September 2006 Federal Election Commission Volume 32, Number 9

Table of Contents Court Cases

Shays v. FEC III

On July 11, 2006, U.S. Representatives Christopher Shays 

and Martin Meehan (the plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint 

challenges the FEC’s recently 

amended regulations governing 

coordinated communications, 

federal election activity (FEA) and 

solicitations by federal candidates 

and officeholders at state party 

fundraising events. The plaintiffs 

claim that the rules do not comply with the judgment in Shays I

or with the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The 

complaint also alleges the FEC did 

not adequately explain and justify 

its actions. 

Court Complaint

In response to the court decisions and judgment in Shays I, the 

FEC held rulemaking proceedings 

during 2005 and 2006 to revise a 

number of its BCRA regulations, 

including the rules governing coordinated communications, certain 

definitions of FEA, and the solicitation of soft money by federal 

officeholders and candidates at 

state party fundraising events. For 

more information, see the August 

(continued on page 2) (continued on page 6)

Compliance

Record Civil Penalties in 

First Six Months of 2006

During the first six months of 

2006, FEC enforcement actions 

resulted in over $5 million in civil 

penalties, more than any full year 

in the Commission’s thirty-year 

history.

A large portion of the total 

came from the FEC’s conciliation agreement with the Federal 

Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 

(“Freddie Mac”), in which Freddie 

Mac agreed to pay a civil penalty 

of $3.8 million—the largest civil 

penalty in FEC history. 

The Commission also closed six 

other matters with penalties over 

$100,000 and eight matters with 

penalties of at least $50,000—

more cases in this penalty range 

than any other similar period in 

recent years. The FEC closed a 

total of 130 matters in the first six 

months of 2006. Additionally, the 

Commission collected a $222,000 

repayment of public funds improperly collected by the LaRouche 

campaign.

Violations in these cases included prohibited contributions 

from corporations and labor organizations, excessive contributions 

from individuals, contributions in 

the name of another, use of corpo-

 Court Cases

 1 Shays v. FEC III

 Compliance

 1 Record Civil Penalties in First Six 

Months of 2006

 6 MUR 5648

 6 MUR 5675

3 Advisory Opinions

 Reports

 3 Texas Special Election Reporting

 4 Ohio 3rd District Special Election 

Reporting

 7 Ohio 18th District Special Election 

Reporting

 7 FEC to Email Report Notices

 5 Alternative Dispute Resolution

 6 Nonfilers

 

 Statistics

 8 Congressional Candidates Raise 

$893.6M Through June 30

 8 Major Parties Raise $695M

 10 Semi-Annual PAC Count Shows 

Slight Increase in 2006

 11 Index 
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2006

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

Michael E. Toner, Chairman

Robert D. Lenhard, 

 Vice Chairman

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Hans A. von Spakovsky, 

 Commissioner

Steven T. Walther, Commissioner

Ellen L. Weintraub, Commissioner

Patrina M. Clark,

 Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, 

 General Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Meredith E. Metzler, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

2005 Record, page 1, the March 

2006 Record, page 2 and the July 

2006 Record, page 1. With respect 

to these challenged regulations, 

the plaintiffs allege that the FEC:

• Did not adequately address the 

questions and instructions of the 

district court and D.C. Circuit in 

Shays I; 

• Failed to promulgate new rules 

that comply with BCRA and the 

Shays I mandate; and 

• Provided inadequate explanation 

and justification for its actions. 

The plaintiffs contend, among 

other things, that the Commission’s revised regulations undermine the purposes of the BCRA by 

allowing soft money to continue to 

flow into federal elections and the 

federal political process.

Coordinated Communications. 

The plaintiffs charge that the 

Commission’s revised “content 

standard” impermissibly reduces 

the pre-election window for coordinated communications1 in House 

and Senate races from 120 days to 

90 days, in violation of the decision in Shays I. The plaintiffs also 

argue that the Commission impermissibly retained the election year 

“gap period” in Congressional 

races (which begins on the day of 

the primary and runs until 90 days 

before the general election) and 

preserved the Presidential 120-

day pre-primary window that was 

struck down by the court in Shays 

I. The cumulative effect of these 

actions, the plaintiffs charge, is to 

permit unregulated spending by 

candidates, political parties and 

others on coordinated communications in many states during much 

of the election year, provided the 

communications do not contain 

republished campaign materials or 

“express advocacy.” 

Agency Action Arbitrary and 

Capricious. According to the 

plaintiffs, the Commission relied 

almost exclusively on a set of data 

from TNS Media Intelligence/

CMAG to support its revised coordination regulations. The plaintiffs allege that the Commission’s 

use of the data was both arbitrary 

and capricious because the data do 

not support the revised regulations 

and, in some instances, actually 

undermine them. The plaintiffs 

further allege that, given the volume and complexity of the CMAG 

data and the fact that the Commission gave only five business 

days for public comment in its 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission violated the APA by failing to afford 

interested parties a meaningful 

opportunity to participate in the 

rulemaking.

Definitions of Federal Election Activity. In Shays I, the court 

held that the Commission had 

not provided adequate notice of 

the approach it took in defining 

FEA “voter registration” and FEA 

“GOTV activity.” The plaintiffs 

allege that the Commission unlawfully left intact the limitation that 

only activities that “assist voters 

by individualized means” may 

constitute FEA “voter registration” or FEA “GOTV” activity, 

and did not revise its definition of 

voter registration activity, thereby 

allowing state and local parties to 

fund substantial amounts of activities that influence federal elections with soft money in violation 

of BCRA’s “language, structure 

and purpose.” The plaintiffs also 

argue that the Commission failed 

to provide notice in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that it might 

limit the scope of “voter registration” and “GOTV” activities in 

this manner, which effectively denied parties the opportunity to offer comments that could persuade 

the agency to modify its rule.

Candidate and Officeholder 

Solicitation at State Party 

Fundraisers. In Shays I, the court 

found that the Commission failed 

to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its regulation governing 

candidate and officeholder solicitations at state party fundraisers. 

In its revised Explanation & 

Justification, the Commission 

contends that distinguishing 

between “informational speech” 

and “solicitations” at a state party 

fundraising events is more difficult than in other contexts and 

suggests that the unique difficulty 

arises largely from the special 

relationship between federal officeholders and candidates and 

their state parties. The plaintiffs 

argue that the Commission failed 

1 A communication that satisfies the 

payment, content and conduct prongs 

of the “coordinated communication 

test” is an in-kind contribution from 

the entity paying for the communication. 11 CFR 109.21.
September 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

to explain why the broad exemption is uniquely necessary in the 

state party fundraising context and 

contend that the Commission’s 

failure to provide a reasoned basis 

for the exemption fails to meet the 

APA’s requirements for reasoned 

decision-making.

Relief

The plaintiffs ask the court to 

declare the referenced regulations 

to be contrary to law, arbitrary and 

capricious, and an abuse of discretion. 

The plaintiffs also ask the court 

to:

• Enjoin the operation of the 

regulations and order the Commission to commence expedited 

rulemaking proceedings; 

• Direct the Commission to adopt 

appropriate interim regulations 

during its rulemaking proceedings; and

• Retain jurisdiction over the matter to ensure the Commission’s 

timely and sufficient compliance 

with the court’s decision.

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1:06CV01247

—Amy Pike

Texas Special Election Reporting

Texas has scheduled special elections on November 7, 2006, to fill the 

U.S. House seats affected by redistricting. The elections will be for Districts 

15, 21, 23, 25 and 28. There are two possible special elections to fill these 

seats, but only one may be necessary. If no candidate wins a majority of 

votes in the Special General Election, the top two vote-getters, regardless 

of party affiliation, will participate in a Special Runoff election on a date to 

be set by the Secretary of State after November 7. All runoff elections will 

be held on the same date. If a Special Runoff is held, the Commission will 

notify committees of the reporting dates for that election and the committees involved in both elections will be required to file Pre-General, PreRunoff, and Post-Runoff reports. Note that 48-hour notices are required of 

authorized committees that receive contributions of $1,000 or more for the 

Special General between October 19 and November 4. Political committees 

must file 24-hour notices of independent expenditures that aggregate at or 

above $1,000 between October 19 and November 5. This requirement is in 

addition to that of filing 48-hour notices of independent expenditures that 

aggregate $10,000 or more at other times during a calendar year. Additionally, the 60-day electioneering communications time period for the Special 

General runs from September 8 through November 7.1

If Only the Special General Is Held, Committees Must File:

Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

Books2 Mailing Date3 Date

Pre-General October 18 October 23 October 26

Post-General November 27 December 7 December 7

Year-End December 31 January 31 January 31

If Two Elections Are Held, Committees Involved Only in 

the Special General Must File:

 Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

 Books2 Mailing Date3 Date

Pre-General October 18 October 23 October 26

Year-End December 31 January 31 January 31

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

communications costing more than $10,000 in the aggregate in the calendar year 

must disclose this activity to the Commission within 24 hours of the distribution of 

the communication. See 11 CFR 100.29 and 104.20.

2

 This date indicates the end of a reporting period. A reporting period always 

begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new 

and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered.

3

 Reports filed electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filing date. A 

committee required to file electronically that instead files on paper reporting forms 

will be considered a nonfiler. Reports filed on paper and sent by registered or certified mail must be sent by postmarked by the mailing date (please note that a certificate of mailing is not an acceptable method). If using overnight mail, the delivery 

service must receive the report by the mailing date. “Overnight mail” includes 

Priority or Express Mail having a delivery confirmation, or an overnight delivery 

service with an online tracking system and scheduled for next day delivery service. 

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

on the filing date.

Advisory

Opinions

Advisory Opinion 2006-14

On June 22, 2006, the Commission considered, but did not approve, 

a draft advisory opinion concerning 

proposed communications by the 

National Restaurant Association’s 

political action committee (NRA 

PAC) to the general public. The 

proposed communications would expressly advocate the election or defeat of federal candidates and would 

solicit contributions—including 

earmarked contributions—for their 

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2006

4

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2006-22

Characterization of free legal 

services provided by a law firm to a 

candidate’s committee in court case 

addressing ballot eligibility (Wallace 

for Congress, July 21, 2006)

AOR 2006-24

FECA’s application to recount 

funds created by federal candidates 

and state party committees; permissible involvement of national parties 

in such funds (National Republican 

Senatorial Committee, Democratic 

Senatorial Campaign Committee, 

and the Republican Federal Committee of Pennsylvania, August 7, 2006)

AOR 2006-26

Contribution limits for special 

general election resulting from court 

order redrawing congressional district and nullifying primary election 

results (Texans for Henry Bonilla, 

August 17, 2006)

AOR 2006-25

Application of the Millionaires’ 

Amendment to personal funds spent 

before an unopposed primary to attack a presumptive general election 

opponent (Jon Kyl for US Senate, 

August 14, 2006)

Ohio 3rd District Special Election Reporting

On September 15, 2006, Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District will 

hold a Special Democratic Primary to choose a replacement for 

Stephanie Studebaker on the November general election ballot. 

Committees involved in this election must follow the reporting 

schedule below, unless they file on a monthly schedule. PACs and 

party committees that file monthly should continue to file according to their regular filing schedule. Note that 48-hour notices are 

required of authorized committees that receive contributions of 

$1,000 or more between August 27 and September 12. Political 

committees and other persons must file 24-hour notices of independent expenditures that aggregate at or above $1,000 between August 

27 and September 13. This requirement is in addition to that of 

filing 48-hour notices of independent expenditures that aggregate 

$10,000 or more at other times during a calendar year. The 30-day 

electioneering communications time period in connection with the 

primary runs from August 16 through September 15.1

Committees Involved in the Special Primary File:

 Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

 Books2 Mailing Date3 Date

Pre-Primary August 26 August 31 September 34

October Quarterly September 30 October 15 October 154

1

 Individuals and other groups not registered with the FEC who make 

electioneering communications costing more than $10,000 in the aggregate 

in the calendar year must disclose this activity to the Commission within 

24 hours of the distribution of the communication. See 11 CFR 100.29 and 

104.20.

2 This date indicates the end of a reporting period. A reporting period 

always begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the 

committee is new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must 

cover all activity that occurred before the committee registered.

3 Reports filed electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filing 

date. A committee required to file electronically that instead files on paper 

reporting forms will be considered a nonfiler. Reports filed on paper and 

sent by registered or certified mail must be sent by postmarked by the 

mailing date (please note that a certificate of mailing is not an acceptable 

method). If using overnight mail, the delivery service must receive the 

report by the mailing date. “Overnight mail” includes Priority or Express 

Mail having a delivery confirmation, or an overnight delivery service with 

an online tracking system and scheduled for next day delivery service. 

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

business on the filing date.

4 Notice that this deadline falls on a holiday or weekend. Filing dates are 

not extended when they fall on nonworking days.

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 3)

campaigns. The Commission voted 

3-2 on the draft but failed to approve 

it (approval of an advisory opinion 

requires the affirmative vote of four 

members of the Commission).
September 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

ADR Program Update

The Commission recently resolved seven additional cases under 

the Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) program. The respondents, 

the alleged violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

the final disposition of the cases are 

listed below.

1. The Commission reached 

an agreement with the Minnesota 

Democratic Farmer Labor Party, 

Kerry Gautier, treasurer, regarding the failure to report all receipts. 

The respondents acknowledged an 

inadvertent omission which occurred when the original report was 

filed prior to the reconciliation of 

bank records. They agreed to pay a 

$1,000 civil penalty and agreed to 

revise their procedures to ensure that 

bank reconciliation is done prior to 

filing reports with the Commission. 

Additionally, the respondents will 

send a representative to training on 

campaign finance reporting within 

12 months of the effective date of 

the agreement. (ADR 325*)

2. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the Harris County 

Republican Party, Larry Hicks, treasurer, regarding the failure to report 

and properly allocate administrative 

expenses. The respondents acknowledged an inadvertent violation due 

to inexperienced staff. Historically 

they were only involved in county 

and state election activities and had 

no experience with the allocation of 

federal disbursements. The respondents agreed to work with a RAD 

analyst to ensure that all reports are 

amended to accurately reflect the 

allocation of financial activity and 

will appoint a compliance specialist. 

(ADR 299*)

1

 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform 

Act of 2002 (BCRA) replaced the 

$25,000 annual limit on individual 

contributions with a biennial limit 

that covers an entire two-year election cycle. The limit is indexed to 

inflation, and is $101,400 for the 

2005-06 cycle. *This case was internally generated.

3. The Commission closed the 

file concerning Max Gelwix regarding contributions in excess of the 

$25,000 annual contribution limit of 

2002.1 The ADR Office recommended that the Commission dismiss the 

case, and the Commission agreed to 

take no further action. (ADR 310/

MUR 5706)

4. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the New Hampshire 

Republican State Committee, Robert 

Scott, treasurer, regarding the failure 

to file 24-Hour Notices for independent expenditures. The respondents acknowledged an inadvertent 

violation of FECA due to a lack of 

experience with federal campaign 

activity. The respondents agreed to 

pay a $4,500 civil penalty, as well 

as create a FEC Compliance officer 

position, prepare a policy setting 

forth the responsibilities of the position, and attend an FEC compliance 

seminar. (ADR 305*)

5. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the North Carolina 

Democratic Party—Federal, Muriel 

K. Offerman, treasurer, regarding the 

failure to file 24-Hour Notices for 

independent expenditures. The respondents acknowledged an inadvertent omission of filing the 24-Hour 

Notices and noted that the current 

treasurer was not the treasurer at 

the time the notices were to have 

been filed. The respondents agreed 

to pay a $3,500 penalty, appoint a 

Compliance Officer, and attend an 

FECA compliance seminar within 

12 months. (ADR 316*)

6. The Commission reached an 

agreement with the CT Democratic 

State Central Committee, Emma 

Pierce, treasurer, regarding the 

failure to accurately report receipts. 

The respondents acknowledged an 

inadvertent violation of FECA due 

to an unanticipated volume of financial transactions during the reporting 

period. The respondents agreed to 

pay a $1,500 civil penalty as well as 

appoint an FEC compliance officer 

and send a representative to attend 

an FEC reporting and compliance 

seminar within 12 months. (ADR 

313*)

7. The Commission closed the 

file concerning William Bain Adams 

regarding contributions in excess 

of the $25,000 annual contribution 

limit of 2002.1 The ADR Office 

recommended that the Commission 

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

(ADR 326/MUR 5706)

—Meredith E. Metzler

Commission 

Calendar Always 

Up-to-Date 

 Between issues of the Record, 

you can stay up-to-date on the 

latest FEC activity by visiting 

the Commission Calendar on 

our web site at http://www.fec.

gov/Fec_calendar/maincal.cfm. 

The Calendar lists Commission 

meetings, reporting deadlines, 

conferences and outreach events, 

advisory opinion and rulemaking 

comment periods and other useful 

information. Each calendar entry 

links directly to the relevant 

documents, so you can quickly 

access detailed information on the 

subjects that interest you. 

 While you’re visiting www.fec.

gov, be sure to explore the rest 

of our site to review the latest 

campaign finance reports and 

data, research enforcement actions 

and litigation, read press releases 

and get help complying with the 

law. Visit today and add our site to 

your favorites.
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2006

6

MUR 5648: Millionaires’ 

Amendment Reporting 

On July 19, 2006, the Commission announced a conciliation 

agreement with J. Edgar Broyhill, II, 

the Broyhill for Congress committee 

and its treasurer Tim Nerhood (the 

respondents) in which they agreed 

to pay a $71,000 civil penalty for 

violating the reporting requirements 

of the Millionaires’ Amendment.

Background

Under the Millionaires’ Amendment, House candidates must 

notify the FEC and their opponents 

within 24 hours after they exceed the 

$350,000 personal spending threshold and with each additional $10,000 

in personal spending thereafter. Depending on the opposing candidate’s 

own fundraising and personal spendCongressional Committees 

Fail to File Reports

The Brenner for U.S. Senate 

Committee failed to file a July Quarterly Report. The Redwing Ron 

Committee failed to file a 12-Day 

Pre-Primary Report for the August 

3, 2006, Tennessee primary election and the Nevenich for Congress 

Committee failed to file a 12-Day 

Pre-Primary Report for the August 

15, 2006, Nevada primary election.

Prior to the reporting deadlines, 

the Commission notified all affected 

committees of their filing obligations. Committees that failed to file 

the required reports were subsequently notified that their reports 

had not been received and that their 

names would be published if they 

did not respond within four business 

days.

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act requires the Commission to publish the names of principal campaign 

committees if they fail to file 12-day 

pre-election reports or the quarterly 

report due before the candidate’s 

election. 2 U.S.C. §437g(b). The 

agency may also pursue enforcement 

actions against nonfilers and late filers on a case-by-case basis.

—Meredith E. Metzler

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

MUR 5675: Improper 

Financial Reporting

On July 20, 2006, the Commission announced that Americans for 

a Republican Majority (ARMPAC) 

agreed to pay a $115,000 civil 

penalty for misstating its financial 

activity, failing to report debts and 

obligations, and improperly allocating expenses between federal and 

nonfederal accounts. ARMPAC has 

also agreed to repay a debt owed to 

its nonfederal account.

Background

The Act requires all committees 

to file accurate reports of all receipts, 

disbursements, debts and obligations. An FEC audit report covering ARMPAC’s activity between 

January 1, 2001 and December 31, 

2002 showed that ARMPAC failed 

to disclose $322,306 in debts owed 

to 25 vendors. Additionally, ARMPAC inaccurately reported $74,295 

of financial activity in 2001 and 

$166,340 in 2002.

Furthermore, the Act requires 

committees with separate accounts 

for federal and nonfederal activities 

allocate expenses for shared activities between the accounts to ensure 

that the federal account pays its 

share of the costs associated with 

that activity. While ARMPAC had 

two accounts, it did not allocate 

expenses between the accounts properly. ARMPAC’s nonfederal account 

paid $203,483 of allocable expenses 

for administrative costs, generic getNonfilers

rate funds to reimburse employee 

contributions, and illegal corporate 

facilitation of political contributions.

Summaries of each FEC 

enforcement action can 

be found at http://www.

fec.gov/press/press2006/

2006ComplianceReleases.shtml. 

—Meredith E. Metzler

Need FEC Material 

In a Hurry?

 Use FEC Faxline to obtain 

FEC material fast. It operates 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

Hundreds of FEC documents—

reporting forms, brochures, FEC 

regulations—can be faxed almost 

immediately.

 Use a touch tone phone to dial 

202/501-3413 and follow the 

instructions. To order a complete 

menu of Faxline documents, enter 

document number 411 at the 

prompt.

ing, he or she may become eligible 

for increased contribution limits.

The respondents failed to file a 

required notification within 24 hours 

of Mr. Broyhill making a personal 

loan that pushed his personal spending over the $350,000 threshold for 

the primary election. Subsequently, 

they also failed to file notifications 

within 24 hours of additional expenditures of personal funds totaling 

$365,000. 

—Meredith E. Metzler

out-the-vote drives and fundraising 

events that should have been paid 

from its federal account.

Conciliation Agreement

ARMPAC admitted all violations 

and agreed to transfer any receipts 

of $5,000 or more to its nonfederal 

account. The Committee also agreed 

to not make any expenditures in 

excess of $5,000 until the debt to its 

nonfederal account has been paid in 

full.

—Meredith E. Metzler
September 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

Reports

FEC to Email Report Notices

As part of its continuing migration toward electronic communications with its constituents, 

the Federal Election Commission 

will send reporting notices for the 

October 15 quarterly report both 

on paper and by email. Committees 

that have disclosed an email address 

on their Statement of Organization 

(FEC Form 1) will notice that their 

electronic reporting reminder arrives 

well before the paper copy comes 

in the mail. Of course, improved 

timeliness is only one of the advantages of electronic communications. 

Email will offer opportunities for 

new types of communications and 

will simplify the process of providing information tailored specifically 

to each committee’s needs, all while 

saving tax dollars.

All political committees are 

encouraged to provide a current 

email address on their Statement 

of Organization (FEC Form 1), and 

committees that file electronically 

must provide one. The Commission 

recognizes that disclosing a personal 

email address on a public document 

may raise privacy concerns. For 

that reason, committees may wish 

to create a separate email account 

intended solely for this purpose. As 

the agency begins to communicate 

with committees electronically, 

keeping that email address current 

will be essential. Keep watching for 

more information about this exciting 

new program and be sure to keep 

your committee’s email address 

current on your Form 1. (The form 

is available from the Commission 

or on its web site at http://www.fec.

gov/info/forms.shtml.) 

Ohio 18th District Special Election Reporting

On September 14, 2006, Ohio’s 18th Congressional District will hold 

a Special Republican Primary to choose a replacement for U.S. Representative Bob Ney on the November general election ballot. Committees involved in this election must follow the reporting schedule below, 

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

that file monthly should continue to file according to their regular filing 

schedule. Note that 48-hour notices are required of authorized committees that receive contributions of $1,000 or more between August 26 and 

September 11. Political committees and other persons must file 24-hour 

notices of independent expenditures that aggregate at or above $1,000 

between August 26 and September 12. This requirement is in addition to 

that of filing 48-hour notices of independent expenditures that aggregate 

$10,000 or more at other times during a calendar year. The 30-day electioneering communications time period in connection with the primary 

runs from August 15 through September 14.1

Committees Involved in the Special Primary File:

 Close of Reg./Cert./Overnight Filing

 Books2 Mailing Date3 Date

Pre-Primary August 25 August 30 September 24

October Quarterly September 30 October 15 October 154

1

 Individuals and other groups not registered with the FEC who make electioneering communications costing more than $10,000 in the aggregate in the calendar year must disclose this activity to the Commission within 24 hours of the 

distribution of the communication. See 11 CFR 100.29 and 104.20.

2 This date indicates the end of a reporting period. A reporting period always 

begins the day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is 

new and has not previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity 

that occurred before the committee registered.

3 Reports filed electronically must be submitted by midnight on the filing date. 

A committee required to file electronically that instead files on paper reporting forms will be considered a nonfiler. Reports filed on paper and sent by 

registered or certified mail must be sent by postmarked by the mailing date 

(please note that a certificate of mailing is not an acceptable method). If using 

overnight mail, the delivery service must receive the report by the mailing date. 

“Overnight mail” includes Priority or Express Mail having a delivery confirmation, or an overnight delivery service with an online tracking system and 

scheduled for next day delivery service. Reports sent by other means must be 

received by the Commission’s close of business on the filing date.

4 Notice that this deadline falls on a holiday or weekend. Filing dates are not 

extended when they fall on nonworking days.
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2006

8

Democrats Republicans

Median Receipts of House Candidates Through June 30 of an Election Year–1996-2006

Thousands of Dollars Thousands of Dollars

Incumbents

Challengers

Open Seats

Congressional Candidates 

Raise $893.6 Million 

Through June 30

Congressional campaigns raised 

a total of $893.6 million in the 

first 18 months of the 2006 cycle, 

a 12 percent increase from the 

comparable period of the 2003-

2004 campaign. From January 

1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, 2,080 

Senate and House candidates spent 

$515.3 million, 6 percent more 

than in 2004, and reported $575.5 

million in cash on hand, a 19 percent increase from 2004.

Contributions from individuals 

were the largest source of candidate support with $554 million 

and 62 percent of the total. PACs 

contributed 12 percent of the total 

with $232 million, while candidates themselves contributed or 

loaned $75.5 million to their own 

campaigns, eight percent of all 

receipts. Compared with the same 

period in 2004, contributions from 

individuals grew 14 percent and 

PAC contributions increased by 23 

Statistics percent, while contributions and 

loans from candidates to their own 

campaign fell 22 percent.

Additional Information

Additional information is 

available in a Press Release dated 

August 3, 2006, which is available 

on the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/press/press2006/

2006News.shtml. The release 

provides:

• An overall summary of all 

Senate and House campaigns 

based on political party and candidate status (incumbent, challenger, 

and open seat);

• Median activity for various 

types of House races and comparisons with prior elections;

• House campaign fundraising 

from April 1, 2006 through June 

30, 2006 only;

• Comparable statistics for 

seven campaign cycles;

• Six-year financial summaries for 2006 Senate candidates 

through March 31,2006; and

• Top 50 rankings of candidates 

in various categories.

—Meredith E. Metzler

Major Parties Raise $695M

The Democratic and Republican 

parties reported raising $695 million in hard money at the national, 

state and local levels during the 

first 18 months of the 2006 election cycle—six percent less than 

they raised during the comparable 

period in 2004 and eight percent 

less than in 2002, the last midterm 

election.

The 2006 election cycle is the 

second in which national parties 

are prohibited from receiving soft 

money—funds from sources or in 

amounts not permitted in federal 

elections. The accompanying 

graph on page 9 compares hard 

money fundraising by national 

party committees from January 1, 

2005 through June 30, 2006 with 

hard and soft money receipts from 

previous cycles.

During this 18-month period, 

Democratic Party committees 

reported raising $289.3 million, 

an increase of four percent over 

the same period in 2004. Republican Party committees raised 

$405.7 million—13 percent less 

than 2004. Federal fundraising 

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
September 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

by parties has often been stable 

or even declined slightly in cycles 

without a Presidential campaign. 

While Democrats closed the gap in 

fundraising with their Republican 

counterparts, Republican Party 

committees still raised $116 million more than Democrats through 

June.

The greatest percentage increase in fundraising came from 

the Democratic Senate Campaign 

Committee (DSCC), whose $73 

million total was 48 percent higher 

than the comparable 2004 period. 

The Democratic Congressional 

Campaign Committee (DCCC) increased its receipts by 37 percent 

to $76.6 million. The National 

Republican Senatorial Committee 

(NRSC) had an increase of 24 percent from the last election cycle, 

with receipts of $62.6 million.

Contributions from individuals 

continue to be the largest source 

of funds for all party committees, representing more than 77 

percent of Democratic Party funds 

and 89 percent of Republican 

funds. Contributions by PACs, 

whose limits were generally not 

changed by the BCRA, accounted 

for 10 percent of all Democratic 

party receipts and 8 percent of all 

Republican party receipts. The 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

of 2002 (BCRA) increased contribution limits for individuals giving 

to national party committees. The 

limit increased from $20,000 per 

year prior to passage of the BCRA 

to $25,000 annually in 2003-2004 

and $26,700 annually in 2005-

2006, due to indexing for inflation.

Transfers to party committees 

from the campaign committees of 

Members of Congress have comprised an increasing role in party 

finance in recent cycles. Democratic House members’ campaigns 

accounted for 20 percent of the 

funds raised by the DCCC through 

June 2006. Republican members’ 

campaign contributions accounted 

for eight percent of the total for 

the NRSC.

BCRA included a provision permitting state and local parties to 

receive some limited funds raised 

under federal and state law for 

purposes indirectly affecting federal elections, such as get-out-thevote activities. Thus far, 31 party 

committees have reported raising 

$342,000 of these funds, called 

“Levin funds.” The committees 

reported spending $197,000 in 

Levin funds.

Spending by Democratic party 

committees increased 18 percent 

over 2004 levels to $204.6 million. Republican committees have 

spent $316.5 million, six percent 

less than 2004. Overall, Republican party committees reported 

cash balances of $112.1 million 

with debts of $2 million, and 

(continued on page 10)

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Receipts Disbursements Cash-on-Hand

91-92 93-94 95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06

Democratic National, Senatorial, Congressional

& State/Local Party Committee Totals Through

June 30 of an Election Year

In Millions

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

Receipts Disbursements Cash-on-Hand

91-92 93-94 95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06

Republican National, Senatorial, Congressional

& State/Local Party Committee Totals Through

June 30 of an Election Year

In Millions
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2006

10

Democratic committees held $89.9 

million in cash on hand and $2 

million in debts.

For more information on party 

committee statistics, please see 

the July 31, 2006 Press Release 

entitled, “Party Financial Activity 

Summarized” on the FEC web site 

at www.fec.gov/press/press2006/

2006News.shtml. This release 

includes extensive statistics such 

as:

• Democratic Party Committee 

Financial Activity;

• Republican Party Committee 

Financial Activity; 

• Transfers from Candidate Committees;

• Joint Fundraising and Campaign 

Committee Transfers to Party 

Senate Committees; and 

• National Party Transfers to States.

—Meredith E. Metzler

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital Non-

 Corporate Labor Health erative Stock connected1

 Total

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jul. 04 1,555 306 877 34 97 1,174 4,040

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

Jul. 052 1,646 302 936 37 103 1,267 4,291

Jan. 06 1,622 290 925 37 103 1,233 4,210

Jul. 06 1,621 283 935 40 105 1,233 4,217

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

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

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

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

solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

2

 During the second six months of 2005, 189 PACs were administratively terminated 

for inactivity.

Semiannual PAC Count—2000-2006

Semi-Annual PAC Count 

Shows Slight Increase in 

2006

The number of federally registered political action committees 

(PACs) increased slightly during 

the first half of 2006, from 4,210 on 

January 1, 2006 to 4,217 on July 1, 

2006.

Corporate PACs remain the largest category, with 1,621 committees. Nonconnected PACs are the 

second-largest group, with 1,233 

committees. The chart below shows 

the complete mid-year and year-end 

PAC figures since 2000.

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

agency’s July 14, 2006 press release. 

The press release is available on 

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

gov/press/press2006/2006News.

shtml or by calling the FEC’s Public 

Disclosure and Press offices at 

800/424-9530.

—Meredith E. Metzler

Statistics

Enforcement Query (continued from page 9)

System Available on 

FEC Web Site

 The FEC continues to update 

and expand its Enforcement 

Query System (EQS), a webbased search tool that allows 

users to find and examine public 

documents regarding closed 

Commission enforcement matters. 

Using current scanning, optical 

character recognition and text 

search technologies, the system 

permits intuitive and flexible 

searches of case documents and 

other materials. 

 Users of the system can search 

for specific words or phrases 

from the text of all public case 

documents. They can also 

identify single matters under 

review (MURs) or groups of 

cases by searching additional 

identifying information about 

cases prepared as part of the 

Case Management System. 

Included among these criteria 

are case names and numbers, 

complainants and respondents, 

timeframes, dispositions, legal 

issues and penalty amounts. The 

Enforcement Query System may 

be accessed on the Commission’s 

web site at www.fec.gov.

 Currently, the EQS contains 

complete public case files for all 

MURs closed since January 1, 

1999. In addition to adding all 

cases closed subsequently, staff is 

working to add cases closed prior 

to 1999. Within the past year, 

Alternative Dispute Resolution 

(ADR) cases were added to the 

system. All cases closed since the 

ADR program’s October 2000 

inception can be accessed through 

the system.
September 2006 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

The first number in each citation refers to the numeric month of 

the 2006 Record issue in which the 

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

the page number in that issue. For 

example, “1:4” means that the article 

is in the January issue on page four.

Index

Advisory Opinions

2005-16: Press Exemption Applied 

to Web Sites, 1:11

2005-18: Candidate May Host Radio 

Program, 1:12

2005-19: Radio Program Qualifies 

for Press Exemption, 2:3

2005-20: Payroll Deduction for LLP 

PAC, 3:8

2006-1: Committee May Accept 

Discount in Normal Course of 

Business, 4:4

2006-2: LLC Does Not Qualify as 

Membership Organization, 4:4

2006-3: Common Username and 

Password Acceptable for SSF Web 

Site, 5:6

2006-4: Candidate Contributions to 

Ballot Initiative Committee, 5:6

2006-6: Millionaires’ Amendment 

Applied to California Special 

Election, 4:5

2006-7: Committee May Promote 

Candidate’s Book on Web Site, 6:4

2006-8: Corporation Collecting and 

Forwarding Contributions from 

Individuals to Political Committees, 6:4

2006-9: SSF’s Treatment of Checks 

Received from Partnerships, 6:5

2006-10: LLC’s PSAs Permissible 

under FECA, 8:5

2006-11: Allocation of Payment for 

Mass Mailings, 6:5

2006-12: Labor Organization Affiliation During Merger, 6:6

2006-13: Candidate’s Compensation 

According to Firm’s Plan is not a 

Contribution, 6:7

2006-14: SSF’s Solicitation of the 

General Public for Earmarked 

Contributions to Candidates, 9:3

2006-15: Domestic Subsidiaries of 

Foreign Corporation May Donate 

to State and Local Elections, 7:5

2006-16: Misappropriated Funds, 

6:8

2006-17: Berkeley Electric Cooperative, Inc., 8:6

2006-18: Committee May Promote 

Candidate’s Book Sales, 8:8

2006-19: Local Party Communications Not FEA, 7:5

Compliance

Administrative Fine Program Extended, 1:15

Administrative Fine Update, 5:9

Alternative Dispute Resolution Update, 1:15, 2:7, 3:9, 5:10, 7:9, 9:5

MURs 5305 & 5398: Corporate and 

Excessive Contributions in the 

Name of Another, 5:8

MUR 5388: Accepting Excessive 

Contributions, 6:2

MUR 5390: Chartered Corporation 

Pays Record $3.8M Civil Penalty, 

6:1

MUR 5453: Excessive and Prohibited Contributions, 4:8

MUR 5628: Contributions in the 

Name of Another, 1:14

MUR 5635: No-Risk Contract Results in Corporate Contributions, 

2:6

MUR 5648: Millionaires’ Amendment Reporting, 9:6

MUR 5675, Improper Financial 

Reporting, 9:6

Nonfilers, 7:8, 8:9, 9:6

Policy Statement on Payroll Deduction Recordkeeping, 8:1

Record Civil Penalties in First Six 

Months of 2006, 9:1

Sharpton Repayment Agreement, 2:6

Correction

2006 Coordinated Party Expenditures, 4:11

Reports Due in 2006, 2:10

Court Cases

____ v. FEC

– CCL, 5:7, 6:3

– CREW, 1:13

– Davis, 8:1

– EMILY’s List, 2:5

– LaRouche, 4:7

– Liffrig v. FEC, 2:5

– Kean for Congress, 3:7

– Shays II, 6:1

– Shays III, 9:1

– Wisconsin Right to Life, 3:1 

FEC v. ____

– Club for Growth, 8:2

– Kalogianis, 3:8

– Reform Party, 1:13

Randall v. Sorrell, 8:3

Information

FEC Names New Staff Director, 8:9

IRS Report on Political Activity 

Compliance by Exempt Organizations, 4:9

Party Activities

2006 Coordinated Party Expenditure 

Limits, 3:5

Regulations

Coordinated Communications 

NPRM, 1:2; final rules, 7:1

Electioneering Communications, 

final rules, 2:1

FEA final rules, 3:2

FEA interim final rule, 5:3

Internet final rules, 5:1

Petition for Rulemaking, EC Exemption, 4:2

Public Hearing on Coordinated 

Communications, 3:3

Revised E&J for “Agent,” 3:1

Solicit and Direct, final rules, 4:1

State, District and Local Party Committee Wages, final rules, 1: 3

Reports

Alabama Primary Runoff Delayed, 

6:9

April Quarterly Reporting Reminder, 

4:1

California Special Election Reporting: 50th District, 2:4

Connecticut Convention Reporting 

Dates, 6:9

Due in 2006, 1:4, 2:10

FECFile Update, 3:11

FEC Form Instructions Revised, 6:9

FEC to Email Report Notices, 9:7

July Reporting Reminder, 7:1

Ohio 3rd District Special Election 

Reporting, 9:4

(continued on page 12)
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 2006

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Ohio 18th District Special Election 

Reporting, 9:7

Texas Special Election Reporting, 

9:3

Statistics

Congressional Campaigns Raise 

$657.2M, 7:6

Congressional Campaigns Raise 

$893.6M, 9:8

Major Parties Raise $555.2M, 7:7

Major Parties Raise $695M, 9:8

PACs Raise $477.4M in 2005, 4:7

Party Committees Raise Over $430 

Million, 5:10

Semi-Annual PAC Count Shows 

Slight Increase in 2006, 9:10

Senate Fundraising Figures, 2:8

Index

(continued from page 11) Web Site

Administrative Fines Calculator, 

2:10

Commission Calendar Always UpTo-Date, 1:18

E&J Compilation Now Available on 

FEC Web Site, 4:10

E-mail @ FEC.gov, 7:10

FEC Web Site Presents Podcasts, 2:9

FEC Launches Treasurers’ Web 

Page with RSS, 7:10

New Search Engine for FEC Web 

Site, 4:10