March 2005 Federal Election Commission Volume 31, Number 3

Table of Contents

 Contribution Limits

1 Limits for 2005-2006

 Court Cases

 1 New Litigation

 Regulations

 3 Final Rules on Contributions by 

Minors

 4 NPRM on Definition of Agent

 5 Federal Register

 6 NPRM on De Minimis Exemption 

for Levin Fund Disbursements

7 Advisory Opinions

 Information

 8 Federal Income Tax Requirements 

for Political Committees

 Statistics

 9 Semiannual PAC Count

 9 2004 Presidential Campaign 

Finance Activity

 Public Funding

 11 Matching Fund Certifications

 Party Activities

 12 2005 Coordinated Party 

Expenditure Limits

 Outreach

 14 Roundtable for Committee 

Treasurers

 14 FEC Conferences

(continued on page 2)

(continued on page 3)

Contribution 

Limits

Contribution Limits for 

2005-2006

Under the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), certain contribution limits are indexed 

for inflation every two years, based 

on the change in the cost of living 

since 2001, which is the base year 

for adjusting these limits.1 The new 

inflation-adjusted limits are: 

• The limits on contributions made 

by persons to candidates and national party committees (2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(a)(1)(A) and (B));

• The biennial aggregate contribution limits for individuals (2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(3)); and

• The limit on contributions made to 

U.S. Senate candidates by certain political party committees (2 

U.S.C. §441a(h)). 

(See the chart on page 3 for the 

contribution limits applicable for 

2005-2006.)

The inflation adjustments to 

these limits are made only in oddnumbered years, and—except for 

1 The applicable cost of living adjustment amount is 1.067.

Court Cases

New Litigation

Emily’s List v. FEC

On January 12, 2005, Emily’s 

List, a nonconnected political action 

committee (PAC) that maintains 

both federal and nonfederal accounts, filed a complaint in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia challenging the Commission’s new regulations regarding 

the treatment of funds received in 

response to certain solicitations and 

its amended rules regarding federal/

nonfederal fund allocation ratios 

for PACs.1The plaintiff alleges that 

the Commission’s rules violate the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

and the First Amendment, and asks 

the court to enjoin the Commission 

from administering or enforcing the 

regulations.

Background. On March 11, 2004, 

the Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on Political 

Committee Status, which proposed 

a number of regulatory changes 

concerning, among other things, the 

1

 The final rules were published in the 

November 23, 2004, Federal Register 

(68 FR 68056). The rules took effect 

on January 1, 2005. See the December 

2004 Record, page 1.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 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

http://www.fec.gov

definition of “political committee” 

and the allocation ratios for PACs. 

On November 23, 2004, it published 

final rules that define as “contributions”:

• All funds received in response to a 

communication that indicates that 

any portion of the funds received 

will be used to support or oppose 

the election of a clearly identified 

federal candidate; and 

• At least 50 percent of the funds 

received from such a communication if it refers to both federal and 

nonfederal candidates.

The new rules also provide that 

a PAC that maintains federal and 

nonfederal accounts must use at 

least 50 percent federal funds to pay 

for administrative and voter drive 

expenses and the costs of public 

communications that refer to a 

political party, but not to any clearly 

identified candidate. Voter drives 

and communications that refer to a 

clearly identified federal candidate, 

but no clearly identified state candidate, must be paid for entirely with 

federal funds.

Court Complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the Commission 

exceeded its statutory authority 

in these regulations because the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act) only regulates money spent by 

nonconnected committees “for the 

purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 2 U.S.C. 

§§431(8) and (9). According to the 

plaintiff, the solicitation regulations 

exceed the Commission’s statutory 

authority by requiring that funds be 

considered “contributions” under the 

Act even if they will also be used for 

nonfederal elections or other nonfederal activities. Similarly, the plaintiff 

alleges that the new allocation rules 

exceed the Commission’s statutory 

authority by requiring federal funds 

to be used to pay for nonfederal 

activities. According to the plaintiff, 

these allocation rules result in “a 

mandatory subsidization of nonfederal electoral expenses with federal 

funds” and restrict activities that are 

not for the purpose of influencing a 

federal election.

The plaintiff further alleges that 

the regulations violate the APA because the Commission failed to give 

proper notice of the final regulations 

or to give interested parties a fair 

and meaningful opportunity to comment. According to the plaintiff, the 

proposed solicitation rules only addressed express advocacy communications, and the proposed allocation 

rules did not suggest a “blanket” 50 

percent allocation ratio, but instead 

focused on a “promote, support, attack, or oppose” standard for determining how a given cost should be 

allocated. Thus, the plaintiff alleges 

that the Commission’s notice of the 

proposed rules did not give reasonable notice of the scope or nature of 

the final regulations, in violation of 5 

U.S.C. §553(b).

In addition, the plaintiff claims 

that the regulations are arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, 

in violation of 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A). 

The plaintiff alleges that the FEC 

failed to provide a rational explanation for its decisions or to take 

public comments into account when 

making its final rules. According to 

the plaintiff, the FEC also failed to 

identify for these rules “any purpose 

to deter corruption or the appearance 

of corruption, and they serve no such 

purpose.”

Finally, the plaintiff alleges that 

the challenged regulations violate 

its First Amendment rights. The 

plaintiff claims that in Buckley v. 

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), 

the Supreme Court prohibited the 

FEC from restricting the types and 

amounts of funds used to influence 

federal elections unless the restrictions are narrowly tailored to prevent 

corruption or the appearance thereof. 

According to the plaintiff, the regulations in question are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Relief. The plaintiff asks the 

court to find the challenged regulations in violation of the APA, and in 

violation of the First Amendment, 

and to enjoin the FEC from enforcing or administering these regulations. Along with its complaint, the 

plaintiff also asked the court to issue 

a preliminary injunction to prevent 

the Commission from enforcing the 

challenged regulations.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 1:05CV00049.

 —Amy Kort

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)
March 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

2

 This provision also affects the indexing 

of coordinated party expenditure limits 

and Presidential expenditure limits. 2 

U.S.C. §§441a(b) and 441a(d).

Contribution Limits for 2005-2006

Type of Contribution Limit

Individuals/Non-multicandidate Committees 

to Candidates $2,100

Individuals/Non-multicandidate Committees

to National Party Committees $26,700

Biennial Limit for Individuals $101,4001

National Party Committee to a Senate Candidate $37,3002

1

This amount is composed of a $40,000 limit for what may be contributed to all 

candidates and a $61,400 limit for what may be contributed to all PACs and 

party committees. Of the $61,400 portion that may contributed to PACs and 

parties, only $40,00 may be contributed to state and local party committees 

and PACs.

2

This limit is shared by the national committee and the Senate campaign committee.

Contribution Limits

(continued from page 1)

the biennial limit—the limits are 

in effect for the two-year election 

cycle beginning on the day after the 

general election and ending on the 

date of the next general election. 

The biennial limit covers the twocalendar-year period beginning on 

January 1 of the odd-numbered year 

and ending on December 31 of the 

even numbered year. 

Please note, however, that these 

limits do not apply to contributions raised to retire debts from past 

elections. Contributions received 

to retire such debts may not exceed 

the contribution limits in effect on 

the date of the election for which 

those debts were incurred. 11 CFR 

110.1(b)(3)(iii).

The BCRA also introduced a 

rounding provision for all of the 

amounts that are increased by the 

Final Rules on Contributions 

by Minors

On January 27, 2005, the Commission approved final rules regarding contributions and donations by 

minors to candidates and political 

committees. The rules, which will 

take effect on March 7, 2005, conform to the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC. In that 

decision, the Court found unconstitutional a provision of the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) 

that barred minors from making 

contributions to candidates or from 

making contributions or donations to 

political party committees. 

The practical effect of the amended regulations is to return the rules 

to their pre-BCRA state. The final 

regulations provide that an individual under 18 years old may make 

contributions to candidates and party 

committees if:

• The decision to contribute is made 

knowingly and voluntarily by the 

minor;

• The funds, goods or services contributed are owned or controlled by 

the minor, such as income earned 

by the minor, proceeds from a trust 

for which he or she is a beneficiary, 

or funds withdrawn by the minor 

from a financial account opened 

and maintained in his or her name; 

and

Regulations

(continued on page 4)

FEC Accepts Credit 

Cards

 The Federal Election 

Commission now accepts 

American Express, Diners Club 

and Discover Cards in addition 

to Via and MasterCard. While 

most FEC materials are available 

free of charge, some campaign 

finance reports and statements, 

statistical compilations, indexes 

and directories require payment.

 Walk-in visitors and those 

placing requests by telephone may 

use any of the above-listed credit 

cards, cash or checks. Individuals 

and organizations may also place 

funds on deposit with the office 

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

card or funds placed on deposit 

can speed the process and delivery 

of orders. For further information, 

contact the Public Records Office 

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

indexing for inflation.2 Under this 

provision, if the inflation-adjusted 

amount is not a multiple of $100, 

then the amount is rounded to the 

nearest $100. 

 —Amy Kort
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2005

4

PACronyms, Other 

PAC Publications 

Available

 The Commission annually 

publishes an alphabetical listing 

of acronyms, abbreviations and 

common names of political action 

committees (PACs).

 For each PAC listed, the 

index provides the full name 

of the PAC, its city, state, FEC 

identification number and, if not 

identifiable from the full name, its 

connected, sponsoring or affiliated 

organization.

 This index is helpful in 

identifying PACs that are not 

readily identified in their reports 

and statements on file with the 

FEC.

 To order a free copy of 

PACronyms, call the FEC’s 

Disclosure Division at 800/424-

9530 or 202/694-1120.

 PACronyms is also available 

on diskette for $1 and can be 

accessed free on the FEC web site 

at www.fec.gov.

 Other PAC indexes, described 

below, may be ordered from the 

Disclosure Division. Prepayment 

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all 

registered PACs showing each 

PAC’s identification number, 

address, treasurer and connected 

organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs 

arranged by state providing 

the same information as above 

($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of 

organizations sponsoring PACs 

showing the name of the PAC 

and its identification number 

($7.50).

 The Disclosure Division can 

also conduct database research to 

locate federal political committees 

when only part of the committee 

name is known. Call the telephone 

numbers above for assistance or 

visit the Public Records Office in 

Washington at 999 E St. NW.

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Revising the 

Definition of “Agent”

On January 27, 2005, the Commission approved a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comments on proposed revisions to the definitions of “agent” 

used in its regulations on coordinated and independent expenditures and 

its regulations regarding nonfederal 

funds. The Commission has issued 

this NPRM in order to comply with 

the district court decision in Shays v. 

FEC. 

Background

On July 29, 2002, the Commission promulgated regulations 

implementing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002’s (BCRA) 

new limitations on party, candidate 

and officeholder solicitation and use 

of nonfederal funds. On January 

3, 2003, the Commission promulgated regulations implementing the 

BCRA’s provisions regarding payments by political committees and 

other persons for communications 

that are coordinated with a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee or a political party committee 

and provisions regarding expenditures by political party committees 

that are made either in coordination 

with, or independently from, candidates. Many of the restrictions 

imposed by these two rulemakings 

apply not only to principals, such as 

a candidate or party committee, but 

also to their agents. Accordingly, 

in each rulemaking the Commission adopted a definition of the term 

“agent.” These identical definitions 

provide that an agent is “any person 

who has actual authority, either express or implied” to perform certain, 

specified actions. The definitions do 

not include persons acting only with 

apparent authority.

On September 18, 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia, in its decision in Shays v. 

FEC, held that the Commission had 

not provided adequate explanation 

of its decision to exclude from the 

definition of agent “persons acting only with apparent authority” 

and therefore had not satisfied the 

reasoned analysis requirement of the 

Administrative Procedure Act. The 

court remanded both definitions to 

the Commission for further action 

consistent with its opinion.

Although the Commission now 

proposes to revise its regulations to 

include persons acting with apparent authority in its definitions of 

agent, the NPRM emphasizes that 

the Commission may nonetheless 

determine after the comment period 

to retain the current definitions 

of agent, which exclude apparent 

authority. Accordingly, the NPRM 

Regulations

(continued from page 3)

• The contribution is not made from 

the proceeds of a gift given for the 

purpose of making the contribution 

and is not in any other way controlled by another individual. 

11 CFR 110.19.

Note that the Commission has 

made one substantive change from 

the pre-BCRA regulations by removing the requirement that a minor 

“exclusively” own or control the 

funds, goods or services contributed. 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed in 

McConnell v. FEC that minors have 

a constitutional right to contribute to 

federal candidates and party committees. Maintaining the exclusivity requirement would have risked 

effectively precluding some minors 

from contributing their personal 

funds simply because they maintained their financial accounts in a 

place where an adult co-signatory 

was required for such accounts. 

The final rules and their Explanation and Justification were published 

in the February 3, 2005, Federal 

Register (69 FR 5565) and are available on the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.

shtml. 

 —Amy Kort
March 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

seeks comment both on whether 

apparent authority should be added 

to the Commission’s definitions 

of agent and on whether there are 

reasons for continuing to exclude apparent authority from the definitions.

Proposed Rules

As the Shays court pointed out, 

the common law definition of actual 

and apparent authority states that 

an agent’s “actual authority is created by manifestations of consent 

(express or implied) made by the 

principal to the agent.” Restatement 

(Second) of Agency 1958 (Restatement), §7. In contrast, apparent authority is created by manifestations 

the principal makes to a third party

about a person’s authority to act on 

the principal’s behalf and is created 

only where the principal’s word or 

conduct “reasonably interpreted, 

causes the third party to believe that 

the principal consents to have the 

act done on his behalf by the person 

purporting to act for him” (quoting 

Restatement §27).

In drafting the current regulations 

at 11 CFR 109.3 and 300.2(b), the 

Commission had sought to limit a 

principal’s liability for the actions 

of an agent to situations where the 

principal had engaged in specific 

conduct to create an agent’s authority. The Commission had been 

concerned that including apparent 

authority in the definition of “agent” 

would expose principals to liability 

based solely on the actions of rogue 

or misguided volunteers and might 

“place the definition of ‘agent’ in the 

hands of a third party.”1

However, according to the Shays

court, the scope of the common law 

concept of apparent authority appears to exclude from the definition 

of agent precisely the types of conduct that the Commission had sought 

to exclude when it decided to limit 

its definitions of agent to persons 

acting with actual authority. Just 

as the Commission intended when 

it adopted its current definitions of 

agent, the common law definition 

of agent, including apparent authority, limits a principal’s liability for a 

would-be agent’s actions to situations where the principal has taken 

specific action to create authority, 

either actual or apparent, in a person.

Accordingly, in light of the Shays 

court’s interpretation of the narrow scope of apparent authority, the 

Commission now proposes to revise 

its regulations at 11 CFR 109.3 and 

300.2(b) by defining agent as any 

person acting with either actual authority, express or implied, or appar1

 See Final Rules and Explanation and 

Justification for Regulations on Prohibited and Excessive Contributions; 

Non-Federal Funds or Soft Money (67 

FR at 49083); Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for Regulations on 

Coordinated and Independent Expenditures (68 FR at 425). (continued on page 6)

ent authority. By including persons 

acting with apparent authority, the 

proposed revision would ensure that 

when a candidate or party committee 

conveys through words or actions 

that another person has authority to 

act on that candidate’s or committee’s behalf, then the actions of that 

person are imputed to the candidate 

or party committee for purposes 

of determining liability under the 

Commission’s soft money and coordination provisions. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

asks a number of questions relating 

to its proposal to include persons 

acting with apparent authority in the 

definitions of agent. For example, 

would the proposed revision reduce 

the opportunities for circumvention 

of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act and the appearance of corruption? Would the inclusion of 

apparent authority in the definition 

of “agent” affect the exercise of 

political activity?

Alternatively, the Commission 

also seeks comment on whether 

reasons remain to exclude apparent 

authority from the Commission’s 

definitions of agent. The concept 

of apparent authority has generally 

been applied in ordinary commercial 

settings. The NPRM asks, among 

other things, whether the differences between ordinary commercial 

settings and political settings, where 

the Commission’s regulations operate, provide grounds for excluding 

apparent authority from the Commission’s definitions of agent. 

In addition, the Commission 

seeks comments on whether, instead 

of either excluding apparent authority from the definitions of agent 

altogether or simply adding the 

term “apparent authority” to these 

definitions, it should provide a more 

narrowly tailored definition of agent 

that includes certain aspects of apparent authority

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 2005-2

De Minimis Exemption for 

Disbursements of Levin Funds 

by State, District, and Local 

Party Committees (70 FR 5385, 

February 2, 2005)

Notice 2005-3

Definition of “Agent” for BCRA 

Regulations on Non-Federal 

Funds or Soft Money and 

Coordinated and Independent 

Expenditures (70 FR 5382, 

February 2, 2005)

Notice 2005-4

Contributions and Donations by 

Minors (70 FR 5565, February 3, 

2005)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2005

6

Visit the FEC’s 

Redesigned Web Site

 FEC staff recently completed 

a significant upgrade of the 

Commission’s web site, www.fec.

gov. The redesigned site offers a 

wealth of information in a simple, 

clearly-organized format. Features 

include cascading menus that 

improve navigation and interactive 

pages that allow users to tailor 

content to their specific needs.

Noteworthy among the new 

features is a search engine. This 

tool allows visitors to immediately 

access all pages on the site 

that contain a desired word or 

phrase. Another new feature, 

the Commission Calendar, helps 

users keep track of reporting 

deadlines, upcoming conferences 

and workshops, Commission 

meetings, comment deadlines and 

more.

 The site also offers a robust new 

enforcement section that includes 

the Enforcement Query System, 

information on closed MURs, the 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

and Administrative Fine programs 

and—for the first time—access to 

final audit reports issued by the 

Commission. 

 The Commission encourages 

the regulated community and 

the public to make use of this 

dynamic and interactive site by 

visiting www.fec.gov.

 

Regulations

(continued from page 5)

2

 “Allocable Type 1 & 2” FEA means: 

1) voter registration activity 120 days 

before a federal election; and 2) voter 

identification, get-out-the-vote activity 

or generic campaign activity in connection with an election in which a candidate for federal office appears on the 

ballot. Neither type of activity may be 

allocated if it refers to a clearly identified federal candidate. 11 CFR 100.24.

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on De 

Minimis Exemption for 

the Disbursement of Levin 

Funds by State, District and 

Local Party Committees

On January 27, 2005, the Commission approved a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

seeking comments on proposed 

changes to its regulations on the 

disbursement of Levin funds by 

state, district and local party committees. The proposed rules would 

delete Commission regulations at 11 

District Court Ruling

In its September 28, 2004, 

decision, the District Court of the 

District of Columbia held in Shays 

v. FEC that the de minimis exemption was inconsistent with Congress’ 

clear intent because BCRA requires 

state, district or local party committees to pay for Allocable Type 1 & 

1

 Levin funds, a type of funds raised only 

by state, district or local political party 

committees, are limited to donations of 

$10,000 per calendar year and may be 

raised from sources otherwise prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (except foreign nationals). 11 CFR 

300.31.

Public Comments

The NPRM was published in the 

February 2, 2005, Federal Register 

and is available on the FEC web site 

at http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml. All comments 

should be addressed to Mr. Brad C. 

Deutsch, Assistant General Counsel, and must be submitted in either 

written or electronic form by March 

4, 2005. The Commission recommends that comments be submitted 

via e-mail. E-mail comments may 

be sent to agentnprm@fec.gov and 

may also be submitted through the 

Federal eRegulations Portal at www.

regulations.gov. All electronic comments must include the full name, 

electronic mail address and postal 

service address of the commenter. 

Comments that do not contain this 

information will not be considered. 

No oral comments can be accepted. 

Faxed comments should be sent 

to 202/219-3923, with a printed 

copy follow-up to insure legibility. 

Mailed comments should be sent to 

the Federal Election Commission, 

999 E. Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20463. If the Commission receives 

sufficient requests to testify, it may 

hold a hearing on these proposed 

rules. Commenters wishing to testify 

must indicate this in their comments. 

 —Amy Pike

CFR 300.32(c)(4) that allow a state, 

district or local committee of a political party to pay for certain types 

of “federal election activity” (FEA) 

entirely with Levin funds1

 under 

certain circumstances.

The NPRM was published in the 

February 2, 2005, Federal Register

(70 FR 5385), and is open to public 

comments until March 4, 2005.

Background

On July 29, 2002, the Commission promulgated regulations at 11 

CFR Part 300 to implement provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act (BCRA) concerning 

FEA disbursements by state, district 

and local party committees. The 

rules require that when these committees disburse more than $5,000 

on Allocable Type 1 & 2 FEA2

 in 

a calendar year, they must pay for 

such FEA with entirely federal funds 

or with a combination of federal and 

Levin funds. The Commission also 

created a de minimis exemption for 

any state, district or local party committee whose disbursements for Allocable Type 1 & 2 FEA aggregate 

$5,000 or less in a calendar year, 

allowing such committees to pay for 

these expenses entirely with Levin 

funds. 11 CFR 300.32(c)(4).
March 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

Enforcement Query 

System Now Available on FEC Web 

Site

 The FEC recently launched 

its Enforcement Query System 

(EQS), a web-based search 

tool that allows users to find 

and examine public documents 

regarding closed Commission 

enforcement matters. Using 

current scanning, optical character 

recognition and text search 

technologies, the system permits 

intuitive and flexible searches 

of case documents and other 

materials. 

 Currently, the EQS contains 

complete public case files for 

all MURs closed since January 

1, 2000. Users of the system 

can search for specific words 

or phrases from the text of all 

public case documents. They 

can also identify single matters 

under review (MURs) or groups 

of cases by searching additional 

identifying information about 

cases prepared as part of the Case 

Management System. Included 

among these criteria are case 

names and numbers, complainants 

and respondents, timeframes, 

dispositions, legal issues and 

penalty amounts. 

 The system was recently 

updated to offer additional case 

information and navigation tools, 

including:

• A redesigned Case Summary 

section that includes the name 

of a respondent committee 

treasurer and any prior 

committee treasurer; and

• An On-Line Tutorial to help 

users to utilize the system’s 

search capabilities more fully.

 The Enforcement Query 

System may be accessed on the 

Commission’s web site at www.

fec.gov.

2 FEA with either federal funds or a 

mix of federal and Levin funds. 

The court stated that for a regulatory de minimis exemption to stand, 

an agency has to demonstrate that 

following the precise language of the 

statute would lead to “absurd or futile results,” or that the failure to create an exemption would be “contrary 

to the primary legislative goal.”

Proposals 

Because the court found the de 

minimis exemption to be inconsistent 

with Congressional intent, the Commission proposes to remove it from 

11 CFR 300.32(c)(4). The new rule 

would require state, district and local 

party committees to pay for Allocable Type 1 & 2 FEA with all federal 

funds or with an allocation of federal 

and Levin funds, as provided for at 

11 CFR 300.33. The Commission 

seeks comments on the proposed 

regulation, and invites comments 

on whether following the precise 

language of the BCRA would lead to 

“absurd or futile results,” absent a de 

minimis exemption.

The Commission also seeks comment on an alternative proposal for 

a de minimis exemption that would 

apply only to state, district and local 

party committees whose receipts and 

disbursements for Allocable Type 1 

& 2 FEA aggregate less than $5,000 

in a calendar year. This exemption 

would only apply to state, district 

or local party committees that are 

already statutorily exempt from 

having to report FEA. The Commission seeks comment on whether this 

alternative proposal would comport 

with the statutory intent of 2 U.S.C. 

§441i(b).

The Commission has filed an 

appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of certain aspects of the Shays decision, 

including the court’s ruling on the 

de minimis exemption. The appeal 

is currently pending. In the event 

the Commission prevails on appeal, 

the Commission may terminate this 

rulemaking prior to the adoption of 

final rules.

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2004-45

Accounting Method 

for Determining Excess 

Contributions Under 

Millionaires’ Amendment

Senator Ken Salazar and his principal campaign committee, Salazar 

for Senate (the Committee) may use 

a “last-in, first-out” (LIFO) accounting method to determine whether 

any contributions raised under the 

“Millionaires’ Amendment” are 

Comments

All comments should be addressed to Mr. Brad C. Deutsch, 

Assistant General Counsel, and must 

be submitted in either written or 

electronic form by March 4, 2005. 

Written comments should be sent to 

the Federal Election Commission, 

999 E Street NW, Washington, DC 

20463. Faxed comments should be 

sent to 202/219-3923, with a printed 

copy follow-up to insure legibility. 

Electronic mail comments should 

be sent to deminimis@fec.gov and 

may also be submitted through the 

Federal eRegulations Portal at www.

regulations.gov. All electronic comments must include the full name, 

electronic mail address and postal 

service address of the commenter. 

Comments that do not contain this 

information will not be considered. 

No oral comments can be accepted. 

If the Commission receives sufficient requests to testify, it may hold 

a hearing on these proposed rules. 

Commenters wishing to testify must 

indicate this in their comments. 

The full text of the NPRM is 

available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml and from the FEC 

faxline, 202/501-3413

 —Jim Wilson

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2005

8

“excess contributions” that must be 

returned to contributors. 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a-1 and 441a(i); 11 CFR Part 

400.

Background

During the 2004 general election 

cycle, the Salazar Committee raised 

contributions under the Millionaires’ 

Amendment, which allows a candidate to raise money in excess of 

the $2,000 per election individual 

contribution limit in certain circumstances where the candidate faces 

a self-financed opponent. Under 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act) and Commission regulations, candidates receiving increased 

contributions under the Millionaires’ 

Amendment must refund, within 50 

days after the election, all “excess 

contributions” that were not spent 

in connection with that election. 

2 U.S.C. §§441a(i)(3) and 441a1(a)(4); 11 CFR 400.51 and 400.53. 

An “excess contribution” is the 

amount of each contribution raised 

over the usual $2,000 limit that is 

not otherwise spent “in connection 

with the election” to which it relates. 

11 CFR 400.50.

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 2005-1

Contributions by Indian tribe that 

is co-indemnitor for corporation 

with federal contracts (Mississippi 

Band of Choctaw Indians, January 

24, 2005)

Analysis

Neither the Act nor the Commission’s regulations specify a 

particular accounting method that 

candidate committees must use to 

determine whether their remaining cash-on-hand after an election 

contains any “excess contributions.” 

Because LIFO is a generally accepted accounting principle, the Salazar 

Committee may use this method to 

determine whether it has “excess 

contributions” under the Millionaires’ Amendment.

Date Issued: January 27, 2005; 

Length: 3 pages.

 —Amy Kort

Information

Federal Income Tax 

Requirements for Political 

Organizations

Political committees and organizations that file with the FEC may 

also need to file a federal income 

tax return with the Internal Revenue 

Service (IRS).

If an organization has taxable 

income, it must file Form 1120-POL, 

US Income Tax Return for Certain 

Political Organizations, and pay 

all taxes due, by the 15th day of the 

third month after the close of the 

organization’s fiscal year (March 

15th for organizations operating on a 

calendar year). Organizations may 

request a six-month extension of the 

filing deadline by filing Form 7004, 

Application for Automatic Extension 

of Time to File Corporate Income 

Tax Return. 

Taxable income for political organizations is defined as gross income, 

less deductions allowed in the Internal Revenue Code, which include 

expenses directly connected with 

producing gross income and a $100 

specific deduction. Gross income 

is the sum of investment income 

and income from a trade or business 

(such as renting excess office space 

to an unrelated organization). Exempt function income—income set 

aside for use for an organization’s 

exempt purpose—is excluded from 

gross income if received in one of 

the following ways: 

• Contributions of money or property; membership dues or other 

assessments; 

• Proceeds from a political fundraising or entertainment event; 

• Proceeds from the sale of campaign 

materials; or 

• Proceeds from bingo games, as 

defined in §513(f)(2). 

Political committees and organizations that do not file with the FEC 

may have additional reporting and 

disclosure requirements with the 

IRS. These can include: 

• Form 8871, Political Organization 

Notice of Section 527 Status, due 

within 24 hours of establishment, 

or within 30 days of a material 

change; 

• Form 8872, Report of Contributions and Expenditures (contributions and expenditures must be 

reported at least semi-annually in a 

non-election year, and quarterly in 

an election year); and 

• Form 990, Return of Organization 

Exempt from Federal Income Tax.

To obtain copies of required 

forms and additional information 

about federal tax requirements, visit 

the IRS political organizations web 

site at www.irs.gov/polorgs. For further assistance, call Exempt Organizations Customer Account Services 

at 1-877-829-5500.

 —Submitted by the IRS

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.
March 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital Non-

 Corporate Labor Health erative Stock connected 1 Total

Jan. 00 1,548 318 844 38 115 972 3,835

Jul. 00 1,523 316 812 39 114 902 3,706

Jan. 01 1,545 317 860 41 118 1,026 3,907

Jul. 01 1,525 314 872 41 118 1,007 3,877

Jan. 02 1,508 316 891 41 116 1,019 3,891

Jul. 02 1,514 313 882 40 110 1,006 3,865

Jan. 03 1,528 320 975 39 110 1,055 4,027

Jul. 03 1,534 320 902 39 110 1,040 3,945

Jan. 04 1,538 310 884 35 102 999 3,868

Jul. 04 1,555 303 877 34 97 1,174 4,040

Jan. 05 1,622 306 900 34 99 1,223 4,184

*

Committees with no activity for the election cycle are not included in the mid-year 

and year-end PAC count.

1 Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative 

expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected 

organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On the other 

hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general public, while 

solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

Semiannual PAC Count—2000-2005

Statistics

Semiannual PAC Count 

Shows Increase Throughout 

2004

The number of federally registered political action committees 

(PACs) increased during 2004, from 

4,040 on July 1, 2004, to 4,184 by 

January 1, 2005.

Corporate PACs remain the largest category, with 1,622 committees. 

Nonconnected PACs remain the second-largest group, with 1,223 committees. The chart at right, below, 

shows the complete mid-year and 

year-end PAC figures since 2000. 

A complete listing of PAC statistics since 1974 is available in the 

agency’s January 25, 2005, press 

release. The press release is available:

• On the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/press/press2005/2005news.

shtml;

• From the FEC’s Public Disclosure 

and Press offices (800/424-9530); 

and

• By fax (call the FEC Faxline at 

202/501-3413).

 —Amy Kort

2004 Presidential Campaign 

Finance Activity

Financial activity of 2004 

Presidential candidates and national conventions totaled more than 

$1 billion, 56 percent more than 

comparable activity during the 2000 

campaign. Presidential candidates in 

the primaries raised $673.9 million 

dollars seeking nomination. The 

two major party nominees received 

$74.6 million each in public funds to 

conduct their general election campaigns, and they raised an additional 

$21 million for legal and accounting 

costs associated with the general 

election race. For their nominating 

conventions, the two parties received 

$14.9 million each from the U.S. 

Treasury, while host committees 

(continued on page 10)

Back Issues of the 

Record Available on 

the Internet

 This issue of the Record and all 

other issues of the Record starting 

with January 1996 are available 

on the FEC web site as PDF files. 

Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/record.shtml

to find monthly Record issues. 

 The web site also provides 

copies of the Annual Record Index

for each completed year of the 

Record, dating back to 1996. The 

Annual Record Index list Record

articles for each year by topic, 

type of Commission action and, in 

the case of advisory opinions, the 

names of individuals requesting 

Commission action.

You will need Adobe® Acrobat® Reader software to view the 

publication. The FEC’s web site 

has a link that will take you to 

Adobe’s web site, where you can 

download the latest version of the 

software for free.
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2005

10

from the two convention cities raised 

a total of $142.5 million in support 

of convention activities. 

In addition to spending by 

candidates and conventions, individuals, parties and other groups 

spent $192.4 million independently 

advocating the election or defeat 

of Presidential candidates during 

the 2004 campaign. This spending compares with $14.7 million in 

similar activity in 2000, and $1.4 

million in independent expenditures 

in the 1996 Presidential race. Much 

of the independent expenditure 

activity during 2004 was undertaken 

by national political parties. The 

Democratic National Committee 

(DNC) spent $120 million on these 

independent expenditures, while 

the Republican National Committee 

(RNC) spent $18.2 million. In addition, the RNC spent $45.8 million on 

generic media ads that included both 

specific campaign messages and 

generic party support messages for 

which they shared the cost of some 

advertising with the Bush campaign. 

DNC spending on similar ads totaled 

$24 million. The two national parties 

also spent $32.1 million in coordination with the 2004 Presidential campaigns during the general election 

period. Each party was permitted to 

spend up to $16.25 million on this 

activity. In 2000 parties spent $27.2 

million on coordinated expenditures, 

while the total in 1996 was $18.7 

million.

For the 2004 elections, membership organizations reported $12.3 

million in communications to their 

members advocating the election or 

defeat of a Presidential candidate. 

This amount was little changed from 

the $11.5 million these organizations 

reported during the 2000 campaign. 

Finally, in 2004 groups reported 

making $40.8 million in electioneering communications that made reference to Presidential candidates.1

Presidential candidates seeking 

nominations raised $611.4 million in 

contributions directly from individuals, $28 million in federal matching 

funds, $3.5 million from PACs and 

$6.8 million in transfers from prior 

campaigns. 

Significantly, 2004 was the first 

cycle in which both major party 

nominees declined public matching 

funds during the primaries, and the 

$28 million paid in those funds was 

the lowest total since the first PresiStatistics

(continued from page 9)

Presidential Primary Funding: Ratio of Public to Private Funds, 1996-2004 Elections

Private Funds

Public Funds

1996 2000 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$248.3 million total $351.6 million total $673.9 million total

4%

96%

18%

82%

24%

76%

Private Funds

Public Funds

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

96%

18%

82%

24%

76%

Private Funds

Public Funds

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

18%

24%

76%

1 These totals do not include certain 

voter registration activities, get-out-thevote activities and other communications by unregistered groups that may 

not be required to disclose this activity 

to the FEC. Some of this activity may 

be disclosed to the Internal Revenue 

Service.
March 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

dential election conducted under the 

system in 1976. The $269.6 million 

raised by President Bush prior to the 

convention was nearly three times 

his fundraising total in 2000, when 

he also declined to accept public 

funds. John Kerry raised $234.6 million, nearly six times more than had 

ever been raised by a Democratic 

nominee under the public funding 

program, which imposes spending 

limits on candidates who accept 

matching funds and limits the total 

amount of public funds available. 

See the charts on page 10 for details 

on total Presidential primary fundraising and matching fund payouts.

The extraordinary fundraising 

by the two nominees led to some 

disbursements that were unusual for 

candidate committees. The Kerry 

primary committee, for example, 

transferred more than $40 million 

to Democratic party committees

at both the national and state levels, with $23.6 million going to the 

DNC. The Bush primary committee 

transferred $11.3 million to the RNC 

in mid October.

A Press Release dated February 

3, 2005, provides additional details 

on Presidential campaign spending 

for the 2004 elections, as well as for 

prior election cycles. The release 

is available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2005/

2005news.shtml.

 —Amy Kort

Commission Certifies 

Matching Funds for 

Presidential Candidates

On January 27, 2005, the Commission certified $20,023.37 in 

federal matching funds to two 

Presidential candidates for the 2004 

election. The U.S. Treasury Department made the payment on February 

1, 2005. This certification raises to 

$28,375,506.11 the total amount of 

Public Funding

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Primary Candidates: 

January Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative 

January 2005 Certifications

Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $0 $7,615,360.39

John R. Edwards (D)2 $6,310.00 $6,654,161.44

Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $0 $4,104,319.82

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $0 $3,291,962.59

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)5 $0 $1,456,019.13

Joseph Lieberman (D)6 $0 $4,267,796.85

Ralph Nader (I)7 $13,713.37 $885,885.89

Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $0 $100,000.008

1 General Clark publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 11, 2004.

2 Senator Edwards publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on March 3, 2004.

3 Congressman Gephardt publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on January 2, 

2004.

4 Congressman Kucinich became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 

2004.

5 Mr. LaRouche became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2004.

6 Senator Lieberman publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 3, 

2004.

7 Ralph Nader became ineligible to receive matching funds on September 2, 2004.

8

 On May 10, 2004, the Commission determined that Reverend Sharpton must repay 

this amount to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds he received in excess of his entitlement. See the July 2004 Record, page 8.

federal funds certified thus far to 

eight Presidential candidates under 

the Matching Payment Account Act.

Presidential Matching Payment 

Account

Under the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act, the 

federal government will match up to 

$250 of an individual’s total contributions to an eligible Presidential 

primary candidate. A candidate must 

establish eligibility to receive matching payments by raising in excess of 

$5,000 in each of at least 20 states 

(i.e., over $100,000). Although an 

individual may contribute up to 

$2,000 to a primary candidate, only 

a maximum of $250 per individual 

applies toward the $5,000 threshold in each state. Candidates who 

receive matching payments must 

agree to limit their committee’s 

spending, limit their personal spending for the campaign to $50,000 and 

submit to an audit by the Commission. 26 U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b) 

and 9035; 11 CFR 9033.1, 9033.2, 

9035.1(a)(2) and 9035.2(a)(1).

Candidates may submit requests 

for matching funds once each 

month. The Commission will certify 

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

12

Party

Activities

2005 Coordinated Party 

Expenditure Limits

The 2005 coordinated party 

expenditure limits are now available. 

They are:

• $38,300 for House nominees;1

 and 

• A range from $76,600 to 

$2,014,900 for Senate nominees, 

depending on each state’s voting 

age population. 

Party committees may make these 

special expenditures on behalf of 

their nominees in any 2005 general 

elections that may be held. National 

party committees have a separate 

limit for each nominee, but they 

share their limits with their national 

senatorial and congressional committees. Each state party committee 

has a separate limit for each House 

and Senate nominee in its state. 

Local party committees do not have 

their own separate limit. One party 

committee may authorize another 

party committee to make an expenditure against its limit. Local com1

 In states that have only one U.S. House 

Representative, the coordinated party 

expenditure limit for the House nominee 

is $76,600.

Authority to Make Coordinated Party Expenditures on 

Behalf of House and Senate Nominees 

National Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of

 House and Senate nominees. May 

 authorize 1 other party committees to make 

 expenditures against its own spending 

 limits. Shares limits with national Congres- 

 sional and Senatorial campaign committees.

State Party Committee May make expenditures on behalf of House 

 and Senate nominees seeking election in the 

 committee’s state. May authorize 1

 other 

 party committees to make expenditures 

 against its own spending limits. 

Local Party Committee May be authorized 1

 by national or state 

 party committee to make expenditures 

 against its limits.

Calculating 2005 Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits

Amount Formula

Senate Nominee See table on The greater of:

 page 12 $20,000 x COLA or

 2¢ x state VAP2

 x COLA3

House Nominee in States

with Only One Representative $76,600 $20,000 x COLA

House Nominee in Other States $38,300 $10,000 x COLA

Nominee for Delegate or

Resident Commissioner4 $38,300 $10,000 x COLA

1 The authorizing committee must provide prior authorization specifying the amount 

the committee may spend.

2

VAP means voting age population. 

3 COLA means cost-of-living adjustment. The applicable COLA is 3.831. 

4 American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands elect Delegates; Puerto Rico elects a Resident Commissioner.

an amount to be paid by the U.S. 

Treasury the following month. 26 

CFR 702.9037-2. Only contributions 

from individuals in amounts of $250 

or less are matchable. 

The chart on page 11 lists the 

amount most recently certified to 

each eligible candidate who elected 

to participate in the matching fund 

program, along with the cumulative 

amount that each candidate has been 

certified to date. 

 —Amy Kort

Public Funding

(continued from page 11)
March 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

13

Campaign Guides 

Available

 For each type of committee, a 

Campaign Guide explains, in clear 

English, the complex regulations 

regarding the activity of political 

committees. It shows readers, 

for example, how to fill out FEC 

reports and illustrates how the law 

applies to practical situations.

 The FEC publishes four 

Campaign Guides, each for a 

different type of committee, 

and we are happy to mail your 

committee as many copies as 

you need, free of charge. We 

encourage you to view them on 

our web site (www.fec.gov).

 If you would like to place an 

order for paper copies of the 

Campaign Guides, please call the 

Information Division at 800/424-

9530.

Coordinated Party Expenditure Limits for 2005 

Special Election Senate Nominees

 Voting Age Population Expenditure 

State (in thousands) Limit

Alabama 3,436 $263,300

Alaska* 467 $76,600

Arizona 4,197 $321,600

Arkansas 2,076 $159,100

California 26,297 $2,014,900

Colorado 3,423 $262,300

Connecticut 2,665 $204,200

Delaware* 637 $76,600

Florida 13,394 $1,026,200

Georgia 6,497 $497,800

Hawaii* 964 $76,600

Idaho 1,021 $78,200

Illinois 9,475 $726,000

Indiana 4,637 $355,300

Iowa 2,274 $174,200

Kansas 2,052 $157,200

Kentucky 3,166 $242,600

Louisiana 3,351 $256,800

Maine 1,035 $79,300

Maryland 4,163 $319,000

Massachusetts 4,952 $379,400

Michigan 7,579 $580,700

Minnesota 3,861 $295,800

Mississippi 2,153 $165,000

Missouri 4,370 $334,800

Montana* 719 $76,600

Nebraska 1,313 $100,600

Nevada 1,731 $132,600

New Hampshire* 995 $76,600

New Jersey 6,543 $501,300

New Mexico 1,411 $108,100

New York 14,655 $1,122,900

North Carolina 6,423 $492,100

North Dakota* 495 $76,600

Ohio 8,680 $665,100

Oklahoma 2,664 $204,100

Oregon 2,742 $210,100

Pennsylvania 9,569 $733,200

Rhode Island* 837 $76,600

South Carolina 3,173 $243,100

South Dakota* 580 $76,600

Tennessee 4,510 $345,600

Texas 16,223 $1,243,000

Utah 1,649 $126,300

Vermont* 487 $76,600

Virginia 5,655 $433,300

Washington 4,718 $361,500

West Virginia 1,431 $109,600

Wisconsin 4,201 $321,900

Wyoming* 390 $76,600

* In these states, which have only one U.S. House Representative, the spending limit 

for the House nominee is $76,600. In other states, the limit for each House nominee is 

$38,300.

mittees may only make coordinated 

party expenditures with advance 

authorization from another committee.

Coordinated party expenditure 

limits are separate from the contribution limits; they also differ from contributions in that the party committee 

must spend the funds on behalf of 

the candidate rather than give the 

money directly to the campaign. 

Although these expenditures may 

be made in consultation with the 

candidate, only the party committee making the expenditure—not the 

candidate committee—must report 

them. (Coordinated party expenditures are reported on FEC Form 3X, 

line 25, and are always itemized on 

Schedule F, regardless of amount.)

The accompanying tables on 

pages 12 and 13 include: 

• Information on which party committees have the authority to make 

coordinated party expenditures; 

(continued on page 14)
Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2005

14

Conferences

Schedule for 2005

Conference for House and 

Senate Campaigns and Political 

Party Committees

March 15-17, 2005

Loews L’Enfant Plaza

Washington, DC

Conference for Corporations 

and their PACs

April 25-27, 2005

Loews L’Enfant Plaza

Washington, DC

Conference for Trade 

Associations, Membership 

Organizations, Labor 

Organizations and their PACs

June 1-3, 2005

Hyatt Regency Chicago

Chicago, IL

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

Roundtable Schedule

Date Subject Intended Audience

March 23

9:30-11:00

Preparing for the 2006 

Elections

• Basic Limits and Prohi- bitions;

• Recordkeeping and Re- porting;

• New Policy on Treasurer 

Liability.

• Political Committee 

Treasurers

Roundtable for Committee 

Treasurers

On March 23, 2005, the Commission will host a roundtable session 

for political committe treasurers to 

discuss treasurer responsibilities, 

including reporting, recordkeeping 

and compliance with the limits and 

prohibitions of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act. FEC staff will also 

address the Commission’s recent 

policy statement on treasurer liability. See the chart below for details. 

 The roundtable will be held at 

9:30 a.m. at the FEC, 999 E. St., 

NW., Washington DC. Attendance 

is limited to 30 people per session, and registration is accepted 

on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Please call the FEC before registering or sending money to ensure 

that openings remain. The registration form is available on the FEC 

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

from Faxline, the FEC’s automated 

fax system (202/501-3413, request 

Outreach

FEC Campaign Finance Law 

Conferences in 2005

Each year the Federal Election 

Commission sponsors a number of 

conferences where Commissioners 

and FEC staff conduct a variety of 

technical workshops on the campaign finance law. Discussion topics 

include fundraising, reporting and 

communications. Workshops are 

designed for those seeking an introduction to the basic provisions of 

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

The schedule at right lists the dates 

and locations for conferences to be 

held in 2005. This year, conferences 

held in Washington, DC, will feature 

an opportunity for each participant 

to meet the FEC Campaign Finance 

Analyst who reviews his or her 

committee’s FEC reports.

Conference for House and 

Senate Campaigns and Political 

Committees

The conference for House and 

Senate Campaigns and political 

party committees has filled to capacity, and the FEC cannot accept any 

additional participants. Representatives from campaign committees and 

parties who would still like to attend 

an FEC conference this year are 

encouraged to attend the upcoming 

conferences in San Diego, California 

or San Antonio, Texas. See the chart 

below for details.

Conference for Corporations and 

their PACs

The Commission will hold a 

conference for corporations and their 

PACs April 25 through 27, 2005, 

at the Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel 

in Washington, DC. The registration fee for this conference is $375 

for participants who register on or 

Party Activities

(continued from page 13)

• The formula used to calculate the 

coordinated party expenditure limits; and 

• A listing of the state-by-state coordinated party expenditure limits. 

 —Amy Kort

document 590). For more information, call the Information Division at 

800/424-9530, or locally at 202/694-

1100.

 —Amy Kort

SOLD OUT
March 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

15

Index

before March 24, and $385 for late 

registrations. 

Due to the high level of interest in this conference, the FEC can 

only accept registrations from two 

individuals representing any single 

organization. Registration is accepted on a first-come, first-served basis, 

and FEC conferences often fill to 

capacity, so please register as early 

as possible.

The Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel 

is located at 480 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW., Washington, DC. A room rate 

of $189 (single or double) is available for conference participants 

who make reservations on or before 

March 24. Call 1-800/635-5065 to 

make room reservations. You must 

mention that you are attending the 

FEC conference in order to receive 

the special group rate. After March 

24, room rates are based on availability. Parking is available at the hotel for a fee of $15 per day and $22 

overnight. The hotel is located near 

the L’Enfant Plaza Metro and the 

Virginia Railway Express stations. 

Conference for Trade Associations, 

Labor Organizations, 

Membership Organizations and 

their PACs

The FEC will host a conference 

for trade associations, labor organizations and membership organizations (and the PACs of any of these 

groups) this spring. The conference 

will take place June 1-3 in Chicago, 

IL. The registration fee is $400 per 

attendee, and a late fee of $10 will 

be added to registrations received 

after May 11.

The conference will be held at 

the Hyatt Recency Chicago on the 

Riverwalk, 151 E. Wacker Drive, 

Chicago, IL 60601. The hotel is 

located one block off of Chicago’s 

Magnificent Mile. Complete registration information will be available 

online soon.

Registration Information

Complete registration information for FEC conferences is 

available on the FEC web site at 

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

2005-45: Accounting method for 

determining excess contributions 

under Millionaires’ Amendment, 

3:7

Compliance

Administrative fines assessed, 2:13

ADR program cases closed, 1:9; 

2:12

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Augusti and Augusti for Congress, 

1:12

– Citizens for Responsibility and 

Ethics in Washington, 2:10

– Emily’s List, 3:1

Regulations

“Agent” definition for coordinated 

and independent expenditures and 

nonfederal funds regulations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 3:4

BCRA technical amendments, final 

rules, 1:6

Contributions by minors to candidates and party committees, 3:3

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

district and local party committees. 3:6

Filing by Priority Mail, Express 

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

Party committee donations to certain 

tax-exempt organizations and 

political organizations, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 1:7

Payroll deductions for contributions 

to trade association SSF, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 2:2

Reports

California special election reporting, 

2:3

Due in 2005, 1:3

Electronic filing software, FEC 

Form 3X, updated, 2:1

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, or 

to receive e-mail notification when 

registration begins, 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.

 —Amy Kort
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Federal Election Commission RECORD March 2005