May 1995

Table of Contents

Regulations

New Personal Use Rules Go Into

Effect

Court Cases

I Wilson v. U.S .A. et al.

4 NRSC v. FEC (94-5 148)

4 FEC v. Montoya

4 FEC v. MRSC

Public Funding

2 Presidential Spending Limits

(based on 1995 COLA and VAP)

2 Gramm First to Be Declared

Eligible for Public Funds

3 Hearing on Buchanan '92

Repayment

4 Federal Register Notices

5 Advisory Opinions

Publications

6 Disclosure Directory '95

Compliance

7 MURs Released to the Public

8 Index

Federal Election Commission

Regulations

New Personal Use

Regulations Go Into Effect

The revised personal use rules

summarized in the March 1995

Record, page I, became effective on

April 5, 1995. See Federal Register

Announcement of Effective Date

(60 FR 17193, AprilS, 1995).

The new rules clarify the ban on

the personal use of campaign funds

by establishing that those expenses

that exist irrespective of a federal

candidate's campaign or duties as an

officeholder are personal in nature

and may not be paid for with

campaign funds.

The rules also list a number of

expenses that under specific circumstances are considered per se

personal use: household food items

and supplies; funeral, cremation and

burial expenses; clothing; tuition

payments; mortgage, rent and utility

payments; entertainment; dues, fees

and gratuities; and salary payments

to the candidate's family. Special

considerations with respect to legal,

meal, travel, vehicle and mixed-use

expensesare also covered in the rules.

Refer to the March Record for a

detailed explanation of these and

other personal use issues. Alternatively, order a free copy of the

personal use handout from the

FEC's Information Division: call

800/424-9530.•

Volume 21, Number 5

Court Cases

Wilson v, U.S.A. et al.

On March 2, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the Northern

District of California upheld the

constitutionality of the National

Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

Additionally, the court ordered the

State of California to present a

proposed plan for implementing the

NVRA within 10days of this

decision.

The NVRA, a federal law that

went into effect on January I, 1995,

mandated that states requiring

advance registration to vote in

federal elections must permit voter

registration by: mail-in application;

simultaneous application with

driver's license application, renewal, or change of address; and

simultaneous application at disability and public assistance agencies as

well as other agencies designated by

the state. I

(continued on page 4)

I The FEC is the federal agency

entrusted with the development ofa

National Voter Registration Form. This

form has been available since January

1. The FEC is also required to submit a

report to Congress every 2 years

assessing the impact ofthe National

Voter Registration Act and suggesting

improvements in voter registration

forms and procedures.
FederaL ELection Commission RECORD

Public Funding

Spending Limits: If the

Presidential Election Were

Held in '95 ...

In a March 3 press release, the

FEC provided preliminary spending

limits for publicly funded 1996

Presidential candidates:

• $36 million for each primary

election candidate, $6 million of

which may only be used for

fundraising expenses; and

• $60 million for the general election

nominee of each major party. I

Additionally, each major party

will have a $12 million spending

limit for their national convention

and a $11.5 million spending limit

J Presidential campaigns which decline

f ederal f unding are not subject to these

limits. Such campaigns may spend

unlimited amounts ofmoney. but their

receipts are subj ect to contribution

limits.

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/219-3420

202/501 -341 3 (Flashfax Service)

202/219-3336 (TOO)

Danny L. McDonald, Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aikens,Commissioner

John Warren McGarry,

Commissioner

Trevor Potter, Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

John C. Surina, StaffDirector

Lawrence M. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Dario Bard, Editor

2

for expenditures made in connection

with their nominee 's general election campaign. 2 U.S.c. 44I a(d).

These figures are not final. They

represent what the Presidential

spending limits would be if the

election were held in 1995. The

FEC provides this calculation to

help Presidential campaigns meet

their planning needs in their early

formative stages.

In addition to these limits,

campaign spending for Presidential

primary elections is also restricted

by state-by-state limits. These state

limits are based on a statutory

formula that takes into account each

state's voting age population and a

cost-of-living adjustment. 2

A complete listing of preliminary

spending limits for each Presidential

primary is included in the March 3

press release. Copies of the press

release are available free of charge

from the Public Records Office. Call

800/424-9530 and ask for Public

Records or call 202/219-4140 to

reach the office directly.

Under the public funding program, eligible Presidenti al primary

candidates receive dollar-for-dollar

federal funds for matchable contributions; only contributions from

individuals, and only up to $250 of a

contributor's total, are matchable.

Additionally, each major party

nominee in 1996 may accept a

I federal grant equal to the general

election spending limit. A nominee

accepting the grant will not be able

to use private contributions to

conduct campaign activity .

The spending limits for nominees

do not apply to certain legal and

accounting costs, for which candidates may spend an unlimited

amount. (Nominees may solicit

private contributions to a special

fund set up to cover these expenses.)

ZEach state limit is calculated by

adding a cost-of- living adjustment to

either the state 's voting age population

multiplied by 16¢. or $200.000.

whichever is greater.

May / 995,

The overall spending limits for

the primary election period and the

general election were established by

law in 1974, and are increased each

election cycle by a cost-of-living

adjustment.

Since the cost-of-living adjustment and, with respect to the stateby-state limits, the voting age

population are fluctuating variable s,

the actual 1996 spending limits

won't be available until early next

year. Look for them in a future issue

of the Reco rd at that time. •

Gramm First Presidential

Candidate Declared Eligible

For Matching Funds

On March 20, the FEC declared

Phil Gramm the first 1996 Presidential candidate eligible for public

matching funds. Mr. Gramm is

seeking the Republican party's 1996

Presidential nomination.

To establish eligibility for the

President ial public funding program,

a candidate must submit documentation showing that he or she raised in

excess of $5,000 in matchable

contributions in each of at least 20

states. Only contributions received

from individuals, and only up to

$250 of a contributor's total, are

matchable; the federal government

will match an eligible campaign's

matchable contributions on a dollarfor-dollar basis. This threshold

submission is reviewed by the

FEC's Audit Division before the

Commission makes its determination. The candidate must also certify

that he or she will abide by spending

limits, use funds for campaignrelated expense s only, agree to an

FEC audit and otherwise comply

with the election law.

Presidential candidates may

establish their eligibility for matching funds during 1995 and, once

eligible, submit additional contributions for matching fund consideration on the first business day of

each month through March 1997.
• May 1995

The U.S. Treasury, however, will

not begin disbursing matching funds

until January 2, 1996.•

Hearing on Buchanan

Repayment Determination

In a March 2, 1995, public hearing, counsel for the Buchanan for

President Committee (active in the

1992Republican Presidential primary)challenged the Commission's

following initial repayment determinations:

• That the committee repay $399,521

to the U.S. Treasury for matching

funds received in excess of entitlement;

• That the committee repay $17,116

to the U.S. Treasury, the pro rata

portion of a $50,000 disbursement

made by the campaign to the

candidate, Patrick Buchanan (the

committee argued that this disbursement represented repayment

for a loan from the candidate); and

• That the committee repay $11,220

to the U.S. Treasury for nonqualified campaign expenses. I

Matching Funds in Excess of

Entitlement

Counsel for the Buchanan

committee contended that the audit

staff's wind-down estimate for the

committee-an estimate which

affects the repayment determinations-was low. Counsel offered

instead a recent estimate by the

committee (including an estimated

$325,000 in legal fees) which took

into account potential expenses for

enforcement actions, litigation and

administrative matters such as the

I Although not discussed at the hearing,

the following nonrepayment issue s were

addressed in accompanying written

testimony submitted by the committee:

excessive reimbursements of$6.283

received from members of the press and

staff advances of$53.251 resulting in

in-kind contributions made in excess of

the law 's limits.

public hearing. Additionally,

counsel challenged the notion that

the audit staff was better suited than

the committee to determine its

wind-down costs, and argued that

the Commission should accept the

committee's estimate as a sincere

depiction of the campaign's financial situation.

Lastly, counsel argued that a final

repayment determination for excess

campaign funds should wait until

after the committee had completed

its winding-down phase. Otherwise,

the committee might repay funds it

would later need.

Candidate's Loan

In Advisory Opinion 1977-58, the

Commission specifically forbade a

committeefrom retroactively reclassifying a candidate 's contribution as a

loan. To have allowed this would

have undermined the intent of

2 U.S.c. §434(b)(l2), which requires

the timely disclosure of debts and

obligations. It also would have

offered candidates an avenue through

which they could convert campaign

funds to personal use. Therefore, if a

candidate intends to treat a personal

contribution as a loan to his committee, the committee must report the

transaction as a loan from the outset

and must continue reporting the loan

until it is repaid.

At issue at the hearing was $50,000

received from the candidate and

reported initially as contributions.

This portion of the committee's

presentation was delivered by

Angela Buchanan, the candidate's

sister and the campaign's manager

and current treasurer.

Ms. Buchanan related how in the

early days of the campaign the

candidate loaned the committee

$50,000. Although Ms. Buchanan

stated that she had an understanding

with her brother that these payments

constituted a loan and that she

would undertake efforts to pay him

back at campaign's end, the committee treasurer at the time reported

them as contributions. The payments were not reported as a loan

Federal Election Commission RECORD

until October 1992. In the absence

of contemporaneous documentation,

the committee presented an affidavit

from Ms. Buchanan contending that

Mr. Buchanan's payments totaling

$50,000 were intended as a loan.

Nonqualified Expenditures

The audit staff determined that

the committee incurred nonqualified

expenses, including expenses that

lacked sufficient documentation to

show that they were indeed qualified,

expenses that were not necessary for

the campaign's wind down, certain

staff bonuses, and fundraising expenses incurred after the committee

was no longer in a deficit position.

Counsel offered to provide

further documentation to refute the

audit staff's determination. Counsel

also argued that expenses such as

updating computer software were

indeed necessary to wind down the

campaign, that staff bonuses were

justified and appropriate, and that

the committee was indeed in a

deficit position when it incurred the

fundraising expenses in question.

Counsel challenged the notion that

the audit staff could substitute its

judgment for that of the committee

with regard to what needed to be

done to wind down the campaign.

The Commission will consider

counsel's oral and written remarks

when determining the committee's

final repayment obligation. •

Need FEe Material

in a Hurry?

Use the FEC's Flashfax service

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

week. Over300FECdocuments-reporting forms, brochures, FEC regulations-can be

faxed almost immediately.

Use a touch tone phone to dial

2021501-3413 andfollow the instructions. To ordera complete

menu of Flashfax documents,

enterdocument number 411 at the

prompt.

3
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Court Cases

(continued from page J)

California Governor Pete Wilson

filed suit against the federal government (including the FEC) on

December 20 , 1994. In his suit ,

Governor Wilson argued that the

NVRA, as an unfunded federal

mandate, was unconstitutional under

the Tenth Amendment, which

reserves to the states those powers

not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

The court, however, deemed that

Article I, Section 4, of the Constitution does indeed delegate to the

federal government the authority to

enforce the NVRA:

The Times, Places and Manner of

holding Elections for Senators and

Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the

Legislature thereof, but the Congress may at any time by Law

make or alter such Regulations,

except as to the Places of chusing

[sic] Senators.

U.S. District Court for the

North ern District of California, No.

C 95-20042 JW and No. C 94-20860

JW , March 2, 1995 . ..

NRSC v, FEe (94-5148)

On March 14, 1995, the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia vacated the district court 's

decision of May 11, 1994, and

ordered the court to dismiss the

complaint against the FEC as moot.

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC's Public

Records Office.

1995-6

11 CFR 100, 104 and 113:

Personal Use of Campaign Funds;

Final Rules: Announcement of

Effective Date (60 FR 17193,

AprilS, 1995)

4

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) origin ally

filed this suit with the district court

on February 23, 1994, to stop the

FEC from proc eeding in an internal

enforcement matte r (MUR 3204)

that had been initiated by a Com -

mission whose structure was later

declared unconstitutional by the

Court of Appe als for the D.e.

Circuit in FEe v. NRA Political

Victory Fund. I (See page 5 of the

May 1994 Record for a summary of

the NRSC's original suit, and page 2

of the December 1993 Record for a

summary of the NRA case. See also

page 1 of the February 1995 Record

for the Supreme Court's subsequ ent

ruling in the NRA case.) The district

court dismissed the suit on May II,

1994, on the grounds that the case

was not ripe for adjudication. (See

page 2 of the July 1994 Record for a

summary of the district court' s

decision.) In arriving at this conclusion , the district court reasoned that

for the case to be ripe, the NRSC

needed to demonstrate that it had

suffered injury as a result of an FEC

action-an impo ssibility since the

FEC was in the midst of its investigation and had not yet taken action

in this matter. 2

The NRSC's suit became moot

because subsequ ent to the district

court' s decision the FEC closed

MUR 3204 with out finding prob able

cause to believe the NRSC had

violated federal election law. ..

I The court ruled that the presence of

two ex officio members 011 the Commission violated the separation ofpowe rs

doctrine; the ex offi cios have since

been removed.

2At the time of the district court's

decision, the FEC had found reason to

believe a violation had occurred with

respect to MUR 3204 and was proceeding with an investigation to determine

whether there was probable cause to

believe the NRSC had violated f ederal

election law.

May 1995-

FEC v,Montoya

The FEC voluntarily dismissed

this case against Mr. Rick Montoya

and the Rick Montoya for United

States Sen ate Committee after

defendants fulfilled their obli gation

to the FEe.

The FEC filed this suit because

the defendants had failed to pay a

$3,000 civil penalty agreed upon in

a conciliation agreement. MUR

3444. Wh en the defendant s subsequently paid in full with all accrued

interest, the FEC dismi ssed this

case.

U.S. District Court for the

Distri ct of Columbia, No . 94-2675,

March 16, 1995."

FEC v, lVIRSC

On March 22, 1995, the U.S.

District Court for the Western

District of Michigan, Southern

Division , dismi ssed this case

pursuant to a stipulation by the

partie s.

The FEC originally charged that

the Michigan Republican State

Committee (MRSC) had knowingly

accepted $5,550 in excessive contributions, had depo sited $35,655 in

impermissible contributions into its

federal account, and had exceeded

its coordinated party expenditure

limit for a Senate candidate by

$8,298.

The court issued a co nsent order

on July 18,1994, that resolved the

exc essive and impermissible contribution issues; the MRSC agreed to

pay a $12,500 civil penalty and to

transfer $35,655 from its federal

account to its nonfederal accounts.

The violation of the coordinated

party expenditure limit , however,

remained pending.

Subs equent to the consent order,

the MRSC paid the civil penalty and

transferred the nonfederal monies as

agreed .

With regard to the remaining

allegation, MRSC provided the FEC

with documentation showing that
"May 1995

the Senate candidate reimbursed the

committee for the expenditures in

question and therefore the committee did not exceed its coordinated

party expenditure limit.

U.S. District Court for the

Western District of Michigan,

Southern Division, No. 5:94-CV-27,

March 22, 1995.•

Advisory .

Opinions

AO 1994-35

Terminating Reporting

Obligations

Susan Alter, an unsuccessful

1992 House candidate from New

York, must continue reporting

payments on a 30-year mortgage on

her personal residence because she

used the mortgage to repay a

campaign loan.

Ms. Alter sought to terminate her

committee and free herself of the

need to report the mortgage payments for the following reasons: she

intends to pay the mortgage with her

own personal monies, she no longer

holds nor plans to seek public

office, and the campaign treasurer is

no longer available.

Under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act), the amount

of outstanding debts and obligations

owed by a political committee must

be continuously reported until

extinguished either by payment in

full or by lawful settlement subject

to review by the Commission.

2 U.S.c. §434(b)(8), 11 CFR

104.3(d) and 104.11. Furthermore, a

political committee may terminate

its reporting status only upon filing

a termination report or statement

indicating that it will no longer

receive any contributions or make

disbursements, and that it has no

outstanding debts or obligations.

2 U.S.c. §433(d)(l).

These provisions of the Act

preclude the committee from

terminating its reporting obligations

because the mortgage remains an

outstanding campaign debt.

Ms. Alter, however, may be able

to obtain relief from her committee's

reporting obligations under FEC

Directive 45. That directive establishes criteria by which an insolvent

committee may be considered for

administrative termination, either on

request or on the Commission's own

initiative.

Certain prerequisites must be met

to be considered for administrative

termination under Directive 45. For

instance, the election for which the

committee was established must

have occurred more than 5 years

ago. Additional criteria are laid out

in Directive 45 and at 11 CFR 102.3

and 102.4.

Presently, Ms. Alter's committee

does not meet any of these prerequisites. Although Directive 45 does

not offer Ms. Alter immediate relief,

it does provide her with a future

avenue through which she might be

I able to avoid reporting mortgage

payments for the next 28 years.

The Commission made no

guarantees but encouraged Ms.

Alter to apply for administrative

termination in 1997, at which time

her committee would be eligible for

consideration.

Date Issued: March 24, 1995;

Length: 4 pages.•

AO 1994-36

Solicitation of Stockholders

In Employee-Owned

Company

The Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), an

employee-owned company, may

solicit contributions for its PAC

from employees who qualify as

stockholders. Qualifying employees

include those who are direct stockholders and the small number of

Profit Sharing I participants who

choose to purchase SAIC stock

Federal Election Commission RECORD

I using funds from their voluntary

employee accounts. Other Profit

Sharing I participants and participants of SAle's other retirement

plans-CODA, ESOP and Profit

Sharing II-may not be solicited

until they either quit the company or

reach retirement age.

Definition of Stockholder

A corporation and its PAC may

only solicit the corporation's

administrative and executive

personnel, its stockholders and the

families of both groups. 2 U.S.c.

§44l b(b)(4)(A)(i). Since SAIC is an

employee-owned corporation, the

question at hand is when do its

employees qualify as stockholders

and therefore as solicitable personnel under the Federal Election

Campaign Act (the Act).

Under the Act, a stockholder is

defined as a person who:

• Has a vested beneficial interest in

the stock;

• Has the power to direct how the

stock will be voted; and

• Has the right to receive dividends.

11 CFR 114.1(h).

Employees Who Are Direct

Stockholders

SAIC employees who purchase

stock directly from the company

have a vested interest on the basis of

their ownership of the stock. These

employees also have the right to

vote the stock they own and to

receive dividends (although it has

been SAle's past and current policy

not to declare dividends).

SAIC employees who purchase

stock directly thus meet the Act's

definition of stockholder and may

therefore be solicited for contributions to SAIC's PAC. Their stockholder status is not affected by the

fact that SAIC has a right to repurchase stock from a former employee

and the right of first refusal if an

employee wishes to sell the stock

outside the internal market. The

Commission noted that the price

(continued on page 6)

5
Federal Election Commission RECORD

dvisory Opinions

(co ntinued from page5)

paid by SAIC to obtain stock when

exercising these rights did not

amount to a forfeiture of the stock

by the employee.

Employees Who Are Beneficial

Stockholders

SAIC employees may choose

from four retirement plans: the Cash

or Deferred Account (CODA), the

Employee Stock Ownership Plan

(ESOP), Profit Sharing I and Profit

Sharing II.

Participants in all four plans who

have at least one share of SAIC

stock vested in their retirement

accounts, whether held beneficially

or directly, are considered to be

fully vested, thereby meeting the

Act's first criteria for being a

stockholder.

Participants in all plans also

satisfy the voting rights criteria,

since they may vote their SAlC

stock through a company trustee.

In the past, to determine whether

a participant has the right to receive

dividends, the Commission has

considered whether employees were

able to withdraw at least one share

of stock without incurring a suspension period. See Advisory Opinion

1994-27.

Given a number of restrictions on

employees' rights to access their

funds, the Commission concluded

that participants in four of the programs do not qualify as stockholders

under the Act until they either reach

retirement age or leave SAle. At

that point, they may be solicited.

Some Profit Sharing I participants may nonetheless still qualify

as stockholders before retirement or

termination. A provision of this plan

allowed participants to purchase

SAlC stock through accounts funded by voluntary employee contributions. These particular funds could

be accessed without restrictions.

Therefore, Profit Sharing I participants who have at least one share of

6

SAIC stock fully vested qualify as

stockholders under the Act.

Date Issued: March 24, 1995;

Length: 8 pages.•

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests

(AORs) are available for review and

comment in the Public Records

Office.

AOR 1995-12

Relationship between national

banking trade association and state

banking associations for PAC

fundraising purposes. (Independent

Bankers Association of America;

March 24, 1995; 3 pages plus 32-

page attachment)

AOR 1995-13

Eligibility of membership association members for PAC solicitations.

(American Society of Association

Executives; March 30, 1995; 11

pages plus 8-page attachment) •

Alternative Disposition of

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1995-4

The Commission closed this AOR

without issuing an opinion because

necessary facts were not submitted.

The request, made by Congressman

Douglas Applegate (retired),

concerned the purchase of a leased

car by a PAC he established.•

AOR 1995-6

The requester, Red Lion Hotels and

Inns, withdrew this AOR in order to

submit a revised version following a

review of requester's internal

procedures. Requester had sought a

waiver of the partnership contribution requirements at 11 CFR

IIO.I(e).•

May 1995-

Publications

1995 Combined FederaV

State Disclosure Directory

Now Available

The 1995 edition of the Combined Federal/State Disclosure

Directory is now available. The

directory lists the state and federal

offices responsible for public

disclosure of reports and for dispensing information on the following topics:

• Campaign finance

• Personal finances of candidates

and officials

• Public financing

• Spending on state initiatives and

referenda

• Lobbying

• Candidates on the ballot

• Election results

• Accessibility to polling places

• Election-related enforcement

actions

• Corporate registrations

In addition, the directory notes

which state offices have on-line

access to the FEe's data base and,

for the first time, notes which state

campaign finance data bases are online as well.

The directory includes addresses,

phone numbers and fax numbers for

each office, and also identifies staff

who are knowledgeable in the

subject areas.

Limited copies are available free

of charge from the FEe's Public

Records Office. To obtain a free

copy, call 800/424-9530 or 202/219-

4140 .•
«M ay / 995

Compliance

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 press

releases of March 3, 9, 15, 17 and

31, and April 5, but it does not

include the 24 MURs in which the

Commission took no action. Files on

closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

MUR2581

Respondents: (a) Michigan Republican State Committee, Ronald D.

Dahlke, treasurer; (b) Republican

National Committee, William 1.

McManus, treasurer (DC)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive coordinated

expenditures; excessive contributions; deposit and transfer of

nonfederal funds to federal account;

reporting failures

Disposition: (a) Probable cause to

believe; litigation initiated; court

imposed $12,500 civil penalty for

excessive contributions and deposit

of nonfederal funds; case dismissed

with respect to excessive coordinated expenditures; probable cause

to believe but took no further action

(inaccurate reporting; transfers of

prohibited contributions to federal

account); (b) probable cause to

believe but took no further action

MUR3452

Respondents: Durant for United

States Senator, Larry Dickerson,

treasurer (MI)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contributions

Disposition: $22,500 civil penalty

MUR 3721

Respondents: Perot '92 (formerly

known as Perot Petition Committee), Mike Poss, treasurer (TX)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48 hour

notices on time

Disposition: $65,000 civil penalty

MUR 3802

Respondents: Anthony for Congress Campaign Committee, Joseph

Hickey, treasurer (AR)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Failure to file 48 hour

notices

Disposition: $22,000 civil penalty

MUR 3831

Respondents: DNC Services

CorporationlDemocratic National

Committee, Robert T. Matsui,

treasurer (DC)

Complainant: Jonathan C. Close

(IL)

Subject: Disclaimer; misrepresentation of campaign authority

Disposition: No reason to believe

MUR3923

Respondents: (a) Houston Host

Committee, Inc., Frank Maresh,

treasurer (TX) ; (b) Binney & Smith

(PA); (c) Bonneau Company (TX);

(d) COMPCO Metal Products (OH);

(e) Cross Communications (CO);

(f) Fresh Technologies Group (AZ);

(g) Philip Morris USA (NY);

(h) Homewood-Flossmoor Community High School Job Training

Partnership Class for Americans

with Disabilities (IL)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Corporate contributions

Disposition: (a) $5,000 civil

penalty; $12,930 disgorged to U.S.

Treasury; (b)-(h) reason to believe

but took no further action

MUR 3952

Respondents: (a) 1992 Democratic

National Convention Committee,

Inc., Robert T. Matsui, treasurer

(DC); (b) Democratic National

Committee, Robert T. Matsui,

treasurer (DC); (c) Alexis Herman;

(d) Anne Reingold

Complainant: FEC initiated

(convention committee audit)

Federal Election Commission RECORD

Subject: Prohibited acceptance of

private contributions; exceeding

convention expenditure limits;

excessive contributions

Disposition: (a)-(b) Reason to

believe but took no further action

(private contributions); no reason to

believe (exceeding expenditure

limits); (c)-(d) no reason to believe

(excessive contributions)

MUR 3956

Respondents: Friends of Bowen,

Inc., Dr. Tony Jackson, treasurer

(OH)

Complainant: Citizens for Mann

Campaign (OH)

Subject: Failure to identify contributors adequately ("best efforts");

reporting joint contributions

Disposition: Reason to believe but

took no further action ("best

efforts"); no reason to believe (joint

contributions)

MUR3980

Respondents: (a) Van Hipp, Jr.

(SC); (b) Hipp for Congress Committee, William Ellison Thomas,

treasurer (SC)

Complainant: Arthur Wiliam

Rashap (SC)

Subject: Disclaimer

Disposition: Insufficient votes to

find reason to believe

MUR 3995

Respondents: (a) Ralph Terry

Hudgens (GA); (b) Hudgens for

Congress, Tim Waters, treasurer

(GA)

Complainant: K. G. Watson (GA)

Subject: Disclaimer

Disposition: No reason to believe

MUR 4014

Respondents: (a) Committee on

Arrangements for the 1992 Republican National Convention, Alec

Poitevint, treasurer (DC);

(b) Republican National Committee,

William 1. McManus, treasurer

(DC); (c) Jack A. Laughery (NC)

Complainant: FEC initiated (1992

convention audit)

(continued on page 8)

7
Federal Election Commission RECORD

Compliance

(continued fr om page 7)

Subject: Prohibited acceptance of

private contributions; exceeding

convention expenditure limits;

excessive contributions

Disposition: (a)- (b) Reason to

believe but took no further action

(prohibited acceptance of private

contributions); no reason to believe

(exceeding convention expenditure

limits); (c) no reason to believe

(excessive contributions)

MUR 4024

Respondents: UAW-V-CAP, Bill

Casstevens, treasurer (MI)

Complainant: FEC initiated

Subject: Excessive contrib utions;

inaccurate reporting of contributions; prohibited contribution from

nonfederal state affiliate

Disposition: $3,400 civil penalty

(excessive contributions; inacc urate

reporting); reason to believe but

took no further action (prohibited

contribution from state affiliate)

MUR 4162

Respond en ts: Harris County

Democratic Exec utive Committee,

David Mincberg, treasurer (TX)

Co mpla inant: FEC initiated

~fft~~rerofikre~rtooti~

Dispositi on: $900 civil penalty "

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300 *

Printed on recycled paper

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the "number" (month) of

the 1995 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second number,

following the colon, indic ates the

page number in that issue . For example, " 1A" means that the article

is in the January issue on page 4.

Adv isory Opinions

1994-33: Calling card solicitations, 3:5

1994-34: Consolidating membership

association PACs follow ing a

merger, 3:7

1994-35: Terminating reporting

obligations, 5:5

1994-36 : Solicitation of stockholders in an employee-owned

company, 5:5

1994-37: Allocating between federal

and nonfederal campaigns, 3:7

1994-39: Solicitation of affiliates by

a mem bership organization, 3:8

1994-40: Storing records on micro -

film, 3:9

1995-1: Respondents and the

confidentiality provisions, 4:8

1995-3 : Running simu ltaneous

Senate and Presidential campaigns, 4:8

1995-5: Use of contributor lists

derived from FEC reports, 4:9

May 1995-

I Co mp liance

$25,000 Annu al contribution limit ,

4:1

MUR 3540: Corporate facilitation, 1:2

MUR 3650: Loan Guarantors, 1:2

Court Cases

FEC v. _ _

- Michigan Republican State

Committee,5A

- Montoya, 2:7; 5:4

- NRA Polit ical Victory Fund , 2:I

- National Republican Senatorial

Committee (93-16 12), 4:4

- Williams, 4:5

v. FEC

- Condon, 3:5

- Democratic Senatoria l Campaign

Committee (93-132 1), 1:10

- Democratic Senatorial Campaign

Committee (95-0349), 4:8

- Freedom Republicans, 2:6

- Fulani (94-1593), 4:6

- Lytle , I :10, 2:7

- Nation al Republican Senatorial

Committee (94-5 148), 5A

- Robertson , 4:6

I _ Whitmore, 2:7

- Wilson, 2:7; 5: I

Rove v. Thornburgh, 4:7

Reports

Schedule for 1995, 1A

800 Line Articles

Administrative Termination, 2:9

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31