee. The district

court ruled in favor of the FEC,

agreeing with the “major purpose”

test—that an organization that

receives contributions or makes

expenditures of more than $1,000

becomes a political committee only

if its major purpose is the influencing of federal elections.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling, but an

en banc panel of the same appellate

court reversed the district court

decision. The en banc panel, referencing both Buckley v. Valeo and

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for

Life, Inc., found that the major

purpose test can only be applied to

organizations that make independent

expenditures, not contributions,

which is what was in question in the

administrative complaint against

AIPAC. The court also rejected the

Commission’s argument that the

appellants lacked standing to bring

their claim to federal court. On

behalf of the FEC, the solicitor

general appealed the decision to the

Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court focused its

opinion on the three-pronged test of

standing—which a plaintiff must

demonstrate to show there is a

“case” or “controversy” under

Article III of the U.S. Constitution—injury in fact, causation and

redressability. The high court also

found that the plaintiffs’ inability to

obtain information about AIPAC’s

campaign-related finances satisfied

prudential standing because it was

the kind of injury that the Act seeks

to address.

Injury in Fact. The Supreme

Court found that the injury in fact in

this case was that the plaintiffs were

prevented from obtaining information about AIPAC’s donors and the

organization’s campaign-related

contributions and expenditures. It

said that there is no reason to doubt

that this information would have

helped the plaintiffs evaluate

candidates for public office, especially those candidates who received

assistance from AIPAC. Thus, the

court said, the injury in this case is

both “concrete” and “particular.”

The FEC argued that the lawsuit

involved only a “generalized

grievance” shared by many (a kind

of grievance for which standing

usually is not conferred); the

Supreme Court disagreed. In such

cases of “generalized grievance,”

the court said, the harm is usually

“of an abstract and indefinite

nature”—not the kind of concrete

harm that the court found here.

The court concluded that, “[T]he

informational injury at issue here,

directly related to voting, the most

basic of political rights, is sufficiently concrete and specific such

that the fact that it is widely shared

does not deprive Congress of

constitutional power to authorize its

vindication in the federal courts.”

Causation and Redressability.

The high court also found that the

harm asserted by the plaintiffs was

“fairly traceable” to the FEC’s

decision to dismiss its administrative complaint, and that the courts

have the power to redress this harm.

The Supreme Court also rejected

the FEC’s argument that, because

the agency’s decision not to undertake an enforcement action is

generally an area not subject to

judicial review, 2 U.S.C. §

437g(a)(8) should be interpreted

narrowly.
July 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

“Major Purpose” Test

With regard to the “major

purpose” test, the Supreme Court

referred the matter back to the FEC

because of the uncertainty of the

“membership” issue as applied to

AIPAC.

Definition of Member

In the past, the FEC held that

AIPAC’s campaign-related communications were directed at many

people who did not qualify as

“members” under the Act. However,

the Commission has had to revisit

its member regulations in light of

the decision in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. FEC.

In that case, an appellate court said

that the FEC’s regulations on

“member” were invalid because

they were unduly restrictive. The

Commission is in the process of

conducting a rulemaking that would

modify language in its regulations to

effectively broaden the class of

people who would qualify as

members of membership organizations.

If the Commission now concludes that AIPAC’s supporters are

“members” under the Act, then its

disbursements for communications

to them would not count as the kind

of expenditures that would trigger

the requirement to register and

report as a political committee. In

that case, there would be no need to

address the “major purpose” question in this case.

If the Commission again concludes that AIPAC’s supporters are

not members, then the Commission

and the lower courts, in reconsidering the plaintiffs’ arguments, can

reevaluate AIPAC’s claims and

actions.

U.S. Supreme Court, 96-1590;

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 94-

5088; U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 92-1864. ✦

Right to Life of Dutchess

County, Inc., v. FEC

On June 1, the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of New

York determined that the

Commission’s regulation at 11 CFR

100.22(b), which defines “express

advocacy,” violates the First

Amendment and enjoined the FEC

from enforcing it. The court found

that the regulation is “unconstitutionally overbroad” and beyond the

scope of the Commission’s statute

limiting corporate contributions.

Right to Life of Dutchess County,

Inc., (RLDC) is a not-for-profit,

membership corporation that

advocates pro-life positions. RLDC

says it does not intervene in political

campaigns on behalf of or in

opposition to any candidate for

public office; nor does it support or

oppose federal candidates. However,

the group intends, especially in the

lead-up to the federal primary and

general elections, to produce and

distribute communications to the

general public—using newsletters,

voter guides, fliers and other

methods—that will comment

favorably or unfavorably on the

positions, qualifications and voting

records (if applicable) of candidates

running in 1998 primary and general

elections. The court said there is

little dispute that these publications

are timed to influence voters when

they go to the polls. RLDC contends

that its proposed communications

are permissible under the definition

of “express advocacy” set forth in

Buckley v. Valeo and Massachusetts

Citizens for Life v. FEC (MCFL),

but would violate 11 CFR

100.22(b).1

In MCFL, the Supreme Court

held that the Federal Election

Campaign Act’s ban on corporate

independent expenditures only

applies when the money is used to

“expressly advocate” the election or

defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office. The Buckley

decision lists examples of phrases

that constitute express advocacy:

“vote for,” “elect,” “support,” “vote

against,” “defeat,” “reject.” These

examples are codified in subsection

(a) of 11 CFR 100.22. However, in

subsection (b), the Commission

further defines express advocacy as

a communication that, when taken

as a whole and with limited reference to external events (such as

proximity to an election), can only

be interpreted by a reasonable

person as unambiguously advocating the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate. This definition

tracks the language of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit in FEC v. Furgatch.

2

RLDC stated that its proposed

communications would not contain

any of the phrases listed in Buckley

and that it intends to pay for them

with corporate funds. The group

contends that the threat of FEC

enforcement action against it for

exercising what it considers its

constitutional rights has chilled the

First Amendment guarantee of free

expression. See the June 1997

Record, page 8.

District Court Decision

As a preliminary step, the court

found that RLDC had standing to

litigate this case. The court said that,

in cases involving possible limits on

First Amendment rights, a credible

threat of prosecution is sufficient

injury to confer standing.

The court held that the

Commission’s regulation is constitutionally invalid because it “encompasses substantially more

communication than is permissible”

under 2 U.S.C. §441b, as narrowed

by the Supreme Court in Buckley

and MCFL. It stated that the Supreme Court requirement of express

1 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976),

and Massachusetts Citizens for Life v.

FEC, 479 U.S. 238 (1986).

2 Furgatch v. FEC, 807 F.2d 857, (9th

Cir. 1987).

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998

4

or explicit words of advocacy (of

the election or defeat of a candidate)

is necessary to avoid prohibitions on

“issue advocacy,” which is not

regulated by the FEC and is protected by the First Amendment. The

court also enjoined the FEC from

enforcing part (b) of the regulation.

The court dismissed the

Commission’s argument that RLDC

could not bring a facial challenge

against 11 CFR 100.22(b) and

instead had to wait until it had

actually been injured by the regulation. The court stated that a facial

challenge may be brought when (1)

a statute or regulation is substantially overbroad and (2) there is a

realistic danger that the statute or

regulation will significantly chill

protected speech.

The court also rejected RLDC’s

argument that the New York district

court was bound by the decision

from the First Circuit appellate court

in Maine Right to Life Committee,

Inc., v. FEC,

3

 which found 11 CFR

100.22(b) to be unconstitutional. It

is a well-settled principle in federal

court that a decision in one circuit is

not binding on federal courts in

another circuit.

U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of New York, 97-

2614. ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

3 Maine Right to Life Committee, Inc.,

v. FEC, 98 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (per

curiam).

Clifton v. FEC

On April 30, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Maine

declared the Commission’s “electioneering message” provisions of

its regulations governing voting

guides to be invalid because they are

inseverable from regulations struck

down by the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the First Circuit last year. The

sections in question—11 CFR

114.4(c)(5)(ii)(D) and (E)—state

that voter guides prepared on the

basis of written responses from

candidates to questions posed by a

corporation or labor organization (1)

must not include an “electioneering

message” and (2) may not score or

rate the candidates’ responses in a

way that conveys an “electioneering

message.”

In June 1997, the First Circuit

invalidated two aspects of the

Commission’s regulations governing the publication by corporations

and unions of voter guides and

voting records. The appeals court

declared the voting record regulation at 11 CFR 114.4(c)(4) invalid

only insofar as the FEC may purport

to prohibit mere inquiries to candidates; it declared the voter guide

regulation at 11 CFR 114.4(c)(5)

invalid only insofar as it limits

contact with candidates to written

inquiries and replies, and imposes

an equal space and prominence

restriction. See the August 1997

Record, p. 1. The appeals court

referred the plaintiffs’ challenge to

the “electioneering message”

portion of the voter guide regulation

to the district court because, it said,

there had been inadequate briefing

on the issue.

Both the Commission and Clifton

agreed that the “electioneering

message” provisions were not

severable from the portions of the

FEC’s voter guide regulation that

had been declared invalid. For other

Record articles about this lawsuit,

see the April 1998 edition, p. 5, and

the July 1996 edition, p. 1.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Maine, 96-66-P-H. ✦

Gottlieb v. FEC

On May 22, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling

that dismissed this case for lack of

standing. The appeals court rejected

the arguments the appellants had

presented in an effort to bring suit

against the FEC after the agency had

dismissed their administrative

complaint.

Alan Gottlieb, together with

several other voters and organizations, had filed an administrative

complaint with the FEC in March

1995 alleging that President

Clinton’s 1992 campaign received

$1.4 million in excess entitlement

allowed under the Presidential

Primary Matching Payment Account

Act. According to the complaint, the

excess entitlement occurred because, following President Clinton’s

nomination, his campaign transferred $1.4 million in private

primary contributions to his General

Election Legal and Accounting

Compliance Fund (GELAC Fund)

instead of using the funds to pay his

primary debts. According to appellants, the transfer violated 11 CFR

9003.3(a)(1), as it was written at the

time of the alleged violation,

because the regulation permitted

transfers of funds only in excess of

amounts needed to pay primary

debts.

The Commission dismissed the

administrative complaint after

deadlocking in a 3-3 vote. Mr.

Gottlieb then filed suit, asking the

district court to find that the FEC’s

actions had been contrary to law.

The district court found that the

appellants did not have standing

(under Article III of the U.S.

Constitution) to pursue their claims

in court because they had not been

harmed by the Commission’s

decision. See the July 1997 Record,

p. 5. In affirming the lower court,

the appellate court called Mr.

Gottlieb’s claims of injury “speculative” and “amorphous.”

U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 97-

5125; U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 95-1923. ✦
July 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

FEC v. National Medical

Political Action Committee

On May 27, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

entered an order submitted by the

parties requiring the National

Medical Political Action Committee

(NMPAC) and its treasurer to pay a

$10,000 civil penalty to the FEC for

failing to file 14 disclosure reports

in a timely manner during 1992,

1993 and 1994. In a stipulation, both

parties had agreed to the facts and to

the final order and judgment.

NMPAC had filed all the reports

that were due during 1992 and 1993

on May 12, 1994. NMPAC also

failed to file on time six other

reports due in 1994 and 1995. These

tardy filings violated 2 U.S.C.

§434(a)(4)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). See

the January 1998 Record, p. 3.

In addition to finding that

NMPAC had violated the Act, the

court permanently enjoined the PAC

from failing to file reports within the

time limits set out by Commission

regulations.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia Circuit, 97-

2961. ✦

those recorded in 1997, or $66.3

million, and that annual checkoff

receipts will remain at the same

dollar figure in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Projected payments for the

Democratic national convention and

the Republican national convention

are $13.3 million each. Assuming

the Reform Party seeks and qualifies

for public funding, it should receive

about $2.5 million for its convention, based on its performance in the

1996 election. Public funding for the

general election for the two major

parties is projected to be approximately $67.9 million a piece. The

Reform Party nominee is projected

to receive about $12.7 million.

Public Funding

(continued from page 1)

Under Treasury Department regulations, these amounts must be set

aside on January 1, 2000, without

counting the checkoff dollar

amounts anticipated from tax forms

filed in 2000. Funds left over, after

monies for the conventions and

general election are set aside, would

be parceled out to qualified primary

candidates.

Total primary matching funds

available through the end of 2000

are estimated to be $91.2 million,

but demand for those funds is

estimated to run from $95 to $105

million. The demand figure, however, is a rough estimate given the

uncertainty over the number of

primary candidates who will raise

sufficient matchable contributions

(individual donations of $250 or

less) to qualify for primary funding.

While the total amounts needed and

available will approach a balance by

the end of the year, the bulk of the

demand will occur early in the year

before new checkoff receipts are

deposited.

Because primary funding is

calculated after reserving amounts

for the general election and conventions, there will be a significant

funding shortfall for candidates

vying for their party’s nomination,

according to projections. Primary

candidates will get only a portion of

their entitlements early in the

primary season—when the money is

often most needed.

Mr. Surina added: “The early

shortfall is exacerbated by the new

political strategy whereby primary

candidates commence their campaigns and fundraising early in the

run-up year (here, 1999) in an effort

to either scare opponents off or

knock them out of the race in the

early primaries and caucuses....

Given the apparent jockeying

already underway in 1998, it is

reasonable to assume that the

accelerated fundraising will be a

feature of the 2000 election also.”

During the last Presidential

election cycle, the first payment to

qualified primary candidates on

January 1, 1996, represented 60

percent of what they were entitled to

receive. Most candidates were able

to secure bridge loans until checkoff

receipts for 1996 overcame the

shortfall in April. In the coming

election, the shortfall will be more

severe. On January 1, 2000, candidates likely will receive only

between 37 and 41 percent of the

funding to which they are entitled in

an initial payment, and the shortfall

will persist well into the year

following the election. That means

that, based on these projections,

some primary candidates will not

get their full share of the fund until

after the general election has been

decided.

Solutions

The FEC has recommended two

solutions to alleviate some of the

public funding shortfall, as part of

its annual legislative recommendations to Congress.

• The Treasury Department, which

gives primary funding to candidates, could reinterpret its present

rule so that, when assessing the

amount of funds available for

general election grants, it took into

account revenue from the $3

checkoff received during the

election year (in this case, 2000).

• Congress could change the pay-out

priorities, placing convention

funding last rather than first among

the three categories. ✦

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain FEC

material fast. It operates 24 hours

a day. More than 300 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. Enter number 411 at

the prompt for a complete menu

of Faxline documents.
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998

6

MUR 4617

Former Agriculture

Secretary and Campaign

Committee Agree to $50,000

Civil Penalty

Former U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy has agreed to pay a

$10,000 civil penalty and his former

campaign committee will pay

another $40,000 for improperly

using a little more than $50,000 in

campaign funds to pay for legal

services related to an ongoing

Independent Counsel investigation

apparently unrelated to his duties as

an officeholder.

Before being named Agriculture

Secretary in 1993, Mr. Espy had

served as a Congressman from

Mississippi’s 2nd District. His

authorized committee continues to

be Mike Espy for Congress (the

Committee). In 1994, an Independent Counsel was appointed to

investigate some of Mr. Espy’s

activities, and he retained a law firm

to represent him. On campaign

disclosure reports filed with the

Commission, the Committee

reported $50,244 in legal fees

related to the investigation.

The Federal Election Campaign

Act states that excess campaign

funds may not be converted to

personal use, other than to defray

the ordinary and necessary expenses

incurred in connection with an

officeholder’s duties. 2 U.S.C.

§439a. It is important to note that

the term “officeholder” does not

include Cabinet Secretaries.

Mr. Espy stated that he actually

owed the law firm over $300,000

for services related to the investigation. Of this amount, he claimed, the

payment of $50,244 would not have

been necessary but for his having

been a Congressman or federal

candidate. The Committee, however, produced no invoices to

document this claim, citing the need

to preserve attorney-client privilege

in the ongoing criminal investigation by the Independent Counsel.

Further, none of the 39 counts in the

Compliance

MUR 4128/4362

Excessive Contributions

Result In Civil Penalty

The respondents in these matters,

concerning Grant Lally’s candidacies for New York’s 5th Congressional District seat in 1994 and

1996, have agreed to pay a $280,000

civil penalty. The violations included making and receiving at least

$200,000 in excessive contributions

and inaccurately reporting them as

coming from Grant Lally’s personal

funds. Respondents included Grant

Lally; his candidate campaign

committee, Lally for Congress; his

parents, Lawrence and Ute Lally;

and Lally and Lally, Esquires. Grant

Lally admitted the violations, and

Lawrence Lally and Lally for

Congress admitted that their violations were knowing and willful.

The excessive contributions

occurred during the 1994 campaign,

when Grant Lally reported making

loans of $319,991 to his committee.

The investigation revealed that a

large portion of the reported loans

were actually contributions from the

candidate’s father.

Between May and October 1994,

Lawrence Lally gave the candidate

$116,000. Lawrence and Grant

Lally later stated that these funds

were for the purchase of the

candidate’s share of real estate

investment property in New York.

Within days of receipt, the candidate

deposited the funds into the

committee’s account as loans from

the candidate. The Commission

found that the $116,000 was not for

a bona fide purchase of the property.

Lawrence Lally also authorized an

$18,000 payment to his son from an

account in which Ute Lally had an

interest. The respondents claimed

that the $18,000 was for the purchase of the candidate’s 1966

Corvette, but the evidence demonstrated that there was no bona fide

sale of the automobile. The candidate also loaned the campaign

$74,491 from payments he received

from Lally and Lally. These funds

also were actually contributions

from the candidate’s father. Prior to

the conciliation agreement, the

Commission found probable cause

to believe that Grant Lally, his

candidate committee, his parents

and Lally and Lally knowingly and

willfully violated the Act. The

funneling of payments through the

candidate’s account, the failure to

create documents and/or notations

related to the payments and the

submission of false and inaccurate

information to the Commission

formed the basis for the knowing

and willful findings.

The Act at 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(1)(A) limits the amount

that a person may contribute to any

candidate or to that candidate’s

authorized committee. Contribution

limits for an individual giving to a

candidate committee are currently

set at $1,000 per election. While a

candidate may give unlimited

amounts to his or her campaign

from personal funds, members of a

candidate’s family must adhere to

the contribution limits set out in the

Act. Additionally, candidates and

political committees are prohibited

from knowingly accepting contributions in excess of the Act’s limitations. 2 U.S.C. §441a(f).

The agreement also included a

matter which involved Grant Lally’s

1996 campaign (MUR 4362). In that

matter, the Commission found that

Grant Lally violated 2 U.S.C.

§432(e) when he accepted more than

$5,000 in contributions during 1995,

but failed to file a Statement of

Candidacy form until June 1996.

Further, the Commission found that

the committee misreported a debt

and failed to disclose payments for

1994 consulting fees until 1995. 2

U.S.C. §434(b).

The Lally civil penalty is among

the largest obtained by the FEC for

violations of the Act and Commission regulations. ✦
July 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

indictment against Mr. Espy was for

a violation that occurred while he

was a Congressman—the violations

all related to his tenure as Agriculture Secretary. The Commission

also noted that the only payments to

the law firm had come from campaign funds, and that the firm had

never billed the Committee for its

services related to the Independent

Counsel investigation.

This MUR (Matter Under Review) was initiated by the FEC in its

normal course of business. ✦

(continued on page 8)

Nonfilers

The campaign committees of the

candidates listed below failed to file

required campaign finance disclosure reports. The list is based on

recent FEC news releases. The FEC

Candidate Office Sought Report Not Filed

Connelly, Maryanne S. House NJ/07 Pre-Primary

Graham, Lindsey O. House SC/03 Pre-Primary

Overman, John W.J. House CA/44 Pre-Primary

Stewart, Randal M. House CA/09 Pre-Primary

Wilson, Michael House SC/06 Pre-Primary

Regulations

Commission Seeks

Comments on Requiring

Electronic Filing by Publicly

Funded Presidential

Candidates

On June 11, the Commission

approved a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) on whether its

rules should specify that Presidential

candidates who voluntarily accept

public funding must agree to file

their campaign finance reports

electronically. The last day to

submit comments on this NPRM is

July 17, 1998.

The proposed rules would apply

only to Presidential candidate

committees that have already

computerized their campaign

finance records. The committees

would file reports electronically—

either by mailing a diskette with the

information or by transmitting the

data via the internet to the FEC. The

proposed changes would affect 11

CFR 9003.1 and 9033.1. Public Law

104-79 authorized the Commission

to establish its electronic filing

program.

Last year, the Commission implemented a voluntary electronic filing

initiative for committees, and encourages all committees to file in this way.

Electronic filing by Presidential

committees is intended to enhance

public disclosure and to save a

substantial amount of time and

Commission resources. While the

number of Presidential contenders is

usually small, their reports can be

voluminous, stretching for hundreds

and sometimes thousands of pages.

Although the Commission’s free

electronic filing software, FECFile,

will not generate the forms necessary for Presidential committees, the

FEC’s Data Systems Development

Division would work with committees to assist them in generating the

proper output with their current

software packages. In addition, the

FEC’s Electronic Filing Specifications Requirements (EFSR) provide

guidance to Presidential committees

on how to properly structure their

electronic reports. Presidential

candidates would not file the

Statement of Organization (Form 1)

or the Statement of Candidacy

(Form 2) electronically. Candidate

agreements also would be exempt

from the electronic filing provision.

Additionally, the Commission

requests comments from committees

about synchronizing filing software

that meets the EFSR with the

computer requirements that publicly

funded candidates must meet in

submitting campaign finance

information for audit by the FEC.

The Commission believes that a

candidate’s agreement to file his or

her committee’s “reports electronically in exchange for public funding

is a voluntary decision materially

indistinguishable from the

candidate’s voluntary decision to

abide by the spending limits in

exchange for federal funds.” Nevertheless, the FEC is asking for views

on whether the agency has the

authority to craft regulations described in the NPRM.

The NPRM is available:

• From the FEC’s Public Records

Office (800/424-9530, press 3, or

202/694-1120);

• Through the FEC’s Faxline (202/

501-3413, request document 234);

• At the FEC’s web site (http://

www.fec.gov); and

• In the June 17, 1998, Federal

Register (63 FR 33012).

Public comments must be submitted in either written or electronic

form to Susan E. Propper, Assistant

General Counsel. Written comments

should be mailed to the Federal

Election Commission, 999 E St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20463.

Faxed comments should be transmitted at 202/219-3923, with a copy

mailed to the preceding address to

ensure legibility. Comments also

may be e-mailed to

is required by law to publicize the

names of nonfiling campaign

committees. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7).

The agency pursues enforcement

actions against nonfilers on a caseby-case basis. ✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998

8

Regulations

(continued from page 7)

The Commission also believes

the Eighth Circuit erred in its

interpretation of FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL) in

MCCL. In MCFL, the U.S. Supreme

Court had found that the FEC’s ban

on corporate independent expenditures could not be applied to nonprofit organizations that met three

criteria: the organization was

formed to promote political ideas

and did not engage in business

activities; it had no shareholders or

other persons affiliated with it who

had a claim on its assets or earnings;

and it was not established by a

corporation or union and had a

policy against accepting contributions from either entity. The FEC

interprets the MCFL decision to

mean that, to qualify for the exemption allowing a nonprofit organization to make independent

expenditures, a nonprofit organization must satisfy all the criteria

named by the court, including the

requirements that the organization

not engage in business activities and

not accept any contributions from

corporations.

The Commission published a

Notice of Disposition on this matter

in the May 29, 1998, Federal

Register (63 FR 29358). ✦

FEC Declines to Initiate

Rulemaking on Expenditures

by Qualified Nonprofit

Corporations

On May 21, the Commission

declined to open a rulemaking

relating to the Commission’s

regulations governing expenditures

by qualified nonprofit corporations,

11 CFR 114.10, and denied a

petition submitted by the James

Madison Center for Free Speech.

The section of the regulations in

question describes a narrow category of nonprofit ideological

corporations that are exempt from

the Federal Election Campaign

Act’s prohibition on independent

expenditures by corporate entities. 2

U.S.C. §441b. The petitioner had

urged the Commission to modify

portions of its regulations to conform with the decision by the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit in Minnesota Citizens

Concerned for Life v. FEC

(MCCL). The Eighth Circuit had

declared 11 CFR 114.10 invalid

because it denied the exemption to

voluntary political associations that

engage in insignificant business

activity or accept insignificant

corporate donations. In the Eighth

Circuit’s view, this infringes on

those associations’ First Amendment rights.

In denying the group’s petition to

amend FEC rules, the Commission

stated that courts recognize that a

decision by one circuit court is

binding only in that circuit. No other

appellate courts have found the

Commission’s regulations regarding

qualified nonprofit corporations

invalid.

elecfiling@fec.gov. Electronic

submissions must include the

commenter’s full name, e-mail

address and postal mail address. ✦

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1998-7

Corporate Donations to

Party Building Fund in

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Democratic

Party (PDP) may accept corporate

donations in order to establish and

maintain a building fund for its

current headquarters—including

major repairs, a planned new

headquarters, and three new regional headquarters. Although

Pennsylvania law prohibits political

contributions by corporations, it is

preempted by the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act), which

allows any person to make donations to a party for these specific

purposes.

The PDP proposes using the

building fund to pay off the mortgage on its existing headquarters

and to make several major repairs,

such as constructing a new roof,

installing new electrical wiring and

expanding the size of the building.

The building fund also would be

used to purchase or build a new

building to serve as the PDP’s

headquarters. The party also plans to

purchase or construct regional

headquarters in Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

The PDP states that it would

follow the FEC’s limitations for

raising funds for the building fund

and would create a separate account

for the donations.

The Act and Commission regulations state that a gift, loan or

anything of value made by any

person to a national or state party

committee that is specifically

designated to defray the costs of

construction or purchase of an office

facility is not considered to be a

Federal Register

 Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1998-10

Notice of Disposition of Petition

for Rulemaking on Qualified

Nonprofit Corporations (63 FR

29358, May 29, 1998)

Notice 1998-11

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;

Electronic Filing of Reports by

Publicly Financed Presidential

Primary and General Election

Candidates (63 FR 33012, June

17, 1998)
July 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

contribution or expenditure so long

as the facility is not acquired for the

purpose of influencing any candidate in any particular election for

federal office. 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(B)(viii) and 11 CFR

100.7(b)(12), 100.8(b)(13) and

114.1(a)(2)(ix). In past advisory

opinions, the Commission has

interpreted the statute and FEC

regulations to permit state and

national party committees to place

corporate donations in building fund

accounts set up specifically to

purchase or construct headquarters

for those committees. AOs 1997-14,

1993-9, 1991-5, 1986-40 and 1983-8.

Additionally, the Act explicitly

states at 2 U.S.C. §453 that its

provisions “supersede and preempt

any provision of State law with

respect to election to Federal

office.” Citing this provision, the

Commission concluded that, with

respect to donations to party building funds, the Act preempts the

Pennsylvania law prohibiting

corporate contributions.

The Commission concludes that

it would be permissible for the PDP

to pay off its old mortgage and

purchase new regional and state

headquarters using a building fund

created in accordance with the Act.

The PDP may also use this building

fund to pay for the necessary repairs

for its current building. While the

Commission does not allow building

fund donations to be used for

ongoing operating costs (see AOs

1991-5 and 1983-8), because the

types of improvements the PDP

plans to undertake fall under the IRS

definition of capital improvements,1

they may be paid for with monies

1

 Past tax case law has determined that,

when repair work reaches a level that

constitutes wholesale restoration or

renovation of a structure, then those

expenses that might have individually

constituted repair work are treated as

capital expenditures. True v. United

States, 894 F.2d. 1197 (10th Cir. 1990)

and Stoelizing v. C.I.R., 266 F.2d 374

(9th Cir. 1959).

AO 1998-8

Preemption of Iowa State

Law for State Party Building

Fund

The Iowa Democratic Party (IDP)

may accept corporate donations to

help it pay off the mortgage on an

office building it purchased to serve

as party headquarters. Although

Iowa state law prohibits political

contributions by corporations, it is

preempted by the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act), which

allows donations to parties for this

purpose.

The IDP has a 20-year mortgage

on its recently purchased party

headquarters and intends to solicit

donations to pay off the balance. It

will deposit the donations in a

separate building fund account.

The Act and Commission regulations state that a gift, loan or

anything of value made to a national

or state party committee that is

specifically designated to defray the

costs of construction or purchase of

an office facility is not considered to

be a contribution or expenditure so

long as the facility is not acquired

for the purpose of influencing the

election of any candidate in any

particular election for federal office.

2 U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(viii) and 11

CFR 100.7(b)(12), 100.8(b)(13) and

114.1(a)(2)(ix). The Act states at 2

U.S.C. §453 that its provisions

“supersede and preempt any provision of State law with respect to

election to Federal office.” Based on

previous opinions applying this

section in materially indistinguishable situations, the Commission

concluded that the Act and Commission regulations preempt the application of the Iowa law prohibition

on corporate contributions to party

office building funds. See AOs

1997-14, 1993-9, 1991-5, and 1986-

40.

The Commission notes that

corporate donations are permissible

only for the construction or purchase of a party office facility, but

not for any ongoing operating costs

such as property taxes and assessments.

Date Issued: May 22, 1998;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

(continued on page 10)

drawn from the building fund.

The PDP also had asked the

Commission whether it could use

building fund donations to construct

a parking lot near its existing

headquarters for those with PDP

business and for the general public.

Under the proposal, those who

parked in the lot for non-PDP

business would be charged the usual

and normal rate for parking in that

area. Construction or acquisition of

parking space that is not needed for

direct use by the party may fall

outside the building fund exemption. The Commission noted that,

lacking sufficient information about

the proposal, it would welcome a

separate advisory opinion request

focusing on parking lot questions.

Date Issued: May 22, 1998;

Length: 6 pages. ✦

AO 1998-9

Disbursements in Connection

with New Mexico Special

Election

The Republican Party of New

Mexico (RPNM) may not treat

certain disbursements for a June 23

special election as generic voter

drive costs and may not use

nonfederal funds to pay for any

portion of them. Instead, the disbursements at issue would be either

coordinated expenditures (441a(d)

expenditures) or independent

expenditures, both of which must be

paid for with federal funds.

The RPNM planned to conduct

certain activities in connection with

the June 23 special election to fill

the 1st Congressional District seat

left vacant since March by the death

of Congressman Steven Schiff.

Those proposed activities included
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998

10

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

telephone, television, radio and

direct mail communications urging

the general public to vote Republican in the special election. One of

the proposed communications said,

in part, “On Tuesday, June 23,

please vote in the special election

for Congress. Vote Republican to

continue the work of Steve Schiff.”

Commission regulations provide

that, when a party committee makes

disbursements for mixed federal and

nonfederal activities, it may pay for

them entirely with federal funds, or,

if the committee has established

federal and nonfederal accounts, it

may allocate the costs between the

two accounts, following formulas

set out in 11 CFR 106.5. Generic

voter drive activities fall under this

regulation and include “voter

identification, voter registration, and

get-out-the-vote drives, or any other

activities that urge the general

public to register, vote, or support

candidates of a particular party or

associated with a particular issue,

without mentioning a specific

candidate.” 11 CFR 106.5(a)(2)(iv).

In this case, because only one

office is at stake in the June 23

election and because the Republicans have nominated only one

candidate—Heather A. Wilson—the

RPNM’s proposed communication

could mean no other candidate than

the sole Republican nominee in the

special election. Disbursements for

a communication that urges the

public to vote for a clearly identified

candidate cannot be considered a

generic voter drive cost.

The RPNM disbursements for

such communications would

therefore be either coordinated

expenditures subject to its limit for

this particular election, or independent expenditures.

• A party disbursement for a communication that depicts a clearly

identified candidate, contains an

electioneering message and results

from coordination or consultation

with a federal candidate is subject

to the limits set out at 2 U.S.C.

§441a(d). This type of disbursement is more commonly known as

a “coordinated party expenditure.”

Electioneering messages include

statements “designed to urge the

public to elect a certain candidate

or party.”1 The message to vote

Republican on June 23 fits within

this definition and therefore would

constitute an electioneering

message. If the proposed communications are made in coordination

with the candidate, the disbursements for them would be subject to

the 441a(d) limits.2

• A disbursement for a communication that expressly advocates the

election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate, but that is not

made in coordination with a

candidate or candidate’s committee, is an “independent expenditure” governed by 2 U.S.C.

431(17). Independent expenditures

are not limited by the Act, but a

committee that makes them must

report such spending and certify

that the expenditure in question

was not made in coordination with

a candidate.

Commission regulations give

examples of express advocacy with

phrases such as “support the Demo3

 The Commission noted that this AO

should not restrict the application of

the Act’s definition of “expenditure,” in

the context of party committee communications, only to communications that

mention a particular federal candidate.

Further, the Commission noted that

uncoordinated disbursements made for

the purpose of influencing federal

elections only, although not subject to a

limit, would also have to be made

entirely from a federal account and

reported as operating expenditures on

line 21b. See footnote 8 of this advisory

opinion.

1 United States v. United Auto Workers,

352 U.S. 567, 587 (1957), quoted in AO

1985-14.

2

 The Commission assumes that RPNM

would apply such coordinated spending

first to the section 441a(d) limit. Since

any coordination between the RPNM

and the candidate with respect to the

proposed communications would be for

the purpose of influencing a federal

election, party spending for the

communications would also be contributions to the candidate. See 2 U.S.C.

§431(8)(A)(i). If the limit of section

441a(d) is exceeded, the disbursements

for these communications will be

considered contributions to the candidate subject to the $5,000 per election

limit of 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(2)(A).

cratic nominee” or “cast your ballot

for the Republican challenger for

U.S. Senate in Georgia,” or other

words that in context can have no

other reasonable meaning than to

urge the election or defeat of one or

more clearly identified candidates.

11 CFR 100.22(a). The RPNM’s

suggested communication—“Vote

Republican on June 23”—in the

context presented here, where there

is only one election and one Republican nominee, constitutes express

advocacy of a clearly identified

candidate. If the proposed communications are not made in coordination with the candidate, the

disbursement for them would be

independent expenditures.

Under either option, the committee would have to fund the communication entirely with funds subject

to the limits and prohibitions of the

Act. Additionally, the RPNM would

have to report them.3

Date Issued: May 22, 1998;

Length: 6 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1998-11

Contributions made and

nonconnected PAC established by

California limited liability company

that owns or is federal contractor

(Patriot Holdings, LLC, May 18,
July 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Hagelin Audit Reveals No

Compliance Problems

The FEC has determined that Dr.

John Hagelin For President, 1996,

the Presidential campaign committee of Natural Law Party nominee

Dr. John Hagelin, conducted its

campaign with no material problems

in complying with the Federal

Election Campaign Act and Commission regulations.

The Commission made its

determination after the agency

conducted an audit of the committee, as is required for an authorized

candidate committee that receives

federal funds. 26 U.S.C. §9007. The

Committee received $504,831 from

the U.S. Treasury.

The audit report is available from

the FEC’s Public Records Office by

calling 800/424-9530 (press 3) or

202/694-1120. Copies are also

available at the FEC, which is

located in Washington, DC, at 999 E

St., N.W. ✦

Reports

Audits

July Reporting Reminder

Committees filing on a quarterly

basis must file their second quarterly report by July 15. Those filing

on a monthly basis have a report due

on July 20.

In addition to filing quarterly

reports, committees of candidates

active in the 1998 primary and

runoff elections must file preelection reports and may have to file

48-hour notices. PACs and party

committees filing on a quarterly

basis may also have to file preelection reports and 24-hour reports

of independent expenditures.

1998; 5 pages plus 6-page attachment)

AOR 1998-12

Status of employee stockholders as

part of restricted class of SSF

(Ashland, Inc., May 28, 1998; 6

pages plus 38-page attachment)

AOR 1998-13

Contributions made by limited

liability company in New York and

by its members using non-repayable

drawing accounts (Lawrence,

O’Donnell, Marcus, LLC, June 15,

1998; 4 pages plus 2-page attachment) ✦

Committees of candidates who

are not active in any 1998 election

must file a mid-year report by July

31.

For more information on 1998

reporting dates:

• See the reporting tables in the

January 1998 Record;

• Call and request the reporting

tables from the FEC at 800/424-

9530 (press 1) or 202/694-1100;

• Obtain a faxed copy of the reporting tables by calling the FEC’s

Faxline (202/501-3413, documents

586 and 587); or

• Visit the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov to view the reporting

tables online. ✦

Do you want to file your FEC reports electronically? The FEC will

mail you a copy of its new, free electronic filing software—FECFile.

Mail or fax this form to the address/number below. Currently, FECFile

operates on Windows95 and WindowsNT platforms.

FEC Identification Number

Committee Name

Electronic Filing Contact Name

Address: Street 1

Address: Street 2

City

State

Zip Code

Phone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address

Federal Election Commission

Data Division—Room 431

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Fax: 202/219-0674

✃

FECFile Order Form
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998

12

Statistics

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

1992 1994 1996 1998

Millions

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

1992 1994 1996 1998

Millions

Party Receipts:

First 15 Months of

Election Cycle

Nonfederal Receipts

Republicans Ahead in

Fundraising at 15-Month

Mark in 1998 Election Cycle

In both hard dollar and soft

money receipts, Republican party

committees outpaced their Democratic counterparts during the first

15 months of the 1997-1998 election cycle. Republicans’ federal

committees raised $146.8 million, or

$64 million more than the Democratic federal committees’ combined

total of $83.8 million. These totals

do not include transfers among

national committees and between

national committees and state and

local committees with federal

accounts.

On the disbursements side of the

equation, Republican committees

spent $132 million from their

federal accounts; Democrats spent

$79.7 million. The Republicans

made $286,600 in coordinated party

expenditures and made $810,552 in

direct contributions to candidates.

Democratic party committees spent

$2.9 million on coordinated party

expenditures and contributed

$936,205 directly to federal candidates.

Republicans collected $58.4

million in soft money, a 31 percent

increase over the same period in the

previous election cycle. Democrats

edged closer to the Republican total

with $42.1 million in soft money

receipts, a 6 percent increase over

the same period in the last election

cycle.

Information about these statistics,

culled from party committees’

reports from 1997 and 1998, is

included in a June 8 news release.

The release, which includes statistical information dating back to the

1988 election cycle, is available:

• At the FEC’s web site at http://

www.fec.gov (click on “News

(continued)

Federal Receipts

Republican Committees

Democratic Committees
July 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

Releases and Media Advisories” at

the main menu);

• From the Public Records Office

(call 800/424-9530 and press 3)

and the Press Office (call 800/424-

9530 and press 5); and

• By fax (call FEC Faxline at 202/

501-3413 and request document

609).

The charts on page 12 are based

on data taken from this news

release. To view digital images of

the party committees’ reports

submitted to the Commission, visit

the FEC’s web site and click on

“View Financial Reports Filed by

Presidential and House Campaigns,

Parties and PACs.” ✦

FEC Faxline Menu

FEC Faxline documents may be

ordered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

by calling 202/501-3413 on a touch

tone phone. You will be asked for the

numbers of the documents you want,

your fax number and your telephone

number. The documents will be faxed

shortly thereafter.

Federal Election Commission

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

501. The FEC and the Federal

Campaign Finance Law

502. La Ley Federal relativa al

Financiamiento de las Campañas

503. Federal and State Campaign

Finance Laws

504. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

505. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

506. Telephone Directory

507. Table of Organization

508. Index for 1996 Record

Newsletter

509. Free Publications

510. Personnel Vacancy

Announcements

511. Freedom of Information Act

Requesters’ Guide

512. Legal Opportunities at the FEC

513. 1998 Legislative Recommendation

Disclosure

521. Guide to Researching Public

Records

522. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

523. Federal/State Records Offices

524. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

525. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

526. Direct Access Program (DAP)

527. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

528. Combined Federal/State

Disclosure Directory 1997 on

Disk

529. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

530. Internet Access to the FEC

531. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

532. Electronic Filing Took Kit

533. State Campaign Finance and

Lobbying Data on the Internet

Limitations

546. Contributions

547. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

548. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

549. Volunteer Activity

550. Independent Expenditures

551. Local Party Activity

552. Corporate Communications/

Facilities

553. Trade Associations

554. Foreign Nationals

555. The $25,000 Annual Contribution Limit

556. Personal Use of Campaign

Funds

557. Delegate Activity

558. Partnerships

Public Funding

566. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

567. The $3 Tax Checkoff

568. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

569. Recipients of Public Funding

570. Presidential Fund Income Tax

Checkoff Status

571. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

581. Candidate Registration

582. Committee Treasurers

583. Special Notices on Political Ads

and Solicitations

584. 10 Questions from Candidates

585. Filing a Complaint

586. 1998 Reporting Dates

587. 1998 Congressional Primary

Dates

588. 1998 Special Election Reporting

Dates

589. 1998 FEC Regional Conference

Schedule

Money in Politics Statistics

601. 1991-2 Political Money

602. 1997 Year-End PAC Count

603. 1993-4 Congressional

604. 1993-4 National Party

605. 1993-4 PAC Finances

606. 1995-6 Congressional

607. 1995-6 National Party

608. 1995-6 PAC Finances

609. 1997-8 National Party

610. 1997-8 Congressional

1996 Presidential

651. 1996 Presidential Primary Dates

652. Selected 1996 Campaign Names

and Addresses

653. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

654. 1996 Public Funding Certifications and Payments

655. 1996 Presidential General

Election Ballots

656. 1996 Presidential General

Election Results

Office of Election Administration

701. List of Reports Available

702. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

703. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

704. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

705. The Electoral College

706. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

707. Primary Functions of an

Electoral System

Forms

801. Form 1, Statement of Organization

802. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

803. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

804. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

805. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

Information

(continued on page 14)
Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998

14

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1998 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

1997-18: Status of committee as

local party committee, 1:14

1997-21: Refund to candidate who

had made contribution to own

campaign, 6:5

1997-22: Communicating membership corporation’s endorsements

of federal candidates to members

and their restricted classes, 1:14

1997-25: Affiliation of corporate

SSFs after reorganization, 3:5

Information

(continued from page 13)

806. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

807. Form 7, Report of Communication Costs

808. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

809. Form 1M, Notification of

Multicandidate Status

Schedules

825. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

826. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

827. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

828. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

829. Schedule E, Itemized Independent Expenditures

830. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated Expenditures

831. Schedules H1 –H4, Allocation

832. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

1007. Part 100.7, Contribution

1008. Part 100.8, Expenditure

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

1021. Part 102.17, Joint Fundraising

by Committees Other Than SSFs

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

1047. Part 104.7, Best Efforts

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of

Reports and Statements with

State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

1101. Part 110.1, Contributions by

Persons Other Than Multicandidate Political Committees

1102. Part 110.2, Contributions by

Multicandidate Committees

1103. Part 110.3, Contribution

Limitations for Affiliated

Committees and Political Party

Committees; Transfers

1104. Part 110.4, Prohibited Contributions

1105. Part 110.5, Annual Contribution

Limitation for Individuals

1106. Part 110.6, Earmarked Contributions

1107. Part 110.7, Party Committee

Expenditure Limitations

1108. Part 110.8, Presidential Candidate Expenditure Limitations

1109. Part 110.9, Miscellaneous

Provisions

1110. Part 110.10, Expenditures by

Candidates

1111. Part 110.11, Communications;

Advertising

1112. Part 110.12, Candidate Appearances on Public Educational

Institution Premises

1113. Part 110.13, Nonpartisan

Candidate Debates

1114. Part 110.14, Contributions to

and Expenditures by Delegates

and Delegate Committees

111. Part 111, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign

Funds and Funds Donated to

Support Federal Officeholder

Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by

Candidates and Political

Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

201. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

228. Coordinated and Independent

Expenditures by Party Committees

229. Definition of “Member” of a

Membership Association

230. Petitions for Rulemaking: Soft

Money

231. Recordkeeping and Reporting

232. Express Advocacy

233. Qualified Nonprofit Corporations

234. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Presidential Candidates

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

4411. Section 441a

4412. Section 441b

4413. Section 441c

4414. Section 441d

4415. Section 441e

4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

9801-9. AOs 1998-1 through 1998-9

9701-29. AOs 1997-1 through 1997-29

9601-52. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-52

9501-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

9401-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

9301-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

9201-44. AOs 1992-1 through 1992-44

9101-40. AOs 1991-1 through 1991-40

9001-40. AOs 1990-1 through 1990-40
July 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

1997-26: Establishment of

nonconnected PAC by individuals

affiliated with trade association, 3:7

1997-27: Use of campaign funds to

pay legal expenses, 4:7

1997-28: Reinstatement of terminated candidate committee to

retire debt to candidate, 4:8

1997-29: Status as state committee

of political party, 4:8

1998-1: Use of campaign funds to

pay legal expenses, 4:8

1998-2: Status as national committee of political party; status of

affiliated state parties as state

committees of political party, 4:10

1998-3: Status as state committee of

political party, 4:11

1998-4: Use of contributor lists

from FEC reports for marketing

“data mining” technologies, 6:5

1998-7: Exemption for party office

building fund and construction of

state party office facilities and

parking lot, 7:8

1998-8: Preemption of Iowa law

prohibiting corporate contributions to party building fund, 7:9

1998-9: Generic party expenditures

made in connection with special

election, 7:9

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee,

4:4

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate,

3:3

– National Medical Political Action

Committee, 1:3; 7:5

– Williams, 1:3

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 7:1

– Clifton, 4:5; 7:4

– DSCC (97-5160 and 97-5161), 6:4

– Gottlieb, 7:4

– Hollenbeck, 4:4

– Judd, 6:5

– Judicial Watch, Inc., 4:4

– National Committee of the Reform

Party, 1:2; 4:4

– Natural Law Party (98-1025), 6:3

– Ohio Democratic Party, 6:2

– Perot ’96, Inc., (97-2554), 6:3

– Perot ’96, Inc., (98-1022), 6:3

– RNC (97-1552), 6:4

– RNC (98-1207 (WBB)), 6:1

– Right to Life of Dutchess County,

Inc., 7:3

– Stockman, 5:3

Reports

Electronic filing, 4:1; 4:2

On FEC web site, 2:1; 4:2; 6:1

Pre-Election Reporting Dates: 1998

Primary and Runoff Elections, 1:8

Reports, Alabama Runoff, 2:1

Reports due in 1998, 1:6; 1:11

Reports due in April, 4:2

Reports due in July, 7:11

Special Elections, California, 1:12;

3:9

Special Election, New Mexico, 5:3

Special Election, New York, 2:4

Special Election, Pennsylvania, 1:13

Surveying potential for electronic

filing, 2:2
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1998