July 1996 Federal Election Commission Volume 22, Number 7

Table of Contents

Audits

1 Audit Report on Carol Moseley

Braun for U.S. Senate

4 Audit Reports Made Public

Court Cases

1 Clifton v. FEC

5 DSCC v. FEC (95-0349)

6 Grover v. FEC

6 On Appeal?

Compliance

2 Arkansas Primary Nonfiler

2 MURs Released to the Public

Publications

3 FEC Issues 1995 Annual Report

6 Advisory Opinions

Statistics

 7 Increase in Congressional

Fundraising

 7 GOP Nearly Doubles Democratic

Party’s Fundraising and Spending

Information

12 Flashfax Menu Revised

14 Index

Audits Court Cases

Audit Report on Carol

Moseley Braun for U.S.

Senate

An FEC audit of Carol Moseley

Braun for U.S. Senate (IL), the

Senator’s principal campaign

committee for her 1992 race, found

that the committee:

• Misstated its financial activity,

including overstating receipts and

disbursements by $283,336 and

$249,212, respectively;

• Accepted $92,380 in violation of

the contribution limits for individuals and political committees;

• Accepted $56,941 in post-primary

contributions in excess of what

was needed to retire its primary

election debt;

• Made six cash deposits totaling

$13,085, which exceeded the limit

for anonymous cash contributions

or which were not adequately

documented so as to reveal the

source of the funds;

• Failed to properly itemize and

disclose a significant number of

contributions from individuals;

• Accepted contributions forwarded

with inadequate documentation by

telemarketing and direct mail firms;

• Failed to itemize contributions that

were collected and transferred by

joint fundraising entities;

(continued on page 4)

Clifton v. FEC

On May 20, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Maine invalidated the FEC’s

regulations on voting records and

voter guides because they regulate

issue advocacy and therefore go

beyond the FEC’s authority.

Background

The Maine Right to Life Committee (MRLC) is a nonprofit membership corporation established for the

purpose of advocating pro-life

stances. MRLC uses its corporate

funds to create and distribute to its

members and the general public

voter guides and voting records.

Robin Clifton is a Maine voter who

wishes to receive this information.

FEC regulations at 11 CFR

114.4(c)(4) and (5) make it illegal

for a corporation or labor organization to distribute voting records or

voter guides to the general public if

such materials expressly advocate

the election or defeat of a clearly

identified candidate or if the organization consults or coordinates with

any candidates concerning the content

or distribution of such materials. At

11 CFR 114.4(c)(5)(ii), the FEC

lists additional restrictions for voter

guides, such as prohibiting a corporate or labor organization from

(continued on page 4)
2

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501-3413 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TDD)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Lee Ann Elliott, Chairman

John Warren McGarry,

Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Dario Bard, Editor

Compliance

Arkansas Primary Nonfiler

The Bill Powell for Congress

committee was the only candidate

committee that failed to file a 1996

pre-election report for Arkansas’s

June 11 runoff election to select a

Republican nominee for the 2nd

Congressional District. See the FEC

news release of June 7, 1996.

The FEC is required by law to

publicize the names of nonfiling

candidate committees. 2 U.S.C.

§438(a)(7). The FEC pursues

enforcement actions against nonfilers

on a case-by-case basis. ✦

MURs Released to the Public

Listed below are summaries of

FEC enforcement cases (Matters

Under Review or MURs) recently

released for public review. This

listing is based on the FEC news

releases of May 21 and 31. Files on

MUR 3800

Respondent: Mississippi Democratic Party Political Action Committee (MS)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely; failure to amend

Statement of Organization

Disposition: $15,000 civil penalty

MUR 4053

Respondents: (a) Friends of Susan

Bitter Smith, Karen Crotty, treasurer

(AZ); (b) Susan Bitter Smith (AZ)

Complainants: Arizona State

Democratic Committee, Steve

Owens, Chairman

Subject: Use of contributor information for solicitation purposes

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action; (b) no

reason to believe

MUR 4110

Respondents (all in CO):

(a) William F. Eggert; (b) Bill

Eggert for Congress Committee,

Patrick W. Achatz, treasurer;

(c) Public Information Corporation;

(d) Colorado Republican Federal

Campaign Committee, Douglas L.

Jones, treasurer

Complainants: Shroeder for Congress Committee, Inc., Jeffrey B.

Dorschner, campaign manager (CO)

Subject: Disclaimer

Disposition: (a-d) No reason to believe

MUR 4178

Respondents: (a) Lynn Yeakel for

Senate, Sidney D. Rosenblatt,

treasurer (PA); (b) various individuals

(PA, VT, NY); (c) PAC 250, Dean

Vance, treasurer (PA); (d) Indian

American Political Affairs Committee

—Pennsylvania Chapter

Complainant: FEC initiated (Audit)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

failure to maintain records of

persons contributing in excess of

$50; failure to dispose of cash

contributions over $50; failure to

properly itemize disbursements

Disposition: (a) $32,912 civil

closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

MUR 3181

Respondents (all in MI): (a) The

Honorable Barbara-Rose Collins;

(b) Collins for Congress, Terry Hasse,

treasurer; (c) various individuals

Complainant: Sua sponte

Subject: Excessive contributions (in

the form of guaranteed loans

totaling $75,000); failure to report

loans accurately

Disposition: (a-b) Reason to

believe, but took no further action

(this matter has been reported to the

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct for action that it deems

appropriate); (c) reason to believe,

but took no further action; sent

admonishment letters

MUR 3716

Respondents (all in AL): (a) Shelby

for U.S. Senate Committee, Pamela

B. Blackwell, treasurer; (b) Alabama Democratic Conference

(ADC), et al.; (c) A-VOTE, Paul

Hubert, treasurer; (d) Timbes and

Yeager, Inc., William Yeager,

President; (e) Jim Sullivan

Complainants: Alabama Republican

Party, J. Elbert Peters, Chairman

Subject: Failure to register and

report; failure to maintain separate

bank accounts for federal activity;

disclaimers; excessive contributions;

failure to adequately report purpose

of disbursements

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action (failure to

adequately report purpose of

disbursements), sent admonishment

letter; no reason to believe (excessive contributions); (b) no reason to

believe (corporate contributions);

reason to believe (other allegations),

but took no further action, sent

admonishment letters; (c) reason to

believe, but took no further action

(excessive contributions), sent

admonishment letter; (d-e) no

reason to believe
3

July 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

penalty; (b-d) reason to believe, but

took no further action (excessive

contributions), sent admonishment

letters

MUR 4252/Pre-MUR 318

Respondents: Virginia Baxter and

William Baxter (TN)

Complainant: FEC initiated (news

articles)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

contributions in the names of others;

contributions by minors

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action

MUR 4253/Pre-MUR 318

Respondents: Bonnie Croopnick

and Steven Croopnick (MA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (news

articles)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

contributions in the names of others;

contributions by minors

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action

MUR 4254/Pre-MUR 318

Respondents: Birgit Hershey and

Loren Hershey (VA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (news

articles)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

contributions in the names of others;

contributions by minors

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter

MUR 4255/Pre-MUR 318

Respondents: Christopher P. Hitchcock and Martha F. Hitchcock (OH)

Complainant: FEC initiated (news

articles)

Subject: Excessive contributions;

contributions in the names of others;

contributions by minors

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter

MUR 4264

Respondents (all in ME): (a) Maine

Republican Party, P. James Nicholson,

treasurer; (b) Senator Bill Cohen;

(c) Cohen for Senator Committee,

Merton G. Henry, treasurer

Complainants: Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Donald

Foley, Executive Director (DC)

Subject: Corporate contributions

Disposition: (a) Reason to believe,

but took no further action, sent

admonishment letter; (b-c) no

reason to believe

MUR 4296

Respondents: Overby for Congress

Campaign Committee, J. Frank

Myers, III, treasurer (GA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file 48-hour

reports (in the form of draws on a

line of credit guaranteed by the

candidate totaling $75,075)

Disposition: $9,000 civil penalty

MUR 4303

Respondents: The International

Bank of Commerce Committee for

Improvement and Betterment of the

Country, Jorge Haynes, treasurer (TX)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: $2,800 civil penalty

MUR 4304

Respondents: Alaska Democratic

Party Federal Account, Thomas G.

Evans, treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

report timely

Disposition: $3,500 civil penalty

MUR 4309

Respondents: Alameda County

Republican Central Committee,

Robert L. Strawn, treasurer (CA)

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

reports timely

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter

MUR 4344

Respondents: D.C. Republican

Committee Federal Campaign

Committee, Roger Moffat, treasurer

Complainant: FEC initiated (RAD)

Subject: Failure to file disclosure

report timely

Disposition: Reason to believe, but

took no further action; sent admonishment letter ✦

Publications

FEC Issues 1995 Annual

Report

In June the FEC issued its 21st

annual report, chronicling its

activities in 1995. Annual Report

1995 includes:

• A discussion of legal issues that

the Commission faced in 1995;

• An accounting of the Commission’s

achievements in 1995;

• Legislative recommendations

submitted to Congress by the

Commission in 1995;

• Charts and statistical tables

depicting campaign finance

activity and Commission operations during the first half of the

1996 election cycle;

• An overview of the public funding

program, including a discussion of

the public funding shortfall; and

• A monthly chronology of events in

1995.

Free copies of the Annual Report

1995 are available through the

FEC’s Information Division. Call

800/424-9530 and press 1 at the

prompt or call 202/219-3420. ✦
4

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996

Audits

(continued from page 1)

• Failed to itemize and properly

disclose $21,080 in contributions

received from partnerships;

• Failed to itemize in-kind contributions and disbursements totalling

$32,148 and $37,678, respectively;

• Failed to itemize $160,729 in

contributions from other political

committees;

• Failed to adequately disclose and

itemize a material number of

disbursements; and

• Failed to itemize credit card

payments totaling $6,906 and

associated memo entries totaling

$36,677.

This audit was conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(b), which

authorizes the FEC to audit any

political committee that files reports

that fail to meet the threshold level

of compliance set by the FEC. The

FEC has the authority to initiate an

enforcement action to purse issues

revealed by the audit. ✦

Audit Reports Made Public

Thus far in 1996, the FEC has

issued 13 final audit reports pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §438(b). This

provision of the Federal Election

Campaign Act authorizes the FEC

to audit any political committee that

files reports that fail to meet the

threshold level of compliance set by

the FEC. The FEC has the authority

to initiate an enforcement matter to

pursue issues revealed by an audit.

The audited committees are listed

below, along with the date the audit

report was approved:

• The Committee to Elect Michael

Patrick Flanagan (January 5, 1996)

• Jude for Congress (summarized in

April 1996 Record, page 2)(January 25, 1996)

• Minnesota Democratic Farmer

Labor Party (February 12, 1996)

• Citizens for Jack Metcalf (March

12, 1996)

• Montana State Democratic Central

Committee (April 1, 1996)

• Nevada State Democratic Party

(April 2, 1996)

• Bob Barr for Congress ’94 (April

9, 1996)

• West Virginia State Democratic

Executive Committee (April 18,

1996)

• The Friends of Conrad Burns

(April 24, 1996)

• Carol Moseley Braun for U.S.

Senate (summarized in this Record,

page 1)(May 6, 1996)

• United Republican Fund of Illinois

(May 17, 1996)

• San Bernardino County Republican Central Committee (June 10,

1996)

• American Hospital Association

Political Action Committee (June

10, 1996)

Final audit reports are available

from the FEC’s Public Records

Office: 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20463; telephone: 800/424-

9530 (option 3 on the menu) or 202/

219-4140. ✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 1)

contacting a candidate (except

through written questions to which a

candidate may respond in writing)

and requiring the organization to

give all candidates for a particular

office an equal opportunity to

respond.

MRLC argued that the regulations were too restrictive, exceeding

the FEC’s statutory power and

chilling First Amendment rights.

The FEC contended that it had the

authority to regulate corporate

expenditures for voting records and

voter guides if there was coordination with a candidate about the

preparation, contents and distribution of such materials.

Court’s Analysis

Section 441b prohibits “any

corporation whatsoever” from

making “a contribution or expenditure in connection with any [federal]

election.”

The court pointed out that the ban

on direct corporate contributions

had been upheld by the Supreme

Court in Buckley v. Valeo on the

grounds that the government’s

interest in preventing corruption or

its appearance outweighs First

Amendment concerns. On the other

hand, based on the Supreme Court’s

opinions in Buckley and FEC v.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.

(MCFL), the court said that corporate spending cannot be limited

unless it expressly advocates the

election or defeat of a particular

candidate. “In other words,” the

court concluded, “spending on issue

advocacy... cannot be limited.” The

question the court addressed was

whether a corporation’s contact with

a candidate when preparing a voter

guide or voting record would

transform permissible issue-advocacy spending into a prohibited

contribution.

To answer the question, the court

examined two provisions of the

Federal Election Campaign Act (the

Need FEC Material

in a Hurry?

Use the FEC’s Flashfax service

to obtain FEC material fast. It operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week. Over 300 FEC documents—reporting forms, brochures, FEC regulations—can be

faxed almost immediately.

Use a touch tone phone to dial

202/501-3413 and follow the instructions. To order a complete

menu of Flashfax documents,

enter document number 411 at the

prompt, or see page 12 of this issue of the Record.
5

July 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Act). In §441a, the Act sets dollar

limits on contributions, and for this

purpose “contribution” is defined to

include “expenditures made by any

person in cooperation, consultation,

or concert, with, or at the request or

suggestion of, a candidate, his

authorized political committees, or

their agents.” 2 U.S.C.

§441a(a)(7)(B)(i).

The other provision, §441b,

prohibits corporate “contributions”

and “expenditures,” which are

defined to include “any direct or

indirect payment...or anything of

value” provided “to any candidate...

in connection with any [federal]

election.” 2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2). The

district court cited the MCFL

Court’s interpretation of Section

441b as prohibiting payments

(including indirect payments) made

“on behalf of candidates.” The

district court stated: “That is the

statutory and interpretive language

on which the FEC’s new regulations

must be based.”

The court said that the FEC, in

relying on Section 441a as its

authority for the challenged regulations, had “misinterpreted the

Supreme Court’s teachings.” The

district court pointed out that, in

Buckley, the Supreme Court upheld

the dollar limitations on contributions because limits on amounts

given to a candidate are not the

same as limits on direct political

speech. “Here,” the district court

said, “both the disbursements and

the speech are direct political

speech by the MRLC, not by the

candidate. They are thus at the heart

of the [Supreme] Court’s First

Amendment concerns.” (Emphasis

in original.)

Court’s Conclusion

The court concluded that the FEC

had based the challenged regulations

on too broad an interpretation of the

§441b prohibition on corporate

expenditures. The court said that the

voter guide regulations mistakenly

hinge on whether a corporation has

had any contact with a candidate

rather than on whether the voter

guide conveys issue advocacy on

behalf of a candidate (which would

be an acceptable interpretation).

Under the voting record regulations,

MRLC would be in violation of

§441b if it included an explanation

solicited from a candidate concerning apparent inconsistencies in his

or her voting record. The court

stated: “...it is a distortion of the

English language to say that [such

an activity] would turn the MRLC’s

publication...into spending ‘on

behalf of’ a candidate.”

In concluding that the FEC had

overstepped its authority in promulgating 11 CFR 114.4(c)(4) and (5),

the court pronounced that, “as long

as the Supreme Court holds that

expenditures for issue advocacy

have broad First Amendment

protection, the FEC cannot use the

mere act of communication between

a corporation and a candidate to turn

a protected expenditure for issue

advocacy into an unprotected

contribution to the candidate.”

U.S. District Court for the

District of Maine, 96-66-P-H. ✦

DSCC v. FEC (95-0349)

On April 17, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the District of

Columbia ruled that the FEC acted

contrary to law when it allowed

nearly 600 days to pass without

taking any meaningful action on an

administrative complaint filed by

the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC). Under

2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(A), anyone

who files a complaint with the FEC

may seek court intervention if the

FEC fails to complete action on the

complaint within 120 days.

The DSCC filed the complaint on

May 14, 1993. In the complaint, the

DSCC alleged, among other things,

that the National Republican

Senatorial Committee had violated

the law by making illegal “soft (continued on page 6)

money” contributions to influence

the 1992 Senate elections—particularly the runoff in Georgia.

On February 22, 1995, the DSCC

filed this suit claiming that the

FEC’s failure to complete action

was arbitrary and capricious.

The court reasoned that while

FEC decisions concerning whether

to conduct an investigation were

entitled to judicial deference, the

agency’s failure to consider a

complaint for nearly 600 days was

subject to judicial review. The court

examined whether the FEC had

acted reasonably in allowing nearly

600 days to pass before taking

action on the DSCC’s complaint.

The criteria the court used to

review the FEC’s inaction are

outlined in Rose v. FEC (1984) and

Telecommunications Research &

Action Center v. FCC (1984); they

are:

• The credibility of the allegation;

• The nature of the threat posed;

• The resources and information

available to the agency;

• The novelty of the issues involved;

• The time it takes for the agency to

make decisions;

• Whether Congress mandated a

timetable for the agency to take

action on such matters as the one

at hand;

• The nature of the matter (for

instance, delayed agency action on

matters affecting human health and

welfare are less tolerable than

those in the sphere of economic

regulation);

• The effect that court-ordered

expedited action on the matter

would have on agency activities of

a higher or competing priority;

• The nature and extent of the

interest prejudiced by the agency’s

delay in acting on the matter; and

• The fact that the court need not

“find any impropriety lurking

behind agency lassitude in order to

hold that agency action is ‘unreasonably delayed.’”
Based on its analysis of the

factors listed above, the court ruled

that the FEC’s failure to consider

the DSCC’s complaint for nearly

600 days was contrary to law. The

court noted, however, that while this

litigation was pending, the FEC had

moved forward with respect to the

DSCC’s complaint. The court

warned that should the FEC stall on

this matter again, “the need for

additional judicial intervention may

well be compelling.”

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 95-0349. ✦

1 “Soft money” refers to funds raised

and spent outside the limits and

prohibitions of federal election law,

including money that exceeds federal

limits and money from corporate and

labor treasury funds. Soft money may

not be used in connection with federal

elections but may be used for other

purposes, such as nonfederal elections

(subject to state law).

Grover v. FEC

On May 21, 1996, the U.S.

District Court for the Southern

District of Texas granted the FEC’s

motion to dismiss this suit.

Henry C. Grover had filed the

suit on January 16, 1996, claiming

that the $1,000 limit on contributions

from individuals and Congress’s

failure to pass laws to prevent “soft

money” 1

 from influencing federal

elections were unconstitutional

impediments to his primary campaign efforts. (Mr. Grover eventually

lost the March 12 Texas Republican

Senatorial primary.) He asserted that

the $1,000 contribution limit and

Court Cases

(continued from page 5) Advisory

Opinions

AO 1996-8

Local Party Committees and

Building Funds

The building fund exemption in

the Federal Election Campaign Act

(the Act) does not apply to funds

established to build offices for local

party committees and therefore does

not preempt a Kentucky law prohibiting the Jefferson County Democratic

Executive Committee (JCDEC)

from accepting corporate donations

to a building fund. The exemption

would apply neither to a building

fund set up by the JCDEC nor one

set up by the Kentucky Democratic

Party to buy a headquarters building

for the JCDEC.

Under 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(B)(viii),

funds used to defray the costs of

constructing or purchasing an office

building for a national or state party

committee are exempt from the

definitions of contribution and

expenditure and are therefore not

subject to the Act’s contribution

prohibitions or limits, including the

prohibition against corporate

contributions.

Previous advisory opinions have

concluded that the Act’s building

fund exemption preempts state laws

that prohibit corporations from

giving to the building funds of

national and state party committees.

AOs 1993-9, 1991-5, 1986-40 and

1983-8. In addressing contributions

to building funds established to buy

or build state or national party

offices, Congress explicitly decided

not to place restrictions.

The building fund exemption,

however, is a narrow exception

provided for the benefit of national

and state party committees; it is not

applicable to a building fund

established for the purpose of

purchasing a headquarters building

for a local party committee, regardOn Appeal?

The FEC voted on whether to appeal the following court decision:

Appeal?

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life v. FEC (3-95-1147) Yes

District court, Minnesota, ruled that 11 CFR 114.10—regulations defining and governing qualified nonprofit corporations—

was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

See the June 1996 Record, page 3.

alleged “soft money laundering”

(i.e., the redistribution of soft money

raised by party committees to

favored federal candidates) gave

incumbent office holders such an

overwhelming advantage that only

independently wealthy challengers

could run competitive campaigns

against them.

The court, however, dismissed

the case based on the FEC’s arguments that: (1) Mr. Grover’s claim

was moot since the primary was

over and relief no longer available;

(2) the contribution limits had

already been upheld by the Supreme

Court in Buckley v. Valeo; and (3)

the “soft money” issues were

political and therefore outside

judicial authority. The court said: “It

is Congress that passed the laws and

it is Congress that must engage in

any necessary repairs.”

U.S. District Court, Southern

District of Texas, H-96-0136. ✦

6

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996
less of whether the local or state

party committee establishes the

fund. The building fund proposed by

the JCDEC, therefore, is subject to

the Kentucky ban on corporate

contributions regardless of whether

the JCDEC or the Kentucky Democratic Party establishes it.

The Commission noted that this

opinion did not address how FEC

allocation regulations apply to the

JCDEC because the JCDEC did not

pose the question.

Date Issued: May 20, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

AO 1996-10

Corporate Employees as

Stockholders

In addition to USX executive and

administrative personnel, USX

Corporation PAC may solicit those

USX employees who can withdraw,

without penalty, the company stock

they own through the USX Corporation Savings Fund Plan. The PAC may

use a payroll deduction plan to collect

contributions from solicitable employees. 11 CFR 114.5(k) and 114.1(c)(1);

AOs 1995-15 and 1994-23.

FEC Regulations

A corporate PAC may only solicit

its corporation’s executive and

administrative personnel and

stockholders (and the families of

both groups). 11 CFR 114.5(g).

Non-executive and non-administrative employees who hold company

stock through a company investment

plan may qualify as solicitable

stockholders under FEC regulations

if, in addition to owning stock, they

possess the right to vote the stock

and to receive dividends. 11 CFR

114.1(h).

In the past, the Commission has

decided that employees who are

able to withdraw their stock from a

corporate savings plan without

penalty fulfill the receive-dividends

requirement. AOs 1994-36 and

1994-37.

Statistics

Increase in Congressional

Fundraising

According to official FEC figures,

congressional campaign receipts in

the first 15 months of the 1996

election cycle totalled $297 million,

an increase of $43 million over the

total raised at the 15-month point in

the 1994 election cycle. (An election

cycle is a 2-year period beginning on

January 1 of the year before a federal

election and ending on December 31

of the year of the election.)

Of the $297 million total, $108.6

million was raised by 225 Senate

candidates, and $188.4 was raised

by 1,614 House candidates. Major

party challengers in the House

raised 62.1 percent more than their

counterparts had at the 15-month

point in the 1994 election cycle.

A May 23 FEC news release

presents these and other statistics on

congressional financial activity at

the 15-month point in the 1996

election cycle.

The accompanying graph is based

on data contained in the news release. ✦

Incum. Chall. Open Seat

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

Incum. Chall. Open Seat

Median Receipts of 1996 House Candidates by Candidate

Type, First 15 Months of Election Cycle

Democrats

Republicans

Thousands

GOP Nearly Doubles

Democratic Party’s

Fundraising and Spending

Despite sizable increases in

fundraising and spending since

1994, the Democratic Party’s

national committees continue to be

outraised and outspent by their GOP

counterparts by nearly 2 to 1.

Fifteen months into the 1996

election cycle, which began January

1, 1995, the Democratic National

Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee together raised

$72.8 million and spent $66.6

million. These totals represent

increases of 61.6 percent and 53.5

percent, respectively, over the funds

the Democratic committees had

raised and spent at the 15-month

point in the 1994 election cycle.

By comparison, their GOP

counterparts—the Republican

National Committee, the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

and the National Republican Congressional Committee—raised

$135.3 million and spent $118.4

(continued on page 8)

(continued on page 9)

7

July 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
How to Get News Releases

The news releases mentioned in

the articles above may be ordered

from the Public Records office: call

800/424-9530 and press 3 at the

prompt. To receive faxed copies,

call the 24-hour Flashfax service:

202/501-3413. Request document

530 for statistics on 15-month

House and Senate activity (this is

not the complete news release,

Statistics

(continued from page 7)

million in the first 15 months of the

1996 election cycle. Although their

increases over 1994 (a 37.9 percent

increase in fundraising and a 39.8

percent increase in spending) are not

as dramatic as that of the Democrats, GOP national committees

continue to outraise and outspend

the Democrats by a sizable margin.

With respect to “soft money,” 1

the Democrats raised $39.9 million

and the Republicans raised $48.8

million, increases of 47.8 percent

1“Soft money” refers to funds raised and

spent outside the limits and prohibitions

of federal election law, including money

that exceeds federal limits and money

from corporate and labor treasury funds.

Soft money may not be used in connection

with federal elections but may be used for

other purposes, such as nonfederal

elections (subject to state law).

and 154 percent, respectively, over

the totals at the same point in the

1994 election cycle.

 A May 8 FEC news release

presents these and other statistics on

the financial activity of national

party committees at the 15-month

point in the 1996 election cycle.

The accompanying graph is based

on data contained in the news

release. ✦

$0

$30

$60

$90

$120

$150

’86 ’88 ’90 ’92 ’94 ’96

Democrats

Millions Republicans

National Party Committee Fundraising, First 15 Months of Election Cycle

however) and document 531 for

statistics on 15-month national party

activity (this is the complete news

release).

The news releases are also

available on the FEC’s World Wide

Web site (http://www.fec.gov)

under the “News Releases and

Media Advisories” menu option

(again, this is not the complete

congressional statistics release). The

latest data are also available as

downloadable databases on the

FEC’s Web site; select “Financial

Information for Candidates, Parties

and PACs” from the main menu. ✦

8

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996
Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)

The USX Plan

Employees who own stock

through the USX plan have the right

to vote the stock. The remaining

issue is whether they can withdraw

stock without penalty and thus

fulfill the receive-dividends requirement.

The USX plan has five accounts

for employees to invest in:

• The Rollover and Pre-1987 AfterTax accounts have no withdrawal

restrictions; employees who own

stock in these accounts may be

solicited.

• The Company Contributions

account requires that funds be in

the account for 24 months before

they can be withdrawn; only

employees who have funds that

meet this withdrawal requirement

may be solicited.

• The After Tax Savings (Post 1986

Funds) account requires that

employees wait 24 months before

they can withdraw any corporate

matching funds; only employees

who own stock with their own

funds or with corporate matching

funds that meet this withdrawal

requirement may be solicited.

• The Pre-Tax Savings account

requires that employees be at least

age 59 1/2 and have savings

invested for more than 24 months

before savings can be withdrawn

without penalty; only employees

meeting these requirements may be

solicited.

Date Issued: May 10, 1996;

Length: 6 pages. ✦

1

 The restricted class includes the

noncorporate members of a membership organization, its executive and

administrative personnel and the

families of both groups. 11 CFR

114.7(a).

AO 1996-11

Incumbent Appearances at

Convention of Membership

Organization

The National Right to Life

Committee (NRL), a nonprofit, taxexempt membership corporation,

may, during its open-to-the-public

convention, engage in several

activities involving two federal

officeholders (one seeking reelection to the House, the other seeking

the Presidency), provided that it

meets certain conditions. These

conditions will ensure that NRL

does not provide something of value

to the candidates, who may hold

concurrent campaign events in the

same hotel as the NRL convention.

Candidate Appearances

The limited exceptions for

corporate and labor activity provided under 11 CFR 114.3(c)(2) and

114.4(b)(1) do not apply with regard

to NRL’s proposal to invite two

incumbent candidates to give

convention speeches to the general

public. Those regulations permit an

incorporated membership organization to use its general treasury funds

to sponsor and finance campaignrelated appearances, but only before

the organization’s restricted class1

and other employees.

An event is campaign related if it

involves: (1) the solicitation or

acceptance of contributions to the

candidate’s campaign or (2) communications expressly advocating

the election or defeat of any candidate. AOs 1994-15, 1992-6 and

1988-27. Factors such as the setting,

timing and statements or expressions of the purpose of an event, and

the substance of the remarks or

speech made, are also important in

determining whether an appearance

is campaign related.

On the other hand, if a speech is

not campaign related and the

speaker is not appearing in his or

her capacity as a candidate for

federal office, a corporation may

invite the general public as well as

its restricted class to attend the

speech; this would not constitute the

making of a prohibited contribution

or expenditure by the corporation.

60 FR 64266 (December 14, 1995).

NRL’s proposal is similar in

several respects to the situations

presented in the advisory opinions

cited above. NRL invited the

speakers, not as candidates, but

rather as legislators with influence

over legislation of interest to

convention attendees. The speeches

themselves will not afford the

candidates or anyone else the

opportunity to expressly advocate

their election or to solicit contributions on behalf of any candidate.

However, the NRL proposal

differs from the situations addressed

in AOs 1992-6 and 1988-27 because

the organization would be paying

candidates’ travel costs to both the

convention and to campaign events

conducted by the candidates.

Moreover, the convention falls

within the 1996 election season, and

the candidates’ speeches will

address topics that may be campaign

issues. Further, NRL will not invite

any opposing candidates to speak.

Consequently, the candidates’

appearances at the convention may

be used to promote their candidacies.

Nevertheless, NRL may invite the

candidates to speak at the convention if the following conditions are

met:

• If NRL knows that the candidates’

campaign committees will sponsor

collateral campaign events on site

while the convention is in progress,

NRL may not use its general

treasury funds to pay the travel

costs for the candidates and their

staff. NRL must notify each

candidate of this prohibition.

• Communications by NRL, any

person speaking on its behalf, the

candidates or their agents may not

contain express advocacy.

•Introductions may not discuss the

speakers’ candidacies beyond

noting that they are candidates.

(continued on page 10)

9

July 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD
10

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996

• Convention functions may not

include solicitation of contributions or distribution of campaign

materials.

• Any contribution from NRL’s

political committee to either

candidate’s campaign must not be

in consideration for the candidate

speaker’s attendance.

• NRL may pay for communications

that publicize campaign events as

long as the communications are

directed to the restricted class only.

Candidates who wish to advertise

in the convention program book

must pay, in advance, the usual

and normal charge for such

advertisements.

Press Conference

The featured candidates may

participate in an NRL-sponsored

press conference provided that:

• The organization neither endorses

the candidates nor expressly

advocates the election or defeat of

other candidates during the conference; and

• NRL distributes notices of the

press conference only to those

news organizations it customarily

contacts when holding press

conferences for other purposes.

11 CFR 114.4(c)(6).

Tapes

NRL may provide free copies of

audio and video tapes of convention

speeches only to the candidate

speakers. AOs 1980-90 and 1978-

60. However, NRL may sell the

tapes to news organizations and the

general public for the usual and

normal charge.

Coordination

While 11 CFR 114.3(a)(1) and

114.4(a) permit NRL to coordinate

the proposed speeches and press

conference with the candidates, any

coordination beyond that described

in the regulations may cause future

communications by NRL or its PAC

to the general public on behalf of

the speaker candidates to be viewed

as prohibited in-kind corporate

contributions. 11 CFR 114.2(c) and

109.1(b)(4); AO 1996-1.

Tax Consequences

The Commission expressed no

opinion regarding qualification for

tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C.

§501(c)(4) or any tax ramification

because these issues are outside its

jurisdiction.

Date issued: May 20, 1996;

Length: 8 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

AO 1996-12

Criteria for Qualified

Campaign Expenses

The Lenora B. Fulani for President ’96 committee, should it

receive public funding, must abide

by the same documentation requirements for campaign expenses as all

other publicly funded Presidential

campaigns. The fact that Dr. Fulani

is a member of a socialist collective

and plans to hire collective members

to provide campaign services and as

vendors would not, in itself, cause

her to be held to a higher standard

than other publicly funded campaigns.

The committee’s disbursements

to vendors will be considered

qualified campaign expenses as long

as Dr. Fulani can demonstrate that

they represent the usual and normal

charge for campaign-related services actually rendered.

A publicly funded candidate

bears the burden of demonstrating

that his or her disbursements were

made for qualified campaign

expenses. 11 CFR 9033.1(b)(1). The

specific requirements for documenting disbursements are set out at

11 CFR 9033.11(b). These requirements enable the Commission to

verify, during the post-primary audit

process, that public funds were spent

in connection with the candidate’s

campaign. In most cases, complying

with these requirements will adequately demonstrate that a candidate’s disbursements are qualified

campaign expenses. However, a

candidate may be required to

provide further documentation

should the audit process or an FEC

investigation prompt questions

about campaign transactions. Dr.

Fulani will be expected to comply

with these requirements and the

same standard of proof as other

publicly funded candidates, regardless of whether she conducts

campaign business with members of

the socialist collective and close

political associates.

Disbursements are not automatically considered nonqualified

campaign expenses when they are

made to vendors with which the

candidate has a close relationship.

The fact that a transaction between a

candidate and a vendor is not

conducted at arms length—that is, is

not entered into in the ordinary

course of business by parties with

independent interests—would not,

by itself, lead to the conclusion that

it was a nonqualified campaign

expense. In determining whether a

transaction complies with the

Federal Election Campaign Act, the

Commission generally focuses upon

whether the committee paid the

usual and normal charge for the

goods or services provided, rather

than on whether the transaction was

at arms length. However, under

some circumstances, the fact that a

vendor-candidate transaction was

not at arms length may be an

indication that it was not made in

connection with the campaign. In

that case, the nature of the campaign’s

contractual relationships with its

vendors would be relevant.

Dr. Fulani is urged to take steps

to satisfy the documentation requirements and to otherwise comply with

federal election laws and regulations.

Date Issued: May 20, 1996;

Length: 7 pages. ✦
11

July 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

AO 1996-14

Use of Excess Campaign

Funds for Moving Expenses

Retiring Congressman Kika de la

Garza may use excess campaign

funds to move his belongings from

his congressional office in Washington, D.C., and his home in Virginia

to his home in Texas. This use of

campaign funds is not considered

personal use.

Excess campaign funds may be

used for any lawful purpose, but

may not be converted to the personal use of any person. 2 U.S.C.

§439a. Personal use is defined as the

use of campaign funds to pay for an

expense that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or

duties as a federal officeholder.

11 CFR 113.1(g).

Under 11 CFR 113.2(a)(2), a

federal officeholder may use excess

campaign funds to wind down his or

her congressional office. The

transfer of Congressman de la

Garza’s office belongings to his

home in Texas is part of the costs of

winding down his office; therefore,

campaign funds may be used.

Although the expenses associated

with moving the Congressman’s

belongings from his Virginia home

to Texas are not winding down costs

as defined at 11 CFR 113.2(a)(2),

campaign funds may nonetheless be

used because his proposed use of

campaign funds is limited to paying

the expense of his return to Texas.

These expenses may be treated

under 11 CFR 113.2(a) as necessary

and ordinary expenses incurred in

connection with ending his duties as

a federal officeholder.

Congressman de la Garza’s

campaign should report these

moving expenses as it would any

other disbursement, with the purpose and the payees noted.

Date Issued: May 31, 1996;

Length: 4 pages. ✦

AO 1996-15

Discarding Envelopes Used

to Mail Reports to State

The State of Oklahoma Ethics

Commission may discard the

envelopes or other packaging in

which it receives copies of federal

campaign finance reports. FEC

regulations do not mention the need

to maintain such materials. Furthermore, the obligation to file timely is

viewed from the aspect of when the

filing is made with the Commission

or other filing office, or, alternatively, the postmarked date when

sent by registered or certified mail.

The Oklahoma Commission will

continue to stamp the date of receipt

and the postmark date on the copies

of the FEC reports it receives.

The Secretary of State or equivalent state officer is responsible for:

• Receiving and maintaining federal

campaign finance reports and

statements;

• Keeping these documents for 2

years after their date of receipt;

• Making each report and statement

available, within 48 hours of

receipt, to the public for inspection

and copying; and

• Compiling and maintaining a

current list of all reports and

statements pertaining to each

candidate. 2 U.S.C. §439(b) and 11

CFR 108.1 and 108.6.

Date issued: May 20, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

AO 1996-16

Defining a News Entity

The on-line, television and radio

entities of Bloomberg, L.P., qualify

as press entites. As such, they are

entitled to the news story exemption

at 2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(i) and may

conduct their proposed Electronic

Town Meetings with Presidential

candidates.

The Proposal

Bloomberg’s Electronic Town

Meetings would electronically link a

Presidential candidate with Bloomberg terminal users and invited

guests. A moderator would open the

meeting, introduce the candidate

and invite the candidate to make

brief remarks. The moderator would

then allow the electronically linked

audience to pose questions to the

candidate via electronic mail.

Each town meeting would last

approximately one hour. The event

would be covered as a news story by

Bloomberg Information TV, Bloomberg Information Radio and Bloomberg Business News. The program

would be available to other news

entities via satellite.

The News Story Exemption

The Federal Election Campaign

Act exempts from the definition of

expenditure any news story, commentary or editorial distributed

through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication.

2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(i).

Several factors are considered in

determining whether an activity

qualifies for the news story exemption:

• Whether an entity is a press entity

as described in the statute;

• Whether the press entity is owned

by any political party, political

committee or candidate; and

• Whether the press entity is acting

as a press entity in performing the

media activity. 2 U.S.C.

§431(9)(B)(i); AO 1982-44.

The Bloomberg entities involved

with the Electronic Town Meetings

are press entities providing news

and commentary through computer,

television and radio. There is no

indication that they are owned or

controlled by any political party,

political committee or candidate.

Moreover, like the presentation

of more traditional news stories and

(continued on page 12)
12

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996

news programs, the means of

presentation will be controlled by

the press entity. Each meeting will

be a discrete and structured forum

with a moderator, a set format and a

time limit.

Therefore, since the Bloomberg

entities qualify as press entities and

will be acting as such during the

event, the proposed Electronic

Town Meetings with Presidential

candidates qualify for the news

story exemption and are permissible.

Date Issued: May 23, 1996;

Length: 5 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 11)

AO 1996-17

Cars Provided as Official

Vehicles of Convention

General Motors Corporation may

loan cars to the Democratic and

Republican parties for use at their

national nominating conventions.

Under the proposed agreement,

GM would loan cars to the parties in

exchange for which GM and its

dealers could advertise GM cars as

the official cars of the Democratic

and Republican conventions. The

convention committees would agree

to use the vehicles only for purposes

connected to their conventions.

Following the conventions, GM

would resell the cars to the dealers

with credit toward the purchase

price for the period of convention

use.

Corporations are generally

banned from contributing anything

of value in connection with a federal

election. 2 U.S.C. §441b. A national

Presidential nominating convention

is considered an election under

2 U.S.C. §431(1)(B). However,

under 11 CFR 9008.9(b), a commercial vendor may provide goods for a

Presidential nominating convention

in exchange for promotional considerations if the vendor has an established practice of providing goods

on a similar scale and on similar

terms to nonpolitical clients or if the

terms and conditions are consistent

with established practice in the

vendor’s trade or industry. Also, the

value of the goods may not exceed

the commercial benefit reasonably

expected to be derived from the

unique promotional opportunity

presented by the convention.

In AO 1988-25, the Commission

approved GM’s sale of cars to local

GM dealers who, in turn, made them

available on loan to the conventions.

In its 1994 revisions to the convention regulations, the Commission

specifically expanded this result to

cover all commercial vendors,

including manufacturers, not just the

local and retail businesses that were

the focus of the 1988 opinion.

Because GM’s proposed vehicle

loan program comports with the

regulations, the activity is permissible and will not result in prohibited contributions.

Date Issued: May 23, 1996;

Length: 3 pages. ✦

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1996-23

PAC disaffiliation following

corporate breakup (ITT Corporation;

May 20, 1996; 13 pages plus 42-

page attachment)

AOR 1996-24

Use of campaign funds for legal

expenses (Congressman Wester S.

Cooley; May 23, 1996; 5 pages)

AOR 1996-25

Fulfilling best-efforts requirement to

seek contributor information from

individuals without permanent

employers (Seafarers Political

Activity Donation; May 28, 1996; 6

pages)

AOR 1996-26

Corporation as collecting agent for

contributions to PAC of affiliated

trade association (FTD Association;

June 3, 1996; 5 pages plus 45-page

attachment) ✦

Information

Flashfax Menu Revised

Flashfax documents may be ordered

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, by

calling 202/501-3413 on a touch tone

phone. You will be asked for the

numbers of the documents you want,

your fax number and your telephone

number. The documents will be faxed

shortly thereafter.

Disclosure

301. Guide to Researching Public

Records

302. Accessibility of Public Records

Office

303. Federal/State Records Offices

304. Using FEC Campaign Finance

Information

305. State Computer Access to FEC

Data

306. Direct Access Program (DAP)

307. Sale and Use of Campaign

Information

308. Combined Federal/State Disclosure Directory 1996 on Disk

309. Selected Political Party Organizations and Addresses

310. Internet Access to the FEC

311. Downloadable Databases via the

Internet

Limitations

315. Contributions

316. Coordinated Party Expenditure

Limits

317. Advances: Contribution Limits

and Reporting

318. Volunteer Activity

319. Independent Expenditures

320. Local Party Activity

321. Corporate/Labor Facilities

322. Trade Associations

323. Foreign Nationals

324. The $25,000 Annual Contribution

Limit

325. Personal Use of Campaign Funds
13

July 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Public Funding

330. Public Funding of Presidential

Elections

331. The $3 Tax Checkoff

332. 1993 Changes to Checkoff

333. Recipients of Public Funding

334. Presidential Fund Tax Checkoff

Status

335. Presidential Spending Limits

Compliance

340. Candidate Registration

341. Committee Treasurers

342. Political Ads and Solicitations

343. 10 Questions from Candidates

344. Filing a Complaint

345. 1996 Reporting Dates

346. 1996 Congressional Primary Dates

347. 1996 Special Election Reporting

Dates

Federal Election Commission

401. The FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law

402. La Ley Federal relativa al Financiamiento de las Campañas

403. Federal and State Campaign

Finance Laws

404. Compliance with Laws Outside

the FEC’s Jurisdiction

405. Biographies of Commissioners

and Officers

406. Telephone Directory

407. Table of Organization

408. Index for 1995 Record Newsletter

409. Free Publications

410. Personnel Vacancy Announcements

411. Complete Menu of All Material

Available

Clearinghouse on Election

Administration

424. List of Reports Available

425. Voting Accessibility for the

Elderly and Handicapped Act

426. National Voter Registration Act

Regulations

427. National Voter Registration Act

of 1993

428. The Electoral College

429. Organizational Structure of the

American Election System

430. Primary Functions of an Electoral

System

Money in Politics Statistics

525. 1991-2 Political Money

526. 1995 Year-End PAC Count

527. 1993-4 Congressional

528. 1993-4 National Party

529. 1993-4 PAC Finances

530. 1995-6 Congressional

531. 1995-6 National Party

532. 1995-6 PAC Finances

1996 Presidential Election

550. 1996 Presidential Primary

Dates

551. Selected 1996 Campaign

Names and Addresses

552. Selected 1996 Campaign

Finance Figures

553. 1996 Matching Fund Certifications and Convention Fund

Payments

Regulations (11 CFR Parts 100-201)

100. Part 100, Scope and Definitions

 1007. Part 100.7, Contribution

 1008. Part 100.8, Expenditure

101. Part 101, Candidate Status and

Designations

102. Part 102, Registration, Organization and Recordkeeping by

Political Committees

 1021. Part 102.17, Joint Fundraising

by Committees Other Than SSFs

103. Part 103, Campaign Depositories

104. Part 104, Reports by Political

Committees

 1047. Part 104.7, Best Efforts

105. Part 105, Document Filing

106. Part 106, Allocations of Candidate

and Committee Activities

107. Part 107, Presidential Nominating

Convention, Registration and

Reports

108. Part 108, Filing Copies of Reports

and Statements with State Offices

109. Part 109, Independent Expenditures

110. Part 110, Contribution and

Expenditure Limitations and

Prohibitions

 1101. Part 110.1, Contributions by

Persons Other Than Multicandidate Political Committees

 1102. Part 110.2, Contributions by

Multicandidate Committees

 1103. Part 110.3, Contribution

Limitations for Affiliated Committees and Political Party

Committees; Transfers

 1104. Part 110.4, Prohibited Contributions

 1105. Part 110.5, Annual Contribution

Limitation for Individuals

 1106. Part 110.6, Earmarked Contributions

 1107. Part 110.7, Party Committee

Expenditure Limitations

 1108. Part 110.8, Presidential Candidate Expenditure Limitations

 1109. Part 110.9, Miscellaneous

Provisions

 1110. Part 110.10, Expenditures by

Candidates

 1111. Part 110.11, Communications;

Advertising

 1112. Part 110.12, Candidate Appearances on Public Educational

Institution Premises

 1113. Part 110.13, Nonpartisan

Candidate Debates

 1114. Part 110.14, Contributions to

and Expenditures by Delegates

and Delegate Committees

111. Part 111, Compliance Procedure

112. Part 112, Advisory Opinions

113. Part 113, Excess Campaign Funds

and Funds Donated to Support

Federal Officeholder Activities

114. Part 114, Corporate and Labor

Organization Activity

115. Part 115, Federal Contractors

116. Part 116, Debts Owed by Candidates and Political Committees

200. Part 200, Petitions for Rulemaking

201. Part 201, Ex Parte Communications

Recent Actions on Regulations,

Including Explanations

and Justifications

227. Presidential Nominating Conventions

228. Public Financing of Presidential

Primary and General Election

Campaigns

229. Candidate Debates and News

Stories

230. Electronic Filing of Reports by

Political Committees

Forms

361. Form 1, Statement of Organization

362. Form 2, Statement of Candidacy

363. Form 3 and 3Z, Report for an

Authorized Committee

364. Form 3X, Report for Other Than

an Authorized Committee

365. Form 5, Report of Independent

Expenditures

366. Form 6, 48-Hour Notice of

Contributions/Loans Received

367. Form 7, Report of Communication

Costs

368. Form 8, Debt Settlement Plan

(continued on page 14)
14

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996

369. Form 1M, Notification of Multicandidate Status

Schedules

370. Schedule A, Itemized Receipts

371. Schedule B, Itemized Disbursements

372. Schedules C and C-1, Loans

373. Schedule D, Debts and Obligations

374. Schedule E, Itemized Independent

Expenditures

375. Schedule F, Itemized Coordinated

Expenditures

376. Schedules H1 –H4, Allocation

377. Schedule I, Aggregate Page

Nonfederal Accounts

U.S. Code (Title 2)

431. Section 431 442. Section 442

432. Section 432 451. Section 451

433. Section 433 452. Section 452

434. Section 434 453. Section 453

437. Section 437 454. Section 454

 4377. Section 437g 455. Section 455

438. Section 438

439. Section 439

441. Section 441

 4411. Section 441a

 4412. Section 441b

 4413. Section 441c

 4414. Section 441d

 4415. Section 441e

 4416. Section 441f

Advisory Opinions

601-19. AOs 1996-1 through 1996-19

700. Brochure

701-49. AOs 1995-1 through 1995-49

801-40. AOs 1994-1 through 1994-40

901-25. AOs 1993-1 through 1993-25

Information

(continued from page 13) Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1996 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indicates the

page number in that issue. For example, “1:4” means that the article

is in the January issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1995-38: Corporate vendor and

nonconnected PAC with common

officer, 1:14

1995-40: Disaffiliation of PACs, 3:7

1995-41: Preemption of state

disclosure requirements, 2:3

1995-42: Using campaign funds to

pay child-care expenses, 2:3

1995-43: Refunding legal fees to

candidate committee, 3:8

1995-44: Presidential primary

candidate excused from filing 48-

hour notices, 3:8

1995-45: Qualified campaign

expenses for ballot access, 3:9

1995-46: Purchase of candidate’s

book by his campaign, 3:9

1995-47: Use of campaign funds for

travel to party’s Presidential

nominating convention, 5:7

1995-48: Preemption of Georgia law

limiting receipt of contributions,

3:10

1995-49: Status of a state affiliate of

national party committee, 6:6

1996-1: Corporate partisan communications, 5:7

1996-2: Providing free on-line

accounts to candidates, 6:6

1996-3: Determining political

committee status, 6:7

1996-4: Public funding shortfalls

and bridge loans, 5:8

1996-5: Returning illegal contributions, 5:9

1996-7: Public funding certifications, 5:9

1996-8: Local party committees and

building funds, 7:6

1996-9: Building a library center

with excess campaign funds, 6:7

1996-10: Corporate employees as

stockholders, 7:7

1996-11: Incumbent appearances at

convention of membership

organization, 7:9

1996-12: Criteria for qualified

campaign expenses, 7:10

1996-14: Use of excess campaign

funds for moving expenses, 7:11

1996-15: Discarding envelopes used

to mail reports to state, 7:11

1996-16: Defining a news entity,

7:11

1996-17: Cars provided as official

vehicles of convention, 7:12
15

July 1996 Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– DSCC (95-2881), 1:5

– GOPAC, 4:1

– Hartnett, 4:12

– Legi-Tech, 4:9

– National Right to Work, 4:11

– Parisi, 3:6

– Wofford, 6:4

_____ v. FEC

– Albanese, 5:4

– Buchanan, 6:4

– Center for Responsive Politics, 1:3

– Chamber of Commerce of the

U.S.A., et al., 1:2

– Clifton, 5:6; 7:1

– Common Cause (94-02104), 5:5

– DCCC (1:96CV00764), 6:4

– DSCC (95-0349), 7:5

– Grover, 7:6

– Hooker, 3:7

– Jordan, 4:12

– Maine Right to Life Committee,

1:3; 4:9

– Minnesota Citizens Concerned for

Life, 3:6; 6:3

– RNC (94-1017), 4:10

– Stockman, 2:9

– Whitmore, 3:6

On Appeal?, 5:6; 7:6

Reports

Electronic filing system, FEC

authorized to develop, 2:2

Point of entry change for House

candidates, 2:1

Reporting reminders, 4:3; 6:1

Schedule for 1996, 1:5

Special elections

– House, California’s 37th district,

2:5

– House, Maryland’s 7th district,

3:2

– House, Oregon’s 3rd district, 3:2

800 Line

Ballot access payments, 2:8

Conventions, permissible corporate

and labor activity, 2:7

Filing tips, 5:1

Change of Address

Political Committees

Treasurers of registered political

committees automatically receive the

Record. A change of address by a

political committee (or any change to

information disclosed on the

Statement of Organization) must, by

law, be made in writing on FEC

Form 1 or by letter. The treasurer

must sign the amendment and file it

with the Secretary of the Senate or

the FEC (as appropriate) and with

the appropriate state office.

Other Subscribers

Record subscribers who are not

registered political committees

should include the following

information when requesting a

change of address:

• Subscription number (located on

the upper left corner of the mailing

label);

• Subscriber’s name;

• Old address; and

• New address.

Subscribers (other than political

committees) may correct their
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD July 1996

Kansas Special Election Reporting

Committees involved in Kansas’s August 6 special primary election to fill

Senator Robert Dole’s seat must follow the reporting schedule below:

Close of Certified Filing

 Books Mail Date Date

Pre-Primary Report Jul. 17 Jul. 22 Jul. 25

Committees that are also involved in this contest’s November 5 special general election must, in addition, follow the reporting schedule below:

Close of Certified Filing

 Books Mail Date Date

Pre-General Report Oct. 16 Oct. 21 Oct. 24

Post-General Report Nov. 25 Dec. 5 Dec. 5

These committees must also follow the regular quarterly reporting schedule.