Federal 

Election 

Commission

Annual Report 2004

Federal Election Commission

Washington, DC 20463
Commissioners

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

Statutory Officers

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General Counsel

Lynne A. McFarland, Inspector General

The Annual Report is prepared by:

Gregory J. Scott, Assistant Staff Director,

Information Division

Amy L. Kort, Ph.D., Senior Technical Writer, 

Information Division

Michelle L. Ryan, Public Affairs Specialist

Paul Clark, Ph.D., Statistician, 

Information Technology Division
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN

June 1, 2005

The President of the United States

Members of The United States Senate

Members of The United States House of Representatives

Dear Mr. President, Senators and Representatives:

We are pleased to submit for your information the 30th Annual Report of the Federal Election Commission, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(9). The Annual Report 2004 describes the 

activities performed by the Commission in the last calendar year. 

In 2004, the agency provided critical election-year guidance and oversight. During this 

Presidential election year, the Commission completed work on five rulemakings, issued 39 

advisory opinions, signed 38 conciliation agreements, collected $2,674,745 in civil penalties 

for the U.S. Treasury and closed 12 litigation cases. At the same time, the agency efficiently 

received and made public volumes of financial data—including disclosure information 

required for the first time under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--during an 

election year of unprecedented financial activity.

This report includes the 16 legislative recommendations the Commission recently adopted 

and transmitted to the President and the Congress for consideration. We believe these proposals would streamline and improve our campaign finance laws. 

We hope that you will find this annual report to be a useful summary of the Commission’s 

efforts to implement the Federal Election Campaign Act.

 

Respectfully,

 

Scott E. Thomas

 

Chairman
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Chapter One

Keeping the Public Informed

Public Disclosure 3

Educational Outreach 6

Office of Election Administration 8

Chapter Two

Interpreting and Enforcing the Law

Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act 9

Regulations 9

Advisory Opinions 10

Enforcement 10

Administrative Fine Program 13

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program 14

Audit 15

Chapter Three

Legal Issues

Shays and Meehan v. FEC 17

Political Committee Status, Definition of 

Contribution and Allocation for PACs 18

Soft Money 19

Use of Campaign Funds 20

Public Communications and Disclaimers 21

Electioneering Communications 21

Media Exemption 23

Contributions 23

Foreign National Prohibition 24

Partnership Contributions 25

Affiliated Committees 25

Political Party Committees 26

Inaugural Committee Reporting and Prohibition 

on Accepting Foreign National Donations 27

Chapter Four

Presidential Public Funding

2004 Shortfall 29

Certification of Public Funds 29

Use of Public Funds 31

Repayment of Public Funds—2000 Election 31

Repayment of Public Funds—2004 Election 32

Chapter Five

The Commission

Commissioners 33

Inspector General 33

Equal Employment Opportunity 33

Ethics 33

The FEC’s Budget 34

Chapter Six

Legislative Recommendations 37

Chapter Seven

Campaign Finance Statistics 51

Appendices 

1. Biographies of Commissioners 

and Officers 65

2. Chronology of Events 69

3. FEC Organization Chart 73

4. FEC Offices 75

5. Statistics on Commission Operations 79

6. 2004 Federal Register Notices 85

7. 2004 Advisory Opinions 87
Table of Charts and Tables

Chapter One

Keeping the Public Informed

CHART 1-1: 

Size of Detailed Database by Election Cycle 4

Chapter Two

Interpreting and Enforcing the Law

CHART 2-1:

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year 11

CHART 2-2:

Median Civil Penalty by Calendar Year 11

CHART 2-3:

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by 

 Calendar Year 12

CHART 2-4:

Cases Dismissed under EPS 12

CHART 2-5:

Number of Respondents and Enforcement 

 Cases by Calendar Year 12

Chapter Five

The Commission

CHART 5-1:

Functional Allocation of Budget 34

CHART 5-2:

Divisional Allocation of Budget 35

Chapter Seven

Campaign Finance Statistics

TABLE 7-1:

Overall Financial Activity of National Party 

 Committees 52

TABLE 7-2:

Party Committee Contributions to Federal 

 Candidates, 2003-2004 56

TABLE 7-3:

Coordinated Party Expenditures, 2003-2004 57

TABLE 7-4:

Party Committee Independent Expenditures 

 For Federal Candidates, 2003-2004 58

TABLE 7-5:

Party Committee Independent Expenditures 

 Against Federal Candidates, 2003-2004 58

TABLE 7-6:

Largest Electioneering Communications Filers 60

CHART 7-1: 

Total Fundraising by National Party 

 Committees, 2000-2004 Election Cycles 52

CHART 7-2:

Ratio of Individual Contributions to DNC at

 Maximum Amount Compared to Smaller

 Individual Contributions, 2000-2004 

 Election Cycles 53

CHART 7-3:

Ratio of Individual Contributions to RNC at

 Maximum Amount Compared to Smaller

 Individual Contributions, 2000-2004 

 Election Cycles 54

CHART 7-4:

Ratio of Itemized to Unitemized Contributions 

 from Individuals to the DNC—2000-2004 

 Election Cycles 55

CHART 7-5:

Ratio of Itemized to Unitemized Contributions 

 from Individuals to the RNC—2000-2004 

 Election Cycles 55

CHART 7-6:

Total Disbursements of Federal Funds and 

 Disbursements of Nonfederal Funds for 

 Shared Federal/Nonfederal Activities by 

 State and Local Party Committees—

 2000-2004 Election Cycles 59

CHART 7-7:

Total Individual Contributions to Parties, 

 Presidential Candidates and Congressional 

 Candidates—2000 and 2004 Elections 61

CHART 7-8:

Individual Contributions of $200 or Less 

 and of Amounts Over $200, 2000 

 and 2004 Elections 62

CHART 7-9:

Individual Contributions at Contribution Limit, 

 2000 and 2004 Elections 62

CHART 7-10:

Total Presidential Primary Matching Fund 

 Payouts and Number of Candidates 

 Participating in Matching Fund Program, 

 1976-2004 Elections 63

CHART 7-11:

Presidential Primary Funding: Ratio of Public 

 to Private Funds, 1996-2004 Elections 64
Executive Summary

1

The 2004 election cycle offered the Commission its 

first opportunity to administer provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), and to 

measure its effects on the way that candidates, parties, political committees and other groups campaign. 

While experts may disagree on the overall success or 

failure of the new law, the BCRA’s additional reporting 

requirements certainly increased transparency in the 

campaign process. Financial activity during the 2004 

elections was exceptionally high, with the national 

committees of the two major parties raising nearly 

$1.5 billion, despite new restrictions on their fundraising. Meanwhile, independent expenditures reached 

unprecedented highs and “electioneering communications” were regulated and reported for the first time. 

As the 2004 elections progressed, the Commission’s 

regular duties in monitoring elections were augmented both by the need to provide guidance on previously untested provisions of the law and by the imperative to receive and make public volumes of additional 

campaign finance data in a timely manner. 

During 2004, the agency devoted considerable 

resources to defending the BCRA’s constitutionality and responding to court decisions regarding the 

new law. In September 2004, a district court issued 

an opinion in Shays and Meehan v. FEC which remanded to the FEC a number of BCRA-implementing 

regulations that the court found to be contrary to the 

statute or improperly promulgated. The Commission 

appealed portions of this decision while at the same 

time taking steps to comply with the court’s orders. 

Another court decision upheld the BCRA’s electioneering communications provisions. Wisconsin Right 

to Life, Inc. (WRTL) filed suit asking the court to find 

the prohibition on the use of corporate funds to pay 

for electioneering communications unconstitutional as 

applied to certain grass-roots lobbying activities. The 

district court denied WRTL’s request for a preliminary 

injunction, and both the U.S. Court of Appeals and 

the Supreme Court denied its request for an emergency injunction. 

The agency provided critical guidance to the regulated community throughout the election year through 

advisory opinions (AOs) and regulations. During 

2004, the Commission received 45 advisory opinion 

requests, including seven 20-day advisory opinion 

requests. Twenty-eight of the requests implicated 

BCRA issues in the main or in part. In addition, the 

FEC completed significant rulemakings in 2004. Particularly noteworthy was the Commission’s issuance, 

in October 2004, of the final rules and Explanation 

and Justification regarding political committee status. 

This rulemaking generated public interest and participation that was unprecedented in the Commission’s 

history and resulted in significant changes in the 

manner in which funds received in response to certain communications are treated and the methods 

separate segregated funds and nonconnected committees must use to allocate certain expenses between their federal and nonfederal accounts.

In addition, during 2004, the FEC completed significant rulemakings regarding inaugural committees, 

as well as independent and coordinated expenditures by party committees. The agency also began 

rulemakings regarding contributions by minors, party 

committee donations to tax-exempt organizations and 

political organizations, payroll deductions by member 

corporations for contributions to a trade association’s 

PAC and timely filing of reports by Express Mail, Priority Mail and overnight delivery service.

The Commission continued to process enforcement matters in an efficient and effective matter 

utilizing the Enforcement Priority System and Case 

Management System, allowing the Office of General 

Counsel to focus its enforcement resources on the 

most serious violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act while referring other matters to the Commission’s Administrative Fine program and Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) program. Through its standard enforcement process, the FEC entered into conciliation agreements requiring the payment of more 

than $2 million in total civil penalties during 2004. 

The ADR program produced a total of 35 separate 

negotiated agreements based on 35 cases during 

2004. In addition, the FEC’s Administrative Fine program continued to encourage compliance with the 

law’s reporting deadlines by assessing civil money 

penalties for violations involving failure to file reports 

on time or at all, including failure to file 48-hour notices. During 2004, the Administrative Fine office processed 158 cases and collected a total of $214,950 

in fines for the U.S. Treasury. During the three years 
2

the program has been in place, the rate of timely filing has increased. For example, eight percent of the 

2004 Year End Reports were filed late, an 11 percentage point improvement from 1999 when 19 percent of 

the Year End Reports were filed late.

The FEC also continued to promote compliance by 

educating the regulated community. Commissioners 

and FEC staff hosted a full series of conferences in 

Washington, DC, and regional locations. In addition, 

for the first time, the FEC held roundtable workshops 

on reporting issues prior to each quarterly reporting 

deadline and provided attendees with the opportunity 

to meet with staff from the Commission’s Electronic 

Filing Office and with the Campaign Finance Analyst 

who reviews their committee’s reports. 

The agency significantly enhanced its disclosure 

of information during 2004 by upgrading its 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. The upgraded site 

also offers a search engine, an interactive calendar 

of all Commission events and a robust enforcement 

section that includes the Enforcement Query System, 

information on closed matters under review (MURs), 

the Alternative Dispute Resolution program and the 

Administrative Fine Program and—for the first time—

audit reports issued by the Commission.

The material that follows details the FEC’s activities during 2004. Supplemental information on most 

topics may be found in issues of the FEC’s monthly 

newsletter, the Record, that were published during 

the past year.
Chapter One

Keeping the Public Informed

3

The FEC’s public disclosure and educational outreach programs work together to educate the electorate about the various aspects of federal campaign 

finance law. The financial reports of all federal political committees are accessible to members of the 

general public, providing an added incentive for the 

regulated community to comply with the law. Educational outreach helps committees achieve compliance 

by providing the information necessary to understand 

the requirements of the law.

Throughout 2004, the Commission maintained 

its commitment to customer service and expanded 

public access to Commission information. As detailed below, the Commission implemented changes 

throughout the year that will further enhance the disclosure and educational outreach programs.

Public Disclosure

During 2004, the disclosure of the sources and 

amounts of funds spent on federal campaign activity 

continued to be the focal point of the Commission’s 

work. The Commission received the reports filed by 

committees, reviewed them to ensure compliance 

with the law, entered the data into the FEC’s computer 

database and made the reports available to the public within 48 hours of receipt.

Electronic Filing

The Commission’s mandatory electronic filing program continued to pay disclosure dividends in 2004. 

Under the program, committees that receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $50,000 in a 

calendar year, or expect to do so, must file their campaign finance reports electronically.1

 Committees that 

are required to file electronically, but instead file on 

paper, are considered nonfilers and could be subject 

to enforcement actions, including administrative fines. 

In order to file electronically, committee treasurers obtain passwords from the FEC and use software to fill 

out the reports, which they can send to the Commission via Internet connection, modem or floppy disk. 

The FEC’s validation system verifies that the reports 

meet certain criteria and informs the committees of 

problems that need to be fixed.

Throughout 2004, the Reports Analysis and Information Technology divisions continued to ensure 

that both the Commission’s free FECFile 5 electronic 

filing software and other commercially available software allowed users to comply with reporting changes 

resulting from the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

of 2002 (BCRA). Additionally, the Reports Analysis 

Division improved customer service by providing 

Campaign Finance Analysts with greater electronic 

filing training. As a result, analysts can now answer 

political committees’ questions regarding technical 

electronic filing issues, as well as addressing reporting concerns. The Commission hopes that such 

coordination between departments will reduce the 

number of calls transferred and allow the agency to 

respond to filers’ questions more efficiently. 

State Filing Waivers

The Commission’s State Filing Waiver Program 

continued to ease the reporting and recordkeeping 

burdens for political committees and state election 

offices. The program, which began in October 1999, 

includes 49 states and two territories that have qualified for the waiver.2

 Under the program, filers whose 

reports are available on the FEC web site need not 

file duplicate copies of their reports in states that provide public access to the Commission’s web site.

1

 Mandatory electronic filing requirements do not apply 

to Senate candidates’ committees and other committees 

that only support Senate candidates.

2

 As of December 31, 2004, the FEC had certified that 

the following states and territories qualify for filing waivers: 

Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, 

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of 

Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, 

Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Guam, Montana and Puerto Rico are not 

currently in the State Filing Waiver Program.
4

CHART 1-1 

Size of Detailed Database by Election Cycle

Year Number of Detailed Entries*

1990 767,000

1991 444,000†

1992 1,400,000 

1993 472,000

1994 1,364,000

1995 570,000 

1996 1,887,160

1997 619,170

1998 1,652,904

1999 840,241

2000 2,390,837

2001 661,591

2002 2,281,963

2003 1,109,946

2004 2,131,999

* Figures for even-numbered years reflect the cumulative total 

for each two-year election cycle.

†

 The FEC began entering nonfederal account data in 1991.

Imaging and Processing Data

The Commission also continued its work in 2004 to 

make the reports it receives quickly and easily available to the public. The Commission scans all of the 

paper reports filed with the agency to create digital 

images of the documents, which are then accessible 

to the public in the FEC’s Public Disclosure Office 

or on the Commission’s web site. In addition to the 

digital imaging system, the Commission codes and 

enters the information taken from campaign finance 

reports into the agency’s disclosure database, which 

contains data from 1977 to the present. Information is 

coded so that committees are identified consistently 

throughout the database. For electronic filings, this 

process is completely automated. 

Public Access to Data

As a result of modernized hardware, software and 

communications infrastructure, the Commission’s 

retrieval system allows anyone with access to the 

Commission web site—www.fec.gov—to examine the 

FEC’s campaign finance disclosure database. The 

new system also allows users to perform complex 

search functions. 

The Commission’s disclosure database, which 

contains millions of transactions, enables researchers 

to select a profile of a committee’s financial activity 

for each election cycle. Researchers can also access information on contributions by using a variety 

of search elements (e.g., donor’s name, recipient’s 

Visitors to the Office of Public Disclosure can 

use computer terminals to inspect digital images of 

reports and to access the disclosure database and 

more than 25 different campaign finance indices that 

organize the data in different ways. Visitors can also 

access the FEC’s web site, which offers search and 

retrieval of more than 3 million images of report pages 

dating back to 1993 and over 2 million database entries since 1997. 

The Office of Public Disclosure continues to make 

available microfilmed copies of all campaign finance 

reports, paper copies of reports from Congressional 

candidates and Commission documents such as 

press releases, audit reports, closed enforcement 

cases (MURs) and agenda documents.

Throughout the agency’s history, the Commission 

has continued to improve disclosure information’s 

accessibility and availability to members of the public, 

the press and the regulated community. This year 

was no exception. During 2004, the Office of Public 

Disclosure held extended hours to provide greater 

opportunities for research and inquiries on site at 

the Commission. Additionally, as detailed below, the 

Commission continued to improve the quality and 

quantity of information available on its web site. 

Enforcement Query System

In 2004, the Commission updated the Enforcement 

Query System (EQS), which became available via the 

FEC web site at the end of 2003. The program is a 

web-based search tool that allows users to find and 

name, date, amount or geographic location).
Keeping the Public Informed 5

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. 

Previously, these documents were available only at 

the Commission’s offices in Washington, and only on 

paper or microfilm. Users of the system can search 

for specific words or phrases from the text of all public case documents. They can also identify single 

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. 

Initially, the EQS contained complete public case 

files for all MURs closed since January 1, 2002. In 

the past year, however, staff updated the system to 

provide documents from MURS closed since January 

1, 2000. The system was also revamped to provide 

additional case information and navigation tools, including:

• A redesigned Case Summary section that includes 

the name of a respondent committee treasurer and 

any previous treasurer; and 

• An online tutorial to help users utilize the system’s 

search capabilities to the fullest extent.

Review of Reports

The Commission’s Reports Analysis Division (RAD) 

reviews all reports to track compliance with the law 

and to ensure that the public record provides a full 

and accurate portrayal of campaign finance activity. Analysts reviewed reports more efficiently than 

ever before, reducing dramatically the typical time 

between receipt of a report and review of it. In 2004, 

RAD collaborated with other divisions to provide 

greater accessibility and more efficient service to 

members of the regulated community.

RAD implemented a number of innovations 

throughout 2003 and 2004 to helps its campaign finance analysts handle an increasing number of campaign finance transactions. ICF Consulting assessed 

RAD’s operations and issued a report on January 21, 

2003, suggesting a number of changes. Based on 

those recommendations, the division strengthened 

management procedures, assigning new Assistant 

Branch Chiefs and implementing standardized training and practice in both the authorized and nonauthorized branches. The division’s mentoring program 

continued to help newer staff learn from those with 

more experience, allowing the division to fulfill its 

functions with greater success. Additionally, committees are now encouraged to call their analysts directly 

rather than calling a central number, which makes the 

process more efficient for callers. RAD continues to 

work closely with the Office of Administrative Review 

to streamline the compliance process for administrative fines and meets regularly with the Office of General Counsel in an effort to provide greater communication and coordination in enforcement matters.

When Campaign Finance Analysts find that a report contains errors or suggests violations of the law, 

they send the reporting committee a Request for Additional Information (RFAI). In 2003, the procedure 

for sending RFAI letters changed. Previously, committees were sent up to two RFAI letters and allowed 

up to 60 days total to respond to both letters. Over 

half of the RFAI letter recipients did not respond to the 

first letter. Under the new procedure, however, analysts now send only one letter requesting additional 

information, allowing respondents 30 days to reply. 

This year marks the first complete year of the revised 

RFAI process. The single letter procedure has prevented duplication and enabled analysts more time 

to review reports. After receipt of the letter, the committee treasurer can make additions or corrections to 

the report, which is then added to the public record. 

Apparent violations, however, may be referred to the 

Audit Division or to the Office of General Counsel for 

possible enforcement action.

In addition to the aforementioned changes, the 

Reports Analysis Division, in coordination with the Information Technology Division, began testing an Electronic Review (E-Review) program in 2004. E-Review 

is expected to launch in early 2005 and will make the 

review process more efficient and faster. The program will automate much of the review process and 

enable analysts and branch managers to keep better 

records. Additionally, E-Review will allow analysts to 

circulate letters to and gather information from various 
6 Chapter One

departments within the agency in a paperless form 

that is readily accessible by all relevant parties.

Educational Outreach

Throughout the year, the Commission continued to 

promote voluntary compliance with the law by educating committees about the law’s requirements.

Home Page (www.fec.gov)

In 2004, FEC staff completed a significant upgrade and redesign of the agency’s web site. Since 

the last major overhaul of the Commission’s homepage in 1999, dramatic increases in the quantity of 

information available overwhelmed the existing site’s 

structure and navigational tools. The new site, which 

is the result of a collaborative effort among the Staff 

Director, the Information Technology Division and 

Information Division, addresses those shortcomings 

and features more FEC information in a more userfriendly format. 

The Commission launched the revamped version 

of the site in September as part of an ongoing endeavor to make campaign finance information more 

accessible to the regulated community, researchers 

and the general public. The new site offers simplified navigation, additional search tools and use of 

new technology that provides users with an interactive experience that is tailored to their specific needs. 

The redesign is intended to offer members of the 

public, press and regulated community the ability to 

obtain an array of information with ease. Noteworthy 

features of the new site include: cascading menus 

with revised categories, a general search engine, an 

interactive FEC calendar of events, access to litigation 

documents and a newly expanded enforcement section. 

Although the look and feel of the web site have 

changed, visitors can continue to access publications, current laws and regulations, notices of proposed rulemakings, public comments, final rules 

and explanations and justifications, advisory opinion 

requests and agenda documents considered in open 

meetings. Visitors can also search for advisory opinions (AOs) on the web by using key words or phrases 

or by entering the year and AO number. Researchers 

may also read agency news releases, review federal 

election results, voter registration and turnout statistics and look up reporting dates. Finally, the National 

Mail Voter Registration form, FEC registration and 

reporting forms, copies of the Record newsletter, the 

Campaign Guide series and other agency publications may all be downloaded from www.fec.gov.

In addition to improvements made to the web site, 

the Commission now participates in a governmentwide e-rulemaking initiative. This program offers the 

public a single point of access to rulemakings from a 

variety of government agencies. While information on 

FEC rulemakings continues to be available on www.

fec.gov, some of the members of the public may now 

elect to obtain information and comment on active 

rulemakings through the program. 

Telephone Assistance

A committee’s first contact with the Commission is 

often a telephone call to the agency’s toll-free information hotline. FEC staff members research relevant 

advisory opinions and litigation, as needed, to answer 

specific inquiries. Callers receive FEC documents, 

publications and forms at no cost. In 2004, the Information Division responded to 22,874 callers with 

compliance questions. The monthly average was 

1,906, peaking in October with 2,572 calls. 

E-mail Inquiries

As the use of the Internet has increased in recent 

years, the FEC has made e-mail available to the public and regulated community as a form of communication with the Commission. The number of questions 

and comments sent to the Commission’s primary 

information account (Info@fec.gov) has increased 

dramatically. In 2004, Information Division Staff received 1,309 e-mail inquiries, more than six times the 

number in 2003. 

 Other Commission offices with public e-mail addresses include: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Audit, the Commission Secretary, Congressional Affairs, 

Electronic Filing, Equal Employment Opportunity, 

Information, Information Technology, the Inspector 

General, the Law Library, Personnel and Labor Relations, Press, Public Records, Reports Analysis Division and the Staff Director.
Keeping the Public Informed 7

Faxline

The Commission’s automated Faxline allows the 

public to obtain publications or other documents 

quickly and easily. During the year, 385 callers 

sought information from the 24-hour Faxline and received 435 documents.

Reporting Assistance

During 2004, the FEC’s Information Division provided basic reporting assistance to callers who 

wished to preserve their anonymity. Campaign Finance Analysts assigned to review committee reports 

were also available to answer complex reporting and 

compliance questions from committees calling on the 

toll-free line. 

The Commission continued to encourage compliance with the law by mailing committees reminders 

of upcoming reporting deadlines three weeks before 

the due dates. The Record, the FEC’s monthly newsletter, and the FEC’s web site also listed reporting 

schedules and requirements, including new requirements imposed as part of the BCRA.

Roundtables

As part of its educational outreach activities, the 

FEC’s Information Division holds roundtable workshops for the regulated community. These smallerscale workshops generally focus on new regulations, 

reporting requirements or other discrete topics. The 

Commission hosted 10 roundtables in 2004 with a 

total of 305 participants. Attendees received compliance information and had an opportunity to meet their 

committee’s Campaign Finance Analyst and staff 

from the Commission’s Electronic Filing Office.

In August, the Commission held a roundtable 

regarding new rules on pre-election communications. Other workshops focused on reporting issues 

for candidates, PACs and parties. These reporting 

roundtables were held for each quarterly report due 

in 2004.

Conferences

Also during 2004, the Commission’s Information 

Division conducted several conferences to help candidates and committees understand and comply with 

the law. Commissioners and staff members from the 

Information Division, Office of General Counsel and 

Reports Analysis Division conducted workshops to 

help educate the regulated community. The Commission launched its conference season with a regional 

meeting in Tampa for candidates, corporations, labor 

and trade association PACs and state and local party 

committees. Additionally, the Commission hosted 

two conferences in Washington, DC, for candidates, 

parties, corporations and labor organizations. A final 

conference for trade associations and membership 

organizations was held in Boston. 

Tours and Visits

In addition to holding conferences and roundtable 

sessions, the Commission welcomes individuals and 

groups who visit the FEC. Visitors to the Commission during 2004, including 478 groups and foreign 

delegations, listened to presentations about campaign finance law and, in some instances, toured the 

agency’s Office of Public Disclosure. During 2004, 

the Commission made an effort not only to welcome 

visitors to the Commission, but also to make official 

appearances, domestically and abroad. 

Media Assistance

The Commission’s Press Office continued to field 

questions from media representatives and navigate 

reporters through the FEC’s vast pool of information. Press office staff responded to 6,011 calls and 

visits from members of the press and prepared 149 

news releases during 2004. Many of these releases 

alerted reporters to new campaign finance data and 

contained statistical graphs and tables. Releases 

concerning enforcement matters at the Commission 

include explanatory material to provide a more complete description of the statutory framework of the 

allegations and the resolution of the matter. As part of 

the web site update, current and archived press releases were organized chronologically and according 

to subject matter.

Publications

In 2004, the Commission produced a number of 

documents to help committees, the press and the 

general public understand the law and find information about campaign finance. The FEC’s Information 
8 Chapter One

Division continued to revise guides and brochures 

to reflect changes resulting from the BCRA and its 

implementing regulations, helping to ensure that the 

regulated community could understand and comply 

with the new rules for the 2004 elections. 

The following brochures were completed and 

made available to the public: “Advisory Opinions,” 

“Electioneering Communications,” “Independent Expenditures,” “Local Party Activity,” “The Millionaires’ 

Amendment,” “Partnerships” and “Volunteer Activity.” Additionally, the Commission made the following 

brochures available in Spanish: “The Citizens Guide,” 

“FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law” and 

“Foreign Nationals.” All of these brochures are available on the Commission’s web site. 

Commission staff also updated the Campaign 

Guide series to reflect the BCRA amendments and 

implementing regulations. A newly revised Campaign 

Guide for Congressional Candidates and Committees was published in June, and a new Campaign 

Guide for Political Party Committees was published 

in August. The candidate and party guides were 

updated first because those committees were most 

widely affected by the BCRA. In the closing of 2004, 

the Commission also began updating the Campaign 

Guide for Corporations and Labor Organizations and 

the Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees. 

Until those updates are completed, the agency will 

continue to make available a Campaign Guide Supplement—a compilation of Record newsletter articles 

summarizing provisions of the BCRA.

The Commission also published an updated version of Selected Court Case Abstracts. The collection of abstracts includes court cases pertinent to the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended. 

Most of the abstracts originally appeared in the Commission’s monthly newsletter, the Record. The updated edition includes case summaries through March 

2004. The publication has been updated and printed 

annually and is also available online. By year’s end, 

Commission staff had created an online index of FEC 

court cases including remaining cases from 2004. 

Each case in the index is linked to a summary and, 

in some instances, court opinions and additional 

documents pertaining to the case. The Commission 

will continuously update this online index rather than 

publishing future editions of Selected Court Case 

Abstracts.

As in past years, the Commission each month distributed more than 10,000 free copies of its Record 

newsletter. The newsletter summarizes recent advisory opinions, compliance cases, audits, litigation and 

changes in regulations. It also provides campaign 

finance statistics in graph and table format.

Although the FEC’s focus is federal campaign 

finance disclosure, the Commission also provides 

some state information to the public with the Combined Federal/State Disclosure Directory 2004. This 

manual directs researchers to federal and state disclosure offices that provide information on campaign 

finance, candidates’ personal finances, lobbying, 

corporate registration, election administration and 

election results. In an effort to make Commission 

resources more accessible, the disclosure directory 

was available in print, online and on computer disks 

formatted for popular hardware and software. The 

online version of the Disclosure Directory includes hyperlinks to the web pages of state offices and e-mail 

addresses for state officials.

Office of Election Administration

In 2004, staff from the Commission’s Office of 

Election Administration were transferred to the newly 

created Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The 

EAC was established by the Help America Vote Act 

of 2002 to assist in the administration of federal elections. As a result of the EAC’s establishment, the FEC 

no longer has the responsibility of serving as a clearinghouse for information regarding election administration.
9

Chapter Two

Interpreting and 

Enforcing the Law

As part of its mission to administer, interpret and 

enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Commission promulgates regulations and issues advisory 

opinions. The regulations interpret and implement 

the statutory requirements enacted by Congress. 

Advisory opinions, in turn, clarify how the statute and 

regulations apply to real-life situations brought to the 

Commission by candidates, political committees and 

others in the regulated community. The agency’s 

enforcement actions promote compliance by correcting violations and demonstrating to the regulated 

community that violations can result in civil penalties 

and remedial action.

The 2004 elections were the first in which the Commission administered, interpreted and enforced many 

new legal requirements set forth in the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) as construed 

by the landmark Supreme Court case McConnell v. 

FEC. During this Presidential election year, the Commission completed work on five rulemakings, issued 

39 AOs, signed 38 conciliation agreements, collected 

$2,674,745 in civil penalties and closed 12 litigation 

cases.

Amendments to the Federal Election 

Campaign Act

On December 8, 2004, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, which includes amendments 

to the Federal Election Campaign Act, became law. 

Pub. L. No. 108-447 §§525 and 532, 118 Stat. 2809 

(2004). The amendments expand the permissible 

uses of campaign funds and increase the limits on 

the amount of money that one authorized committee 

can contribute to another.

In the BCRA, Congress amended 2 U.S.C. 

§439a, which addresses the permissible uses of a 

candidate’s campaign funds. In doing so, Congress 

removed “any other lawful purpose” from the list of 

permissible uses designated in the statute. Under the 

new amendments to the Act, permissible uses now 

include the following additional uses: 

•Donations to state and local candidates, subject to 

the limits and prohibitions of state law; and

•Any other lawful purpose that does not violate 2 

U.S.C. §439a(b).

The second amendment to the Act in 2004 addressed the issue of contributions made by one authorized committee to another. Under the Act, with 

certain exceptions, no political committee that supports, or has supported, more than one candidate 

may be designated as an authorized committee. 2 

U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(A ) and Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, §532, 118 

Stat. 2809 (2004). Prior to the new amendment, the 

definition of support in 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(B) excluded a contribution of $1,000 or less. Commission 

regulations have interpreted this to limit candidateto-candidate contributions to $1,000 per election. 11 

CFR 102.12(c)(2) and 102.13(c)(2). This limit was not 

raised under the BCRA when the contribution limits 

for candidates and authorized committees increased 

to $2,000. The 2004 amendment to the Act raises 

to $2,000 the amount that one authorized committee 

can contribute to another without that contribution being considered “support.” Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub. L. No.108-447, §525, 118 Stat 

2809,(2004). Both of these amendments had been 

included in the Commission’s 2004 legislative recommendations. 

Regulations

Congressional action, judicial decisions, petitions 

for rulemaking or other changes in campaign finance 

law or practices may necessitate that the Commission 

update or create new regulations. Consequently, the 

FEC undertakes rulemakings to revise existing campaign finance rules or create new ones.

Notices of proposed rulemakings (NPRMs) are 

published in the Federal Register, on the FEC’s web 

site and on the U.S. Government web site (www.

regulations.gov). The notices provide an opportunity 

for members of the public and regulated community 

to review rules, submit written comments to the Commission and testify at public hearings held at the FEC 

when appropriate. The Commission holds a public 

hearing when it receives sufficient requests from 

commentors to testify. The Commission considers 

public comments and testimony when deliberating 

on the final rules in open meetings. The text of final 

rules and corresponding Explanation and Justification 
10 Chapter Two

are published in the Federal Register and sent to the 

House of Representatives and Senate once they have 

been approved. The Commission announces the effective date of the final rule, which is at least 30 days 

after the final rule and its Explanation and Justification 

are published in the Federal Register.

Rulemakings Completed in 2004

The Commission completed work on the following 

new regulations during 2004:

•Administrative Fine program extension, final rules 

approved February 5, 2004.

•Political Committee Status, NPRM approved, March 

4, 2004, public hearing held on April 14 and 15, 

2004, at Commission, final rules approved August 

19, 2004, Explanation and Justification approved 

October 28, 2004.

•Inaugural committees, NPRM approved, April 1, 

2004, and final rules approved September 30, 2004.

•Party committee independent and coordinated expenditures, NPRM approved June 24, 2004, and 

final rules approved October 28, 2004.

•Technical Amendments to BCRA Regulations, final 

rules approved November 18, 2004.

Other Rulemakings in Progress

In addition to completing the preceding rules, the 

Commission initiated regulatory actions by issuing a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or a Notice of Availability of a Petition for Rulemaking regarding:

•Public access to materials relating to closed enforcement cases, Notice of Availability approved 

January 7, 2004.

•Contributions by minors, NPRM approved April 1, 

2004.

•Electioneering communications exemption, Notice of 

Availability approved August 19, 2004.

•Party committee donations to tax-exempt organizations and political organizations, NPRM approved 

December 2, 2004.

•Payroll deductions by member corporations for contributions to a trade association’s separate segregated fund, NPRM approved December 16, 2004.

•Timely filing by Express Mail, Priority Mail and overnight delivery service, NPRM approved December 

16, 2004.

Advisory Opinions

The Commission responds to questions about 

how the law applies to specific situations by issuing 

advisory opinions. When the Commission receives a 

complete request for an advisory opinion, it generally 

has 60 days to respond. If, however, a candidate’s 

campaign submits a complete request within 60 

days before an election, and the request presents a 

specific transaction or activity that directly relates to 

that election, the Commission must respond within 

20 days. The Office of General Counsel prepares a 

draft opinion, which the Commissioners discuss and 

vote on during an open meeting. A draft opinion must 

receive at least four favorable votes to be approved.

In 2004, the Commission received 45 advisory 

opinion requests, including seven 20-day advisory 

opinion requests. Twenty eight of the requests implicated BCRA issues in the main or in part. Several of 

the advisory opinions that were issued addressed the 

issue of candidate appearances, public communications and electioneering communications. These and 

other advisory opinions issued during the year are 

explored in greater detail in Chapter 3 “Legal Issues.”

Enforcement

The FEC has implemented a series of changes in 

recent years aimed at improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of enforcement. These management 

initiatives have included improved prioritization of cases; use of the standard enforcement process for more 

complicated cases; an administrative fine program for 

routine filing violations; and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to address some matters more flexibly. 

In 2004, the FEC obtained civil penalties and fines 

through the standard enforcement process, ADR 

and the Administrative Fine program totaling a record 

$2,674,745, which exceeded all previous years. At 

the same time, the Commission reduced to zero the 

number of matters dismissed because they were stale 

or considered less important. This is the first time the 

Commission has achieved this benchmark since it 

began tracking this number in 1993.
Interpreting and Enforcing the Law 11

The Standard Enforcement Process

Under the standard enforcement process set forth 

at 2 U.S.C. §437g, the Commission learns of possible election law violations in four ways. First, the 

agency’s monitoring process may discover potential 

violations through a review of a committee’s reports or 

through a Commission audit. Second, potential violations may be brought to the Commission’s attention 

through the complaint process. This process enables 

anyone to file a sworn complaint alleging violations 

and explaining the basis for the allegations. Third, 

the referral process enables other government agencies to refer possible violations to the FEC. Finally, 

any person or entity who believes it has committed 

a violation may bring the matter sua sponte to the 

Commission’s attention.

As required by 2 U.S.C §437g, the FEC’s Office of 

General Counsel reviews and investigates enforcement matters, or matters under review (MUR). Internally generated cases include those generated by 

other Commission divisions, such as the Audit and 

Reports Analysis divisions, and those referred to the 

Commission by other government agencies. Externally generated cases initiated by a formal, written 

complaint receive a MUR number once OGC determines that the document satisfies specific criteria for 

a proper complaint. OGC makes recommendations 

to the Commission regarding the disposition of matters and negotiates conciliation agreements requiring 

the payment of civil penalties.

CHART 2-2 

Median Civil Penalty 

by Calendar Year

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

0403020100999897969594

Chart 2-2

Median Civil Penalty

by Calendar Year

Dollars

CHART 2-1 

Conciliation Agreements 

by Calendar Year

40

60

80

100

120

1000

1500

2000

2500

Number of Agreements

Total Civil Penalty Amount

Chart 2-1

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year

Number Thousands of Dollars

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0403020100999897969594 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Number of Agreements

Total Civil Penalty Amount

Chart 2-1

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year

Number Thousands of Dollars
12 Chapter Two

CHART 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by Calendar Year

Active Cases

Inactive Cases

2000 2001 2002 2003 2

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

(207 Cases) (197 Cases) (166 Cases) (188 Cases) (153 

Active Cases

Inactive Cases

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

(207 Cases) (197 Cases) (166 Cases) (188 Cases) (153 Cases)

CHART 2-4 

Cases Dismissed Under EPS

Stale Cases

Low-Rated Cases

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stale Cases

Low-Rated Cases

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Chart 2-4

Cases Dismissed Under EPS

Number of Cases

CHART 2-5

Number of Respondents and

Enforcement Cases by Calendar Year

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cases

Respondents

Chart 2-5

Number of Respondents and

Pending Cases by Calendar Year

Number

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cases

Respondents

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Chart 2-5

Number of Respondents and

Pending Cases by Calendar Year

Number
Interpreting and Enforcing the Law 13

In the first step of the standard enforcement process, OGC recommends whether the Commission 

should find “reason to believe,” that is, whether an 

investigation is warranted. If the Commission determines there is “reason to believe” a violation has been 

committed, respondents are notified and, if necessary, an investigation is started. The Commission has 

authority to subpoena information and ask a federal 

court to enforce a subpoena. After the investigation, 

the General Counsel sends a brief to the respondent, stating the issues involved and recommending 

whether the Commission should find “probable cause 

to believe” a violation has occurred. In addition to 

briefs prepared by the General Counsel, the Commission will consider respondents’ reply briefs supporting 

their positions. If the Commission finds that there is 

probable cause to believe that a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act has occurred, it is required to enter into conciliation with the respondents 

for a period of at least 30 days before initiating a civil 

action for relief in federal circuit court. 

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, in other limited circumstances, 

such as when a treasurer has knowingly and willfully violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, as 

amended, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

Act or the Presidential Primary Matching Payment 

Account Act; recklessly failed to fulfill duties specifically imposed by the law; or intentionally deprived 

himself or herself of facts giving rise to the violation, 

the Commission will consider the treasurer subject to 

action in a personal capacity and will make findings 

accordingly.

Enforcement Initiatives

Since 1983, the FEC has used information management tools that allow it to activate more cases, 

dispose of more cases with substantive action and 

resolve cases that would otherwise have been dismissed. Development of the Enforcement Priority 

System (EPS) in May of 1993, for example, has enabled the FEC to classify and prioritize cases in tiers 

of complexity and importance and to focus enforcement resources on more substantive matters. Similarly, implementation of the Case Management System (CMS) in FY 2000 has allowed the FEC to track 

and store data electronically that is related to cases 

and respondents in a searchable database. Both 

of these initiatives have helped the FEC to assess 

electronically the timeliness of enforcement actions 

and manage its caseload more efficiently. Today, 

OGC continues to focus its enforcement resources 

on the most serious violations of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act, including failure to register and report 

as a political committee, prohibited contributions and 

expenditures, corporate contributions, contributions in 

the name of another and fraudulent misrepresentation 

of campaign authority. 

In matters resolved through the standard enforcement process, the FEC’s Office of General Counsel 

negotiated $2,370,395 in civil penalties in 2004, over 

$200,000 more than in 2003. OGC also reduced by 

30 percent from 2003 the median number of days 

from the date a complaint was received to the date 

the matter was closed with substantive analysis, with 

a 16 percent reduction in the average number of days 

from receipt to closing.

Administrative Fine Program

The Administrative Fine program began in July 

2000 and was originally mandated to last only 

throughout December 31, 2001. However, the program has proven to be an integral part of the Commission’s effort to promote timely compliance with the 

law’s reporting deadlines, and, on January 23, 2004, 

Congress passed legislation to extend the program 

through December 31, 2005. The program allows the 

Commission to assess civil money penalties for violations involving:

•Failure to file reports on time;

•Failure to file reports at all; and 

•Failure to file 48-hour notices.
14 Chapter Two

How the Program Works

Prior to establishing the Administrative Fine program, the Commission handled violations involving 

late and nonfiled reports under its standard enforcement procedures, as described above. The Administrative Fine program has created a streamlined process for addressing these reporting violations. 

Administrative fine actions originate in the Reports 

Analysis Division (RAD). RAD monitors committees 

registered with the Commission for possible filing 

violations and recommends to the Commission those 

committees that appear to be in violation. If the Commission finds “reason to believe” (RTB) that a committee has violated the applicable reporting provisions, 

RAD provides a written notification to the committee 

and its treasurer containing the factual and legal basis of its finding and the amount of the proposed civil 

money penalty. The respondents have 40 days from 

the date of the RTB finding to either pay the designated penalty or submit a written response to the 

Office of Administrative Review. The response should 

provide proper supporting documentation outlining 

why the committee believes the Commission’s finding 

and/or penalty has been administered erroneously. 

If the committee submits a response to the Office of 

Administrative Review, RAD forwards its information 

about the case to that office for consideration by an 

impartial reviewing officer who was not involved in the 

original RTB recommendation.

After reviewing the RTB finding and the respondent’s written submission, the reviewing officer forwards a recommendation to the Commission along 

with all documentation. Respondents may submit 

written responses to the reviewing officer’s recommendation. A final determination is then made by the 

Commission as to whether the respondent violated 

the law. The Commission assesses a civil money 

penalty if a violation has occurred and the respondent 

has not demonstrated the existence of “extraordinary 

circumstances” that prevented the respondent from 

filing the report in a timely manner.

Should a respondent fail to pay the civil money 

penalty or submit a challenge within the original 40 

days, the Commission will issue a final determination 

with an appropriate civil money penalty. The respondent will then have an additional 30 days after receipt 

of the FEC’s final determination to pay the penalty or 

to seek judicial review.

The Commission may transfer cases to the U.S. 

Department of Treasury for collection when respondents fail to pay the penalty or seek judicial review 

after a final determination has been made. Alternatively, the Commission may decide to file suit in the 

appropriate U.S. district court to collect owed civil 

money penalties under 2 U.S.C §437g(a)(6). 

Calculating Penalties

Under the program, respondents may face administrative penalties that vary depending on the interaction of several factors:

•Election sensitivity of the report;

•Whether the committee is a late filer (and the number of days late) or a nonfiler;

•The amount of financial activity in the report; and

•Prior civil money penalties for reporting violations.

Administrative Fines in 2004

During 2004, the Commission processed 158 cases and collected a total of $214,950 in fines. Overall, 

the FEC publicly released a total of 1,020 cases by 

the close of 2004, with a total of $1,370,827 in civil 

money penalties collected.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

In 2004, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) 

program completed its second year as a permanent 

program at the FEC. The program was established in 

October of 2000 as a pilot to determine the viability of 

using ADR procedures to address and resolve campaign finance law violations. The goal of ADR negotiations is to reach an expeditious resolution through 

mutually agreeable terms that promote compliance 

with the Act and Commission regulations. Mediation 

to resolve a negotiation impasse is available by mutual agreement between the respondent(s) and the 

Commission representative. Negotiations reached 

through direct and, when necessary, mediated negotiations are submitted to the Commission for final approval. Thus far, no cases have required mediation. 

The program’s success in reaching its goal of 

expediting the resolution of enforcement matters is 
Interpreting and Enforcing the Law 15

evident in changes that have taken place both at the 

Commission and within the regulated community. For 

example, ADR has established a presence among 

the regulated community, with members of the election bar requesting that matters be considered by the 

program. Moreover, the process has become more 

efficient under procedures adopted by RAD and the 

Audit Division that allow cases to be referred directly 

to ADR without review by the Office of General Counsel. 

However, not all cases are eligible for the ADR program. Cases may be assigned to the program only 

after they have been reviewed to determine suitability. 

A case will be excluded from ADR consideration if it:

•Raises issues requiring a definitive resolution for 

precedential value;

•Raises issues that bear on government policy;

•Affects other persons or organizations that are not 

parties to the proceeding; or 

•Would benefit from a full public record of the proceeding.

Additional internal factors help to determine whether a case is appropriate for ADR. Such factors are 

addressed on a case-specific basis.

At the close of 2004, the Office had processed 

224 cases since the Program’s inception, of which 

64 percent were accepted into ADR. The remaining 

cases were either deemed inappropriate for ADR or 

dismissed for lack of evidence or due to the de minimis nature of the matter. Additionally, cases involving 

respondents who rejected the ADR option were not 

processed by the Office. Seventy-seven percent of 

the total caseload arose from complaints filed with the 

Commission. The remainder originated as referrals 

from the Reports Analysis Division, Audit or sua sponte submissions. Cases not assigned to ADR were returned to OGC for processing. At the close of 2004, 

143 cases assigned to ADR during the program’s 

tenure had produced 138 separate negotiated agreements based on 113 cases. Of that total, all except 

four were approved by the Commission. A number 

of cases had multiple parties, which led to multiple 

agreements. The remaining 30 cases were in various 

stages of negotiations at the close of the year.

The Office completed the cases in an average 

of 120 days from the time the case was assigned to 

ADR until the agreement was approved by the Commission. The Office, however, aims to further expedite the process in order to meet its goal of resolving 

cases, in the negotiation portion of the process, within 

77 days.

Audit

Over the past several years, the Audit Division has 

worked to develop a stand-alone Title 2 audit function 

and to increase the Audit presence in the regulated 

community. Since the mandatory audits of publicly 

funded Presidential campaigns have traditionally 

required a large portion of the Division’s resources, 

relatively few other audits could be accomplished. 

However, significant progress has been made with 

the increased use of computer technology, including 

electronic filing of disclosure reports, some streamlining of audit procedures, the Division’s reorganization 

and the addition of modest staff resources.

In the 1998 election cycle, the Division audited 35 

non-Presidential committees (Authorized and NonAuthorized combined). In the 2000 election cycle—a 

Presidential election cycle—the number rose to 39, 

an 11 percent increase. In the 2002 election cycle 

the number was 55. In 2004, the number of nonPresidential audits continued to grow as the Division 

completed 48, an overall increase of 37 percent from 

1998. 
17

Chapter Three

Legal Issues

The FEC is the independent regulatory agency responsible for interpreting, administering and enforcing 

the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA/the Act). 

As part of this task, the Commission promulgates 

regulations implementing the Act’s requirements and 

issues advisory opinions that apply the law to particular circumstances brought forth by requesters. 

Additionally, the Commission has jurisdiction over 

the civil enforcement of the Act. Finally, Commission 

attorneys handle civil litigation arising out of any legal 

actions brought by or against the Commission. 

During 2004, the Commission devoted much of its 

resources to clarifying the application of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) in light of 

the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC, 

which substantially upheld the BCRA. The Commission provided further interpretation of its regulations 

implementing the BCRA in response to questions that 

arose during the 2004 elections—the first electioncycle conducted under the new statutory framework. 

The Commission also promulgated new regulations 

that define as “contributions” proceeds raised using 

certain solicitations and that address allocation by 

PACs. 

In addition to initiating rulemakings to conform to 

the McConnell decision and responding to advisory 

opinion requests from the regulated community, the 

Commission defended the BCRA and its regulations 

in court. For example, during the year the FEC successfully defended the BCRA electioneering communication provision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC. 

Also in 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia ruled on a suit filed by U.S. Representatives 

Christopher Shays and Martin Meehan challenging 

certain of the Commission’s BCRA-implementing 

regulations, and Representatives Shays and Meehan 

filed a second suit in the district court to challenge 

the Commission’s new rules on the status of political 

committees. The Commission also issued several 

BCRA-related advisory opinions in 2004. This chapter reviews the major legal issues considered by the 

FEC in rulemakings, advisory opinions, litigation and 

enforcement actions in 2004.

Shays and Meehan v. FEC

On September 18, 2004, the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Columbia granted in part and denied 

in part the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in 

this case. Of the hundreds of rules the Commission 

adopted in 2002 to implement the BCRA, fewer than 

two dozen were challenged in court. Of those that 

were challenged, four were upheld and the rest were 

invalidated on substantive or procedural grounds. 

Those that were invalidated were remanded to the 

Commission, requiring the Commission to reconsider 

these rules and/or the way in which they were promulgated.

Court Decision 

The standard for judicial review in a case such as 

this, where one party alleges that an agency’s actions 

are contrary to the statute, is called Chevron review. 

In Chevron review, the court asks first whether Congress has spoken to the precise issue at hand. If so, 

then the agency’s interpretation of the statute must 

implement Congress’s unambiguous intent. If, however, Congress has not spoken explicitly to the question at hand, the court must consider whether the 

agency’s rules are based on a permissible reading of 

the statute. 

In this case, the plaintiffs also claimed that in some 

instances the FEC failed to engage in a reasoned 

analysis when it promulgated the regulations, or failed 

to follow proper procedures regarding public notice 

and comment. Under the Administrative Procedure 

Act, regulations that are promulgated without a reasoned analysis may be found “arbitrary and capricious” and may be set aside by a reviewing court. 5 

U.S.C. §706(2)(A).

The court found that the challenged portions of 

four regulations passed Chevron review and were 

consistent with requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act:

•The safe harbor at 11 CFR 300.2(c)(3) that provides 

that an entity will not be considered to be directly 

or indirectly established, maintained or controlled 

by another entity based solely on activities that occurred before November 6, 2002;
18 Chapter Three

•The rules at 11 CFR 300.32(a)(4) providing for the 

payment of Levin fund fundraising costs;

•The rules at 11 CFR 300.30(c)(3), which describe 

permissible accounting procedures for keeping 

nonfederal and Levin funds in a single account; and

•The definitions of “State committee,” “district committee” and “local committee” at 11 CFR 100.14.

The court, however, found that portions of other 

challenged regulations either failed to pass Chevron

review or violated the Administrative Procedure Act. 

These included:

•The coordinated communications content test regulations at 11 CFR 109.21(c), including the provision 

excluding Internet communications from the coordinated communication rules at 11 CFR 109.21(c)(iv) 

and from the definition of “public communication” in 

11 CFR 100.26;

•The definition of “agent” under the coordination 

rules at 11 CFR 109.3 and the nonfederal funds 

rules at 11 CFR 300.2(b);

•The definitions of “solicit” and “direct” at 11 CFR 

300.2(m) and 300.2(n);

•The safe harbor for federal candidates’ and officeholders’ activities at state party fundraising events at 

11 CFR 300.64(b);

•The definitions (for the purposes of defining “federal 

election activity”) of voter registration activity, getout-the-vote activity, voter identification and generic 

campaign activity at 11 CFR 100.24(a)(2)-(a)(4) and 

100.25;

•The provisions for paying the salaries and wages of 

state party committee employees who spend less 

than 25 percent of their compensated time on activities in connection with a federal election (11 CFR 

300.33(c)(2));

•The exemption allowing certain federal election activity expenses that are under $5,000 per year in the 

aggregate to be paid entirely with Levin funds (11 

CFR 300.32(c)(4));

•The exemption for section 501(c)(3) organizations 

from the electioneering communications rules at 11 

CFR 100.29(c)(6); and

•The requirement at 11 CFR 100.29(b)(3)(i) that electioneering communications must be distributed for a 

fee.

The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to enjoin 

the Commission from enforcing these regulations and 

to require the Commission to commence proceedings to promulgate new regulations within 15 days of 

the court’s decision. Instead, the court remanded the 

case to the Commission for further action consistent 

with the court’s opinion.

On October 28, 2004, the Commission voted to 

ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

Court to overturn some of the district court’s conclusions and to review findings about the plaintiff’s 

standing and the ripeness of the issues in this litigation. While the appeal was pending, the FEC undertook rulemaking proceedings in response to the 

district court’s decision. On November 18, 2004, 

the Commission approved a rulemaking schedule to 

implement these and other rulemaking priorities.

Political Committee Status, Definition of 

Contribution and Allocation for PACs 

On March 4, 2004, the Commission approved a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding “political 

committee status.” Members of the public, members 

of Congress and members of the regulated community submitted over 100,000 comments via mail, hand 

delivery, e-mail and facsimile to the Commission’s 

Office of General Counsel regarding the proposed 

rulemaking, which far exceeds the number of comments the Commission has ever received on any of its 

rulemakings. Additionally, 31 witness, representing 

hundreds of interested groups, participated in public 

hearings held at the Commission regarding the subject on April 14th and 15th. 

In this rulemaking, the Commission considered 

whether to revise its regulatory definition of “political 

committee” to explicitly include a “major purpose” 

test. Existing 2 U.S.C. §431(4)(A) defines “political 

committee” in terms of the amount of annual “contributions” and “expenditures” received or made by 

an entity. To address overbreadth concerns, the 

Supreme Court has held that only such organizations 

whose major purpose is campaign activity can potentially qualify as political committees under the Act. 

See e.g., Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976); FEC 
Legal Issues 19

v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 262 

(1986). 

The NPRM proposed four alternatives for revisions 

to the definition of a “political committee” in 11 CFR 

100.5(a). The proposed alternatives differed mainly 

in whether, and if so, how, the definition of “political 

committee” should include a test to determine an 

organization’s “major purpose.” The Commission 

considered whether an organization’s status as a 

section 527 organization under the Internal Revenue 

Code should be specifically addressed in determining whether its major purpose is campaign activity. 

Ultimately, the Commission chose not to modify the 

definition of “political committee.”

On August 19, 2004, the Commission adopted 

final rules and on October 28, 2004, the Commission 

concluded the political committee status rulemaking by approving its Explanation and Justification for 

the final rules. The new rules adopted by the Commission address the treatment of funds received in 

response to certain communications and also change 

the methods PACs (i.e., separate segregated funds 

and nonconnected committees) use to allocate certain expenses between their federal and nonfederal 

accounts.

Definition of Contribution

Under the new rule at 11 CFR 100.57, funds received in response to a communication that indicates 

any portion of the funds will be used to support or 

oppose the election of a clearly identified federal 

candidate will be considered contributions to the person making the solicitation. These contributions count 

toward the recipient’s $1,000 threshold for registering 

with the FEC as a political committee.

Allocation 

The new regulations regarding allocation methods 

replace the “funds expended” allocation method with 

a new flat minimum federal percentage. The revised 

regulations require PACs to pay with at least 50 percent federal funds administrative expenses and costs 

of generic voter drives that encourage support of 

candidates of a particular party or associated with a 

particular issue, without mentioning a specific candidate. Additionally, public communications that refer 

to a political party, but not to specific candidates, 

must be financed using a minimum of 50 percent 

federal funds. 11 CFR 106.6(c). Finally, the new rules 

require PACs to use 100 percent federal funds to pay 

for voter drives and public communications that refer 

to a clearly identified candidate, but no clearly identified nonfederal candidate, regardless of whether a 

political party is also mentioned. 11 CFR 106.6(f)(1). 

The Commission updated reporting forms to reflect 

these changes.

Soft Money

BCRA prohibits national party committees and 

federal candidates and officeholders from raising or 

spending funds not subject to the prohibitions, limits 

and reporting requirements of the Act, i.e. nonfederal 

funds or “soft money.” Provisions of the BCRA also 

address the activities of state and local party committees, significantly expanding the Act’s treatment of 

these committees’ activities. For example, the rules 

provide a new definition of “federal election activity” 

and require parties to finance these activities using 

more federally permissible funds. In addition, the 

rules provide for a special category of nonfederal 

funds, called “Levin funds,” that may be used, usually 

in allocation with federal funds, by state and local party committees for certain federal election activities. 

These provisions were among those challenged in 

litigation, but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court 

in McConnell v. FEC. The Commission was asked to 

issue a number of advisory opinions regarding the 

application of the new soft money provisions.

Advisory Opinions Involving Federal Candidates and Officeholders

During 2004, the Commission issued a number 

of advisory opinions regarding the appearances of 

federal candidates and officeholders at events and 

in advertisements. Generally, the Commission permitted federal candidates and officeholders to make 

such appearances, but emphasized the restrictions 

the Act imposes on their participation in raising or 

spending soft money. The Commission considered 

circumstances that involved nonfederal organizations, 

other federal candidates and charitable organizations. 
20 Chapter Three

In AO 2003-36, the Commission determined 

that federal candidates and/or officeholders may 

participate in fundraising activities on behalf of the 

Republican Governors Association (RGA) under certain conditions. RGA is an organization registered 

under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code that 

conducts activities in connection with the election of 

gubernatorial and other state candidates. According 

to the Commission, federal candidates may, subject 

to certain conditions, appear as featured guests or 

speakers at RGA fundraisers, and may otherwise participate in the fundraising activities, so long as they 

do not solicit, direct, receive, transfer or spend funds 

outside the Act’s limits and prohibitions.

In AO 2004-1, the Commission addressed a federal candidate’s appearance in endorsement ads 

for another federal candidate. The Commission 

determined that advertisements featuring President 

Bush and endorsing Congressional candidate Alice 

Forgy Kerr that were distributed within 120 days of the 

Kentucky Presidential primary would be coordinated 

communications that would result in in-kind contributions to Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. if paid for entirely by 

Alice Forgy Kerr for Congress. The Commission also 

determined that advertisements publicly distributed 

more than 120 days before the primary would not be 

coordinated communications and would not constitute in-kind contributions to Bush-Cheney ’04.

The Commission concluded in AO 2004-14 that a 

federal officeholder could appear in public service 

announcements (PSAs) to benefit a nonprofit organization without triggering reporting requirements 

for contributions or coordinated communications. 

According to the Commission, Representative Tom 

Davis could appear in PSAs to promote a tournament to benefit the National Kidney Foundation. The 

funds raised through the tournament were solely for 

charitable purposes, and, therefore, Congressman 

Davis’s appearance did not constitute a solicitation 

of funds in connection with an election, subject to 

the requirements of the Act. Representative Davis’s 

Congressional office paid for the cost of taping the 

announcements; thus, the PSAs were not coordinated 

communications resulting in an in-kind contribution to 

the Representative.

In AO 2004-25, the Commission concluded that 

U.S. Senator and Democratic Senatorial Campaign 

Committee (DSCC) Chairman Jon Corzine could 

donate his personal funds to organizations engaging in voter registration activity, as defined at 11 CFR 

100.24(a)(2), without triggering the Act’s provisions 

regulating the raising and spending of funds by officers of national party committees and federal candidates and officeholders. Because Senator Corzine 

would be acting in his individual capacity rather than 

on behalf of the DSCC, the Act’s restrictions do not 

apply despite his role as chairman of the DSCC. In 

addition, because the funds Senator Corzine planned 

to donate would not be solicited or received from 

others, he would not incur an obligation toward any 

other person that would raise concerns regarding 

corruption or the appearance thereof. Thus, Senator Corzine could donate his funds in amounts that 

exceed the Act’s limits to organizations that engage in 

“federal election activity,” irrespective of his status as 

a national party committee officer, federal candidate 

or officeholder.

The Commission concluded in AO 2004-29 that a 

federal candidate could participate in certain activities that support a ballot initiative committee. U.S. 

Representative Todd Akin, a candidate for re-election, planned to support or oppose ballot initiatives 

using his campaign funds and refer to the initiatives 

in solicitations for his principal campaign committee 

(PCC). The Commission’s decision permitted Representative Akin to appear in ads focusing on ballot 

initiatives if his PCC made reimbursements to pay for 

the attributable portion of the cost of the communications to prevent the PCC from receiving an excessive or prohibited contribution from the “coordinated 

communications.” Finally, the opinion stated that 

Representative Akin could use contributions received 

by his committee to make donations to state and local candidates who support his positions on specific 

ballot initiatives.

Use of Campaign Funds

In 2002 the BCRA deleted the phrase “for any 

other lawful purpose” from the list of permissible 

uses of campaign funds at 2 U.S.C. §439a, and the 
Legal Issues 21

Commission subsequently removed that phrase from 

its regulations. Therefore, in addition to paying expenses in connection with the campaign for federal 

office, the use of campaign funds was permitted only 

for expenses incurred in connection with the duties of 

a federal officeholder, donations to a charitable organization and unlimited transfers to a national, state 

or local political party committee. On December 8, 

2004, Congress amended the Act to expand the permissible uses of campaign funds. Prior to that, the 

Commission issued AO 2004-27 regarding the use of 

campaign funds to pay salaries for campaign workers who had agreed to volunteer their services to the 

campaign.

Advisory Opinions

In AO 2004-27, the Commission concluded that 

Quayle 2000, Inc. could not use its remaining campaign funds to pay salary to campaign employees 

who had signed agreements to work without salaries 

for one month in 1999. Because the committee initially treated the unpaid service as volunteer work and 

never reported the unpaid amounts as debt, retroactive payment for services was not a permissible use 

of campaign funds.

Public Communications and Disclaimers

The BCRA imposes a number of new requirements 

on individuals and committees making public communications, defined as “a communication by means 

of any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, 

newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, 

mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, 

or any other form of general public political advertising.” 11 CFR 100.26. As part of its 2002 BCRA 

rulemakings, the Commission promulgated new regulations concerning disclaimer requirements for radio, 

television, print and other communications. For television and radio communications authorized by a candidate, the regulations require the candidate to deliver 

a statement identifying himself or herself and stating 

that he or she has approved the communication. In 

2004, the Commission was called upon to address 

this requirement in two advisory opinions.

Advisory Opinions

In AO 2004-1, the Commission determined that 

advertisements featuring President Bush endorsing 

Alice Forgy Kerr, a Congressional candidate, must 

include appropriate disclaimers from each candidate’s committee. The disclaimer for ads paid for by 

both committees could state, “Paid for and approved 

by Alice Forgy Kerr for Congress and Bush/Cheney 

’04.” Ads purchased entirely by the Kerr for Congress 

committee could state, “Paid for by Kerr for Congress 

and approved by Kerr and Bush/Cheney ’04.” The 

Commission further concluded that the Bush and Kerr 

campaigns could structure dual approval statements 

in the ad, but were not required to do so in order to 

comply with the Act.

The Commission concluded in AO 2004-10 that a 

ten-second radio message sponsored by a federal 

candidate and read by a reporter in a helicopter must 

include the disclaimer statement required for candidate-sponsored radio ads. However, as an exception 

to the general rule, the reporter may read the required 

statement, rather than the federal candidate authorizing the sponsorship message. The Commission has 

long recognized certain circumstances where it is 

impracticable to provide a full disclaimer statement as 

prescribed in the regulations. In this case, the specific physical and technological limitations described by 

Metro Networks make it impracticable to require the 

approving candidate to speak the statement himself 

or herself.

In AO 2004-37, the Commission considered the 

appropriate disclaimer for a brochure produced by 

one federal candidate committee but proportionately 

reimbursed by other federal candidate committees 

whose candidates were promoted in the brochure. 

The Commission concluded that it would be acceptable to place an asterisk next to each candidate’s 

name and indicate that the brochure was “paid for by 

the authorized committees of the candidates marked 

with an asterisk.”

Electioneering Communications

The 2004 elections were the first conducted under 

the BCRA’s electioneering communication provisions. 

During the year, the Commission successfully defend-
22 Chapter Three

ed the electioneering communications regulations 

in court and issued a number of advisory opinions 

clarifying the application of its electioneering communication regulations to specific proposed activities. 

In addition, the Commission received a Petition for 

Rulemaking asking the Commission to revise its regulations at 11 CFR 100.29(c) to exempt the promotion 

of political documentary films from the definition of 

“electioneering communication.”

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v FEC

During the year, the Commission successfully 

defended in court the BCRA’s electioneering communications provisions. In July of 2004, WRTL filed suit 

in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 

asking the court to find the prohibition on the use of 

corporate funds to pay for electioneering communications unconstitutional as applied to certain grassroots lobbying activities, including three WRTL ads 

referencing Senators Kohl and Feingold. Additionally, 

the organization asked the court to preliminarily and 

permanently enjoin the Commission from enforcing 

this prohibition against it for any of these communications. WRTL argued that its ads represented bona 

fide grass-roots lobbying because they expressed an 

opinion on pending Senate legislative activity, urged 

their listeners to contact their Senators and did not 

refer to any political party or support or attack any 

candidate. It asserted that, as a result, the ads were 

not the “functional equivalent of express advocacy” 

and, thus, there was no constitutional justification for 

the prohibition on corporate payments for the ads. 

See McConnell v. FEC, 124 S. Ct. at 696. 

A three-judge panel rejected WRTL’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction, ordered all parties to file appropriate supplemental memoranda addressing the 

potential dismissal of the matter and denied WRTL’s 

post judgment motion to enter an injunction while 

WRTL pursued an appeal.

Pending its appeal of the district court decision, 

WRTL sought an emergency injunction to allow the 

broadcast of ads designed to influence the votes of 

the aforementioned Senators on the expected filibuster of federal judicial nominees. The United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

granted the FEC’s motion to dismiss WRTL’s motion 

for injunction, citing a lack of jurisdiction. As a result, 

WRTL applied to the Supreme Court for an injunction 

pending appeal. On September 14, 2004, the Court 

denied the request, determining that WRTL failed to 

establish the appropriateness of such an injunction.

Advisory Opinions

In AO 2004-15, the Commission concluded that 

proposed radio and television ads for a documentary 

film about the Bill of Rights were electioneering communications if they referred to a federal candidate, 

were aired within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of 

the general election and met the other elements that 

define an electioneering communication. The Commission found that the film’s producer, David T. Hardy, 

President of the Bill of Rights Educational Foundation 

(the Foundation), could pay for the ads himself with 

his personal funds so long as he complied with the 

Act’s disclosure requirements for electioneering communications that exceed $10,000 in the aggregate 

during a calendar year. However, as a corporation, 

the Foundation was prohibited from financing electioneering communications. 

The Commission determined in AO 2004-31 that 

the Russ Darrow Group, Inc. (RDG), a Wisconsin 

corporation, could run radio and television ads that 

included the name “Russ Darrow” because the ads 

did not refer to a clearly identified candidate under 

11 CFR 100.29(b)(2) and were therefore not electioneering communications. While Russ Darrow, Jr. (the 

candidate) is the founder, Chief Executive Officer and 

Chairman of the Board of RDG, his son, Russ Darrow III, is the President and chief Operating Officer of 

RDG and had been the public face of the corporation 

for over a decade. The Commission determined that 

since the candidate’s son appeared in the ads and 

any mention of “Russ Darrow” referred to the business entity or Russ Darrow III and not the candidate, 

the proposed ads did not constitute electioneering 

communications.

In AO 2004-33, the Commission concluded that 

the Ripon Society, an incorporated 501(c)(4) organization, could not fund the production and dissemination of a televised ad featuring U.S. Representative 

Sue Kelly if the ad was aired in Representative Kelly’s 
Legal Issues 23

Congressional district during the 30 days before her 

primary or the 60 days before the general election 

if she won the primary. The ad would constitute an 

electioneering communication, and therefore could 

not be paid for with corporate funds. The Commission determined, however, that the Ripon Society 

could pay to televise the communication outside Representative Kelly’s district so long as it did not coordinate its plans with any Republican Party officials.

Media Exemption

Under the media exemption, no contribution, expenditure or electioneering communication results 

from costs incurred in covering or carrying a news 

story, commentary or editorial by any broadcast 

station unless the facility is owned by any political 

party, political committee or candidate. 2 U.S.C. 

§431(9)(B)(i); 11 CFR 100.73 and 100.29(c)(2). The 

Commission issued two advisory opinions concerning 

the media exemption in 2004.

Advisory Opinions

In AO 2004-30, the Commission concluded that 

a televised documentary and ads featuring Senators 

John Kerry and John Edwards would not qualify for 

the electioneering communications media exemption. The Commission’s decision stated that Citizens 

United, an incorporated 501(c)(4) organization, could 

not pay to broadcast a documentary film or ads that 

fell within the electioneering communications definition. Because the organization would not be acting 

as a media entity in connection with the documentary 

or with a book that it intended to publicize in the ads, 

and because the ads for the documentary and for the 

book would not be appearing in a news story, commentary or editorial, the media exception to the definition of electioneering communication would not apply 

to the proposed activities.

In AO 2004-7, the Commission concluded that 

MTV television network could produce and promote 

a mock Presidential election without making a prohibited corporate contribution because its proposed 

activities fell within the Act’s “media exemption.” According to the Commission, most of MTV’s proposed 

activities fell within the network’s legitimate press 

functions and, therefore, were exempt from the definitions of contribution and expenditure. Additional nonpartisan voting activities were similarly permissible. 

Furthermore, the Commission indicated that none of 

the proposed activities would constitute an electioneering communication. 

Contributions

The Act imposes limits and prohibitions on contributions to federal political committees. Included 

among the groups or entities prohibited from contributing to federal campaigns and committees are 

corporations and foreign nationals. In 2004, the 

Commission issued advisory opinions related to each 

of these prohibited sources. In addition, the Act imposes shared contribution limits on political committees that are affiliated. In 2004, the FEC entered into 

conciliation agreements regarding contributions made 

by corporations, labor organizations, partnerships 

and affiliated political committees. 

Corporate Prohibition

The Act prohibits corporations and labor organizations from using their treasury funds to make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal 

elections. 2 U.S.C. §441b. In several 2004 advisory 

opinions, the Commission determined that certain 

corporate activities were exempt from that prohibition. 

In AO 2004-6, the Commission concluded that 

Meetup, Inc. could provide both its free and feebased web services to federal candidates, political 

committees and their supporters without making a 

contribution as long as it does so on the same terms 

and conditions available to the general public.

In AO 2004-17, the Commission determined that 

a federal candidate’s compensation for part-time 

employment did not constitute a contribution to her 

campaign. According to the Commission, Becky A. 

Klein, a Congressional candidate, could receive compensation from a law firm for bona fide services that 

she rendered to the firm. According to Commission 

regulations, employment compensation is considered 

a contribution unless certain requirements in 11 CFR 

113.1(g)(6)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met. According to 

the Commission, Ms. Klein’s proposed employment 
24 Chapter Three

compensation met all of the aforementioned requirements and was therefore permissible.

Enforcement

In MUR 5268, the Commission entered into a 

conciliation agreement with the Indiana-Kentucky 

Regional Council of Carpenters (the successor to the 

Kentucky State District Council of Carpenters, or KSDCC), former KSDCC Executive Secretary Treasurer 

J. Stephen Barger and other former union officials 

resulting in a $297,000 civil penalty. The conciliation 

agreement resolved violations of the Act stemming 

from the organization’s use of union employees for 

federal campaign activity and requiring employees to 

make contributions to federal candidates. 

According to the agreement, KSDCC assigned 

union employees known as “field representatives” to 

work directly for the campaigns of federal, state and 

local candidates on union time during at least the 

1998, 2000 and 2002 election cycles. As a result, 

KSDCC provided as much as $141,000 in salaries 

for union staff working for candidates, constituting 

prohibited in-kind contributions for the value of time 

spent working for federal candidates. In addition, 

during at least the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, 

KSDCC solicited and monitored contributions from 

its employees to federal candidates, acting as a conduit and indicating reprisal for employees who did 

not participate. In addition, KSDCC made partisan 

communications expressly advocating the election 

or defeat of a federal candidate to its members that 

exceeded the $2,000 reporting threshold, but failed 

to disclose those costs to the FEC. The agreement 

required KSDCC to pay for the aforementioned civil 

penalty to the FEC and to cease and desist from violating the Act. KSDCC was required to send at least 

three representatives to an FEC training conference 

for labor organizations and relay such information to 

all employees through internal training seminars.

In MUR 5357, the Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with Centex Construction Group, 

Inc. (CCG), Centex-Rooney Construction Co., Inc. 

(Rooney), headquartered near Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 

former CCG and Rooney CEO Bob Moss and various 

current and former CCG and Rooney officers, resulting in total civil penalties of $168,000. The conciliation 

agreement settled violations of the Act stemming from 

the company officers’ reimbursement of $56,125 in 

contributions with corporate funds. The reimbursed 

contributions went to seven federal candidates, two 

political party committees and one political action 

committee between 1998 and 2002. The FEC’s investigation stemmed from a sua sponte submission and 

complaint filed with the FEC by Centex Corporation, 

headquartered in Dallas, TX.

Foreign National Prohibition

The BCRA strengthened the Act’s prohibition on 

foreign nationals’ activities in connection with U.S. 

elections. Under the BCRA, foreign nationals are 

barred from making contributions and donations to 

political committees, organizations of political parties 

and party committee building funds and from making 

any disbursements for electioneering communications or expenditures, independent expenditures 

and disbursements in connection with any election. 

In 2004, the Commission addressed the ability of a 

foreign national to attend fundraising events, solicit 

funds on behalf of a federal candidate and engage in 

other campaign-related activities. 

In AO 2004-26 the Commission concluded that 

Zury Rios Sosa, a foreign national, could, under the 

extremely unusual circumstances presented, participate as an uncompensated volunteer in certain 

activities relating to Representative Gerald C. Weller’s 

campaign committees and another political committee. Specifically, the Commission found that Ms. Rios 

Sosa, who was engaged to marry Representative 

Weller, could volunteer her services without compensation, attend and speak at committee events and 

solicit funds from permissible sources under the Act. 

Ms. Rios Sosa was not permitted to partake in the 

management of the committees or engage in decision-making processes. Additionally, the Commission permitted Ms. Rios Sosa to attend fundraising 

and campaign events of other political committees so 

long as she did not contribute her personal funds in 

order to attend.
Legal Issues 25

Partnership Contributions

Under the Act and Commission regulations, a 

partnership is considered a “person” and may make 

federal political contributions. 2 U.S.C. §431(11). 

However, in order to prevent a partnership from being used to evade contribution limits and prohibitions, 

Commission regulations treat partnership contributions as counting towards the contribution limits of 

both the partnership and the specific partners to 

whom the contributions are attributed. In 2004, the 

Commission closed a significant enforcement case 

regarding partnership contributions and the issue of 

attribution.

Enforcement

In MUR 5279, the Commission entered into a conciliation agreement with Charles Kushner, a New Jersey-based real-estate developer, and 40 partnership 

entities that he controlled regarding over $500,000 in 

contributions that the partnerships made. The agreement resulted in a civil penalty of over $508,900. 

The Commission found that Mr. Kushner and the 40 

partnerships violated the contribution limits and violated Commission regulations by failing properly to 

obtain the agreement of partners to whom contributions could be attributed. The respondents’ activity 

not only violated the contribution limits, but caused 

partners to make excessive contributions. In addition, 

contributions totaling at least $83,000 were attributed 

to individuals who were not partners in the contributing partnerships at the time the contributions were 

made. The respondents agreed to cease and desist 

from violating the contribution limits and partnership 

attribution regulation. They further agreed to obtain 

the prior agreement of the partners to whom contributions are attributed in the future. The Commission 

also accepted a conciliation agreement with Bill Bradley for President in which the committee admitted to 

violating the Act by accepting $34,000 in contributions from Kushner partnerships and paid a civil penalty of $16,445.

Affiliated Committees

According to the Act, political committees that 

are established, financed, maintained or controlled 

by any corporation, labor organization or any other 

person or group of persons shall be considered to be 

a single committee, and such affiliated committees 

shall share contributions limits. 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(5). 

Affiliated committees must disclose their affiliated status. 2 U.S.C. §433(b)(2). In 2004, the Commission 

closed an enforcement matter regarding excessive 

contributions made by affiliated leadership PACs.

The Commission issued a number of advisory 

opinions during 2004 regarding affiliation or disaffiliation. The Commission found affiliation between physician practice groups and their business manager (AO 

2004-23); between a regional party committee and 

each state party that supports it (AO 2004-12); and 

between a separate segregated fund and a limited 

liability company (AOs 2004-32 and 2004-42). The 

Commission found disaffiliation between similarlynamed but distinct separate segregated funds.

Enforcement

In MUR 5328, the Commission entered into conciliation agreements with PAC to the Future and Team 

Majority, leadership PACs that are associated with 

Representative Nancy Pelosi, and three candidate 

committees. The agreements resolved violations of 

the Act and resulted in total civil penalties of $28,000. 

The investigation stemmed from a complaint filed by 

Kenneth F. Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal 

and Policy Center.

According to the conciliation agreement with PAC 

to the Future and Team Majority, the PACs failed to 

identify each other as affiliated committees when 

they registered with the Commission, and both PACs 

made contributions to several candidates for the 2002 

general election, which, when aggregated, exceeded 

their shared $5,000 contribution limit. The PACs also 

received contributions from individuals that exceeded 

their shared $5,000 contribution limit and did not 

refund the excessive portion within 60 days. PAC to 

the Future and Team Majority were required to pay 

a $21,000 civil penalty as a result of the agreement. 

The committees also agreed to cease and desist from 
26 Chapter Three

further violations and waived any right to refunds of 

excessive contributions. Additionally, three campaign 

committees who received excessive contributions 

from the affiliated PACs and did not refund the excessive portions were also administered civil penalties. 

Julie Thomas for Congress Campaign Committee and 

Van Hollen for Congress were each required to pay a 

$2,500 civil penalty, and Joe Turnham for Congress 

was required to pay a $2,000 civil penalty. The three 

campaigns also agreed to cease and desist from 

committing further similar violations and agreed to 

disgorge the excessive contributions to the U.S. Treasury.

Political Party Committees

The BCRA included a “choice provision” that limited party committees’ ability to engage in both coordinated and independent expenditures on behalf of a 

federal candidate. The Commission promulgated regulations to implement this provision in 2002. In 2004, 

the Commission revisited these regulations after the 

“choice provision” was found unconstitutional by the 

Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC. Additionally, the 

Commission began work on a rulemaking required by 

the McConnell decision regarding party committee 

donations to tax exempt organizations and political 

organizations. The Commission also issued advisory 

opinions during the year determining whether certain 

committees qualified for state party committee status 

and whether various entities and committees are affiliated or disaffiliated. In a separate AO, the Commission addressed whether a state nominating conventions was considered an election. 

Rulemakings

On June 24, 2004, the Commission approved a 

notice of proposed rulemaking requesting comments 

on the proposed deletion of 11 CFR 109.35, which 

restricted the ability of political party committees to 

make both independent expenditures and coordinated party expenditures with respect to the same 

candidate in connection with a general election. The 

NPRM also proposed deleting section 109.35’s rule 

prohibiting a political party committee that makes 

coordinated expenditures with respect to a candidate 

from transferring funds to, assigning coordinated 

expenditure authority to or receiving a transfer from, 

a political party committee that has made or intends 

to make an independent expenditure with respect to 

that candidate. The Commission received three written comments on the proposed rules, none of which 

opposed the deletion of 11 CFR 109.35. On October 

28, 2004, the Commission approved final rules deleting that regulation.

In another party-related rulemaking on December 

2, 2004, the Commission approved an NPRM seeking 

comments on proposed changes to its rules governing the limits on national, state and local party committees’ donations to certain tax-exempt organizations and political organizations. The proposed rules 

would conform to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 

McConnell which upheld the BCRA’s restrictions on 

solicitations for and direct donations to:

•Organizations that are exempt from tax under 26 

U.S.C. §501(a) (or have submitted an application 

to obtain this tax status) and make expenditures or 

disbursements in connection with an election for 

federal office, including expenditures or disbursements for “federal election activity;” and

•Political organizations described in 26 U.S.C. 527 

that are not a political committee under the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (FECA), a state, district or 

local committee of a political party or the authorized 

campaign committee of a state or local candidate. 

2 U.S.C. §441i(d).

The Court stated that this provision of the BCRA 

could be considered overbroad, however, “if read to 

restrict donations from a party’s federal account—i.e.,

funds that have already been raised in compliance 

with FECA’s source, amount and disclosure limitations.” McConnell, 124 S. Ct. at 680-681.

Accordingly, the Commission proposed to amend 

its rules at 11 CFR 300.11, 300.37, 300.50 and 300.51 

to provide that the prohibition on political party committees making or directing donations to these organizations is limited to donations of nonfederal funds and 

does not apply to donations of federal funds. 

Advisory Opinions

The Commission concluded in AO 2004-12 that a 

regional party organization established by state party 
Legal Issues 27

organizations is a state party committee that is affiliated with each of the participating state party committees. Democrats for the West (DFW) was established by the Democratic State party committees of 

Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Alaska in order to conduct 

polling, training and periodic conferences among 

and between the participating state committees. According to the opinion, the DFW Committee must 

comply with limits and prohibitions of the Act and the 

Commission’s regulations for state party committees. 

Therefore, contributions received by DFW’s federal 

account from persons other than multicandidate committees must not exceed $10,000 per calendar year, 

and contributions from multicandidate committees to 

DFW’s federal account must not exceed $5,000 per 

calendar year. 

Additionally, the Commission stated that DFW 

shares contribution limits with, and may transfer unlimited funds to and from, each of the participating 

committees. Contributions to DFW from persons 

other than the participating state committees will be 

proportionately attributable to each of the nine participating committees. DFW may, if it chooses, follow 

the Commission’s joint fundraising rules in order to 

handle contributions that would cause an excessive 

contribution to one or more of the committees.

Finally, DFW may establish and maintain nonfederal accounts that are not subject to the limits, prohibitions and reporting requirements of the Act. It must 

comply with the Act in regard to its ability to conduct 

nonfederal activity and allocate the cost of administrative expenses. 

In another party-related opinion, the Commission 

concluded that party conventions in Connecticut 

remain separate elections under the Act despite a 

change in Connecticut state law. As a result, in AO 

2004-20, the Commission determined that Democratic House candidate Diane Farrell, who did not 

participate in Connecticut’s August 10, 2004, primary, 

could not accept undesignated primary contributions 

after May 10, 2004, the date of her Democratic district 

convention. Likewise, her principal campaign committee, Farrell for Congress, was not required to file a 

pre-primary report in connection with the August 10, 

2004 primary.

Inaugural Committee Reporting and 

Prohibition on Accepting Foreign National 

Donations

On April 1, 2004, the Commission approved a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding provisions of 

the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) 

governing Presidential inaugural committees. On 

September 30, 2004, the Commission approved final 

rules, and a new disclosure form, implementing the 

new BCRA provisions.

The new rules require inaugural committees to:

•Register with the FEC by letter within 15 days after appointment by the President-elect (11 CFR 

104.21(b)(1));

•Report, within 90 days after the inauguration, all 

accepted (i.e., deposited) donations that aggregate 

$200 or more from a donor (11 CFR 104.21(c)); 

•Report any refunds of reported donations (11 CFR 

104.21(c));

•File supplements to disclose any reportable donations accepted or refunds made after the initial filing 

(11 CFR 104.21(c));

•Retain records for three years (11 CFR 104.21(d)); 

and 

•Reject donations from foreign nationals (11 CFR 

11.20(j)).

The rules took effect on November 5, 2004. In 

addition, the Commission created and made available 

FEC Form 13 “Report of Donations Accepted for Inaugural Committee(s).”
29

Chapter Four

Presidential Public Funding

Public funding has been a key part of our Presidential election system since 1976. The program is 

funded by the $3 tax checkoff and administered by 

the Federal Election Commission. Through the public 

funding program, the federal government provides 

matching funds to candidates seeking their party’s 

Presidential nomination, financing for Presidential 

nominating conventions and grants to Presidential 

nominees for the general election campaigns. For 

the 2004 Presidential elections, the Commission certified ten candidates and two convention committees 

eligible to receive public funding. 

2004 Shortfall

In past Presidential election cycles, the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund (the Fund) experienced a 

temporary shortfall in matching funds, requiring the 

Fund to make pro-rata payments to candidates until 

sufficient deposits were received. For several years, 

the Commission has urged Congress to help alleviate 

the shortfall problem. Possible solutions have included increasing the checkoff amount and revising the 

“set aside” provision under which funds must be set 

aside for general election and convention financing 

before any monies can be used for primary matching 

payments. 

Early projections by the Commission indicated that 

January 2004 payments to eligible candidates in the 

2004 primaries could be less than 20 percent of the 

amount certified, even if one major party candidate 

did not take federal matching funds. However, three 

major party candidates—Howard Dean, John Kerry 

and President Bush—chose not to participate in 

the matching payment program, and the U.S. Treasury successfully made the January payments of 

$15,417,353.84 to six eligible Presidential candidates. 

The only shortfall that occurred in the 2004 cycle took 

place in February, when candidates received approximately 46 cents per dollar certified.

In the 2004 election, a total of eight candidates 

were certified for Primary Matching funds: Wesley K. 

Clark, John R. Edwards, Richard A. Gephardt, Dennis 

J. Kucinich, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, Ralph Nader and Alfred C. Sharpton. 

Certification of Public Funds

Primary matching Funds 

Presidential candidates eligible to participate in 

the matching fund program receive matching federal 

dollars for a portion of the contributions they raise. To 

establish eligibility, a candidate must submit documentation showing that he or she raised more than 

$5,000 in matchable contributions in each of at least 

20 states. The FEC reviews this threshold submission 

to determine whether the candidate has met the eligibility requirements. The candidate must also agree 

to comply with the law in a letter of agreement and 

certification. Once the Commission has determined 

a candidate to be eligible, the federal government will 

match up to $250 per contributor, but only contributions from individuals qualify for matching.

Presidential candidates may establish their eligibility during the year prior to the election (i.e., in 2003 

for 2004 primaries), and, once eligible, they may 

submit additional contributions for matching funds 

(called matching fund submissions) on specific dates. 

CHART 4-1, on page 30, shows the total amounts 

certified to each eligible Presidential candidate in the 

2004 primaries.

Convention Funds

Federal election law permits all eligible national 

committees of major and minor parties to receive 

public funds to pay the official costs of their Presidential nominating conventions.

Under the statute, major party conventions are fully 

funded at $4 million plus an adjustment for inflation. 

On June 27, 2003, the Commission certified that the 

Republican and Democratic convention committees 

met all eligibility requirements for public funding. 

Each received $14,592,000 from the U.S. Treasury for 

planning and conducting their respective 2004 Presidential nominating conventions.

In 2004, the Commission approved an additional 

payment of $332,000 to each of the major parties’ 

convention committees. The revised figure reflects 

an adjustment in the consumer price index, bringing 

the total received by each committee to $14,924,000.

29
30 Chapter Four

CHART 4-1

Matching Fund Certifications

Candidates Total Certifications 

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

John R. Edwards (D)2 $6,706,458.44

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

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

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

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

Ralph Nader (I)7 $891,968.39

Alfred C. Sharpton (D) $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. 

The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act also 

permits a minor party to receive federal funding for 

holding its convention. A minor party is defined as 

a political party whose candidate for the Presidency 

in the preceding Presidential election received more 

than five percent, but less than 25 percent, of the total 

popular votes cast. No minor party Presidential candidate in the 2000 general election received more than 

five percent of the popular vote.

General Election Grants

The Presidential nominee of each major party may 

become eligible for a public grant of $20 million (plus 

a cost of living adjustment) for the general election 

campaign. In addition, minor and new party candidates may qualify for partial funding in the general 

election based on their party’s electoral performance. 

Minor party candidates may receive public funds 

based on the ratio of their party’s vote in the previous 

Presidential election to the average vote for the major 

parties’ candidates in that election.1

 New party candidates may receive public funds after the election 

if they receive five percent or more of the vote. The 

amount granted to a new party candidate is based 

on the ratio of the new party candidate’s vote to the 

average vote for the major parties’ candidates in the 

election.

In 2004, the general election committees of the 

major party nominees, George W. Bush and John 

Kerry, each received $74.62 million in federal funds to 

finance their campaigns. Participants in the general 

election public funding program must spend only 

those funds awarded by the Commission and raised 

by the $3 tax checkoff through the U.S. Department 

of Treasury. They may not supplement public funds 

with any private contributions for the campaign. How1

 “Minor party candidates” refers to nominees of parties 

whose Presidential candidates received between five and 

25 percent of the vote in the preceding election.
Presidential Public Funding 31

ever, nominees may raise private funds to cover certain legal and accounting costs, which are not subject 

to the spending limit.

Use of Public Funds

Use of GELAC Funds

In AO 2004-35, the Commission determined that 

Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. could use its general election legal and compliance (GELAC) fund to pay legal expenses that might result from a recount of the 

November 2, 2004, Presidential election. While FEC 

regulations governing GELAC funds do not specifically address recount expenses, they do provide that 

the funds may be used for certain legal and accounting compliance expenses and expenses “associated with the termination of the candidate’s general 

election campaign.” 11 CFR 9003.3(a)(2)(i)(A), 

9003.3(a)(2)(i)(I) and 9004.11(a). Legal expenses, 

fees for payment of staff and administrative overhead 

and office equipment expenses that result from a 

recount generally fit within the permissible GELAC 

funds uses. As a result, Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. 

could use its GELAC funds for recount expenses if 

necessary.

Repayment of Public Funds—2000 

Election

Once a Presidential election is over, the Commission audits all of the candidates and committees that 

received public funds to ensure that they have used 

those funds only for permissible purposes and that 

they maintained proper records and filed accurate 

reports. These audits are mandated under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act and 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act. An audit 

may find that a candidate or committee exceeded 

its expenditure limits, spent funds on nonqualified 

campaign expenses or ended the campaign with 

a surplus. In such instances, the Commission may 

require the candidate or committee to repay the U.S. 

Treasury. The Commission may also determine that 

repayment is required if it finds that contributions initially thought to be matchable were later determined 

to have been nonmatchable. Such determinations 

may or may not result from the FEC’s audit of the 

committee. 

The FEC made final determinations in 2002 regarding the repayment amounts for publicly funded 

candidates in the 2000 Presidential elections. Upon 

administrative review in 2004, the Commission concluded that four Presidential campaign committees 

had to make the repayments detailed below.

Buchanan Committee

The Commission determined that Patrick Buchanan, Ezola Foster and Buchanan Foster, Inc. had 

to repay $24,554 to the U.S. Treasury. The amount 

represented interest received on public funds. However, the Commission determined that Mr. Buchanan, 

Mr. Foster and Buchanan Foster, Inc. need not repay 

an additional $33,479 in surplus funds as required by 

the FEC’s 2002 final repayment determination. The 

repayment amount stemmed from Buchanan Foster, 

Inc.’s overpayment for a mailing list.

Gore Committee

The Commission made a determination that Al 

Gore and Gore 2000, Inc. had to repay $170,591 to 

the U.S. Treasury for surplus funds. Upon administrative review and consideration of the committee’s responses, the FEC maintained its original 2002 repayment determination.

Keyes Committee

Alan Keyes and Keyes 2000, Inc. must repay 

$75,841 to the U.S. Treasury for nonqualified campaign expenses stemming from the committee’s 

insufficient documentation of its activities, use of 

cash, costs associated with continuing the campaign, 

winding down expenses, duplicate payments and 

convention-related activity. In its 2002 final determination, the Commission had required repayment of 

$104,448 to the U.S. Treasury. However, the amount 

was revised in response to additional documentation 

provided by the committee.
32 Chapter Four

LaRouche Committee

Lyndon LaRouche, Jr., and LaRouche’s Committee for a New Bretton Woods must repay $224,185 to 

the U.S. Treasury. The repayment amount includes 

a $67,988 pro-rata repayment for nonqualified campaign expenses due to vendor overpayments and 

$154,046 for matching funds received in excess of 

the candidate’s entitlement.

Repayment of Public Funds—2004 

Election

Sharpton Committee

In May of 2004, the Commission determined that 

Reverend Alfred C. Sharpton must repay $100,000 

to the U.S. Treasury for matching funds received in 

excess of his entitlement. The determination was the 

result of an FEC investigation that revealed the candidate had knowingly and substantially exceeded his 

$50,000 personal expenditure limit as of January 2, 

2004—the date he submitted his letter of agreements 

and certifications seeking to qualify to receive matching funds—and thus he was never eligible to receive 

payments. 
Chapter Five

The Commission

33

Commissioners

During 2004, Bradley A. Smith served as Chairman 

of the Commission, and Ellen L. Weintraub served as 

Vice Chair. On December 16, 2004, the Commission 

elected Commissioner Scott Thomas as its Chairman 

and Commissioner Michael Toner as its Vice Chairman for 2005.

For biographies of the Commissioners and statutory officers, see Appendix 1.

Inspector General

Under the Inspector General Act, the Commission’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is to 

prevent and defect fraud, waste and abuse in agency 

programs and promote economy, effectiveness and 

efficiency within the Commission. The OIG carries 

out its responsibilities by conducting and supervising 

audits, investigations and other inquiries relating to 

Commission programs and operations. 

In 2004, the OIG made progress on an audit of the 

FEC’s disclosure process and completed an audit 

of the FEC’s fiscal year 2004 financial statements. 

The financial statement audit was conducted by an 

independent public accounting (IPA) firm hired and 

monitored by the OIG and was the Commission’s first 

financial statement audit as required by the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002. The IPA firm hired 

by the OIG issued an unqualified (clean) opinion on 

the Commission’s financial statements and made 

numerous recommendations to improve internal 

controls. This achievement reflects the FEC’s commitment to sound financial management and reliable 

financial data upon which budgetary and financial 

decisions are made.

In addition to conducting the aforementioned 

audits, the OIG completed a peer review of another 

Federal OIG during 2004. The Government Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards 

(GAS) requires organizations conducting audits in 

accordance with GAS to undergo external peer review every three years. This process is intended 

to ensure the quality of audits and compliance with 

auditing standards. The FEC OIG is scheduled to be 

reviewed in 2005. In addition to the preceding tasks, 

the OIG responded to several hotline complaints and 

Congressional requests.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)

The FEC’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity 

has been a leader in the area of Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR), establishing and successfully utilizing mediation to resolve informally EEO matters since 

1994.

Jointly administered by the EEO Director, Personnel Director and three EEO Counselors, the ADR program, or Early Intervention Program, seeks to resolve 

employee concerns that might otherwise result in 

formal complaints. Prior to filing an EEO complaint, 

employees may agree to meet voluntarily, separately 

or jointly, with the EEO Director or Personnel Director, 

an EEO Counselor and/or the party allegedly responsible for the discrimination or wrongdoing. If attempts to resolve the problem fail, the employee may 

proceed with EEO counseling and may file a formal 

EEO complaint or grievance, if applicable.

In 2004, the Commission’s EEO office received 

new regulations and reporting requirements from the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The 

new regulations, Management Directive 715, provide 

guidance for establishing and maintaining an affirmative action program. As part of the new Directive, the 

FEC’s EEO office will be required to file reports with 

the EEOC beginning in 2005.

Ethics

Staff members in the General Counsel’s office 

serve as the Commission’s ethics officials. Dissemination of information to FEC employees regarding compliance with the Ethics in Government Act 

required a number of undertakings throughout the 

year. The ethics staff conducted ethics orientation 

sessions for all new employees and provided annual 

ethics briefings to employees who are required to file 

public and confidential financial disclosure reports. 

In order to protect employees against conflict of interest and to help ensure that they remain impartial 

in the performance of their official duties, the ethics 

staff also administered the financial disclosure re-
34 Chapter Five

port system. Additionally, staff provided guidance to 

employees on the Standards of Ethical Conduct for 

Employees of the Executive Branch and other ethics 

laws and regulations. Finally, ethics staff ensured the 

Commission’s compliance with requirements of the 

Office of Government Ethics (OGE) by submitting the 

following documents to the OGE: the annual agency 

ethics program report, financial disclosure reports 

filed by Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates 

and travel payment reports.

FEC’s Budget

As previously mentioned, the Commission issued 

its Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) in 

2004. 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. This is 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 fully unqualified (clean) opinion of the Commission’s financial statements indicates that the FEC’s 

budget is based on sound financial statements.

Fiscal Year 2004 Budget

The FEC FY 2004 final appropriation was 

$50,456,592 for 391 full time employees (FTE). This 

reflected an increase of only $914,721 or less than 

two percent more than the enacted FY 2003 appropriation of $49,541,871 and 389 FTE. A slight increase in staff resulted from the additional resources 

requested in the FY 2004 budget request to comply 

with and implement the BCRA of 2002. The Commission’s FY 2004 final budget reflects transfer of the Office of Election Administration (OEA), which formerly 

compiled information and reviewed procedures relating to the administration of federal elections. This 

function has been transferred to the newly formed 

Election Assistance Commission which was funded 

by the President’s FY 2004 Budget.

Fiscal Year 2005 Budget

The FEC FY 2005 final appropriation was 

$51,741,728 for 391 FTE. The 2005 request proposed no additional staff and reflected a four percent cost of living adjustment for 391 FTE. The final 

appropriation resulted in an increase of $1,285,136 

or 2.6 percent from the FY 2004 funding level of 

$50,456,592. 

CHART 5-1

Functional Allocation of Budget

FY 2004 FY 2005

Personnel $35,294,300 37,406,977 

Travel/Transportation 312,359 495,251 

Space Rental 3,969,197 4,386,000 

Equipment Rental/Maint 386,775 819,700 

Telephone/Postage 402,619 423,500 

Printing 390,431 448,000 

Training/Tuition 183,001 336,500 

Depositions/Transcripts 29,030 50,000 

Federal Agency Services 405,131 694,500 

Software/Hardware 3,383,285 1,125,500 

Contracts 689,737 3,316,300 

Publications 484,911 518,500 

Supplies 268,294 236,832 

Equipment Purchases 4,121,655 1,401,168 

Other 81,795 128,500

Total $50,402,520 51,741,728
The Commission 35

CHART 5-2

Divisional Allocation of Budget by Percentage

FY 2004 Actual

FY 2005 Projected

Allocation of Staff

Allocation of Budget

Commissioners

Inspector General

Staff Director

Administration

Audit

Information

Office of Election Administration

Office of General Counsel

Information Technology

0 5 10 15 20 25 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Commissioners

Inspector General

Staff Director

Administration

Audit

Information

Office of Election Administration

Office of General Counsel

Information Technology

Public Disclosure Division

Reports Analysis Division

Chart 5-2

Divisional Allocation

FY 2004 Actual

FY 2005 Projected

Allocation of Staff

Allocation of Budget

Commissioners

Inspector General

Staff Director

Administration

Audit

Information

Office of Election Administration

Office of General Counsel

Information Technology

Public Disclosure Division

Reports Analysis Division

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Commissioners

Inspector General

Staff Director

Administration

Audit

Information

Office of Election Administration

Office of General Counsel

Information Technology

Public Disclosure Division

Reports Analysis Division

Chart 5-2

Divisional Allocation
37

Chapter 6

Legislative Recommendations

On March 25, 2005, the Commission submitted 

to Congress and the President 16 legislative recommendations—five priority recommendation and 11 

additional recommendations, including proposed 

amendments to address problems that the regulated 

community and the Commission have encountered.

Part One: Priority Recommendations

Compliance 

Addition of Commission to the list of agencies authoriz

to issue immunity orders Under title 18 (2

Section: 18 U.S.C. §6001(1)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress revise 18 U.S.C. §6001(1) to add the 

Commission to the list of agencies authorized to issue immunity orders according to the provisions of 

title 18.

Explanation: Congress has entrusted the Commission with the exclusive jurisdiction for the civil 

enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

of 1971, as amended, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. The Commission is authorized, in any proceeding or investigation, to order 

testimony to be taken by deposition and to compel 

testimony and the production of evidence under oath 

pursuant to subpoena. See 2 U.S.C. §437d(a)(3) and 

(4). However, in some instances, an individual who 

has been called to testify or provide other information 

refuses to do so on the basis of his privilege against 

self-incrimination. There is currently no mechanism 

whereby the Commission, with the approval of the 

Attorney General, can issue an order providing limited criminal immunity for information provided to the 

Commission. Many other independent agencies, 

including the Federal Communications Commission 

and the Federal Trade Commission, can grant such 

immunity.

Federal immunity grants are governed by 18 U.S.C. 

§§6001-6005. 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 and 6004(a) provide that if a witness asserts his Fifth Amendment 

privilege against self-incrimination and refuses to answer questions at any “proceeding before an agency 

of the United States,” the agency may seek approval 

from the Attorney General to immunize the witness 

from criminal prosecution for testimony or information 

provided to the agency (and any information directly 

or indirectly derived from such testimony or information). If the Attorney General approves the agency’s 

request, the agency may then issue an order immunizing the witness and compelling his testimony. 

Once that order is issued and communicated to the 

witness, he cannot continue to refuse to testify in the 

inquiry. The order issued by the agency only immunizes the witness as to criminal liability, and does not 

preclude civil enforcement action. The immunity conferred is “use” immunity, not “transactional” immunity. 

The government also can criminally prosecute the 

witness for perjury or giving false statements if the 

witness lies during his immunized testimony, or for 

otherwise failing to comply with the order.

Only “an agency of the United States,” as that term is 

defined in 18 U.S.C. §6001(1), can avail itself of the 

mechanism described above. The term is currently 

defined to mean an executive department or military 

department, and certain other persons or entities, 

including a large number of enumerated independent 

federal agencies. The Commission is not one of the 

enumerated agencies. When the provision was added to title 18 in 1970, the enumerated agencies were 

those that already had immunity granting power, but 

additional agencies have been substituted or added 

since then. Adding the Commission as one of the 

enumerated agencies in 18 U.S.C. §6001(1) would 

enhance its ability to obtain information relevant to 

the effective execution of its enforcement responsibilities.

Legislative Language:

Title 18, United States Code is amended in section 

6001(1) by inserting “the Federal Election Commission,” after “the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,”.
38 Chapter Six

Increase the Record Retention Period from Three Years to 

Five Years (2005)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §432(d) 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress increase the record retention period for 

political committees from three years after the related 

report is filed to five years after the related report is 

filed. This change would make the record retention 

requirement coincide with the five-year statute of 

limitations for litigation and would improve the Commission’s ability to conduct audits and compliance 

proceedings. 

Explanation: Treasurers of political committees are 

required to preserve all required records and copies 

of all reports required to be filed for three years after 

the report is filed. 2 U.S.C. §432(d). The general 

Federal five-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 

§2462, applies to civil enforcement litigation that 

seeks the imposition of civil penalties. See FEC v. 

Williams, 104 F.3d 237 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied,

522 U.S. 1015 (1997). The statute of limitations for 

criminal violations of FECA at 2 U.S.C. §455(a) was 

increased by BCRA from three years to five years. 

Increasing the record retention requirement will 

correspond more closely with both civil and criminal statutes of limitations. It will also enhance the 

Commission’s ability to obtain information in its civil 

enforcement and audit proceedings. 

Legislative Language:

Section 302(d) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 

of 1971 (2 U.S.C. §432(d)) is amended by striking the 

“3” before the phrase “years after the report is filed,” 

and inserting “5” in lieu thereof.

Persons Who Can Be Named As Respondents (2005)

Section: New section 2 U.S.C. §441j 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress add a provision related to enforcement 

of the Act that makes it a violation for anyone to aid 

and abet another party in violating the Act.

Explanation: Many sections of the Act specifically list 

the parties that can be found in violation of those sections. See, e.g., 2 U.S.C. §§434(a)(1), 441a(f), 441b, 

and 441f. Frequently, however, parties other than 

those listed are actively involved in committing the 

violations. For example, section 441b makes it illegal 

for an officer or director of a corporation, national 

bank or labor union to consent to the making of a 

contribution prohibited under that section. The Commission has seen many instances where these types 

of organizations have made prohibited contributions 

which were consented to by individuals who have the 

authority to approve the making of the contributions, 

even though those individuals did not hold the titles 

listed in the statute.

This situation also arises in the context of violations of 

2 U.S.C. §441f. That section prohibits anyone from 

making or knowingly accepting a contribution made 

in the name of another, or from knowingly allowing 

his/her name to be used to effect such a contribution. Many times, there are additional parties, not 

specified in the statute, who are actively involved in 

carrying out the violation. The court has recognized 

the Commission’s authority to enforce the Act against 

persons who actively assist in the violation of section 441f, FEC v Rodriguez, No. 86-687 Civ-T-10(B) 

(M.D. Fla. May 5, 1987) (unpublished order denying 

motion for summary judgment), and the Commission 

incorporated that decision in its regulations at 11 CFR 

110.4(b).

As a result, the law presents an anomalous situation 

in which persons can be penalized for aiding and 

abetting in the violation of some provisions of the Act, 

but not others. This amendment would eliminate this 

inconsistency and provide for coherent and consistent application of the Act. 

This approach would be consistent with the approach 

in Title 18 of the United States Code (Crimes and 

Criminal Procedure) which provides for punishment 

“as a principal” a person who “aids, abets...” the 

commission of an offense against the United States. 

See 18 U.S.C. §2. Currently, this provision allows 

the U.S. government to file criminal charges against 
Legislative Recommendations 39

those who aid and abet violations of campaign finance laws, while there is no parallel provision for 

civil enforcement against those who aid and abet. 

Legislative Language:

Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 

(2 U.S.C. §431 et seq.) is amended by adding, at 

new section 441j, the following:

SEC. 329. AIDING AND ABETTING A VIOLATION

Any person who aids and abets another person in 

committing a violation of any provision of this Act, or 

of chapter 95 or chapter 96 of title 26, is liable, under 

2 U.S.C. §437g, for the violation as if he committed 

the violation himself.

Disclosure

Making Permanent the Administrative Fine Program for 

Reporting Violations (Revised 2005)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §437g

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress make permanent the Commission’s 

authority to assess administrative fines for straightforward violations of the law requiring timely reporting of 

receipts and disbursements. The Commission’s current Administrative Fine Program only covers violations that relate to reporting periods through December 31, 2005.

Explanation: On January 23, 2004, President Bush 

signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, 

which extended the Administrative Fine Program 

to cover violations of 2 U.S.C. §434(a) that relate to 

reporting periods through December 31, 2005. Since 

the Administrative Fine program was implemented 

with the 2000 July Quarterly report, the Commission 

has processed and made public 1,042 cases, with 

$1,397,823 in fines collected. The Administrative 

Fine Program has been remarkably successful: over 

the course of the program, the number of late and 

nonfiled reports has generally decreased. As a result, the Administrative Fine Program has become an 

integral part of the Commission’s mission to administer and enforce the Act. By making the program 

permanent, Congress would ensure that the Commission would not lose one of the most cost-effective and 

successful programs in its history.

Under the Administrative Fine Program, the Commission considers reports to be filed late if they are 

received after the due date, but within 30 days of that 

due date. Election-sensitive reports are considered 

late if they are filed after their due date, but at least 

five days before the election. (Election sensitive reports are those filed immediately before an election 

and include pre-primary, pre-special, pre-general, 

October quarterly and October monthly reports.) 

Committees filing reports after these dates are considered nonfilers. Civil money penalties for late reports are determined by the amount of activity on the 

report, the number of days the report was late and 

any prior penalties for violations under the administrative fine regulations. Penalties for nonfiled reports are 

determined by the estimated amount of activity on 

the report and any prior violations. Committees have 

the option to either pay the civil penalty assessed or 

challenge the Commission’s finding and/or proposed 

penalty.

While the Commission strongly supports making the 

Administrative Fine Program permanent, should Congress decide not to make the program permanent, 

Congress should, at a minimum, extend the program 

to cover violations of 2 U.S.C. §434(a) that relate to 

reporting periods through December 31, 2008.

Electronic Filing of Senate Reports (Revised 2005)

Sections: 2 U.S.C. §§432(g) and 434(a)(11)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress require:

•Mandatory electronic filing, to be commenced by a 

date to be determined by Congress, for all Senate 

candidates (or those candidates’ authorized committees) and for those persons and political committees filing designations, statements, reports or notifications pertaining only to Senate elections if they 
40 Chapter Six

filed electronically are normally available within five 

minutes and detailed data is available in the Commission’s databases within 24 to 48 hours. In contrast, 

the time between the receipt of a report filed through 

the paper filing system and its appearance on the 

Commission’s web site is 48 hours. It can take as 

long as 30 days before some detailed data filed on 

paper is available in the Commission’s databases. 

Electronic filing (by means other than diskette) is also 

unaffected by disruptions in the delivery of first class 

mail, such as those arising from the presence of anthrax powder in the Senate buildings and U.S. Postal 

Service facilities in 2001 and the more recent discovery of Ricin in mail delivered to the Senate office 

buildings. In each case, the disruptions have significantly delayed amendments to Senate campaign reports that were filed via regular mail. In 2001, reports 

submitted by regular mail took months to arrive at the 

Secretary of the Senate (and the FEC), delaying disclosure. In contrast, amendments electronically filed 

during the same time periods by other types of filers 

were received and processed in a timely manner.

Legislative Language:

Section 304(a)(11)(D) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(D)) is amended to read as follows: “As used in this paragraph, the 

terms “designation”, “statement”, or “report” mean a 

designation, statement or report, respectively, which-

- (i) is required by this Act to be filed with the Commission, or (ii) is required under section 302(g) to be 

filed with the Secretary of the Senate and forwarded 

by the Secretary to the Commission.”

Section 302(g)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 432(g)(2)) is amended by 

inserting “or 1 working day in the case of a designation, statement, or report filed electronically” after “2 

working days”.

Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended by inserting “, or filed with the Secretary of the 

Senate under section 302(g)(1) and forwarded to the 

Commission,” after “Act”.

have, or have reason to expect to have, aggregate 

contributions or expenditures in excess of $50,000 

in a calendar year. 

•Electronically filed designations, statements, reports 

or notifications pertaining only to Senate elections to 

be forwarded to the Commission within 24 hours of 

receipt and to be made accessible to the public on 

the Internet, if Congress does not change the point 

of entry for filings pertaining only to Senate elections. 

Explanation: Public Law 106-58 required, among other things, that the Commission make electronic filing 

mandatory for political committees and other persons 

required to file with the Commission who, in a calendar year, have, or have reason to expect to have, 

total contributions or total expenditures exceeding 

a threshold set by the Commission ($50,000). The 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 

No. 107-155) required the Commission to develop 

software and software standards that will allow information concerning reportable receipts and disbursements to be “transmitted immediately” and posted 

on the Commission’s web site “immediately upon 

receipt.” BCRA also expanded the class of persons 

required to file electronically, mandating that “each 

candidate for Federal office (or that candidate’s authorized committee) shall use software” that meets 

the new standards once such software is made 

available to the candidate. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(12)(C). 

The plain language of this statutory revision does 

not appear to exempt Senate candidates and their 

authorized committees from the electronic filing requirements, but it does not specify where the electronic reports must be filed. Thus, a plain reading 

of these new requirements indicates that all Senate 

candidates and their authorized committees must 

use software, presumably to file electronically, with 

the Senate (or with the FEC). (The Commission notes 

that legislation was introduced in the 108th Congress 

(S.1874) to mandate electronic filing by Senate campaigns.) 

Data from electronically filed reports is received, processed and disseminated more easily and efficiently, 

resulting in better use of resources. Reports that are 
Legislative Recommendations 41

Part Two: Non-Priority/Substantive or 

Technical Legislative Recommendations

Public Financing 

Stabilizing the Presidential Public Funding Program 

(Revised 2005)

Sections: 26 U.S.C. §§6096, 9008(a) and 9037(a)

Recommendation: The Commission strongly recommends that Congress take immediate action to 

stabilize the Presidential public funding program for 

upcoming election years.

Explanation: The Presidential public funding program 

has experienced shortfalls during each of the last 

three Presidential elections. The shortfalls are a result of declining participation in the checkoff program 

and the fact that the checkoff is not indexed to inflation while payouts are indexed. To date, the shortfalls 

have principally affected primary candidates, whose 

funding is given lowest priority under the law. 

For example, the Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund experienced a brief shortfall in February 2004, 

when the U.S. Treasury made its second payment for 

the 2004 elections. It was only able to provide approximately 46 percent of the public funds that qualified Presidential candidates were entitled to receive 

at that time. Specifically, only a little over $2.3 million 

was available for distribution to qualified primary 

candidates on February 1, 2004, after the Treasury 

paid the convention grants and set aside the general 

election grants.1 However, the entitlement (i.e., the 

amount that the qualified candidates were entitled to 

receive) on that date was $5 million, twice as much 

as the amount of available public funds. 

The 2004 shortfall could have been considerably 

more severe had three major party candidates not 

opted out of public funding for the primary. While this 

left more money for candidates who chose to participate in the program, the candidates who opted out 

appeared to do so out of a desire to spend beyond 

the spending limits. Their ability to operate outside 

the restrictions of the public funding program may 

encourage more candidates to opt out in future election years. 

The Commission further notes that the 2008 Presidential elections may pose even greater problems than 

past Presidential elections with respect to a possible 

shortfall. As was the case in 1988 and 2000, neither 

major party will include a Presidential incumbent as 

one of the primary contestants, thus heightening the 

potential for a more wide open series of primary elections. 

The Commission recommends several specific legislative changes. First, to alleviate future shortfalls, 

the statute should be revised so that Treasury will be 

able to rely on expected proceeds from the voluntary 

checkoff, rather than relying solely on actual proceeds on hand as of the dates of the matching fund 

payments. Since large infusions of voluntary checkoff proceeds predictably occur in the first few months 

of the election year, including such estimated proceeds in the calculation of funds available for matching fund payouts would virtually eliminate the shortfall 

in the near future. Because estimates for expected 

payouts are an acceptable part of the calculations 

(e.g., setting aside sufficient funds to cover general 

election payouts), estimates of the checkoff proceeds could be incorporated, as well. A very simple 

change in the wording of 26 U.S.C. §9037 would 

accomplish this: changing “are available” to “will be 

available.” Expected payments should be based on 

sound statistical methods to produce a cautious, conservative estimate of the funds that will be available 

to cover convention and general election payments. 

A second revision in the statute would further the 

long-term stability of the Presidential public funding 

program: indexing the voluntary checkoff amount 

1

 The Commission certified a total of $29.18 million in 

convention grants, and $149.2 million was set aside for use 

by general election candidates.
42 Chapter Six

to inflation. Although the checkoff amount was increased from $1 to $3 beginning with 1993 returns, 

there was no indexing built in to account for further 

inflation thereafter. The Commission is mindful that 

other factors also influence the fund’s balance, including the number of candidates participating, the 

number of contributions they can have matched, the 

taxpayer participation rate and deposits of repayments. Nevertheless, an indexing of the checkoff 

amount for inflation would help guarantee some money coming in to replenish the public funding program.

Contributions/Expenditures

Indexing for Inflation the Limit on Contributions by One 

Authorized Committee to Another (2005)

Sections: 2 U.S.C. §§432(e)(3)(B) and 441a(c)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress consider indexing for inflation the 

contribution limitation that applies when a federal 

candidate’s authorized committee contributes to the 

authorized committee of another federal candidate.

Explanation: Under the Act, with certain exceptions, 

no political committee that supports, or has supported, more than one candidate may be designated 

as an authorized committee. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(A). 

Until recently, the FECA, at 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(B), 

defined “support” as excluding a contribution by 

any authorized committee in an amount of $1,000 or 

less to an authorized committee of any other federal 

candidate. This in effect provided a $1,000 limit for 

contributions from one federal candidate’s authorized 

committee to another. As part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005, Congress raised this limit 

to $2,000 to harmonize the limit with that which an 

individual may contribute to a candidate (found at 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A)).

However, as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (BCRA), Congress indexed for inflation 

the contribution limits for individuals and other entities. See 2 U.S.C. §441a(c). In 2005, the individual 

contribution limit as adjusted for inflation increased 

to $2,100 per candidate, per election. Congress 

did not similarly index for inflation the limit found at 

section 432(e)(3)(B) for contributions from one authorized committee to another. Thus, unless Congress 

amends the statute, that limit will remain at $2,000 

while other contribution limits rise with the cost of 

living.

For consistency purposes, Congress may wish to 

make a technical amendment to the statute to include the campaign-to-campaign limit at section 

432(e)(3)(B) in the list of contribution limits at section 

441a(c) that are to be adjusted for inflation.

Legislative Language:

Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 (2 U.S.C. §441a) is amended—

(1) in clause (i) of subparagraphs (c)(1)(B) 

and (c)(1)(C) by inserting in both “, or in section 

432(e)(2)(B) of this title,” after “(h)”;

(2) in clause (ii) of subparagraph (c)(2)(B), by 

inserting “or in section 432(e)(2)(B) of this title,” after 

“(h),”

Compliance 

Modifying Terminology of “Reason to Believe” Finding 

(Revised 2005)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §437g

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress modify the language pertaining to 

“reason to believe,” contained at 2 U.S.C. §437g, so 

as to allow the Commission to open an investigation 

with a sworn complaint, or after obtaining evidence in 

the normal course of its supervisory responsibilities. 

Essentially, this would change the “reason to believe” 

terminology to “reason to open an investigation.”

Explanation: Under the present statute, the Commission is required to make a finding that there is 

“reason to believe a violation has occurred” before 

it may investigate. Only then may the Commission 

request specific information from a respondent to 
Legislative Recommendations 43

determine whether, in fact, a violation has occurred. 

The statutory phrase “reason to believe” is misleading and does a disservice to both the Commission 

and the respondent. It implies that the Commission 

has evaluated the evidence and concluded that the 

respondent has violated the Act. In fact, however, 

a “reason to believe” finding simply means that, 

after evaluating the complaint, the respondents’ 

responses to the complaint (if an externally generated complaint), and information available on the 

public record, the Commission believes a violation 

may have occurred. However, the Commission has 

not yet established that a violation has, in fact, occurred. In order to evaluate the validity of the alleged 

facts, the Commission needs to investigate, i.e., to 

seek information, and responses to specific inquiries, 

from those involved in the alleged activities. It would 

therefore be helpful to substitute words that sound 

less accusatory and that more accurately reflect 

what, in fact, the Commission is doing at this early 

phase of enforcement.

In order to avoid perpetuating the erroneous conclusion that the Commission believes a respondent has 

violated the law every time it finds “reason to believe,” the statute should be amended. Note that the 

change in terminology recommended by the Commission would not change the standard that this finding simply represents that the Commission believes a 

violation may have occurred if the facts as described 

are accurate. 

Fraudulent Misrepresentation of Campaign Authority 

(Revised 2005)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441h

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress revise the prohibitions on fraudulent 

misrepresentation of campaign authority to encompass all persons purporting to act on behalf of candidates and real or fictitious political committees and 

political organizations. In addition, the Commission 

recommends that Congress remove the requirement 

that the fraudulent misrepresentation must pertain to 

a matter that is “damaging” to another candidate or 

political party. 

Explanation: 2 U.S.C. §441h(a) prohibits a Federal 

candidate or his or her agent or employee from 

fraudulent misrepresentation such as speaking, writing, or otherwise acting on behalf of a candidate or 

political party committee on a “matter which is damaging to such other candidate or political party” or an 

employee or agent of either. The Commission recommends that this prohibition be extended to any person who would disrupt a campaign by such unlawful 

means, rather than being limited to candidates and 

their agents and employees. Proving damages as a 

threshold matter is often difficult and unnecessarily 

impedes the Commission’s ability to pursue persons 

who employ fraud and deceit to undermine campaigns. Fraudulent solicitations of funds on behalf of 

a candidate or political party committee were recently 

prohibited in BCRA without any required showing of 

damage to the misrepresented candidate or political 

party committee. See §441h(b). 

In addition, while both §§441h(a) and (b) directly 

address fraudulent actions “on behalf of any other 

candidate or political party,” they do not address 

situations where a person falsely claims to represent 

another type of political committee or claims to be 

acting on behalf of a fictitious political organization, 

rather than an actual political party or a candidate. 

For example, the narrow scope of the existing language does not bar fraudulent misrepresentation or 

solicitation on behalf of a corporate or union separate 

segregated fund or a non-connected political committee.

Congress should consider revising the statute to 

strengthen these important prohibitions on fraudulent 

activity.

Legislative Language:

Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 (2 U.S.C. §441h) is amended: 

(1) in subsection (a), by striking “who is a candidate for Federal office or an employee or agent of 

such a candidate”;

(2) in paragraph (a)(1), by striking “or political 

party or employee or agent thereof on a matter which 

is damaging to such other candidate or political party 
44 Chapter Six

or employee or agent thereof” and inserting in lieu 

thereof “, political party, other real or fictitious political 

committee or organization, or employee or agent of 

any of the foregoing,”;

(3) in paragraph (b)(1), by striking “or political 

party or employee or agent thereof” and inserting 

in lieu thereof “, political party, other real or fictitious 

political committee or organization, or employee or 

agent of any of the foregoing,”.

Contributions/Expenditures

Multicandidate Political Committee Contribution 

Limitations and Non-multicandidate Political Committee 

Contribution Limitations (Revised 2005)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(2) and 441a(c)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress consider indexing for inflation the contribution limitations applicable to multicandidate political committees and adjusting the amount such committees may contribute to national party committees 

to harmonize these limits with the limits applicable to 

non-multicandidate political committees. 

Explanation: A political committee qualifies for multicandidate status if it has been registered with the 

Commission for six months or more, has received 

contributions from more than 50 persons, and has 

contributed to five or more Federal candidates. 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(4). 

FECA, prior to BCRA, provided a significantly higher 

limit on contributions to candidates for political committees with multicandidate status than for those without that status ($5,000 per election versus $1,000 per 

election). BCRA raised and indexed for inflation the 

contribution limit on non-multicandidate committees 

(to $2,000 per election), and such limit eventually 

will become higher than the limit imposed on multicandidate committees. It is important to note that a 

committee cannot opt out of multicandidate status. 

Instead, under section 441a(a)(4), a committee automatically triggers multicandidate status once it meets 

the specific requirements listed above.

In addition, the limit for contributions to national 

party committees from multicandidate committees 

is $15,000 per year (as it was prior to BCRA), yet 

BCRA increased the limit on contributions to the 

same national party committees from non-multicandidate committees from $20,000 to $25,000 per year. 

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(2)(B), (1)(B). Moreover, only the 

contribution limit for non-multicandidate committees 

is indexed for inflation, which means that over time 

the current $10,000 difference will only increase.

Legislative Language:

Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 (2 U.S.C. §441a) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (a)(2)(B), by striking 

“$15,000” and inserting in lieu thereof “$25,000”;

(2) in clause (i) of subparagraph (c)(1)(B), by 

inserting “(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B),” after “(a)(1)(B),”;

(3) in subparagraph (c)(1)(C), by inserting 

“(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B),” after “(a)(1)(B),”;

(4) in clause (ii) of subparagraph (c)(2)(B), by 

inserting “(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B),” after “(a)(1)(B),”.

Disclosure

Increasing and Indexing all pre-BCRA Registration and 

Reporting Thresholds for Inflation (Revised 2004)

Sections: 2 U.S.C. §§431 and 434

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress increase and index for inflation all preBCRA registration and reporting thresholds. 

Explanation: Most of the Act’s registration and reporting thresholds were set in 1974 and 1979. Because 

over twenty years of inflation had effectively reduced 

the Act’s contribution limits in real dollars, the BCRA 

increased some contribution limits to partially adjust 

for inflation, and then indexed those limits: contributions to candidates and national party committees by 

individuals and non-multicandidate committees, the 

biennial aggregate contribution limit for individuals 
Legislative Recommendations 45

and the limit on contributions to Senate candidates 

by certain national party committees. The Commission proposes extending this approach to all preBCRA registration and reporting thresholds, which 

have similarly been effectively reduced as a result of 

inflation.

Increasing and then indexing these thresholds would 

ease the registration and reporting burdens on 

smaller political committees who, in some cases, are 

unaware of the Act’s registration and reporting provisions. Moreover, by increasing and then indexing the 

thresholds for inflation, Congress would help to ensure that some committees and persons who lack the 

resources and technical expertise to comply with the 

Act’s registration and reporting requirements would 

not have to do so. Finally, because of the effect of 

inflation, increasing and then indexing the registration 

and reporting thresholds would continue to capture 

the significant financial activity envisioned when Congress enacted the FECA.

Contributions/Expenditures 

Application of the Biennial Contribution Limit (2005)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(B), (a)(3), (c) and (h)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress make a technical amendment to the 

law to ensure that the biennial contribution limit for 

individuals contributing to candidates, at 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(3), is applied on a two-calendar-year basis, 

rather than on an election cycle basis. The Commission also recommends that the technical amendment 

encompass other limits indexed for inflation, including the contribution limit for individuals contributing to 

national party committees, at 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(B), 

and the contribution limit for national party committees contributing to a Senate candidate, at 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(h).

Explanation: As part of BCRA, Congress replaced 

the $25,000 annual contribution limit for individuals, 

previously codified at 2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(3), with a 

new biennial contribution limit based on a two-calendar-year cycle (i.e., a period of time beginning with 

January 1 of an odd-numbered year and ending on 

December 31 of the next even-numbered year). Prior 

to that statutory change, contributions to a candidate counted against an individual’s annual limit for 

the year in which the candidate’s election was held, 

regardless of when the contribution was made. This 

approach caused confusion among donors and led 

to inadvertent violations of the law. The biennial limit 

eliminates this confusion by counting contributions 

against the limit for the period during which the contributions are made.

The biennial contribution limit is among those that 

Congress chose to index for inflation. See 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(c)(1)(B) and (C). Section 441a(c)(1)(C) indicates that the indexed limits apply on the first day 

after the general election and remain in effect until 

the next general election, i.e., on an election-cycle 

basis, rather than on a two-calendar-year basis. This 

is contrary to the wording of section 441a(a)(3) as 

revised by BCRA.

To the extent that the inconsistency between sections 441a(a)(3) and 441a(c)(1)(C) may have been 

an oversight, the Commission recommends that 

Congress make a technical amendment to section 

441a(c) specifying that while other indexed limits apply on an election-cycle basis, the indexed biennial 

limit applies to contributions made between January 

1 of odd-numbered years and December 31 of evennumbered years. Such a change will ensure that the 

biennial contribution limit is applied on a two-calendar-year basis, as described in BCRA’s revision of 

section 441a(a)(3).

For consistency purposes, Congress should also 

specify that the biennial contribution limit will be applied on a two-calendar-year basis, as described in 

BCRA’s revision of section 441a(a)(3), to the limit on 

contributions to a national party committee from an 

individual (located in section 441a(a)(1)(B)) and to 

the limit on contributions from a national party committee to a Senate campaign (located in section 

441a(h)). The Commission notes that the biennial 

limit technically does not apply to a national party 
46 Chapter Six

committee and only applies to contributions made by 

individuals, but wants to ensure consistency in the 

statutory and regulatory applications of the limit.

Legislative Language: 

Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

1971 (2 U.S.C. §441a) is amended in subparagraph 

(c)(1)(C) by striking the “s” in “limitations”, by striking 

“subsections (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(3) and (h),” by 

inserting “subparagraph (a)(1)(A)” in lieu thereof, and 

by inserting after the period, “In the case of limitations under subparagraph (a)(1)(B), paragraph (a)(3) 

and subsection (h), such increases shall remain in 

effect for the two-year period beginning on January 1 

of the odd-numbered year and ending on December 

31 of the next even-numbered year”.

Disclosure 

Declaration of Intent to Expend Personal Funds (2005)

Sections: 2 U.S.C. §§434(a)(6)(B) and 441a-1(b), 

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress eliminate the requirement that candidates disclose on their Statement of Candidacy the 

amount by which they intend to exceed the personal 

spending threshold established by the Millionaires’ 

Amendment.

Explanation: The so-called Millionaires’ Amendment, 

enacted as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (BCRA), permits a candidate whose opponent’s personal spending exceeds certain threshold amounts to accept individual contributions at increased limits and, in some cases, lifts the applicable 

coordinated party expenditure limit. In drafting this 

legislation, Congress initially considered using the 

opposing candidate’s declaration of intent to exceed 

the threshold amount as the trigger for increased 

limits. As a result, the BCRA modified section 434 

and added new 441a-1(b) to require candidates to 

notify the Commission or Secretary of the Senate (as 

appropriate) and each opposing candidate of their 

intention to spend personal funds when they file their 

Statement of Candidacy. 

Ultimately, Congress determined that actual spending in excess of the threshold amount, rather than 

intended spending, should serve as the trigger for 

increased limits, and enacted a second notification 

requirement tied to that principle. §§434(a)(6)(B)(iii) 

and (iv) and 441a-1(b)(1)(B) and (C). To fulfill that 

requirement, the Commission created new FEC Form 

10, which candidates fax to the government and 

to each opposing candidate when their spending 

exceeds the threshold amount. Based on that filing, 

opposing candidates can determine if they qualify for 

increased limits. 

It appears that the notification of actual spending 

was meant to replace the notification of intent to 

spend; yet both provisions were included in the final 

legislation. The requirement that candidates declare 

their intent to spend personal funds in excess of 

the threshold amount and to notify their opponents 

serves no practical purpose and places an unnecessary burden on candidates. Therefore, to remedy 

what may have been an oversight during the drafting 

of the legislation, and to relieve candidates of this 

unnecessary filing burden, the Commission recommends that Congress make a technical amendment 

to the statute to remove the “Declaration of Intent” 

sections at 434(a)(6)(B)(ii) and 441a-1(b)(1)(B).

Miscellaneous

Creation of Senior Executive Service Positions (Revised 

2005)

Sections: 2 U.S.C. §437c(f)(1); 5 U.S.C. §3132(a)(1)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress amend 5 U.S.C. §3132(a)(1) by deleting subsection (C), which specifically excludes the 

Federal Election Commission from eligibility for the 

creation of Senior Executive Service positions. The 

Commission also recommends that Congress revise 

section 437c(f)(1) to state that the Staff Director and 

the General Counsel will be paid at rates comparable 

to those for the Senior Executive Service. This would 

replace the current provisions stating that they would 
Legislative Recommendations 47

be paid at Level IV and Level V of the Executive 

Schedule respectively.

Explanation: The Commission believes that two statutory changes are needed to bring the Commission’s 

personnel structure in line with that of other comparable federal agencies. This would ensure that the 

Commission is able to compete with other government agencies and the private sector in recruiting 

and retaining key management personnel, including the Staff Director and General Counsel. These 

changes would also enable the Commission, like 

other agencies, to move to merit-based pay systems 

for top executives. 

Under the current compensation structure, statutorily mandated in 2 U.S.C. §437c(f)(1), the Staff 

Director and General Counsel are paid $140,000 

and $131,400, respectively. Thus, the Staff Director 

earns only $5,164 more than a GS-15, Step 10, and 

the General Counsel earns $271 less than a GS15, Step 9. The Staff Director and General Counsel 

have significant responsibilities and oversight duties 

with respect to both administrative and legal areas, 

as well as management over almost all agency personnel. Congress recently restructured the SES 

compensation system into a performance-based, 

payband system. National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136, Nov. 24, 2003). 

For 2005, individuals serving in SES positions are 

compensated in a payband that goes up to $149,200 

(or $162,100 in agencies with a certified SES performance appraisal system). The Commission proposes a revision providing that the Staff Director and 

the General Counsel shall be paid at a rate no higher 

than the highest rate for Senior Executive Service 

employees in agencies that do not have a certified 

SES performance appraisal system. By providing the 

possibility for salary rates higher than those provided 

in the Act currently, the revision will ensure that the 

Commission can retain highly qualified individuals to 

serve in those positions as well as enable it to remain 

competitive in the marketplace for federal executives 

when a vacancy arises. At the same time, by not 

placing the Staff Director and General Counsel positions in the SES system itself, the Commission retains 

its salary-setting prerogatives free of merit system 

protection rights.

The Commission is prohibited by law from creating 

Senior Executive Service positions within the agency. 

As a result, its senior managers other than the Staff 

Director and the General Counsel are employed 

in Senior Level positions. This pay and benefits 

structure hinders the Commission’s ability to recruit 

talented executives from other agencies and retain 

high-performing senior managers. The persons in 

the Senior Level positions (two Deputy Staff Directors, 

a Deputy General Counsel, and four Associate General Counsels) oversee major programmatic areas 

and supervise not only staff, but other managers as 

well. Although these seven executive positions are 

designated as Senior Level, OPM’s Guide to the Senior Executive Service indicates that the Senior Level 

system is for non-executive positions. In fact, the 

OPM Guide provides that supervisory duties should 

occupy less than 25% of a Senior Level employee’s 

time. At the Commission, by contrast, supervisory 

and executive responsibilities occupy 100% of the 

time of Senior Level employees. 

In terms of total compensation and benefits, individuals serving in statutory executive-level appointments 

and Senior Level positions are under-compensated 

for the responsibilities and duties required by these 

positions, and under-compensated when compared 

to individuals serving in similar capacities at virtually 

all other Federal agencies. Compensating the Staff 

Director and General Counsel at SES rates would be 

a useful remedy. Conversion of Senior Level managers to SES positions would provide the Commission 

with the flexibility needed to allow higher pay ranges 

for them and enable them to receive performance 

awards and other benefits not available to statutory 

officers and/or Senior Level employees. Perhaps 

most significantly, this includes the ability to carry 

over many more days of annual leave than Senior 

Level employees. Given that Senior Level managers frequently work extended periods in which they 

cannot use much leave, especially in the aftermath of 

BCRA, an executive’s ability to accumulate and defer 

leave is not only an important benefit to him or her, 
48 Chapter Six

but is also a valuable tool for the agency to ensure 

that executives are available to accomplish agency 

priorities. 

Accordingly, the Commission believes that the positions of Staff Director and General Counsel should be 

compensated at a rate of pay not to exceed the SES 

rates. In addition, Senior Level positions within the 

agency should be converted to SES positions and 

any future Senior Level positions should be created in 

the SES. There is a trend toward performance-based 

pay for executives throughout the government; revising the compensation of the statutory officers and 

converting Senior Level positions into SES positions 

would ensure performance-based pay is similarly 

emphasized for the Commission’s senior executive 

positions. The Commission is confident that these 

changes would assist in retaining highly qualified 

individuals and attracting superior candidates when 

vacancies arise, thus permitting the Commission to 

remain competitive in the marketplace for federal 

executives. 

Legislative Language:

(1) Section 3132(a)(1)(C) of Title 5 of the United 

States Code is amended by striking “Federal Election 

Commission, or”.

(2) Section 310(f)(1) of the Federal Election 

Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. §437c(f)(1)) is 

amended by striking the second and third sentences, 

and replacing them with: “The staff director and general counsel shall be paid at rates not to exceed the 

range of rates of basic pay in effect for the Senior 

Executive Service under 5 U.S.C. 5382.”

Contributions/Expenditures

Modifying the Definition of Federal Election Activity to 

Simplify Compliance for State, District and Local Party 

Committees Where Certain Employees Spend More than 

25 Percent of Their Time In Connection with a Federal 

Election (2004)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §431(20)(A)(iv)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress amend 2 U.S.C. §431(20)(A)(iv) to allow State, district and local political party committees 

to comply with that provision of the Act in biweekly, 

semimonthly or monthly periods, in conformity with 

the period of time a party committee selects for payroll purposes. Currently, section 431(20)(A)(iv) requires compliance in monthly periods.

Explanation: Under BCRA, “services provided during any month by an employee of a State, district or 

local committee of a political party who spends more 

than 25 percent of that individual’s compensated 

time during that month on activities in connection 

with a Federal election” are Federal election activity. 

2 U.S.C. §431(20)(A)(iv). Several party committees 

have informed Commission staff that this provision 

imposes a difficult compliance burden because the 

committees’ payroll periods frequently are different 

than monthly periods. The compliance burden for 

party committees will be lessened if such committees 

can elect a section 431(20)(A)(iv) compliance period 

that is the same as the payroll period used by the 

committees (e.g., biweekly, semimonthly or monthly 

payroll period). 

For example, a party committee that conducts payroll 

operations on a biweekly basis can also determine on 

a biweekly basis whether or not an employee meets 

the 25 percent test, and thus whether the employee 

must be compensated from the committee’s Federal 

account.
Legislative Recommendations 49

Legislative Language:

Section 301(20)(A)(iv) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. §431(20)(A)(iv)) is 

amended:

(1) by striking “any month” and inserting in lieu 

thereof “a payroll period of a State, district or local 

committee of a political party”;

(2) by striking “a State, district or local committee of a political party” and inserting in lieu thereof 

“that party committee”;

(3) by striking “that month” and inserting in lieu 

thereof “that payroll period”;

(4) by inserting at the end the following: “For 

purposes of this subparagraph, a payroll period may 

be a biweekly, semimonthly or monthly period.”.

Contributions/Expenditures

Federal Candidates Soliciting, Receiving or Spending 

Funds (2004)

Section: 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1) and (e)(2)

Recommendation: The Commission recommends 

that Congress amend 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1) to clarify 

the circumstances in which recall elections, referenda 

and initiatives, recounts, redistricting, legal defense 

funds, and related activities fall within the scope 

of activities that are “in connection with a Federal 

election” and are thus subject to the §441i(e)(1) restrictions. The Commission also recommends that 

Congress clarify whether under §441i(e)(1)(A) a candidate or officeholder may solicit, direct, or transfer 

funds to entities not required to file reports with the 

Commission.

In addition, the Commission recommends that Congress amend 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1)(B) to make clear 

that this provision does not prohibit a Federal candidate or officeholder from spending his or her own 

personal funds in connection with an election other 

than an election for Federal office, and recommends 

that Congress amend 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(2) to clarify 

that the phrase, “refers only to such State or local 

candidate,” does not apply to non-communicative 

activity.

Explanation: Section 441i(e)(1)(A) prohibits a Federal 

candidate or officeholder and certain entities from 

soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, spending, 

or disbursing, in connection with a Federal election 

funds that are outside the limitations, prohibitions, 

and reporting requirements of the Act. Because 

these prohibitions are limited in scope to specific 

activities conducted “in connection with an election 

for Federal office,” the Commission requests additional guidance from Congress as to the meaning 

of this phrase in this context. Specifically, Congress 

should consider amending the statute to clarify the 

circumstances in which it intends recall elections, 

referenda and initiatives, recounts, redistricting, candidate litigation costs and legal defense funds to be 

encompassed and thus subject to the restrictions in 

§441i(e).

In addition, because this prohibition extends to the 

solicitation of funds not “subject to the ... reporting 

requirements of the Act,” Congress should consider 

resolving the potential ambiguity that might arise in 

situations where a candidate wishes to solicit funds 

on behalf of an entity in connection with a Federal 

election, including Federal election activity, when that 

entity is not yet (or may not ever be) required to file 

reports with the Commission. Even though such an 

organization’s funds are not subject to the reporting 

requirements of the Act, they may be subject to the 

limitations and prohibitions of the Act.

Section 441i(e)(1)(B) similarly prohibits a Federal 

candidate or officeholder and certain entities from 

soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring, spending, or disbursing, in connection with a non-Federal 

election, funds that are outside the limitations and 

prohibitions of the Act. As written, the verbs “spend” 

and “disburse” in section 441i(e)(1)(B) arguably apply to a Federal candidate’s or officeholder’s donation of his or her personal funds in connection with a 

State or local candidate or ballot measure election. 

This provision is meant to prevent corruption or the 
50 Chapter Six

appearance of corruption of Federal candidates and 

officeholders resulting from large soft money dona-

tions made at their behest. However, there is little 

or no chance of such corruption in the context of a 

Federal candidate or officeholder donating his or her 

own funds. Thus, to the extent section 441i(e)(1)(B) 

can be read to prevent such individual donations, the 

Commission recommends that Congress amend this 

provision to remove the ambiguity.

Section 441i(e)(2) is an exception to the general rule 

at 2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1)(B); the latter provision prohib-

its a Federal candidate or officeholder from solicit-

ing, receiving, or spending funds in connection with 

a non-Federal election that are outside the amount 

limitations and source prohibitions of the Act. In 

order to qualify for the section 441i(e)(2) exception, 

a Federal candidate or officeholder must meet two 

requirements: (1) any solicitation, receipt, or spend-

ing of funds by the Federal candidate or officeholder 

must be permitted under State law; (2) such solicita-

tion, receipt, or spending must “refer only to such 

State or local candidate, or to any other candidate for 

the State or local office sought by such candidate, 

or both.” The second condition is unclear insofar as 

how non-communicative activity, such as receiving 

funds, can “refer to” any candidate. The Commission 

recommends that Congress clarify this language to 

make clear that the second condition refers to public 

communications, as defined in 2 U.S.C. §431(22).

Legislative Language:

Section 323(e)(1)(B) of the Federal Election Cam-

paign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(1)(B)) is amend-

ed by inserting “(except for the candidate’s personal 

funds)” after “spend funds” and after “disburse 

funds”.

Section 323(e)(2) of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. §441i(e)(2)) is amended by 

inserting “, in the case of a public communication,” 

prior to the phrase “refers only to”.
51

Chapter Seven

Campaign Finance Statistics

 The 2004 election cycle was the first cycle regulated under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002 (BCRA), and changes to the campaign finance 

law had a significant effect on party committees, 

candidates and even individuals who were active in 

the elections. Among other things, provisions of the 

BCRA changed the way that candidates and committees operate by:

•Prohibiting national party committees from raising or 

spending nonfederal funds, or “soft money”;

•Limiting the ability of state, district and local party 

committees to spend nonfederal funds to pay for all 

or part of certain activities;

•Imposing new fundraising and disclosure requirements on broadcast ads that meet the definition of 

“electioneering communication;”

•Raising the individual contribution limits to candidates and party committees, as well as raising the 

limit on the total amount that an individual can contribute to influence federal elections over a two-year 

period; and

•Allowing certain candidates facing self-financed opponents to raise money at increased contributions 

limits under the “Millionaires’ Amendment.”

Disclosure reports filed with the FEC during 2003-

2004 began to show the effects of these new provisions, both on political committees’ fundraising activities and on the ways in which political committees, 

individuals and other groups chose to spend their 

funds.

In addition to imposing new restrictions on fundraising and spending, the BCRA also required additional disclosure of certain activities during the campaign. Much of this new disclosure was intended 

to ensure greater—and faster—public access to 

information about these activities. Large independent expenditures were disclosed to the Commission 

within 48 hours of their distribution throughout the 

campaign, and spending for electioneering communications was reported within 48 hours of the communications’ airing. 

The Commission provided new tools for accessing 

these disclosures in order to ensure comprehensive 

public access to new information. In addition to making electronic filings available immediately upon receipt, the Commission prepared several summaries 

of the new activity during the campaign, and developed new search tools to permit greater access to 

this new information.

Party Committees

Fundraising

Democratic and Republican party committees 

raised nearly $1.5 billion and spent $1.41 billion 

between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004.

Republican national, state and local committees who 

report to the Commission raised $784.8 million in 

federal funds, or “hard money,” during 2003-2004. 

Democratic committees raised $683.8 million. Democratic party receipts were more than 89 percent 

higher than in the comparable period during the 2000 

Presidential campaign, while Republican party fundraising grew by 46 percent when compared with the 

same period.

One major objective of the BCRA was to eliminate 

“soft money” fundraising and spending by national 

party committees. The 2004 election cycle was the 

first in which national parties were prohibited from 

receiving nonfederal funds. The Democratic National 

Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC)—the two committees that are generally the most affected by whether an election cycle 

includes a Presidential campaign­—were, surprisingly

the least affected by the change in the law in terms 

of their overall fundraising. Indeed, both committees 

had shown greater dependence on soft money in 

prior Presidential cycles than in non-Presidential campaigns, and both were able to overcome that pattern 

during 2003-2004 by raising substantially more hard 

money. Overall, the federal fundraising totals for both 

parties’ national committees were greater during the 

2004 cycle than their combined federal and nonfederal fundraising in any prior campaign. 

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee 

(DSCC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign 

Committee (DCCC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican 

Congressional Committee (NRCC), in contrast, were 

less able to meet their past fundraising totals. In recent campaigns, three of the parties’ Congressional 
52 Chapter Seven

 

TABLE 7-1

Overall Financial Activity of National Party Committees (in Millions)

 2003-2004	 											2001-2002	 										1999-2000

Federal Only Federal Nonfederal Total Federal Nonfederal Total

 

DNC $394.41 $67.5 $94.56 $162.06 $124.0 $136.56 $260.56 

DSCC $88.66 $48.39 $95.05 $143.44 $40.49 $63.72 $104.21 

DCCC $93.17 $46.44 $56.45 $102.89 $48.39 $56.7 $105.09 

 

RNC $392.41 $170.1 $113.93 $284.03 $212.8 $166.21 $379.01 

NRSC $78.98 $59.16 $66.43 $125.59 $51.47 $44.65 $96.12 

NRCC $185.72 $123.62 $69.68 $193.3 $97.31 $47.3 $144.61 

CHART 7-1

Total Fundraising by National Party Committees, 2000-

2004 Election Cycles

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2004

2002

2000

DNC DSCC DCCC

Millions of Dollars

Dems

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

RNC NRSC NRCC

Millions of Dollars

Dems

150

200

250

300

350

400

2002

2000

Millions of Dollars

Dems

2002

2002

2000

2004

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2004

2000

Millions of Dollars

Dems

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2004

RNC NRSC NRCC

Millions of Dollars

Dems

Democratic Committees Republican Committees
Campaign Finance Statistics 53

campaign committees had shown steady increases 

in soft money fundraising. Although they substantially 

increased hard money activity in 2004, they were 

unable to overtake the combined federal and nonfederal fundraising totals from the prior cycle. TABLE 7-1 

and CHART 7-1, shown on page 52, illustrate the impact of the nonfederal funds prohibition on the overall 

financial activity of national committees in 2004, compared with the two prior election cycles.

During the 2004 cycle, all committees of the national parties increased their federal fundraising from 

virtually every source. One of the largest proportional 

increases in fundraising came from contributions 

from candidate committees. For example, the DNC 

received $24.1 million from federal candidates for 

2004, compared to only $1.5 million during the last 

Presidential cycle in 2000. The RNC received $26.7 

million from federal candidates for 2004, compared to 

$56,050 in 2000. Similarly, the DSCC received $14.6 

million from federal candidates for the 2004 cycle, 

compared to $1.8 million for 2002 and $1.1 million for 

2000. The DCCC received $24 million for the 2004 

cycle, doubling its receipts from federal candidates 

over the last two election cycles. The $24.2 million 

that the NRCC received from federal candidates 

in 2004 was approximately $10 million more than it 

had received during either of the past two election 

cycles. The NRSC, in contrast, did not see a similar 

rise in contributions from federal candidates. In 2004 

it received $3.8 million from candidates, compared to 

$1.6 million in 2002 and $3 million in 2000. 

Individuals continued to be the major source of 

contributions for the national party committees in 

2004. However, this cycle differed dramatically from 

past election cycles in that, under the BCRA, unlimited nonfederal contributions were banned at the same 

time that the limit for federally permissible contributions from individuals to national party committees 

increased from $20,000 to $25,000. Thus, while in 

past election cycles national party committees often 

received very large donations from individuals, corporations, labor unions, etc. into their nonfederal accounts, for this cycle the national parties could only 

receive up to $25,000 from any person. Under these 

CHART 7-2 

Ratio of Individual Contributions to DNC at 

Maximum Amount Compared to Smaller Individual 

Contributions, 2000-2004 Election Cycles

Other Contributions

Contributions at Maximum Amount

2000 2002 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$112.2 million total $55.6 million total $357 million total

88%

12%

1%

99%

10%

90%

Other Contributions

Maximum Contributions

Maximum Contributions

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

2% 

7%

Other Contributions

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

2% 

98%

7%
54 Chapter Seven

CHART 7-3

Ratio of Individual Contributions to RNC at 

Maximum Amount Compared to Smaller Individual 

Contributions, 2000-2004 Election Cycles

Other Contributions

Maximum Contributions

2000 2002 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$193.2 million total $157.8 million total $350.4 million total

83%

2% 17%

98%

93%

7%

Other Contributions

Maximum Contributions

new regulations, individual hard money contributions 

at the federal maximum gained significantly for the 

DNC and the RNC in 2004 over their comparable 

2002 hard money totals. See CHART 7-2 and CHART 

7-3 for details. 

The Senatorial and Congressional committees also 

saw an increase in contributions at the federal limit. 

The DSCC more than doubled the percentage of its 

contributions received at the maximum as compared 

to the two prior election cycles, while the DCCC’s 

percentage of such contributions tripled. 

In 2004 the NRSC received more than 10 percent 

of its individual contributions in the form of $25,000 

contributions—a ten-fold increase from the prior two 

cycles when the NRSC received less than one percent of its total federal contributions from individuals 

at the maximum. The NRCC’s increase in this category of receipts was less striking, as it increased 

from less than one percent in 2000 and 2002 to three 

percent in 2004. 

Smaller contributions from individuals also played 

a significant role in national party committee fundraising. Party committees must itemize contributions 

once they exceed $200 in the aggregate from any 

individual during a calendar year. The total amount 

of money received from small individual contributions 

increased substantially in 2004 for both the DNC and 

the RNC, although such funds made up a smaller 

proportion of their total federal fundraising from individuals than during the 2002 cycle. CHART 7-4 

and CHART 7-5, on the following page, detail these 

results 

The Democratic Senatorial and Congressional 

committees also saw a decline in the proportion of 

funds they received in small donations during the 

2004 cycle, over the 2002 cycle, as did the NRCC. 

For example, the DSCC received 37 percent of its 

contributions from individuals via contributions of 

$200 or less for the 2004 election cycle, compared to 

48 percent for the 2000 and 2002 cycles. The DCCC 

saw an even greater shift, moving from 58 percent 

Maximum Contributions

2000 2002 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$193.2 million total $157.8 million total $350.4 million total

83%

2% 17

98%

93%

7%

Other Contributions

2000 2002 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$193.2 million total $157.8 million total $350.4 million total

83%

2% 17

98%

93%

7%
Campaign Finance Statistics 55

CHART 7-4

Ratio of Itemized to Unitemized Contributions from 

Individuals to the DNC—2000-2004 Election Cycles

Itemized Contributions

Unitemized Contributions

2000 2002 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$112.2 million total $55.6 million total $357 million total

54%

68%

32%

53%

47%

Itemized Contributions

Unitemized Contributions

2000 2002 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$112.2 million total $55.6 million total $357 million total

54%

46%

68%

32%

53%

47%

CHART 7-5

Ratio of Itemized to Unitemized Contributions from 

Individuals to the RNC—2000-2004 Election Cycles

Itemized Contributions

Unitemized Contributions

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

65%

47%

Itemized Contributions

Unitemized Contributions

2000 2002 2004

Chart 2-3

Ratio of Active to Inactive Cases by

Calendar Year

$193.2 million total $157.8 million total $350.4 million total

55%

45%

65%

35%

53%

47%
56 Chapter Seven

unitemized donations in 2002 to 50 percent in 2004. 

The NRCC, which raised about half of its individual 

contribution in unitemized amounts during the prior 

two election cycles, received 34 percent of those 

funds in unitemized amounts in the 2004 cycle. The 

NRSC, in contrast, remained relatively steady in the 

proportion of unitemized to itemized funds it received 

from individuals between the 2004 and 2002 cycles, 

both of which showed a lower proportion of unitemized funds than totals from 2000. For each of these 

committees, the increased receipt of larger, itemized 

federal contributions in 2004 came at the same time 

that their receipt of unlimited soft money donations 

into nonfederal accounts was banned under the 

BCRA.

 Spending

In past election cycles, national party committees 

had generally supported their federal candidates 

indirectly through the state parties. During the 2004 

cycle, however, national parties spent much greater 

sums on the direct support of candidates. TABLE 

7-2 summarizes contributions to Presidential, House 

and Senate candidates made by each national party 

committee and the state and local party committees 

of the two major parties for the 2003-2004 cycle. 

TABLE 7-3, shown on page 57, summarizes coordinated party expenditures made for the 2004 

general elections. Coordinated expenditures are 

expenditures that party committees may make under 

special limits that are adjusted for inflation and account for each state’s voting age population. The coordinated party expenditure limits are separate from 

the contribution limits, and coordinated party expenditures differ from direct contributions in that the party 

committees must spend the funds on behalf of the 

candidate, rather than giving the money directly to 

the campaign. A national party committee may make 

coordinated party expenditures on behalf of House, 

Senate and Presidential nominees, while state party 

committees have coordinated party expenditure limits 

only for House and Senate candidates. A committee may assign any portion of its coordinated party 

expenditure to another committee—for example, a 

Democratic Republican

State/Local State/Local

TABLE 7-2 

Party Committee Contributions to Federal Candidates, 

2003-2004

DNC DSCC DCCC Committees RNC NRSC NRCC Committee

President $0 $0 $0 $4,892 $0 $0 $0 $23,476

Senate 

 Incumbents $0 $170,000 $0 $10,285 $0 $70,000 $10,000 $43,720

 Challengers $0 $139,000 $0 $17,124 $0 $176,633 $25,000 $105,554

 Open Seats $0 $274,000 $955 $5,050 $0 $289,353 $35,000 $55,000

House 

 Incumbents $0 $0 $206,495 $71,747 $60,000 $15,000 $288,412 $107,366

 Challengers $0 $0 $128,500 $166,239 $86,992 $15,000 $89,537 $271,376

 Open Seats $8,000 $0 $139,507 $63,483 $82,500 $50,000 $130,006 $285,835

Total $8,000 $583,000 $475,457 $338,820 $229,492 $615,986 $577,955 $892,327
Campaign Finance Statistics 57

Democratic Republican

State/Local State/Local

TABLE 7-3

Coordinated Party Expenditures, 2003-2004

DNC DSCC DCCC Committees RNC NRSC NRCC Committees

President $16,031,562 $0 $0 $27,375 $16,082,061 $0 $0 $0

Senate 

 Incumbents $4,570 $200,006 $0 $4,239,901 $59,746 $1,483,064 $0 $292,959

 Challengers $0 $440,994 $0 $144,235 $0 $1,671,538 $0 $464,209

 Open Seats $0 $3,646,960 $0 $1,514,422 $0 $5,294,441 $0 $89,407

House 

 Incumbents $0 $0 $1,229,000 $220,040 $734 $0 $1,116,800 $393,794

 Challengers $0 $0 $455,570 $477,396 $402 $0 $1,171,797 $33,187

 Open Seats $0 $0 $978,286 $256,321 $0 $0 $782,790 $30,445

state party committee may assign all or some of its 

spending limit to a local party committee. The 2004 

coordinated party expenditure limits were:

•$16,249,699 for Presidential nominees;

•$37,310 for House nominees ($74,620 for nominees 

in states that have only one U.S. House Representative); and

•A range from $74,620 to $1,944,896 for Senate 

nominees, depending on each state’s voting age 

population.

 Independent Expenditures

Independent expenditures are public communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of 

clearly identified candidates, and they may be made 

in unlimited amounts so long as there is no coordination with the campaign. Independent expenditures 

proved to be an important factor throughout the 2004 

races. For example, by the end of November 2004, 

individuals, groups, parties and PACs had reported 

spending $129.7 million on independent expenditures advocating the election or defeat of Congressional candidates, and they had spent $192.4 million 

independently advocating the election or defeat of 

Presidential candidates. 

Party committees accounted for 89 percent of the 

total 2004 independent expenditures for or against 

Congressional candidates. In 2002, by contrast, 

independent expenditures for Congressional races 

totaled only $18.8 million, of which only $3.7 million 

were made by party committees. These figures represent a shift from the pre-BCRA spending of the prior 

two election cycles when independent expenditures 

were declining and the parties were increasingly relying on soft money.

National party committees in particular showed 

a striking increase in independent expenditures, 

spending a total of $260 million for the 2004 cycle. 

Indeed, Democratic party committees alone reported 

a total of $176.5 million in independent expenditures 

for the 2004 cycle. Of this amount, the DNC reported 

independent expenditures of $120.3 million on Presidential candidates. Republican party committees 

reported $88 million in independent expenditures and 
58 Chapter Seven

Democratic Republican

State/Local State/Local

DNC DSCC DCCC Committees RNC NRSC NRCC Committees

President $33,155,106 $0 $0 $224,534 $9,030,171 $0 $0 $2,272,179

Senate 

 Incumbents $0 $938,098 $0 $0 $0 $82,540 $0 $53

 Challengers $0 $3,812,358 $0 $0 $0 $339,298 $0 $0

 Open Seats $0 $14,338,866 $6,351 $356,974 $0 $1,494,197 $0 $17,003

House 

 Incumbents $0 $0 $6,127,266 $130,548 $0 $0 $1,393,940 $25,815

 Challengers $0 $0 $8,306,321 $27,999 $0 $0 $2,433,836 $20,456

 Open Seats $0 $0 $15,340,145 $42,467 $0 $0 $9,042,183 $7,431

TABLE 7-4

Party Committee Independent Expenditures 

For Federal Candidates, 2003-2004

TABLE 7-5

Party Committee Independent Expenditures 

Against Federal Candidates, 2003-2004

Democratic Republican

State/Local State/Local

DNC DSCC DCCC Committees RNC NRSC NRCC Committees

President $87,178,327 $0 $0 $57,788 $9,238,694 $0 $0 $59,898

Senate 

 Incumbents $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,178,465 $0 $767,668

 Challengers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,725,805 $0 $0

 Open Seats $0 $0 $0 $91,965 $0 $12,060,228 $0 $0

House 

 Incumbents $0 $0 $1,985,772 $10,000 $0 $0 $9,917,692 $0

 Challengers $0 $0 $1,549,639 $0 $0 $0 $11,056,912 $0

 Open Seats $0 $0 $2,815,899 $6,547 $0 $0 $14,144,289 $0
Campaign Finance Statistics 59

$29 million in coordinated expenditures. TABLE 7-4 

and TABLE 7-5, at left, detail party committee independent expenditures for the 2004 cycle.

In addition, while the RNC reported making $18.3 

million in independent expenditures, it also reported 

$45.8 million in “generic media expenses,” which are 

ads for which it shared the costs with Bush-Cheney 

’04. The DNC spent an additional $24 million during 

the general election period for media production and 

consulting not included in the independent expenditure totals.

Nonfederal Spending by State, District and Local Party 

Committees for Allocated Activities

State and local committees of the two major parties also increased their hard money fundraising in 

2004, but these increases were not sufficient to make 

up for reduced soft money totals used by these committees for allocable activity. For the 2004 cycle, the 

BCRA imposed stricter requirements on the use of 

soft money for some federal election activities undertaken by state parties. This change, combined with 

the fact that national committees were no longer raising soft money and transferring it to state committees, 

0

100

200

300

400

Nonfederal Funds for Shared Activity

Federal Funds

2000 2002 2004

Millions of Dollars

House Candidates

0

100

200

300

400

2000 2002 2004

Millions of Dollars

House Candidates 

Democratic State Party Committees Republican State Party Committees

CHART 7-6

Total Disbursements of Federal Funds and Disbursements of 

Nonfederal Funds for Shared Federal/Nonfederal Activities by 

State and Local Party Committees—2000-2004 Election Cycles

0

100

200

300

400

Nonfederal Funds for Shared Activity

Federal Funds

Millions of Dollars

House Candidates
60 Chapter Seven

led to a substantial reduction in federally reported 

spending by these state and local parties. Total reported spending (which includes all hard money and 

any soft money used for allocable activity) by state 

and local committees declined by approximately onethird when compared with the 2000 Presidential election cycle, even though hard money disbursements 

increased for both parties. CHART 7-6, on the previous page, shows the total federal and nonfederal 

spending reported by all Democratic state and local 

party committees and all Republican state and local 

party committees over the past three election cycles.

Lower nonfederal spending is most dramatic 

between 2000 and 2004 in those states where the 

Presidential campaign was most competitive in both 

years. For example, Florida’s state Democratic committee reported spending $16,499,217 in nonfederal 

funds for shared activity in the 2000 election cycle, as 

compared to just $2,891,444 for the 2004 cycle. Similarly, the Republican state party committee of Florida 

reported $24,297,117 in nonfederal disbursements 

for the 2000 cycle, compared to $4,233,506 for the 

2004 cycle.

Levin Funds 

The BCRA allowed state, district and local parties to compensate for some portion of the increased 

restriction on nonfederal spending by allowing them 

to raise and spend funds in limited amounts beyond 

the federal contribution limits and prohibitions. These 

“Levin” funds (referring to the sponsor of the statutory provision) are funds donated to state, district 

and local party committees, in accordance with state 

law, from corporations, labor organizations and other 

individuals and persons in amounts not to exceed 

$10,000 per calendar year. 

A party committee may allocate the expenses associated with certain “federal election activities” between federal funds and Levin funds. Levin funds did 

not represent a significant portion of party financial 

activity in 2003-2004. State and local parties reported raising just $4.7 million in Levin funds. 

Electioneering Communications

In addition to restrictions on party fundraising and 

spending, the BCRA imposed new fundraising and 

disclosure requirements on other groups who pay for 

certain broadcast ads (radio, television, cable and 

satellite) that refer to federal candidates and are aired 

within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of the 

general election. Electioneering communications may 

not be paid for with corporate or labor union treasury 

funds and must be disclosed to the Commission 

within 48 hours of their airing. 

A total of $96.2 million in such spending was reported by 46 groups from late 2003 through the November 2 general election. Of this total, $26.5 million 

was spent during various 30-day primary election 

“windows,” while $69.7 million was spent between 

September 2 and November 2—the 60-day general 

election “window.” 

Spending on electioneering communications was 

dominated by a small number of groups, with the 

seven largest organizations reporting 88 percent 

of all electioneering communication spending. See 

TABLE 7-6, below, for details.

TABLE 7-6

Largest Electioneering Communications Filers

Filers Total 

Media Fund $26,869,676

Progress for American Voters Fund $26,472,972

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth $13,568,351

Moveon.org Voter Fund $5,717,031

Citizens for a Strong Senate $4,580,471

League of Conservation Voters $3,711,570

Club for Growth.net $3,633,577
Campaign Finance Statistics 61

Millionaires’ Amendment

Under the BCRA’s Millionaires’ Amendment, individual candidates who contribute significant sums 

of their own money to their campaigns may trigger 

higher limits for their opponents on contributions 

from individuals. A candidate’s personal spending 

beyond $350,000 in House races, and according to a 

graduated scale based on state population in Senate 

campaigns, may cause contribution limits to increase 

by as much as six times (or $12,000 per election from 

each individual) for other candidates in the race. The 

coordinated party expenditure limits may also be 

raised.

 A campaign facing a self-financed opponent must 

use an “opposition personal funds amount” formula to 

determine whether the opposing candidate has spent 

sufficient personal funds in comparison to the nonmillionaire’s own expenditures from personal funds 

and/or the campaign’s own fundraising, depending 

on the date of calculation, to trigger increased contribution limits. Thus, a candidate with a significant 

fundraising advantage over a self-financed opponent, 

or a candidate who has spent significant amounts 

of his or her own fund on the campaign, might not 

receive an increased contribution limit. A candidate 

must file FEC Form 10 within 24 hours when he or 

she makes an expenditure from personal funds that 

aggregates in excess of the threshold amount. His or 

her opponents then calculate their oppositional personal funds amounts to determine whether they are 

eligible for increased contribution limits.

Nineteen House candidates running in 13 districts 

filed FEC Form 10 during the 2003-2004 election 

cycle, indicating that they had spent or had obligated 

to spend more than $350,000. These campaigns 

reported $20.7 million in contributions and loans from 

the candidates. There were 24 other candidates in 

those districts who reported a total of $817,000 in 

contributions from individuals where the amount was 

greater than the $2,000 contribution limit from individuals.

In Senate races, 19 candidates from 12 states 

filed FEC Form 10. These campaigns reported a total of $67 million in loans and contributions from the 

candidates. In these states, 36 other candidates reported a total of $13 million in contributions where the 

amount of each contribution was more than $2,000. 

Approximately $9.2 million of this total was raised by 

candidates in the Illinois Senate race where candidates in both parties’ primaries made expenditures 

CHART 7-7

Total Individual Contributions to Parties, Presidential Candidates 

and Congressional Candidates—2000 and 2004 Elections

Party

Presidential

Congressional

2000

$589.6 million

$567.7 million

$238.2 million

Party

Presidential

Congressional

2004

Millions of Dollars

Dems

2004

$611.4 million $1.2 billion

$720.8 million

Party

Presiden

Congres

2000

Millions of Dollars

Dems

Millions of Dollars

Dems
62 Chapter Seven

CHART 7-8

Individual Contributions of $200 or Less 

and of Amounts Over $200, 2000 and 2004 Elections

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Amounts of $200 or Less

Amounts Greater than $200

Congressional Presidential Party

Millions of Dollars

House Candidates

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Amounts Less Than $200

Amounts Greater than $200

Congressional Presidential Party

Millions of Dollars

House Candidates

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Congressional Presidential Party

Millions of Dollars

House Candidates

2000 2004 

CHART 7-9 

Individual Contributions at Contribution Limit, 2000 

and 2004 Elections

400

600

800

1000

1200

Other Contributions

Contributions at Limit

House Candidates

Millions of Dollars

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Other Contributions

Contributions at Maximum Allowed Amount

Congressional Presidential Party

House Candidates

Millions of Dollars

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Congressional Presidential Party

House Candidates

Millions of Dollars

2000 2004 
Campaign Finance Statistics 63

from personal funds that exceeded the threshold for 

increased contribution limits for their opponents.

Individual Contributors

The BCRA raised contribution limits for individuals 

from $1,000 per election to $2,000 per election for 

contributions to federal campaigns, and made analogous changes to limits to national party committees 

(from $20,000 per year to $25,000) and for the overall 

limit on contributions from a single individual in a 

two-year period (from $25,000 per year to $95,000 

over two years). These limits are adjusted for inflation 

every two years.

Campaigns disclosed more than 242,000 contributions with amounts greater than $1,000 during 2003 

and 2004. The proportion of all Congressional candidate receipts coming from individuals has increased 

from 55 percent in 2002 to more than 60 percent in 

2004. CHART 7-7, on page 61, provides an overview 

of individual contributions to campaigns and parties 

in the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. CHART 7-8 and 

CHART 7-9, at left, provide an overview of individual 

contributions to campaigns and parties in the 2000 

and 2004 election cycles. 

Presidential Candidates

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 from the two convention cities raised a total of $142.5 million in support of convention activities.

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.

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 Presidential 

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 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0400969288848076

0

5

10

15

$ 20

Millions of Dollars Candidates

Matching Funds

Number of Candidates

Chart 2-1

Conciliation Agreements by Calendar Year

CHART 7-10

Total Presidential Primary Matching Fund 

Payouts and Number of Candidates Participating 

In Matching Fund Program, 1976-2004 Elections
64 Chapter Seven

CHART 7-11

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

Private Funds

Public Funds

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%

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 mil

4

96%

18%

82%

24%

76%

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. CHART 7-10, on page 63, and CHART 

7-11, above, detail total Presidential primary fundraising and matching fund payouts.
Appendix 1

Biographies of 

Commissioners and Officers

65

1

 Term expiration date.

Commissioners

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman

April 30, 20051

Bradley Smith was nominated to the Commission 

by President Clinton on February 9, 2000, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 24, 2000. Prior to 

his appointment, Commissioner Smith was Professor 

of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, 

Ohio. His areas of specialty were Election Law, Comparative Election Law, Jurisprudence, Law & Economics and Civil Procedure.

Prior to joining the faculty at Capital in 1993, Mr. 

Smith had practiced with the Columbus law firm of 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease. Throughout his career, he has also served as the United States Vice 

Consul in Guayaquil, Equador, worked as a consultant 

in the health care field and served as General Manager of the Small Business Association of Michigan. 

During his tenure at the Small Business Association, 

Mr. Smith’s responsibilities included management of 

the organization’s political action committee.

Commissioner Smith received his B.A. cum laude 

from Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan, 

and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair

April 30, 2007

Ellen Weintraub was appointed to the Federal Election Commission on December 6, 2002, by President 

George W. Bush. On December 9, 2002, Chair 

Weintraub began her tenure with the FEC as the third 

woman to serve on the Commission. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Weintraub was Of Counsel to Perkins 

Coie, LLP, and a member of its Political Law Group. 

During that time, she counseled clients on federal and 

state campaign finance laws, political ethics, nonprofit law and lobbying regulation. Ms. Weintraub served 

on the legal team that advised the Senate Rules Committee during an election contest that arose out of the 

1996 election of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). During a previous stint in private practice, Ms. Weintraub 

practiced as a litigator with the New York firm of Cahill 

Gordon & Reindel.

Prior to her tenure at Perkins Coie, Ms. Weintraub 

was Counsel to the Committee on Standard of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives 

(the House Ethics Committee). The Committee on 

Standards is structured in a manner similar to the 

Commission in which a bipartisan body is evenly 

divided between Republican and Democratic members. Ms. Weintraub’s focus during that time was the 

implementation of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and 

subsequent changes to the House Code of Official 

Conduct. She also served as editor in chief of the 

House Ethics Manual and as a principal contributor to 

the Senate Ethics Manual. Ms. Weintraub also advised Members on investigations and frequently had 

lead responsibility for the Committee’s public education and compliance initiatives.

Ms. Weintraub received her B.A., cum laude, from 

Yale College and her J.D. from Harvard Law School. 

A native New Yorker, she is a member of the New 

York and District of Columbia bars and the Supreme 

Court bar. She currently resides in Maryland with her 

husband, Bill Dauster, and their three children.

David M. Mason, Commissioner

April 30, 2003

David Mason was nominated to the Commission 

by President Clinton on March 4, 1998, and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 30, 1998. Prior to 

his appointment, Mr. Mason served as Senior Fellow, 

Congressional Studies, at the Heritage Foundation. 

He joined Heritage in 1990 as Director of Executive 

Branch Liaison. In 1995, he became Vice President, 

Government Relations, and in 1997, Mr. Mason was 

designated Senior Fellow with a focus on research, 

writing and commentary on Congress and national 

politics.

Prior to his work at the Heritage Foundation, Commissioner Mason served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and served on the Staffs of Senator 

John Warner, Representative Tom Bliley and then 

House Minority Whip Trent Lott. Throughout his career, he worked on numerous Congressional, Senate, 

Gubernatorial and Presidential campaigns. Addition-
66 Appendices

ally, Mr. Mason was a nominee for the Virginia House 

of Delegates in the 48th District in 1982.

Commissioner Mason attended Lynchburg College in Virginia and graduated cum laude from Claremont McKenna College in California. He is active 

in political and community affairs at both the local 

and national levels. Commissioner Mason served as 

Chairman of the FEC in 2002. He and his wife reside 

in Lovettsville, Virginia, with their ten children.

Danny L. McDonald, Commissioner

April 30, 2005

Now serving his fourth term as Commissioner, 

Danny McDonald was first appointed to the Commission in 1981 and was reappointed in 1987, 1994 and 

2000. Before his original appointment, Mr. McDonald 

managed 10 regulatory divisions as the general administrator of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. 

He had previously served as secretary of the Tulsa 

County Election Board and as the chief clerk of the 

board. He was also a member of the Advisory Panel 

to the FEC’s Clearinghouse on Election Administration.

A native of Sand Springs, Oklahoma, Commissioner McDonald graduated from the Oklahoma State 

University and attended the John F. Kennedy School 

of Government at Harvard University. He served as 

the FEC Chairman in 1983, 1989, 1995 and 2001.

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

April 30, 2003

Scott Thomas was appointed to the Commission in 

1986 and reappointed in 1991 and 1998. He served 

as acting chairman during the last four months of 

1998, and as Chairman throughout 1999. He previously served as Chairman in 1987 and 1993. Prior to 

serving as a Commissioner, Mr. Thomas was the executive assistant to former Commissioner Thomas E. 

Harris. He originally joined the FEC as a legal intern 

in 1975. He worked as a staff attorney in the Office of 

General Counsel and later became an Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement.

A Wyoming native, Mr. Thomas graduated from 

Stanford University and holds a J.D. from Georgetown 

University Law Center. He is a member of the District 

of Columbia and U.S. Supreme Court bars.

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

April 30, 2007

Michael E. Toner was nominated to the Federal 

Election Commission by President George W. Bush 

on March 4, 2002, and appointed on March 29, 2002. 

Mr. Toner was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 

18, 2003. 

Prior to being appointed to the FEC, Mr. Toner 

served as Chief Counsel of the Republican National 

Committee. Mr. Toner joined the RNC in 2001 after 

serving as General Counsel of the Bush-Cheney 

Transition Team in Washington, DC, and General 

Counsel of the Bush-Cheney 2000 Presidential Campaign in Austin, TX. 

Before joining the Bush campaign in Austin, Commissioner Toner was Deputy Counsel at the RNC from 

1997-1999. Prior to his tenure at the RNC, Mr. Toner 

served as counsel to the Dole/Kemp Presidential 

Campaign in 1996.

Mr. Toner was an associate attorney at Wiley, Rein, 

& Fielding in Washington, DC, from 1992-1996. His 

work there included advising political committees 

and corporate clients on federal and state election 

law compliance. He was also involved in a number of 

First and Fourteenth Amendment appellate litigation 

matters, including two cases that were successful in 

the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Toner has written widely on campaign finance 

matters, including in the Washington Post, Boston 

Globe, Chicago Tribune and Washington Times. Mr. 

Toner is a lecturer in the Department of Politics at the 

University of Virginia.

Mr. Toner received a J.D. cum laude from Cornell 

Law School in 1992, an M.A. in Political Science from 

Johns Hopkins University in 1989 and a B.A. with distinction from the University of Virginia in 1986. He is a 

member of the District of Columbia and Virginia bars 

as well as the U.S. Supreme Court bar, the Fourth 

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District 

Courts for the District of Columbia and the Eastern 

District of Virginia.
Appendices 67

Statutory Officers

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

James Pehrkon became Staff Director on April 

14, 1999, after serving as Acting Staff Director for 

eight months. Prior to that, Mr. Pehrkon served for 

18 years as the Commission’s Deputy Staff Director 

with responsibilities for managing the FEC’s budget, 

administration and computer systems. Among the 

agency’s first employees, Mr. Pehrkon is credited with 

setting up the FEC’s Data Systems Development Divi-

sion. He directed the data division before assuming 

his duties as Deputy Staff Director.

An Austin, Texas, native, Mr. Pehrkon received an 

undergraduate degree from Harvard University and 

did graduate work in foreign affairs at Georgetown 

University.

Lawrence H. Norton, General Counsel

Lawrence Norton became General Counsel of 

the FEC on September 17, 2001. Prior to joining the 

Commission, Mr. Norton served as an Associate 

Director at the Commodity Futures Trading Commis-

sion for five years. He also worked as an Assistant 

Attorney General in the Maryland Attorney General’s 

office.

Mr. Norton graduated Order of the Coif from the 

University of Maryland School of Law.

Lynne A. McFarland, Inspector General

Lynne McFarland became the FEC’s first perma-

nent Inspector General in February 1990. She came 

to the Commission in 1976, first as a reports analyst. 

Later, she worked as a program analyst in the Office 

of Planning and Management.

A Maryland native, Ms. McFarland holds a sociol-

ogy degree from the Frostburg State College and is a 

member of the Institute of Internal Auditors.
Appendices 69

Appendix 2

2004 Chronology of Events

January

 1 – Chairman Bradley A. Smith and Vice-Chair 

Ellen L. Weintraub begin their one year 

terms of office.

 14 – Commission conducts reporting roundtables 

for candidates, PACs and party committees. 

 14 – Commission publishes Notice of Availability 

of Petition for Rulemaking on Public Access 

to Materials from Closed Enforcement Matters.

 21 – District court in Cox for Senate v. FEC requires plaintiff to pay civil money penalty for 

failure to file 48-hour reports documenting 

campaign contributions in excess of $1,000.

 23 – Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 

becomes law, allowing use of certain overnight/express delivery services and extending Administrative Fine program through 

December 31, 2005.

 28 – Commission publishes draft statement of 

policy concerning naming of treasurers as 

respondents in enforcement matters.

 30 – Commission certifies $5,020,135.71 in federal matching funds to six Presidential candidates for 2004 election.

 31 – 2003 year-end report due.

February

 2 – FEC issues semi-annual PAC count.

 11-12 – Commission holds regional conference in 

Tampa, Florida. 

 13 – District court in FEC v. California Democratic 

Party, et al., finds that defendants impermissibly used nonfederal funds for express 

advocacy ads and failed to include required 

disclaimers and to report ads as independent expenditures.

March

 1 – Commission certifies $3,421,597.65 in federal matching funds to six Presidential candidates for the 2004 election.

 4 – Commission approves NPRM seeking comments on whether to amend regulatory definition of “political committee.” 

 11 – Commission certifies Alfred C. Sharpton’s 

Presidential primary committee, Sharpton 

2004, eligible to receive Presidential primary 

matching payments.

 16-17 – FEC holds candidate/party conference in 

Washington, DC.

 30 – District court in FEC v. Malenick, et al. finds 

Triad Management Services, Inc. failed to 

register and to file with the Commission and 

accepted excessive contributions.

April

 1 – Commission approves NPRM on inaugural 

committees.

 1 – Commission approves NPRM on contributions and donations by minors to candidates 

and political committees.

 7 – Commission conducts reporting roundtables 

for candidates, PACs and party committees.

 14-15 – Commission holds public hearings concerning its NPRM on political committee status.

 15 – Quarterly report due.

 22-23 – FEC holds conference in Washington, DC, 

for corporations and their PACs.

 29 – Commission transmits 12 legislative recommendations to Congress and the President.

 29 – Commission makes final determination that 

Reverend Alfred C. Sharpton exceeded his 

$50,000 personal expenditure limit and suspends matching fund payments to Sharpton 

2004.

 30 – Commission certifies $810,755.13 in federal 

matching funds to five Presidential candidates for the 2004 election.

May

 6 – Commission submits to Congress its budget 

request for FY 2005.

 10 – The Commission determines that Reverend 

Alfred C. Sharpton must repay $100,000 to 

U.S. Treasury for matching funds received in 

excess of his entitlement.

 13 – Commission approves 90-day extension for 

consideration of proposed rules concerning 

the definition of “political committee.”
70 Appendices

 25-26 – Commission holds conference in Boston for 

Trade Associations, Membership Organizations and their PACs.

 27-28 – Commission certifies $169,648.28 in federal 

matching funds to two Presidential candidates for the 2004 election.

 28 – Commission certifies Ralph Nader eligible to 

receive Presidential primary matching payments for his primary committee, Nader for 

President.

June

 4 – District court orders the defendants in FEC 

v. California Democratic Party, et al. to pay 

$30,000 civil penalty and enjoins them from 

further similar violations of the Act,

 7 – In FEC v. Dear for Congress, district court 

finds that one or more defendants violated 

contribution limits, reporting requirements, 

prohibition on contributions made in the 

name of another and prohibition on corporate contributions.

 24 – Commission approves NPRM on party committees’ ability to make both independent 

expenditures and coordinated party expenditures in connection with the general election.

 29 – Commission certifies $298,758.66 in federal 

matching funds to Ralph Nader.

July

 7 – Commission conducts reporting roundtables 

for candidates, PACs and party committees.

 15 – Quarterly report due.

 22/30 – Commission certifies $427,744.66 in federal 

matching funds to four Presidential candidates. 

 29 – Appeals court in LaRouche’s Committee for 

the New Bretton Woods v. FEC refuses to review FEC’s determination that plaintiff repay 

a portion of Presidential primary matching 

funds it received in 2000.

 30 – Commission approves public funding for 

the general election campaign of Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry and 

his Vice-Presidential running mate, Senator 

John Edwards.

August

 4 – Commission hosts a roundtable workshop 

on new rules for pre-election communications.

 12 – District court grants in part and denies in 

part the motions for summary judgment 

brought by both the defendants and the 

plaintiffs in John Hagelin, et al. v FEC. The 

plaintiffs charged that the FEC erroneously 

dismissed their administrative complaint 

which asserted that the Commission for 

Presidential Debates was partisan and, 

therefore, could not lawfully sponsor Presidential debates.

 17 – In Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 

district court denies plaintiff’s motion for 

preliminary injunction that would have exempted certain broadcast ads from ban on 

corporate funding of electioneering communications.

 19 – Commission approves final rules regarding Political Committee Status, Definition of 

Contribution and Allocation for PACs.

 27 – Commission certifies $325,479.23 in federal 

matching funds to four Presidential primary 

candidates.

September

 1 – In Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, appeals court denies plaintiff’s request for an 

injunction pending appeal of decision not to 

exempt certain broadcast ads from the ban 

on corporate funding of electioneering communications.

 1 – FEC issues semi-annual PAC count.

 2 – Commission approves public funding for 

the general election campaign of President 

George W. Bush and Vice President Richard 

B. Cheney.

 4 – District court dismisses Alliance for Democracy’s complaint that Commission acted 

contrary to law by delaying action on an 

investigation of Ashcroft 2000, the Spirit of 
Appendices 71

America PAC and the treasurer of the committees.

 14 – Supreme Court denies Wisconsin Right to 

Life, Inc.’s request for an injunction pending appeal in Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. 

FEC.

 18 – District court in Shays and Meehan v. FEC

upholds some challenged regulations, but 

remands others to the Commission. 

 30 – Commission approves final rules and a new 

disclosure form to implement provisions of 

BCRA governing inaugural committees.

 30 – Commission certifies $102,321.33 in federal 

matching funds to Presidential candidate 

Ralph Nader.

October

 6 – Commission conducts reporting roundtables 

for candidates, PACs and party committees.

 6 – District court grants stay of its decision in 

John Hagelin, et al. v FEC, pending appeal.

 15 – Quarterly report due.

 28 – Commission approves explanation and justification to accompany final rules on political 

committee status.

 28 – FEC votes to appeal portions of district 

court’s decision in Shays and Meehan v. 

FEC.

 28 – Commission approves final rules that remove restrictions on party committees’ ability to make both independent expenditures 

and coordinated party expenditures with 

respect to same candidate in the general 

election.

 29 – Commission certifies $203,484.83 in federal 

matching funds to three Presidential candidates for the 2004 election.

November

 18 – Commission approves rulemaking priorities 

for November 2004 through 2005 in light of 

district court’s decision in Shays and Meehan v. FEC.

 18 – Commission approves technical amendments to correct certain citations and headings in its final BCRA rules.

 30 – Commission certifies $14,023.37 in federal 

matching funds to two Presidential candidates for the 2004 election.

December

 2 – Commission approves NPRM regarding 

limits on national, state and local party committees’ donations to certain tax-exempt 

organizations.

 8 – Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 

amends FECA to return “any other lawful 

purpose” to the list of permissible uses of 

campaign funds and to raise candidate-tocandidate contribution limit to $2,000.

 16 – Commission approves NPRM regarding 

filing documents using Priority Mail, Express 

Mail or an overnight delivery service.

 16 – Commission approves NPRM on use of 

payroll deduction by corporate members for 

contributions to trade association’s PAC.

 16 – Commission approves a Statement of Policy 

to clarify when, in enforcement matters, a 

treasurer is subject to Commission action in 

personal or official capacity, or both.

 16 – Commission elects Scott E. Thomas as its 

Chairman and Michael E. Toner as its Vice 

Chairman for 2005.

 28 – Commission certifies $214,748 in federal 

matching funds to two Presidential candidates in the 2004 election.
73

Appendix 3

FEC Organizational Chart

Complaints 

Examination and Legal Administration

Deputy Staff Director

for Management

Information 

Technology

Planning and 

Management

Administration Equal Employment

Opportunity

Commission 

Secretary

Public 

Disclosure

Audit

Information 

Congressional

Affairs

Personnel

Labor/Management

Press Office

Policy

Reports 

Analysis

Litigation

Enforcement

1 Scott E. Thomas was elected 2005 Chairman.

2 Michael E. Toner was elected 2005 Vice Chairman.

Administrative 

Review

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

Election 

Administration

Deputy Staff Director

for Audit & Review

General Law and 

Advice

The Commissioners

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman1 

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair2

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

General Counsel

 Lawrence H. Norton

Staff Director 

James A. Pehrkon

Inspector General

Lynne McFarland
75

Appendix 4

FEC Offices

This appendix briefly describes the offices within 

the Commission, located at 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463. The offices are listed alphabetically, with local telephone numbers given for offices that 

provide services to the public. Commission offices 

can also be reached toll-free at 800-424-9530 and 

locally at 202-694-1100.

Administration

The Administration Division consists of a Finance 

Office and an Administration Office. The Finance Office administers the agency’s accounting and payroll 

programs. The Administration Office is responsible 

for procurement, contracting, space management, 

records management, telecommunications, building security and maintenance. In addition, the office 

handles printing, document reproduction and mail 

services.

Audit

Many of the Audit Division’s responsibilities concern the Presidential public funding program. The 

division evaluates the matching fund submissions of 

Presidential primary candidates and determines the 

amount of contributions that may be matched with 

federal funds. As required by law, the division audits 

all public funding recipients.

In addition, the division audits those committees 

that, according to FEC determinations, have not met 

the threshold requirements for substantial compliance 

with the law. Audit Division resources are also used in 

the Commission’s investigations of complaints.

Commission Secretary

The Commission Secretary is responsible for all 

administrative matters relating to Commission meetings, as well as Commission votes taken outside of 

the meetings. This includes preparing meeting agendas, agenda documents, Sunshine Act notices, meeting minutes and vote certifications.

The Secretary also logs, circulates and tracks 

numerous materials not related to Commission meetings, and records the Commissioners’ votes on these 

matters. All matters on which a vote is taken are entered into the Secretary’s database.

Commissioners

The six Commissioners—no more than three of 

whom may represent the same political party—are 

appointed by the President and confirmed by the 

Senate. 

The Commissioners serve full time and are responsible for administering and enforcing the Federal 

Election Campaign Act. They generally meet twice 

a week, once in closed session to discuss matters 

that, by law, must remain confidential, and once in a 

meeting open to the public. At these meetings, they 

formulate policy and vote on significant legal and 

administrative matters.

Congressional, Legislative and 

Intergovernmental Affairs

This office serves as primary liaison with Congress 

and Executive Branch agencies. The office is responsible for keeping Members of Congress informed 

about Commission decisions and, in turn, for keeping 

the agency up to date on legislative developments. 

Local phone: 202-694-1006; toll-free 800-424-9530.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and 

Special Programs

The EEO Office advises the Commission on the 

prevention of discriminatory practices and manages 

the agency’s EEO Program.

The office is also responsible for developing a 

Special Emphasis Program tailored to the training 

and advancement needs of women, minorities, veterans, special populations and disabled employees. 

In addition, the EEO office recommends affirmative 

action recruitment, hiring and career advancement. 

The office encourages the informal resolution of complaints during the counseling stage.

Additionally, the office develops and manages 

a variety of agency-wide special projects. These 
76 Appendices

1 The General Law and Advice Division was created 

during 2003. It assumed all the responsibilities of the Public 

Financing, Ethics and Special Projects Division, except for 

enforcement matters, and the administrative law responsibilities that formerly resided with the Policy Division. 2 This division was created during 2003.

include the Combined Federal Campaign, the U.S. 

Savings Bonds Drive and workshops intended to 

improve employees’ personal and professional lives.

General Counsel

The General Counsel’s Office performs its responsibilities through the Enforcement, Litigation, Policy 

and General Law and Advice Divisions and the Office 

of Complaint Examination and Legal Administration. 

The Policy Division drafts, for Commission consideration, advisory opinions and regulations as well 

as other legal memoranda interpreting the federal 

campaign finance law. In addition, the Policy Division 

provides legal advice in response to legislative inquiries and advises other divisions within the agency on 

legal matters. The Policy Division also provides staff 

training throughout the agency concerning changes 

in the law. 

The Enforcement Division investigates alleged violations of the law, negotiates conciliation agreements 

and recommends civil penalties for individuals and 

entities that have violated the Act. 

The Litigation Division handles all civil litigation, including Title 26 cases that come before the Supreme 

Court, and represents and advises the Commission 

regarding any legal actions brought by or against the 

Commission. 

The General Law and Advice Division is responsible for processing all audit and repayment matters, 

as well as handling debt settlements, administrative 

terminations and administrative fines matters.1 In addition, this Division handles all administrative law, 

disclosure, FOIA, Privacy Act, employment and labor 

law matters, and it administers the Commission’s Ethics in Government Act program.

The Complaints Examination and Legal Administration Office is responsible for processing all incoming enforcement matters (including Audit referrals) 

and tracking performance data for all of the Office of 

General Counsel’s (OGC) activities.2 This Office is 

also responsible for managing and monitoring all IT 

projects within OGC and managing the Law Library. 

Information

In an effort to promote voluntary compliance with 

the law, the Information Division provides technical 

assistance to candidates, committees and others 

involved in elections through the Internet, e-mail, 

letters, phone conversations, publications and conferences. Responding to phone and written inquiries, 

members of the staff provide information on the statute, FEC regulations, advisory opinions and court 

cases. Staff also lead workshops on the law and 

produce guides, pamphlets and videos on how to 

comply with the law. Located on the second floor, the 

division is open to the public. Local phone: 202-694-

1100; toll-free phone: 800-424-9530.

Information Technology 

This division provides computer support for the 

entire Commission. Its responsibilities are divided into 

two general areas.

In the area of campaign finance disclosure, the 

IT Division enters information into the FEC database 

from all reports filed by political committees and 

other entities. The division is also responsible for the 

computer programs that sort and organize campaign 

finance data into indexes. These indexes permit a 

detailed analysis of campaign finance activity and 

provide a tool for monitoring contribution limits. The 

division also publishes the Reports on Financial Activity series of periodic studies on campaign finance 

and generates statistics for other publications.

Among its duties related to internal operations, the 

division provides computer support for the agency’s 

automation systems and for administrative functions 

such as management information, document tracking, personnel and payroll systems as well as the 

MUR prioritization system. 

Local phone: 202-694-1250; toll-free phone: 800-

424-9530.
Appendices 77

Inspector General

The FEC’s Inspector General (IG) has two major 

responsibilities: to conduct internal audits and investigations to detect fraud, waste and abuse within the 

agency and to improve the economy and effectiveness of agency operations. The IG is required to report its activities to Congress on a semiannual basis. 

These reports may include descriptions of any serious problems or deficiencies in agency operations as 

well as corrective steps taken by the agency.

Law Library

The Commission law library, a government document depository, is located on the eighth floor and 

is open to the public. The library contains a basic 

reference collection, which includes materials on 

campaign finance reform, election law and current 

political activity. Visitors to the law library may use its 

computers to access the Internet and FEC databases. FEC advisory opinions and computer indices of 

enforcement proceedings (MURs) may be searched 

in the law library or the Public Disclosure Division. Local phone: 202-694-1600; toll-free: 800-424-9530.

Office of Administrative Review

The Office of Administrative Review (OAR) was 

established in 2000 after statutory amendments permitted the Commission to impose civil money penalties for violations of certain reporting requirements. 

Under the program, if the Commission finds “reason 

to believe” (RTB) that a committee failed to file a required report or notice, or filed it late, it will notify the 

committee of its finding and the amount of the proposed civil money penalty. Within 40 days, the committee may challenge the RTB finding. OAR reviews 

these challenges and may recommend that the Commission uphold the RTB finding and civil money penalty, uphold the RTB finding but modify or waive the 

civil money penalty, determine that no violation occurred or terminate its proceedings. OAR also serves 

as the Commission’s liaison with the U.S. Department 

of the Treasury on debt collection matters involving 

unpaid civil money penalties under this program.

Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution

The FEC established the Alternative Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) office to provide parties in enforcement actions with an alternative method for resolving 

complaints that have been filed against them or for 

addressing issues identified by the Reports Analysis 

Division or identified by the Audit Division during the 

course of an FEC audit. The program is designed 

to promote compliance with the federal campaign 

finance law and Commission regulations and to reduce the cost of processing complaints by encouraging settlements outside the agency’s normal enforcement track. 

Office of Human Resources and Labor 

Relations

The Office of Human Resources and Labor Relations provides policy guidance and operational 

support to managers and staff in all areas of human 

resources management. The Office plays a critical 

role in helping the Commission meet strategic performance goals by attracting, developing and retaining 

a highly qualified, diverse workforce and providing 

results-driven approaches to position management 

and classification, pay administration and compensation, performance management and human resource 

development. The Office also provides expert consultation regarding employee benefits and wellness and 

family-friendly programs that sustain and enhance 

the employer-employee relationship. Additionally, the 

Office administers the Commission’s labor-management relations program. Finally, the Office processes 

all personnel actions and maintains all official personnel records for Commission employees.

Planning and Management

This office develops the Commission’s budget and, 

each fiscal year, prepares a management plan determining the allocation and use of resources throughout the agency. Planning and Management monitors 

adherence to the plan and provides monthly reports 

measuring the progress of each division in achieving 

the plan’s objectives.
78 Appendices

Press Office

Staff in the Press Office are the Commission’s official media spokespersons. In addition to publicizing Commission actions and releasing statistics on 

campaign finance, they respond to all questions from 

representatives of the print and broadcast media. 

Located on the first floor, the office also handles requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Local 

phone: 202-694-1220; toll-free 800-424-9530.

Public Disclosure

The Public Disclosure Division processes incoming campaign finance reports from federal political 

committees and makes the reports available to the 

public. Located on the first floor, the division’s Public 

Records Office has a library with ample work space 

and knowledgeable staff to help researchers locate 

documents and computer data. The FEC encourages 

the public to review the many resources available, 

which include computer indexes, advisory opinions 

and closed MURs. 

The division’s Processing Office receives incoming 

reports and processes them into formats that can be 

easily retrieved. These formats include paper, microfilm and digital computer images that can be easily 

accessed from terminals in the Public Records Office 

and those of agency staff.

The Public Disclosure Division also manages Faxline, an automated faxing service for ordering FEC 

documents, forms and publications, available 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week.

Local phone: 202-694-1120; toll-free phone: 800-

424-9530; Faxline: 202-501-3413.

Reports Analysis

Campaign Finance Analysts assist committee officials in complying with reporting requirements and 

conduct detailed examinations of the campaign finance reports filed by political committees. If an error, omission or prohibited activity (e.g., an excessive 

contribution) is discovered in the course of reviewing 

a report, the analyst sends the committee a letter 

which requests that the committee either amend its 

reports or provide further information concerning a 

particular problem. By sending these letters (RFAIs), 

the Commission seeks to ensure full disclosure and 

to encourage the committee’s voluntary compliance 

with the law. Analysts also provide frequent telephone 

assistance to committee officials and encourage 

them to call the division with reporting questions or 

compliance problems. Local phone: 202-694-1130; 

toll-free phone 800-424-9530.

Staff Director and Deputy Staff Directors

The Staff Director is responsible for appointing 

staff, with Commission approval, and for implementing agency policy. The Staff Director monitors the 

administration of the agency by overseeing the Commission’s public disclosure activities, audit program, 

outreach efforts and review of reports.

Two Deputy Staff Directors assist in this supervision, one in the areas of budget, administration and 

computer systems and the other in the areas of audit 

and review.
79

Appendix 5

Statistics on Commission 

Operations

Summary of Disclosure Files

Total Filers 

Existing in 

2004

Filers 

Terminated 

as of 

12/31/04

Continuing 

Filers as of 

12/31/04

Number of 

Reports and 

Statements 

in 2004

Gross Receipts 

in 2004 

(dollars)

Gross 

Expenditures 

in 2004 

(dollars)

Presidential Candidate 

Committees 

216 50 166 1,394 1,695,553,261 1,899,374,045 

Senate Candidate Committees 548 194 354 5,685 744,925,828 906,667,245

House Candidate Committees 2,523 1,073 1,450 27,314 1,038,763,397 1,110,679,726

Federal Party Committees 605 160 445 9,432 3,146,937,098 3,154,360,110

Delegate Committees 1 0 1 12 557,105 485,897

Nonparty Committees 

Labor Committees 

Corporate Committees 

Membership, Trade and 

 Other Committees 

328 

1,758 

2,820 

27 

176 

478 

301 

1,582 

2,342 

3,792 

16,898 

24,457 

187,113,027 

446,577,476 

744,286,102 

215,942,925

422,786,515

755,464,066

Communication Cost Filers 346 0 346 262 0 33,001,739

 

Independent Expenditures by 

Persons Other Than 

Political Committees

529 53 476 905 4,373,909 11,096,811 

Electioneering Communications 47 0 47 346 194,999,780 130,160,588 
80 Appendices

Total

Reports Analysis Division

Documents processed 34,524

Reports reviewed 54,954

Telephone assistance and meetings 15,257

Requests for additional information (RFAIs) 10,730

Data coding and entry of RFAIs and

 miscellaneous documents 36,458

Compliance matters referred to Office

 of General Counsel or Audit Division 27

Administrative Fine cases initiated 221

Information Technology*

Documents receiving Pass I coding 25,102

Documents receiving Pass III coding 58,571

Documents receiving Pass I entry 87,017

Documents receiving Pass III entry 34,917

Transactions receiving Pass III entry

 • In-house 1,985,989

 •Contract 373,720

Public Disclosure Division

Campaign finance material processed

 (total pages) 1,198,294

Cumulative total pages of documents

available for review 28,864,889

Requests for campaign finance reports 4,432

Visitors 5,527

Total people served 22,458

Information telephone calls 12,499

Computer printouts provided 32,872

Faxline requests 358

Total income (transmitted to U.S. Treasury) 14,219

Contacts with state election offices 4,207

Notices of failure to file with state 

election offices 16

Divisional Statistics for Calendar Year 2004

 Total

Administrative Division

Contracting and procurement transactions 1,168

Publications prepared for print 31

Pages of photocopying 23,400,700

Information Division

Telephone inquiries 22,874

E-mail Inquiries 1,309

Information letters 39

Distribution of FEC materials 5,597

Prior notices (sent to inform filers

 of reporting deadlines) 41,711

Other mailings 12,424

Visitors 478

Public appearances by Commissioners

and staff 37

Roundtable workshops 10

Publications 31

Press Office

News releases 149

Telephone inquiries from press 5,720

Visitors 291

Freedom of Information Act

(FOIA) requests 46

Fees for materials requested under FOIA

 (transmitted to U.S. Treasury) 0

*Computer coding and entry of campaign finance information occur in 

two phases. In the first phase, Pass I, summary information is coded and 

entered into the computer within 48 hours of the Commission’s receipt 

of the report. During the second phase, Pass III, itemized information is 

coded and entered.
Appendices 81

Total

Office of General Counsel

Administrative Terminations

 Pending at beginning of 2004 0

 Opened 283

 Closed 282

 Pending at end of 2004 1

Advisory opinions

Requests pending at beginning of 2004 5

Requests received 45

Issued 39

 Not issued 9

Pending at end of 2004 2

 Compliance cases†

Pending at beginning of 2004 131

Opened 250

Closed 63

 Transferred to ADR 60

Pending at end of 2004 258

Ethics Guidance

 Pending at beginning of 2004 1

 Opened 94

 Closed 95

 Pending at end of 2004 0

Financial Disclosure Reports 

 Pending at beginning of 2004 4

 Opened 98

 Closed 99

 Pending at end of 2004 3

Law Library

 Telephone inquiries 687

 Visitors 527

Legal Review Audits

 Pending at beginning of 2004 20

 Opened 31

 Closed 21

 Pending at end of 2004 30

†In annual reports previous to 1994, the category “compliance cases” 

included only Matters Under Review (MURs). As a result of the Enforcement Priority System (EPS), the category has been expanded to include 

internally-generated matters in which the Commission has not yet made 

reason-to-believe findings.

Total

Legal Review FECA

 Pending at beginning of 2004 8

 Opened 54

 Closed 59

 Pending at end of 2004 3

Legal Review Non-FECA

 Pending at beginning of 2004 3

 Opened 109

 Closed 98

 Pending at end of 2004 14

Litigation

 Cases pending at beginning of 2004 37

Cases opened 23

Cases closed 12

 Cases pending at end of 2004 48

 Cases won 7

Cases lost 1

 Cases won/lost 0

Miscellaneous Cases 4

Regulations

 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 7

 Final or Interim Final Rules with

 Explanation and Justification 5

 Public Rulemaking Hearings 1

 Notice of Availability 2

Reports Filed with Office of Government Ethics

 Pending at beginning of 2004 1

 Opened 11

 Closed 11

 Pending at end of 2004 1

Special Projects

 Pending at beginning of 2004 0

 Opened 25

 Closed 24

 Pending at end of 2004 1

 
 

Pending 

at Beginning 

of Year 

Opened Closed 

 

Pending 

 at End

 of Year

Presidential 0 5 0 5

Presidential Joint Fundraising 0 0 0 0

Senate 6 0 6 0

House 11 1 9 3

Party (National) 0 0 0 0

Party (Other) 

Nonparty (PACs) 

Total 

2 

9 

28 

10 

7 

23 

4 

8 

27 

8

8

24

Status of Audits, 2004

Audits Completed by Audit Division, 1975 – 2004

 Total 

Presidential 130

Presidential Joint Fundraising 12

Senate 35

House 201

Party (National) 47

Party (Other) 169

Nonparty (PACs) 100

Total 694

Appendices 82
83

Audit Reports Publicly Released

Year Title 2* † Title 26 Total

1976 3 1 4

1977 6 6 12

1978 98‡ 10 108

1979 75‡ 9 84

1985 48‡ 11 59

1981 27‡ 13 40

1982 19 1 20

1983 22 0 22

1984 15 2 17

1985 4 9 13

1986 10 4 14

1987 12 4 16

1988 8 0 8

1989 2 7 9

1990 1 6 7

1991 5 8 13

1992 9 3 12

1993 10 2 12

1994 5 17 22

1995 12 0 12

1996 23 0 23

1997 7 6 13

1998 5 7 12

1999 20 7 27

2000 14 0 14

2001 15 1 16

2002 20 13 33

2003 21 4 25

2004 27 0 27

Total 543 151 694 

*Audits for cause: The FEC may audit any registered political 

committee: 1) whose reports do not substantially comply with the law; 

or 2) if the FEC has found reason to believe that the committee has 

committed a violation. 2 U.S.C. §§438(b) and 437g(a)(2). †Title 26 audits: The Commission must give priority to these 

mandatory audits of publicly funded committees. ‡Random audits: Most of these audits were performed under the 

Commission’s random audit policy (pursuant to the former 2 U.S.C. 

§438(a)(8)). The authorization for random audits was repealed by 

Congress in 1979.
85

Appendix 6

2004 Federal Register 

Notices 

2004-1

Filing dates for the Kentucky Special Election in the 

6th Congressional District (69 FR 1586, January 9, 

2004).

2004-2

Rulemaking Petition: Public Access to Materials Relating to Closed Enforcement Cases; Notice of Availability (69 FR 2083, January 14, 2004).

2004-3

Proposed Statement of Policy Regarding Naming 

of Treasurers in Enforcement Matters (69 FR 4092, 

January 28, 2004).

2004-4

Filing dates for the South Dakota Special Congressional Election (69 FR 5350, February 4, 2004).

2004-5

Final Rules and Explanation and Justification on the 

Extension of Administrative Fines (69 FR 6525, February 11, 2004).

2004-6

Political Committee Status; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 11736, March 11, 2004).

2004-7

Inaugural Committee Reporting and Prohibition on 

Accepting Donations; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 18301, April 7, 2004).

2004-8

Contributions and Donations by Minors; Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 18841, April 9, 2004).

2004-9

Schedule of matching fund submission dates and 

submission dates for Statements of Net Debts Outstanding Campaign Obligations for 2004 Presidential 

Candidates Post Date of Ineligibility (69 FR 21533, 

April 21, 2004).

2004-10

Filing dates for the North Carolina Special Election in 

the 1st Congressional District (69 FR 36086, June 28, 

2004).

2004-11

Coordinated and Independent Expenditures by Party 

Committees; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 

39373, June 30, 2004).

2004-12

Rulemaking petition: Exemption for the Promotion 

of Political Documentary Films from “Electioneering Communications;” Notice of Availability (69 FR 

52461, August 26, 2004).

2004-13

Presidential Inaugural Committee Reporting and Prohibition on Accepting Donations from Foreign Nationals; Final Rules and Explanation and Justification (69 

FR 59775, October 6, 2004).

2004-14

Coordinated and Independent Expenditures by Party 

Committees; Final Rules and Explanation and Justification (69 FR 63919, November 3, 2004).

2004-15

Political Committee Status; Final Rules and Explanation and Justification (69 FR 68056, November 23, 

2004).

2004-16

Technical Amendments to Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Rules and Explanation and Justification (69 

FR 68237, November 24, 2004).

2004-17

Political Party Committees Donating Funds to Certain 

Tax Exempt Organizations and Political Organizations 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 71388, December 9, 2004).
86 Appendices

2004-18

Payroll Deductions by Member Corporations for Contributions to a Trade Association’s Separate Segregated Fund; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 

76628, December 22, 2004).

2004-19

Filing Documents by Priority Mail, Express Mail, and 

Overnight Delivery Service; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (69 FR 76626, December 22, 2004).

2004-20

Policy Statement Regarding Treasurers Subject to 

Enforcement Proceedings (70 FR 3, January 3, 2005).
Appendices 87

Appendix 7

2004 Advisory Opinions

This appendix includes a comprehensive list of the 

Advisory Opinions (AOs) issued by the Commission 

throughout the year. Some of these advisory opinions 

are explored in greater detail in Chapter 3 “Legal Issues.”

AO 2003-36 

Fundraising by federal candidate/officeholder for 

section 527 organization (Republican Governors Association; issued January 12, 2004).

AO 2003-37 

Nonconnected PAC’s use of nonfederal funds for 

campaign activities (superseded in subsequent rulemaking) (Americans for a Better Country; issued February 18, 2004).

AO 2003-39 

Charitable matching plan conducted by collecting 

agent of trade association (Credit Union National 

Association, Credit Union Legislative Action Council 

of CUNA and North Carolina Local Government Employees’ Federal Credit Union; issued January 28, 

2004).

AO 2003-40 

Reporting independent expenditures (U.S. Navy Veterans’ Good Government Fund; issued February 6, 

2004).

AO 2004-1 

Endorsement ads result in contribution if coordinated 

communications; “stand-by-your-ad” disclaimer for 

ad authorized by two candidates (Bush-Cheney ’04 

and Alice Forgy Kerr for Congress; issued January 

29, 2004).

AO 2004-2 

Contributions from testamentary trusts (National Committee for an Effective Congress; issued February 26, 

2004).

AO 2004-3 

Conversion of authorized committee to multicandidate committee (Dooley for the Valley; issued March 

11, 2004).

AO 2004-4 

Abbreviated name of trade association SSF (Air 

Transportation Association of America PAC; issued 

March 11, 2004).

AO 2004-6 

Web-based meeting and services to candidates and 

political committees (Meetup, Inc.; issued March 25, 

2001).

AO 2004-7 

MTV’s mock Presidential election qualifies for press 

exemption—no contribution or electioneering communication results (MTV Networks; issued April 1, 

2004).

AO 2004-8 

Severance pay awarded to employee who resigns 

to run for Congress (American Sugar Cane League; 

issued April 30, 2004).

AO 2004-9 

State committee status of a party committee (The 

Green Rainbow Party; issued April 1, 2004).

AO 2004-10 

Stand by you ad disclaimer (Metro Networks Communications, Inc; issued April 10, 2004).

AO 2004-12 

Regional party organization established by several 

state party committees (Democratic state party committees of Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, 

Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana; issued June 14, 2004).

AO 2004-14 

Federal candidate’s appearance in public service 

announcement not solicitation, coordinated communication or electioneering communication (U.S. Representative Tom Davis; issued June 10, 2004).

AO 2004-15 

Film ads showing federal candidates are electioneering communications (David T. Hardy and Bill of 

Rights Education Foundation; issued June 25, 2004).
88 Appendices

AO 2004-17 

Federal candidate’s compensation for part-time employment (Becky Armendariz Klein; issued June 24, 

2004).

AO 2004-18 

Campaign committee’s purchase of candidate’s book 

at discounted price (Friends of Joe Lieberman; issued July 15, 2004).

AO 2004-19 

Earmarked contributions made via commercial web 

site (DollarVote.org, Inc.; issued August 20, 2004).

AO 2004-20 

Connecticut party convention considered an election 

(Adam Wood, Campaign Manager for Farrell for Congress; issued July 29, 2004).

AO 2004-22 

Unlimited transfers to state party committee (U.S. 

Representative Doug Bereuter; issued July 23, 2004).

AO 2004-23 

SSF’s solicitations of subsidiaries’ restricted classes 

(U.S. Oncology, Inc.; issued August 12, 2004).

AO 2004-24 

Use of contributor information by commercial software company (NGP Software, Inc.; issued August 

12, 2004).

AO 2004-25 

Senator/national party officer may donate personal 

funds to voter registration organizations that undertake federal election activity (Senator Jon Corzine; 

August 20, 2004). 

AO 2004-26 

Foreign national’s participation in activities of political 

committees (U.S. Representative Jerry Weller and 

Zury Rios Sosa; issued August 20, 2004).

AO 2004-27

Use of campaign funds to reimburse volunteer service from past election (Quayle 2000 Committee; 

issued September 9, 2004).

AO 2004-28

Disclosure of donations to state party committee’s 

building fund (Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure 

Board; issued September 9, 2004).

AO 2004-29 

Federal candidate’s support of ballot initiative committees (U.S. Representative Todd Akin and Todd 

Akin for Congress; issued September 30, 2004).

AO 2004-30 

Documentary and broadcast ads do not qualify for 

media exception from definition of electioneering 

communication (Citizens United; issued September 

10, 2004).

AO 2004-31 

Ads for business with same name as federal candidate not electioneering communications (Russ Darrow Group, Inc.; issued September 10, 2004).

AO 2004-32

SSF’s solicitation of affiliated LLC (Spirit Airlines, Inc.; 

issued September 30, 2004).

AO 2004-33 

Corporate-sponsored ads as electioneering communications and coordinated communications (Ripon 

Society and U.S. Representative Sue Kelly, issued 

September 10, 2004).

AO 2004-34

State committee status of party committee (Libertarian Party of Virginia; issued October 21, 2004).

AO 2004-35

Presidential candidates may use GELAC funds for 

recount expenses (Senator John Kerry, Senator John 

Edwards, Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc., and Kerry Edwards 2004 General Election Legal and Accounting 

Compliance Fund; issued September 30, 2004).
Appendices 89

AO 2004-36

Reporting in-kind contribution of office space (Mark 

Risley for Congress; issued October 7, 2004).

AO 2004-37 

Brochure advocating candidates not a contribution 

(U.S. Representative Maxine Waters, Citizens for 

Waters and People Helping People; issued October 

21, 2004). 

AO 2004-40 

State committee status of a party committee (Libertarian Party of Maryland; issued December 2, 2004).

AO 2004-41 

Disaffiliation of SSFs (CUNA Mutual insurance Society; issued December 16, 2004). 

AO 2004-42 

Limited liability company (LLC) as connected organization for SSF (Pharmavite LLC; issued December 

16, 2004).