February 2005 Federal Election Commission Volume 31, Number 2

Table of Contents

 Reports

1 Filing Software and Form Updated

 3 California Special Election 

 Regulations

 1 NPRM on Filing by Express 

Mail, Priority Mail and Overnight 

Delivery

 2 NPRM on Payroll Deductions 

for Trade Association SSF 

Contributions

 2 Federal Register

 Enforcement

 4 Policy Statement on Treasurers

 4 Advisory Opinions

 Statistics

 8 Congressional Activity

 Court Cases

 10 New Litigation

 Public Funding

 11 Matching Payments Certified

 Alternative Dispute Resolution

 12 ADR Program Update

 Administrative Fines

 13 Fines Assessed

 Publications

 14 FEC Issues 2004 Performance 

Accountability Report

 Outreach

 14 Conferences

 15 Roundtable

15 Index (continued on page 2)

(continued on page 3)

Regulations

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Filing by 

Priority Mail, Express Mail 

and Overnight Delivery

On December 16, 2004, the 

Commission approved a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

requesting comments on proposed 

rules regarding the timely filing of 

documents using Priority Mail, Express Mail or an overnight delivery 

service. The proposed rules would 

implement recent amendments to the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (the 

Act). As part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005, Congress 

amended the Act to permit filers to 

use these additional delivery options 

to satisfy the Commission’s “timely 

filing” requirements for certain 

designations, reports and statements 

that are filed on paper with either the 

FEC or the Secretary of the Senate. 

Prior to this amendment to the 

Act, filers could rely on a U.S. Postal Service (USPS) postmark date as 

the date that certain documents were 

considered “filed” with the Commission, but only if the documents were 

sent by registered or certified mail. 

Under the amended statute, filers 

may also rely on the postmark for 

1

 See “Final Rules on Political Committee Status” in the December 2004 

Record, page 1.

Reports

FEC Updates Filing Software 

and Form 3X

Electronic Filers

The Commission has updated its 

electronic filing format to Version 

5.2 in order to reflect changes in 

Commission regulations that took 

effect on January 1.1

 Committees 

using commercial software should 

contact their vendors for more 

information about the latest software 

release. On February 2, FECFile 

Version 5.2.0.0, supported by the 

new format, will be available for 

download from the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/elecfil/updatelist.

html.

Please note that Format Version 

5.1 (the current version) may be 

used for any report filed through 

February 10, 2005. After February 10, only reports filed in Format 

Version 5.2 (the new version) will be 

accepted. 

If you have any questions, please 

call the Electronic Filing Office at: 

202/694-1307 or 1-800/424-9530 

ext. 1307.
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 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

documents sent via USPS Priority 

Mail or Express Mail, so long as the 

mailing has a delivery confirmation. 

Filers may also now rely on the date 

of deposit with an overnight delivery service so long as the service 

provides an online tracking system. 

See 2 U.S.C. §§424(a)(2)(A)(i) and 

(4)(A)(ii) and (5).

In order to implement these 

statutory changes, the Commission 

proposes to amend 11 CFR 100.19, 

which sets forth when a document 

is “timely filed,” and 11 CFR 104.5, 

which specifies due dates for reports. 

In the proposed rules, the Commission interprets Congress’s reference 

to “priority mail” and “express 

mail” to mean USPS Priority Mail 

and Express Mail because the terms 

are registered USPS trademarks. 

The Commission invited comments 

on this interpretation. In addition, 

the proposed rules would, among 

other things, permit a filer using an 

overnight delivery service to use 

any delivery option offered by the 

delivery service so long as the document is scheduled to be delivered to 

the Commission or the Secretary of 

the Senate, as appropriate, within 

three business days from the date of 

deposit, similar to the two-to-three 

day delivery time for USPS Priority 

Mail service. The proposed rules define an “overnight delivery service” 

as a private delivery service business 

of established reliability that offers 

overnight delivery. In the alternative, the Commission asked whether 

filers who use an overnight delivery 

service should be limited to using 

only a next day delivery option. In 

either case, the proposed rules would 

require the filer to choose a delivery 

option that includes tracking of the 

document, thereby providing the 

filer with a way to confirm deposit 

and delivery dates. 

The NPRM was published in the 

December 22, 2004, Federal Register (69 FR 76626) and is available 

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

fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml. 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on January 21, 2005.

 —Amy Kort

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Payroll 

Deductions for Contributions 

to Trade Association SSF

On December 16, 2004, the 

Commission approved a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking requesting 

comments on proposed amendments 

to its rules regarding contributions to 

the separate segregated fund (SSF) 

of a trade association by the restricted class of the trade association’s 

corporate members. Currently, Commission regulations prohibit a trade 

association’s corporate members 

from using a payroll deduction or 

check-off system for employee contributions to the trade association’s 

SSF. See 11 CFR 114.8(e)(3). 

The rules proposed in the NPRM 

would permit a corporate member 

of a trade association to provide 

incidental services to collect and 

forward contributions from its 

restricted class employees to the 

trade association’s SSF, including 

a payroll deduction or check-off 

system, upon written request from 

the trade association. The proposed 

rules would require a corporate 

member that provides such services 

to provide the same services for 

contributions to the SSF of any labor 

organization that represents employees of the corporation, upon written 

request from the labor organization 

and at a cost not to exceed the actual 

expenses incurred.

The Commission received a Petition for Rulemaking on this issue 

from America’s Community Bankers 

and its SSF on September 3, 2003, 

and published notice of the petition’s 

availability for public review and 

comment (68 FR 60887, October 24, 

2003). The Commission received a 

number of comments, all in support 

of the Petition for Rulemaking. 

The NPRM was published in the 

December 22, 2004, Federal RegisFederal 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 2004-18

Payroll Deductions by Member 

Corporations for Contributions 

to a Trade Association’s Separate 

Segregated Fund (69 FR 76628, 

December 22, 2004)

Notice 2004-19

Filing Documents by Priority 

Mail, Express Mail, and 

Overnight Delivery (69 FR 76626, 

December 22, 2004)
February 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

ter (69 FR 76628) and is available 

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

fec.gov/law/law_rulemakings.shtml, 

along with the Petition for Rulemaking and public comments received 

on that petition. The comment period 

for the NPRM closed on January 21, 

2005.

 —Amy Kort

Paper Filers

Beginning with the February 

monthly report, political action 

committees (PACs) and party committees must use the FEC’s revised 

Form 3X, which contains updated H 

Schedules that conform to the new 

allocation rules for PACs. These 

rules took effect on January 1. (See 

the December 2004 Record, page 1.) 

The new version of the form is available on the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/info/forms.shtml. Filers will receive a copy of the revised 

Form 3X with their report notices.

 —Amy Kort

 

Reports

(continued from page 1)

California Special Election 

Reporting

The Special General Election to 

fill the U.S. House seat in the Fifth 

Congressional District held by the 

late Representative Robert Matsui 

will be held on March 8, 2005. 

Under California law, a majority 

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

achieve a majority vote, a Special 

Runoff Election will be held on May 

3, 2005, among the top vote-getters of each qualified political party, 

including qualified independent 

candidates. 

Candidate committees, PACs 

and party committees involved in 

one or both of these elections must 

follow the reporting schedule below, 

unless they file on a monthly schedule. PACs and party committees 

that file monthly should continue to 

California Special Election

If Only the Special General Is Held, Committees Must 

File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date Date

Pre-General February 16 February 21 February 24

Post-General March 31 April 7 April 7

April Quarterly —waived— 

Committees Involved in Both the Special General and 

Special Runoff Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date Date

Pre-General February 16 February 21 February 24

April Quarterly —waived— 

Pre-Runoff April 13 April 18 April 21

Post-Runoff May 23 June 2 June 2

July Quarterly June 30 July 15 July 15

If Two Elections are Held, a Committee Involved in Only 

the Special General Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books Mailing Date Date

Pre-General February 16 February 21 February 24

April Quarterly March 31 April 15 April 15

(continued on page 4)

file according to their regular filing 

schedule. 

Filing Methods

Reports filed electronically must 

be submitted by midnight on the 

filing date. A committee that is 

required to file electronically but instead files on paper reporting forms 

will be considered a nonfiler and 

may be subject to enforcement action, including administrative fines. 

Reports filed on paper and sent 

by registered or certified mail must 

be postmarked by the mailing date. 

Committees should keep the mailing 

receipt with its postmark as proof of 

filing. If using overnight mail, the 

delivery service must receive the report by the mailing date. “Overnight 

mail” includes Priority or Express 

Mail having a delivery confirmation, 

or an overnight delivery service with 

an on-line tracking system. Reports 

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

business on the filing date. 

48-Hour Notices of Contributions

Note that 48-hour notices are 

required of authorized committees 

that receive contributions of $1,000 

or more between February 17 and 

March 5, for the Special General 

Election, and between April 14 and 

April 30, for the Special Runoff 

Election, if that election is held. 
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2005

4

Electioneering Communications

The 60-day electioneering communications period in connection 

with the Special General Election 

runs from January 7 through March 

8, 2005, and the electioneering communications period for the Special 

Runoff Election, if that election is 

held, runs from March 4 through 

May 3, 2005.1 

 —Amy Kort

Reports

(continued from page 3)

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

than $10,000 in the aggregate in the 

calendar year must disclose this activity 

to the Commission within 24 hours of 

the distribution of the communication. 

See 11 CFR 100.29 and 104.20. For 

more information, see the December 

2003 Record, page 5.

Statement of Policy 

Regarding Treasurers 

Subject to Enforcement 

Proceedings

On December 16, 2004, the 

Commission approved a Statement 

of Policy to clarify when, in the 

course of an enforcement proceeding, a treasurer is subject to Commission action in his or her official 

or personal capacity, or both. The 

policy explains that in enforcement 

actions where a political committee is a respondent, the committee’s 

treasurer will typically be subject 

to Commission action only in his or 

her official capacity. However, when 

information indicates that a treasurer 

has knowingly and willfully violated 

the Federal Election Campaign Act 

(the Act), recklessly failed to fulfill 

duties specifically imposed by the 

Act or intentionally deprived himself 

or herself of facts giving rise to the 

violation, the Commission will consider the treasurer to have acted in a 

Enforcement

personal capacity and make findings 

accordingly.

Background

The treasurer of a political committee has a unique statutory role, 

as it is the only office a political 

committee is required to fill under 2 

U.S.C. §432(a). Without a treasurer, 

committees cannot undertake a host 

of necessary activities, including 

receiving and disbursing funds and 

filing disclosure reports with the 

Commission. The treasurer is therefore designated as the representative 

of the committee for purposes of 

compliance with the Act.

Official Capacity

Clearly indicating that the current 

treasurer is a party to an enforcement proceeding in his or her official 

capacity ensures that a named 

individual who signs the conciliation 

agreement on behalf of the committee is the one empowered by law to 

disburse committee funds and carry 

out necessary monetary remedies. 

Findings against a treasurer in his or 

her official capacity clarify that the 

enforcement proceeding concerns 

the treasurer as a representative of 

the political committee, not personally.

Personal Capacity

The Act also places certain legal 

obligations on committee treasurers 

themselves, the violation of which 

makes them personally liable. See, 

for example, 2 U.S.C. §§432(c), 

432(d) and 434(a)(1). In practice, 

however, the Commission intends to 

consider a treasurer the subject of an 

enforcement proceeding in his or her 

personal capacity only when information indicates that the treasurer 

has knowingly and willfully violated 

the Act, recklessly failed to fulfill 

duties specifically imposed by the 

Act or intentionally deprived himself 

or herself of facts giving rise to the 

violation.

Both Capacities

There will likely be cases in 

which the treasurer is subject to 

Commission action in both his or 

her official and personal capacities. 

Any resulting conciliation agreement 

would be signed by the treasurer on 

behalf of the committee and the treasurer in his or her personal capacity.

Successor Treasurers

Because an official capacity action is an action against the 

treasurer’s position, the Commission may substitute a new treasurer 

in his or her official capacity at any 

stage prior to finding a probable 

cause to believe in a Matter Under 

Review situation that sees a treasurer 

change. If an outgoing treasurer 

is personally liable, the Commission may pursue that predecessor 

treasurer individually (therefore not 

substituting the incoming successor 

in a personal capacity). The successor treasurer would, however, be 

named in the official capacity.

Additional Information

On March 23, the FEC will 

address this policy statement in a 

roundtable workshop on treasurers’ 

responsibilities. See the roundtable 

chart on page 15 for more details.

 —Meredith Trimble

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2004-41

Non-affiliation of SSFs

CUNA Mutual Insurance Society’s (CUNA Mutual) newly created 

separate segregated fund (SSF), 

CUNA Mutual PAC, is not affiliated 

with the Credit Union Legislative 

Action Council (CULAC), which is 

the SSF of the Credit Union National Association (CUNA). 

Background

CUNA is a trade association composed of 51 credit union 

leagues representing all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia (State 

Leagues), as well as approximately 
February 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

1

 In addition, CUNA Mutual is one of 

the participants in CUNA’s Partnership Committee. This committee does 

not have any governing responsibilities 

for any organization. CUNA Mutual is 

also a member of several other trade 

associations.

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.

8,250 individual state-chartered or 

federally chartered credit unions, 

which are themselves members 

of the various State Leagues and 

CUNA. CUNA Mutual, a for-profit 

mutual insurance company that 

offers insurance products to credit 

unions and their members, was 

established by certain CUNA officers and directors in 1935. CUNA 

Mutual and CUNA initially worked 

closely together within a single 

general framework, but they formed 

separate governing boards in 1956 

and entered into a “period of mutual 

acrimony that lasted until the late 

1960s.” 

CUNA Mutual is governed by 

a board of 13 directors, each of 

whom is elected by CUNA Mutual’s 

135,000 policyholders. Each policyholder is entitled to only one vote, 

even if he or she holds more than 

one policy with CUNA Mutual. 

Thus, CUNA is entitled to one vote 

of a possible 135,000 voting CUNA 

Mutual policyholders. Since the late 

1960s, CUNA Mutual and CUNA 

have periodically entered into 

various business agreements that are 

arm’s length transactions with market-based pricing. CUNA Mutual 

and CUNA also provide each other 

with support, services and benefits 

that are customary business arrangements for contracting parties in an 

overlapping business marketplace.1

 

Legal Analysis

Under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission regulations, committees that 

are established, financed, maintained 

or controlled by the same corporation, person or group of persons, 

including any parent, subsidiary, 

branch, division, department or local 

unit thereof, are affiliated. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(5); 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2), 

110.3(a)(1)(ii). Contributions 

made to, or by, such committees are 

considered to have been made to, 

or by, a single committee. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(5); 11 CFR 110.3(a)(1). 

An entity that owns a majority interest of another organization, such as a 

parent corporation with a subsidiary, 

is affiliated per se with that other organization. See 11 CFR 100.5(g)(2). 

In cases where organizations are 

not per se affiliated, Commission 

regulations provide ten circumstantial factors for a case-by-case 

examination of the overall relationship between the organizations to 

determine whether one organization 

has established, financed, maintained 

or controlled the other committee 

or sponsoring organization. 11 CFR 

100.5(g)(4)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J), 11 

CFR 110.3(a)(3)(i) and (ii)(A)-(J). 

Controlling interest in voting stock or securities. One affiliation factor considers whether 

a sponsoring organization owns a 

controlling interest in the voting 

stock or securities of the sponsoring organization of another committee. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(A) 

and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(A). In this case, 

CUNA Mutual and CUNA have no 

ownership interest in one another’s 

corporate organization. Because 

neither CUNA Mutual nor CUNA 

is a stock based corporation, neither 

issues stock or securities. CUNA 

Mutual issues insurance policies 

and its policyholders are analogous 

to stockholders; however, CUNA, 

as a single policyholder, is entitled 

to only one vote out of a possible 

135,000 votes. 

CUNA itself is a trade association 

controlled by its voting members, 

which are the State Leagues and 

member credit unions. CUNA Mutual is not eligible to become a voting 

member of CUNA and, therefore, 

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2005

6

does not possess any voting interest 

with respect to CUNA.

Participation in governance of 

another sponsoring organization.

Another affiliation factor considers 

whether one sponsoring organization 

or committee has the authority or 

ability to direct or participate in the 

governance of another sponsoring 

organization or committee through 

provisions of constitutions, bylaws, 

contracts or other rules, or through 

formal or informal practices or procedures. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(B) 

and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(B). In this case, 

both CUNA Mutual and CUNA lack 

the authority or ability to direct or 

participate in the governance of the 

other organization. Neither CUNA 

Mutual nor CUNA includes any 

reference to the other organization 

in its bylaws. CUNA’s ability to cast 

a single vote as a CUNA Mutual 

policyholder represents the only 

formal agreement that permits one 

organization to participate in the 

governance of the other. Although 

the two organizations have entered 

into arm’s-length business agreements, these agreements do not 

convey any governance authority, or 

even partnership status. 

Authority to control decisionmaking employees or officers. 

Neither CUNA Mutual nor CUNA 

has the authority to hire, appoint, 

demote or otherwise control the 

officers or other decision-making 

employees of the other organization, which is an additional consideration in determining affiliation. 

11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(C) and 

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(C). Moreover, CUNA 

is only one of 135,000 policyholders 

of CUNA Mutual insurance policies 

and lacks the capacity to exert any 

significant authority or control over 

the officers or other decision-making 

employees of CUNA Mutual. AO 

2003-21. CUNA Mutual is not eligible to become a member of CUNA 

and does not have any voting interest 

with respect to CUNA. 

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5) Enforcement Query 

System 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.

Common or overlapping membership. A fourth affiliation factor 

considers whether a sponsoring 

organization or committee has a 

common or overlapping membership 

with another sponsoring organization 

or committee which indicates a formal or ongoing relationship between 

the sponsoring organizations or committees. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(D) 

and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(D). Both CUNA 

Mutual and CUNA are membership 

organizations for the purposes of 

the Act. Therefore, when considering the overlapping membership 

of CUNA Mutual and CUNA, the 

Commission examines the overlap 

between CUNA Mutual’s policyholders on the one hand and CUNA’s 

State Leagues and member credit 

unions on the other. Although a 

substantial percentage of CUNA’s 

members may also hold CUNA 

Mutual policies, this overlap is not 

significant. With a sum total of approximately 8,300 State Leagues 

and CUNA-member credit unions, 

and approximately 135,000 CUNA 

Mutual policyholders, the State 

Leagues and CUNA-member credit 

unions could represent no more than 

8,300 out of 135,000 (6.1 percent) of 

CUNA Mutual’s policyholders.

Moreover, even if there were 

extensive overlap between CUNA 

Mutual policyholders and CUNA’s 

member credit union accountholders, this overlap would not by itself 

constitute sufficient evidence that 

one organization currently finances, 

maintains or controls the other. 

CUNA Mutual’s and CUNA’s ongoing formal relationship is limited to 

arm’s length transactions and marketing and endorsement agreements, 

and the overlap between CUNA 

Mutual policyholders and CUNAmember credit union accountholders 

appears to be a consequence of these 

business arrangements, rather than 

evidence of the relationship. 

Other characteristics of the membership of each organization also 

lessen the importance of the overlap 

in this situation. CUNA Mutual 
February 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

2

 CULAC’s bylaws provide for an ex-officio non-voting representative of CUNA 

Mutual to CULAC’s board of directors. 

However, this position has been vacant 

for more than three years and there are 

no present plans to fill the position

3

 The Commission has recognized that 

one organization’s previous relationship with another does not make them 

permanent affiliates, even where one 

company established or controlled the 

other, so long as the one organization 

does not continue to finance, maintain 

or control the other. AOs 2002-12, 2000-

36, 2000-28 and 1995-36.

4

 An additional affiliation factor 

considers whether the sponsoring 

organizations or committees have 

similar patterns of contributions or 

contributors. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(J) 

and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(J). Because CUNA 

Mutual PAC is newly formed, this factor 

was not relevant to the Commission’s 

affiliation analysis. 

policyholders and the credit union 

accountholders are large, diffuse 

groups that are not organized or unified in a way that would allow them 

to control both entities. The overlap 

between policyholders and accountholders is not the result of any provision in the bylaws of either group 

or any other requirement forcing the 

accountholders to purchase CUNA 

Mutual insurance policies. 

Common or overlapping officers 

or employees. Two affiliation factors 

consider whether a sponsoring organization or committee has any members, officers or employees who are, 

or were formerly, members, officers 

or employees of another sponsoring 

organization or committee which 

indicates a formal or ongoing relationship between the sponsoring organizations or committees, or which 

indicates the creation of a successor 

entity. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(E) 

and(F); 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(E) and (F). 

CUNA Mutual and CUNA share no 

overlapping management personnel, 

officers or employees. While there 

is some overlap in non-governance 

related committees and at lower 

levels, these committees lack any 

legal control or governance of the 

organizations.2 Moreover, the initial 

overlap of employees and officers 

ended by 1960 and does not indicate 

a continuing or ongoing relationship 

between the two organizations. 

Provision of funds or goods. 

Additional affiliation factors ask 

whether a sponsoring organization or 

committee provides funds or goods 

in a significant amount, or arranges 

for such funds or goods to be provided, on an ongoing basis to another 

sponsoring organization or committee. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(G) and 

(H) and 110.3(a)(3)(ii)(G) and (H). 

Because the contractual arrangements between CUNA Mutual and 

CUNA have resulted from arm’s 

length transactions, they are not 

the type of financing that would, 

absent other factors not present 

here, constitute evidence of affiliation. In addition, although CUNA 

Mutual provided a one-time $50,000 

payment to CUNA’s Administrative 

Fund to further its political advocacy 

efforts, CUNA Mutual has not made 

any other similar payments and it 

intends none in the future. 

Role in the formation of another organization. Another factor in determining affiliation is 

whether a sponsoring organization or committee, or its agent, 

had an active or significant role in 

the formation of another sponsoring organization or committee. 

11 CFR 100.5(g)(4)(ii)(I) and 

110.3(a)(3)(ii)(I). Although CUNA’s 

officers and directors were directly 

involved in the formation of CUNA 

Mutual in the 1930s, CUNA has not 

continued to finance, maintain or 

control CUNA Mutual.3

 The lack 

of overlap in officers or employees 

and the number of formal contracts 

and agreements that now govern the 

interactions between the two organizations supports a conclusion that 

CUNA Mutual and CUNA operate 

independently. Thus, given the overall context of their current relationship, CUNA’s role in establishing 

CUNA Mutual does not indicate that 

the two organizations, or their SSFs, 

are now affiliated.4

Conclusion

Given these facts and circumstances, including the period of estrangement between CUNA Mutual 

and CUNA and the entirely separate 

functions and governance of the 

organizations, the two organizations 

are not affiliated for purposes of the 

Act. Accordingly, CUNA Mutual 

PAC is not affiliated with CULAC. 

Date Issued: December 16, 2004; 

Length: 9 pages.

 —Amy Kort

(continued on page 8)

AO 2004-42

LLC as Connected 

Organization for SSF

Although Pharmavite LLC (Pharmavite) is treated as a partnership 

under Commission regulations, it is 

affiliated with the corporation that is 

its sole member, and it may thus pay 

the administrative and solicitation 

costs of that corporation’s separate 

segregated fund (SSF). Additionally, 

the SSF may be named after Pharmavite instead of the SSF’s connected organization, Otsuka America, 

Inc. (OAI), because Pharmavite 

is in the position of the connected 

organization’s subsidiary. In fact, 

naming the SSF after Pharmavite 

will give the public a more accurate 

understanding of the SSF’s funding 

and purpose.

Pharmavite’s Payment of the 

SSF’s Administrative and 

Solicitation Costs

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), a corporation 
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2005

8

Statistics

1

 At the end of January 2005, all campaigns filed year-end reports covering 

the remainder of 2004.

Congressional Campaigns 

Spend $912 Million through 

Late November

Congressional candidates participating in the November 2, 2004, 

general election raised $985.4 

million and spent $911.8 million between January 1, 2003, and 

November 22, 2004.1

 These figures 

represent an increase of 20 percent 

in receipts and 18 percent in spending over the comparable period in 

2002.

Candidates in special elections 

spent an additional $8.2 million in 

2003 and 2004, and candidates who 

lost in primaries reported $197 million in spending through September 

30, 2004. 

Senate candidates participating 

in the 2004 general election raised 

$371.6 million and spent $360.2 million—an increase of 32 percent in 

ship under Commission regulations, may pay the administrative 

and solicitation costs of its political 

action committee if the partnership or LLC is owned entirely by 

corporations and is affiliated with at 

least one of those corporations. See 

AOs 2003-28, 2001-18, 2001-7 and 

1997-13. Pharmavite is per se affiliated with OAI under Commission 

regulations because OAI is its sole 

member. 11 CFR 100.5(g)(3)(i) and 

110.3(a)(2)(i). See also AO 1990-10. 

Thus, because Pharmavite is owned 

entirely by, and affiliated with, OAI, 

it may perform the functions of a 

connected organization for the SSF 

even though Pharmavite is treated 

as a partnership under Commission 

regulations. See AOs 1997-13 and 

1994-11. The support provided to 

the SSF by Pharmavite is deemed 

to be from OAI, and the SSF must 

list OAI as its connected organization on its statement of organization. 

2 U.S.C. §433(b)(2) and 11 CFR 

102.2(a)(1)(ii). See AOs 1997-13 

and 1996-49.

Name of SSF

An SSF’s name generally must 

include the full name of its connected organization. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(5) 

and 11 CFR 102.14(c). However, the 

Commission has permitted an SSF’s 

name to include only the name of a 

joint venture LLC that was treated 

as a partnership under Commission 

regulations where the LLC was performing the functions of the SSF’s 

connected organization, because the 

LLC was in virtually the same position as a corporate subsidiary of the 

owner corporation. AOs 2003-28, 

2001-18 and 1997-13. 

In this case, Pharmavite, like 

the joint venture LLCs, is a wholly 

corporate-owned LLC treated as 

a partnership under Commission 

regulations. Although it cannot serve 

as the SSF’s connected organization, it may perform the functions 

of a connected organization. Therefore, the SSF’s name may include 

Pharmavite’s name alone. See AOs 

2003-38, 2001-18 and 1997-13. 

Further, because OAI must be listed 

on the SSF’s statement of organization as its connected organization, 

OAI’s relationship to the SSF will be 

disclosed to the public. Additionally, 

because the SSF’s primary focus will 

be issues of interest to Pharmavite 

and its employees, and Pharmavite 

will use its personnel to conduct the 

day-to-day operations of the SSF, 

the use of Pharmavite’s name in the 

SSF’s name will provide the public 

with a more accurate understanding 

of the SSF’s funding and purpose.

Concurring Opinion

Commissioner Scott Thomas 

issued a concurring opinion on December 17, 2004.

Date Issued: December 16, 2004; 

Length: 5 pages.

 —Amy Kort

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

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.

may use its general treasury funds 

to pay for the costs of establishing, 

administering or soliciting contributions to its SSF without making a 

contribution or expenditure. 2 U.S.C. 

§441b(b)(2)(C). A corporation that 

directly or indirectly establishes, 

administers or financially supports a political committee is that 

committee’s connected organization. 2 U.S.C. §431(7) and 11 CFR 

100.6(a). A partnership, or an LLC 

that is treated as a partnership, 

generally may not act as a connected 

organization. See AOs 2001-7 and 

1992-17. Under Commission regulations, a non-publicly traded LLC 

that does not affirmatively elect to 

be treated as a corporation by the 

IRS, like Pharmavite, is treated as a 

partnership. 11 CFR 110.1(g)(2) and 

(3). 

However, a partnership, or an 

LLC that is treated as a partner-
February 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

0

100

200

300

400

500

90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04

Millions of Dollars Raised

Millions of Dollars from PACs

Chart 2-1

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year

$

Winning House Candidates

0

100

200

300

400

500

90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04

Millions of Dollars Raised

Millions of Dollars from PACs

Chart 2-1

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year

$

Winning Senate Candidates

100

200

300

400

500

Millions of Dollars Raised

Millions of Dollars from PACs

Chart 2-1

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year

$

Financial Activity of Winning Congressional Candidates through Late November of the 

Election Year—1990-2004

the legal limit on individual contributions to candidates was doubled 

under the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). 

The general pattern of financial 

activity in 2004 can also be seen in 

the overall totals for general election 

winners, as detailed in the charts 

below. (Please note that, while there 

are generally only 33 or 34 winning 

Senate candidates per general election, there are 435 winning House 

candidates. Thus, the total amount 

raised by Senate candidates is lower 

for each election cycle shown below, 

even though individual Senate candidates may have raised significantly 

more money than individual House 

candidates.)

Apart from spending by campaigns themselves, individuals and 

groups, including parties and PACs, 

spent an additional $129.7 million 

through November 22, 2004, on 

independent expenditures advocating 

the election or defeat of Congressional candidates. Party committees 

accounted for 89 percent of these 

their financial activity declined for 

Democrats and Republicans in 2004. 

However, median receipts grew in 

2004 for all types of House campaigns except Democratic candidates 

in open seat races.

Contributions from individuals 

totaled $613 million and continue to 

be the largest source of receipts for 

Congressional candidates, representing 62 percent of all fundraising as 

of November 22. PAC contributions 

totaled $288.6 million, or 29 percent, while candidates themselves 

contributed or loaned a total of 

$39.4 million, which represents four 

percent of all receipts. Contributions 

from individuals grew by 36 percent 

when compared with the same time 

period in the 2002 campaign, while 

PAC contributions increased by 12 

percent. Contributions and loans 

from candidates themselves were 44 

percent lower than 2002 totals. Campaigns also showed a slightly larger 

reliance on contributions in excess 

of $200 from individuals. Those 

changes were not large, however, in 

the first election cycle during which 

both fundraising and spending over 

2002 levels. However, it is important 

to note the difficulty in making comparisons among Senate races across 

election cycles. The states with Senate races vary by election year, and a 

few campaigns can significantly affect financial totals. In 2004, for example, there were Senate campaigns 

in several large states that typically 

are more expensive. California, New 

York and Pennsylvania had incumbents seeking reelection, and Florida 

and Illinois had open-seat races. 

General election fundraising 

by House candidates increased 14 

percent over 2002 levels to a total of 

$613.8 million. Spending by these 

candidates totaled $551.7 million, 

up 10 percent. This growth is found 

mainly among Republican candidates whose fundraising increased 

by 24 percent since 2002, with 

spending up by 20 percent. Fundraising by Democratic House 

candidates, by contrast, increased 

by three percent, while their spending rose only one percent. Both the 

number of open seat candidates and 

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2005

10

independent expenditures ($116.1 

million). Independent expenditures 

in 2002 Congressional races totaled 

only $18.8 million, of which only 

$3.7 million were made by parties. Before the BCRA took effect, 

parties were permitted to use a mix 

of federal and nonfederal money for 

generic activities, some of which 

included advertising that referred to 

federal candidates without advocating their election. Under the BCRA, 

national parties are prohibited from 

raising or spending any nonfederal 

funds. National and state parties are 

also permitted to make coordinated 

party expenditures on behalf of 

general election candidates. These 

expenditures totaled $26.7 million 

through late November, compared 

with $20.4 million in coordinated 

expenditures in 2002. 

Additional information on 

Congressional financial activStatistics

(continued from page 9)

Court Cases

if made by ATR, or an excessive 

contribution, if made personally by 

Mr. Norquist. In either case, CREW 

stated that the contribution was also 

illegal because it was not reported 

to the FEC. 2 U.S.C. §§441b(a), 

441a(a)(1)(A), 441a(f), 434(a) and 

434(b).

On October 19, 2004, the Commission determined to take no 

New Litigation

CREW v FEC

On December 13, 2004, Citizens 

for Responsibility and Ethics in 

Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia asking 

the court to find that the Commission acted contrary to law when it 

dismissed the plaintiff’s administrative complaint (MUR 5409) dated 

February 4, 2004. The administrative complaint alleged that Grover 

Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform 

(ATR), Ken Mehlman and BushCheney ’04 (BC ’04) violated the 

limits, prohibitions and reporting 

requirements of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act). 

Background. According to the 

administrative complaint, Mr. 

Norquist, head of ATR, provided Mr. 

Mehlman, campaign manager for 

BC ’04, with a master list of conservative activists. CREW alleged that 

the list represented either a prohibited in-kind corporate contribution, 

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.

ity is available in a press release 

dated January 3, 2005. That release 

includes summary data for Senate 

and House candidates by political 

party, as well as by candidate status 

(incumbent, challenger or open 

seat). Also included are rankings of 

Senate and House candidates for the 

following categories: receipts, individual contributions, PAC and other 

committee contributions, contributions and loans from the candidate, 

disbursements, cash-on-hand and 

debts owed. Six-year financial 

summaries of Senate candidates 

for 2004, as well as current-cycle 

financial summaries for each House 

campaign, are also attached. The 

release is available on the FEC web 

site at http://www.fec.gov/press/

press2005/2005news.shtml.

 —Amy Kort

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.

 
February 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

Public Funding

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Primary Candidates: 

December Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative 

December 2004 Certifications

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

John R. Edwards (D)2 $0 $6,647,851.44

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

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $208,000.00 $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 $6,748.00 $872,172.52

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.

Commission Certifies 

Matching Funds for 

Presidential Candidates

On December 28, 2004, the Commission certified $214,748 in federal 

matching funds to two Presidential 

candidates for the 2004 election. The 

U.S. Treasury Department made the 

payment on December 1, 2004. This 

certification raises to $28,355,482.74 

the total amount of federal funds 

certified thus far to eight Presidential 

candidates under the Matching Payment Account Act.

further action in this matter and to 

close the file. According to the Commission’s First General Counsel’s 

Report, the contribution appeared 

to be “limited in size and impact,” 

and the Office of General Counsel 

recommended that the Commission 

“exercise its prosecutorial discretion 

and take no further action” in the 

matter.

Court complaint. CREW asks the 

court to find that the Commission’s 

dismissal of the allegations in its 

administrative complaint was based 

on an impermissible interpretation of 

the Act and was arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion and contrary 

to law. 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A). 

CREW asks that the court:

• Declare contrary to law the FEC’s 

failure to require disclosure of the 

value of the master contact list and 

its failure to find that ATR made 

and BC ’04 accepted a corporate 

contribution; and

• Remand the matter to the FEC with 

an order to conform to the court’s 

declaration within 30 days.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 04-2145.

 —Amy Kort

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 

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. 

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

12

their alleged failure to register as a 

political committee. The ADR Office 

recommended that the Commission 

dismiss the case, and the Commission agreed to take no further action. 

(ADR 191/MUR 5449) 

3. The Commission closed the file 

concerning allegations of prohibited 

contributions involving Harold and 

Marian Coleman Charitable Foundation, Inc. and its President Carol 

Kaufman, NARAL Pro-Choice 

America PAC and its treasurer 

John Botts, National Committee 

for an Effective Congress and its 

treasurer James Byron, Emily’s List 

and its treasurer Joseph Solmonese, 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its treasurer 

James Bonham, Democratic Victory 

Fund, NOW PAC and its treasurer 

Terry O’Neill, America Women 

Vote, DNC Services Corporation/

Democratic National Committee 

and its treasurer Andrew Tobias, 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign 

Committee and its treasurer David 

Rudd, Friends of Senator Carl Levin 

and its treasurer Robert Naftaly, Jean 

A. Carnahan PAC and its treasurer 

Thomas Carnahan, Brady Campaign 

to Prevent Gun Violence—Voter 

Education Fund and its treasurer 

Mark Ingram, DNCC and Friends 

of Max Cleland and its treasurer 

Harry Stephens. The ADR Office 

recommended that the Commission 

dismiss the case and the Commission agreed to take no further action. 

(ADR 195/MUR 5476) 

4. The Commission reached 

agreement with David Brigham for 

Congress and Martin Olivarez, its 

treasurer, regarding the committee’s 

failure to report disbursements and 

to file 48-hour notices. The respondents acknowledged that inadvertent 

violations of the Act occurred at 

the beginning of the campaign due 

to a misunderstanding of the Act’s 

reporting requirements for disbursements. In an effort to avoid similar 

errors in the future, the respondents 

agreed to appoint an FEC compliance person, amend all reports to 

reflect accurately the disbursements 

made by the candidate between December 12, 2003, and February 18, 

2004, and circulate a memorandum 

to all committee staff and volunteers 

about receipts and the information 

the treasurer requires for disclosure 

purposes. The respondents agreed 

to pay a $1,000 civil penalty. (ADR 

177/MUR 5425)

5. The Commission reached 

agreement with M. Sue Wilson 

regarding excessive donations. The 

respondent acknowledged that an 

inadvertent violation of the Act occurred, explaining that she assumed 

that she could still legally contribute 

because the committee continued to 

solicit contributions. The respondent 

accepted an admonishment from 

the Commission and, in an effort to 

avoid similar errors in the future, 

agreed to educate herself about the 

Act and maintain a list of all contributions made to candidates or 

to finance federal elections. (ADR 

184/MUR 5452) 

6. The Commission reached 

agreement with Philip L. Capitano 

regarding his alleged failure to 

report independent expenditures 

and violation of the Act’s disclaimer 

requirements. The ADR Office recommended that the case be closed, 

and the Commission agreed to close 

the file. (ADR 208/MUR 5531) 

7. The Commission closed the 

case involving Wisconsin Veterans 

of Foreign Wars (VFW) District 11 

and Calvin F. Wells, its Commander, 

regarding alleged prohibited contributions. The ADR Office recommended that the case be closed, and 

the Commission agreed to close the 

file. (ADR 211/MUR 5473) 

 —Amy Kort 

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently resolved seven additional cases under 

the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program. The respondents, 

the alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

the final disposition of the cases are 

listed below. 

1. The Commission reached 

agreement with Lindsey Graham for 

Senate and Neil Byerley, its treasurer, regarding the committee’s misstatement of financial activity and 

failure to disclose transfers accurately. The respondents acknowledged 

that an inadvertent violation of the 

Act occurred, but contended that 

all of the errors stemmed from their 

misunderstanding of how to transfer 

funds. In an effort to avoid similar 

errors in the future, the respondents 

agreed to require their Finance Director to supervise compliance with 

the Act and to develop a campaign 

finance compliance manual for committee staff reference. The respondents agreed to pay a $10,000 civil 

penalty. (ADR 178)1

 

2. The Commission closed the 

file concerning Chiropractors for 

Wellness Care PAC and Terry A. 

Rondberg, its treasurer, regarding 

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)

1

 This case was internally generated 

within the FEC.
February 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

13

Committees Fined for 

Nonfiled and Late Reports

The Commission recently publicized its final action on 26 new 

Administrative Fine cases, bringing 

the total number of cases released to 

the public to 1,038, with $1,394,398 

in fines collected by the FEC during 

the four years that the program has 

been in place.

Civil money penalties for late 

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

amount of financial activity involved 

and any prior penalties for violations under the administrative fines 

regulations. Penalties for nonfiled 

reports—and for reports filed so late 

as to be considered nonfiled—are 

also determined by the financial 

activity for the reporting period and 

any prior violations. Election sensitive reports, which include reports 

and notices filed prior to an election 

(i.e., 12-day pre-election, October 

quarterly and October monthly 

reports), receive higher penalties. 

Penalties for 48-hour notices that are 

filed late or not at all are determined 

by the amount of the contribution(s) 

not timely reported and any prior 

violations.

The committee and the treasurer 

are assessed civil money penalties 

when the Commission makes its 

final determination. Unpaid civil 

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

The committees listed in the 

charts below at left, along with 

their treasurers, were assessed civil 

money penalties under the administrative fines regulations. 

Closed Administrative Fine case 

files are available through the FEC 

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

 —Amy Kort

Administrative 

Fines 

 

 

 1. Barrett for Congress $1,775 

 2. Colleen for Congress April Quarterly 2003 ____1

 3. Colleen for Congress July Quarterly 2003 ____1

 4. Colleen for Congress October Quarterly 2003 ____1

 5. Colonial BancGroup Inc. Federal PAC (Colonial Fed PAC) $1,125 

 6. Congressional Black Caucus PAC (CBC-PAC) $1,575 

 7. DeMint for Senate Committee, Inc. $8,700 

 8. District No 4 – NMU/MEBA AFL-CIO Political & 

 Legislative Organization on Watch D/B/A, NMU PLOW $3402

 9. Friends of Ferris $106 

10. Frist 2000 Inc. $1,275 

11. Hoosiers for Hardy $900 

12. Indiana Dental PAC $332 

13. Joe Wilson for Congress Committee $900 

14. Magazine Publishers of America PAC 

 (FKA Magazine Publishers Association PAC) $900 

15. Nadeau for Congress $1,700 

16. NATSO PAC $420 

17. Ohio Provider Resource Association PAC $205 

18. Regence BluePAC $168 

19. Rolle for Congress $9003

20. Ross for Congress Year End 2002 $04

21. Ross for Congress Year End 2003 $13,7503

22. SouthEast Anesthesia Associates PAC $900 

23. Steamfitters Local 475 PAC $1,500

24. Stoll 2004 $2,000 

25. United Seniors PAC $4,5003, 4 

26. Western United Dairymen’s Association Federal PAC $750 

Committees Fined and Penalties Assessed

1

 The Commission took no further action in this case. The respondents downloaded faulty software, which contributed to their failure to file a timely report.

2

 The respondents misunderstood an e-mail sent by the Commission, which led 

to the report being filed late.

3

 This civil money penalty has not been collected.

4 This civil money penalty was reduced due to the level of activity on the report.
Federal Election Commission RECORD February 2005

14

Conferences

Scheduled 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

Outreach

FEC Campaign Finance Law 

Conferences in 2005

Each year the Federal Election 

Commission sponsors conferences 

where Commissioners and 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 

Publications

FEC Issues 2004 

Performance Accountability 

Report

The FEC has issued its 2004 

Performance and Accountability 

Report (PAR) in compliance with 

the requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002. The 

report details the results of an audit 

of the FEC’s financial management 

systems and internal management 

controls conducted by the independent certified public accounting firm 

of Clifton Gunderson LLP. The 

Commission received a fully unqualified (clean) opinion of its financial 

statements. This unqualified (clean) 

opinion indicates that the FEC’s 

financial statements fairly present 

its financial position. The opinion 

reflects the agency’s commitment to 

sound financial management and its 

reliance on reliable financial data for 

making budgetary decisions.

The Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 extends to small 

agencies, such as the FEC, certain 

requirements for the preparation of 

financial statements, and it requires 

a full financial audit of the agency’s 

financial management systems 

and internal management controls. 

The 2004 report represents the first 

year that the FEC was required to 

produce financial statements and 

undergo a full financial audit. The 

FEC committed significant resources 

to improving its financial systems 

and preparing for the first year of 

full financial audits. 

The 2004 report contains three 

sections:

• “Management’s Discussion and 

Analysis,” which provides an overview of the financial and performance information addressed in the 

report;

• “Performance,” which reports the 

FEC’s accomplishments and its 

results in meeting its goals and 

objectives; and

• “Financial,” which contains details 

on the FEC’s finances.

The report specifically addresses 

key performance measures that depict the FEC’s processing of record 

levels of campaign finance reports 

during the most recent election 

cycles. Although new records of total campaign spending have been set 

each election cycle since the 1992 

election, the FEC has continued to 

improve the timeliness of its data 

processing and review of reports and 

to expand and improve the disclosure of reports and data. The FEC 

has also improved its compliance 

programs by expanding its enforcement presence and increasing the 

number of cases closed with substantive actions. Moreover, in recent 

years the Commission has successfully implemented the Bipartisan 

Campaign Act of 2002 (BCRA), 

which contained significant amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Commission at the 

same time defended its implementing regulations, and the BCRA itself, 

from legal challenges. 

The FEC’s 2004 Performance 

Accountability Report is available 

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

fec.gov.

 —Amy Kort

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 Commission will host a 

conference specifically tailored 

to the needs of House and Senate Campaigns and political party 

committees March 15 through 17 in 
February 2005 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

15

Index

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2005 Record issue in which the 

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

the page number in that issue. For 

example, “1:4” means that the article 

is in the January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

2004-40: Status of state party as 

state committee of political party, 

1:8

2004-41: Non-affiliation of SSFs, 

2:4

Get Conference Info Via 

E-Mail

Be the first to know about upcoming FEC conferences by signing up 

to receive advance notice e-mails. 

Simply send your contact information (e-mail address, name, organization, mailing address, fax and phone 

numbers) to Conferences@fec.gov

and you will periodically receive 

updated information regarding 

FEC conferences of interest to your 

organization. The complete conference schedule for 2005 is also 

available on the FEC’s web site at 

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

shtml#conferences.

 —Meredith Trimble

Washington, DC. The registration 

fee for the this conference is $375 

for individuals who register on or 

before February 11, and $385 for 

those who register later. A room rate 

of $195 (single or double) is available for conference participants who 

make reservations by February 11. 

Conference for Corporations and 

their PACs

The Commission will hold a 

conference for corporations and their 

PACs April 25 through 27, 2005, 

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

for participants who register on or 

before March 24, and $385 for late 

registrations. A room rate of $189 

(single or double) is be available for 

conference participants who make 

reservations on or before March 24. 

Hotel Reservations

These conferences will be held 

at the Loews L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, 

which is located at 480 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Washington, DC. 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. 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.

Registration Information

Complete registration information 

is available on the FEC web site at 

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

shtml#conferences.

Please direct all questions about 

conference registration and fees to 

Sylvester Management Corporation 

at 1-800/246-7277. For questions 

about the conference program, or to 

receive e-mail notification of upcoming conferences, 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

Roundtable for Committee 

Treasurers

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

for political committee treasurers 

to discuss their responsibilities as 

they prepare for the 2006 election 

cycle. Topics will include reporting requirements and filing schedules, recordkeeping requirements 

and treasurers’ responsibilities for 

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 in FEC enforcement actions (see 

related article on page 4). The chart 

below provides 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, and registration 

is accepted on a first-come, firstserved 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 document 590). For more 

information, call the Information Division at 1-800/424-9530, or locally 

at 202/694-1100.

 —Amy Kort

Roundtable Schedule

Date Subject Intended Audience

March 23

9:30-11:00

Treasurers’ 

Responsibilities

• Basic Limits and Prohibitions;

• Recordkeeping and 

Reporting;

• New Policy on Treasurer Liability.

• Political Committee 

Treasurers; and

• Campaign Finance 

Attorneys and Accountants

(continued on page 16)
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 February 2005

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

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

– CREW, 2:10

Regulations

BCRA technical amendments, final 

rules, 1:6

Index

(continued from page 15)

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