February 1993

Table of Contents

Regulations

Possible Hearing on "Best Efforts"

Rulernaking

6 Hearing Held on Definition of

tember

Public f unding

Report on Public Funding

Information

4 1992 Presidential Election Results

Released

<1 Tuesday FaxingService Available

Statistics

4 Po t-Elccrion National Party

Statistics

5 Advisory Opi nions

Publications

7 Revised Allocation Supplement

800 Line

7 Party Committee A llocation:

Carrying Debts from Previous

Election Cycle

S Index

Ohio Special Elections

Ohio has scheduled a March 16

primary and a May 4 general election in the 2nd Congressional District to lillthe scat formerly held by

Congressman Willis D. Gradison, Jr.

Candidates, party commiuecs and

PACs who planto participate in the

elections should call the FEC for

information on reporting requirements (800/424-9530 or 202/219-

3420).

Federal Election Commission

Regulations

Possible Hearing on "Best

Efforts" Rulemaking

The Commission is con idering

holding a hearing on March 24, 1993,

at 10:00 AM, if a sufficient number of

persons are interested in testifying on

proposed changes to the "best efforts"

rules.

Requests to testify at the hearing

arc due on February 26. Persons

requesting 10 testify mUSI also submit

written commerits by February 26 if

they have not submitted comments in

response to the Nericeof Proposed

Rulernaking. Requests to testify and

written cornmerus should be sern to

Ms. Susan E. Propper. Assistant

GeneralCounsel, 999 E Street, NW.

Washington, DC 20463.

111e revisions to the "best efforts"

niles ( I I eFR I04.7(b) would require

political comminees 10 make a separate

and distinct foll ow-up request for the

name, address, occupation and

employer of any contributor who gave

over $200 10 the committee ill a

Calendar year,I even if (he original

solicitation had included a request for

(contiuur d on pag« 6)

I The Federal Election Campaign A CI

requires comndtteesIn disclose (Irisillfom/a·

tion as well as lite da te and amount ofthe

con tribution. 2 USC. §4J4(bJ(J)(A).

Volume 19. Num

Public Funding

1992 Chairma n Reports

on Publi c Funding; Sound

Warning for 1996

On December 14. the 1992 F

Chairman.Joan D. Aikens.' anno

at a press conference that the pu

funding program had been succe

fully managed for the 1992 Pres

rial race, Ihe fifth election under 

program. However, she warned 

the Presidential Election Campai

found will run out of money for t

1996 Presidential election unless

Congress takes action.

1992 Elections

The Chairman said that the F

had originally been concerned th

there would be a shortage of pub

funds for the 1992 Presidential

election. However,she explained

"candidates entered the race milc

later than in previous elections a

raised less matchable money. the

avoiding a potentially ruinous dr

on the Fund..;" The FEC's early

projections had esrirnated that th

1992 election wou ld cost the Fu

$ 177 million. By the end of J99

(continued 011 p

J The 19l)J Chairman is S CO(( £. Th

as announced in (he January /993

Record.
PI'Ilt-ral Electilll/ COllllll issiOil N£CORD

Public Funding

{continuedfro m page /)

over $174 million had been disbursed

from the Fund.' The eleven primary

candidates who qualified for matching

funds received a total of $4 1.8 million;

11lC Democratic and RepublicanconvenLions received over $22 million: and

the Bush and Clinton general election

campaigns each received $55.24

million.

Chairman Aikens applauded the

Commission' s staff for producing

high-quality work despite II considerable increase in workload generated

by both the Presidential and Congressional elections. She also noted that

: TIlt' Fund balance at rite cud ()f /9 92

was estimated (0 be $3.7 million.

Federal Election Co111111 ission

999 F. Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202fl19-3420

202/2 19-3336 (TDD)

the FEC has rc rrucrured its audit

program 10 allow more effective monitoring of 1992 publicly funded campaigns: " We have increased our audit

staff and streamlined other requirements. so we expect the audits of the

1992 campaigns to flow much more

smoothly and be completed much

more quickly thanever before." In

addition,she reponed that the FEe

will increase its legal enforcement

staff, currently 19 auorneys, "to ease

our heavy load of more than 350 cases."

During the press conference. FEC

statistician Robert Biersack presented

numerous graphs on the financial

activity of the 1992 Presidential campaigns, Two of those graphs appear

below. His graphsalso charted the

Presidential pending by 1992

General Election Ca mpaigns

Millions of Dollar

30

___ ______ _ F_,c:..-b_ruary 

Fund balance during the 1992 elec

and depicted the projected shortfa

for the 1996 election.

Projections for 1996

With reopect to the 1996 public

funding program. Chairman Aiken

reponed thai, "under current cond

lions, (here wi ll nOI beenough mo

in the Fund to cover all phases. TI,

deficit could be as much as$100

mi llion," TI,e agency projects n Fu

balance of $ 124 III illion for the 19

election, resulting ina shortfall for 

general election nominees and " no

money whatsoever for primary

candidates." Mrs. Aikens noted th

the Commission plans [0 renew its

recommendation that Congress lak

Clinton

_ Bush

Perot I

I H. Russ Perot withdrewfrom the race Oil JII/Y /5: he reentered 011 September 30 .

Scott E.Thomas, Chairman

Trevor Potter. Vice Chairman

Joan D. Aiken. , Commi ioner

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

DannyL. McDonllld,

Commissioner

John Warren McGarry.

Commissioner

Waller J. Stewart, Secretary

of the Senate. Ex Officio

Commissioner

Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk

of the House of Rcprcsenrativcs.

Ex Oflicio Commi. ioner

John C. Surina, Staff Director

LawrenceM. Noble, General

Counsel

Published by the Information

Division

Louise D.Wides. Director

Stephanie Fitzgerald , Editor

Blake Lange, Graphics Advisor

2

25

20 1- - - - -

15 1- - -

10 1----- -

5

oI.-I-.....L-_

July August September October 1-

October 14

October 15

November 23
Federal Efen;ol/ Commission RE

II

\

Brown ($5.18 milli on )

Kerrey ($3.81 million)

L-....;;;......I Less than $200

$200 - $499

$500 - $749

_ At least $750

Bush ($27 .1 million ) Clinton ($25.17 mill ion )

Harkin ($2.95 million )

Tsongas ($4.93 million)

Buchanan ($7.02 million)

Presidential Fundraising by 1992 Primary arnpaign s:

Contributionsfrom Individuals by Size of Contribution

legislative steps 10 index the dollar

checkoff for inflation J or 10 appropriale fundsdirectly 10 the public

funding program. "WithouI Congressional action." Mrs. Aikens emphasized, "the public funding system will

not prevail in the form we have

known for the la. I 16years."

Dollar Checkoff

The sole source of money for Ihe

public funding program is the onedollar checkoff on income lax forms,

Chairman Aikens said thai. in the face

of a lOvyear decline in taxpayer

participation in the program, the

agency conducted a modest nationwide education programduring the

1991 and 1992 lax seasons. Two

public service announcements

explained how public fu nding works

and encouraged taxpayersto make an

informed choice when filling OUI their

la-x returns. "Nonetheless. participation in the checkoff continues to

decline:' Mrs. Aikens reponed. "The

participation rate reached a high of

28.7 percent forthe 1980 lax returns.

11 has declinedever since and. this tax.

year. will likely be below 19 percent.

Preliminary figuresshow thai only

about $30 million was deposited in

1992; thai is $2 miIl ion less than in

1991 ,"

TIle Chairman said that, in 1993.

the FEe" will not produce another

public service announcement because.

31 this point. legislative changes are

necessary ifthe [public funding] program

is \0 survive. lnstead, we will turn our

auention to the very real possibility of

Congressional action and. in anticipationof such action.prepare anextensive reporton the history of the public

funding process." +

.1 The checkoff has remained arolle dollar

S;IlC:t· taxpayerfunds were first collected

for the program ill /973. By contrast. tile

cOII\'(:/IIion and general election grams

(Ire indexed to inflatlon.
Federal Electioll Commin ioll RECORD

Infonnation

1992 Presidential Election

Results Released

A January 14 press release lists the

official vole counts for the Presidential candidates on me ballot in the

overnber 3, 1992, general election.'

The resultsshow that BiJl Clinton

received almost 43 percent of the total

votes cast; George Bush. 37.4 percent;

and Ross Perot, almost 19 percent. To

order a copy of the press release.call

800/424-9530(ask for PublicRecords)

or 202/219-4140.

Based on certified results, a total of

104,552,736 Americans voted in the

1992 general election. These voters

repre;;nted55.9 percent of theestimated 187 million Americans who

were 18 years or older as of July I ,

1991 . the most recent votingage

population (VAP) figure available

from the Bureauof theCensus.

(There is no official record of the total

numberof registered voters.) According to the press release, the 1992voter

turnout percentage was the highest in

a Presidential election since 1968.

ALmost 13 million moreAmericans

voted for the President in the 1992

general election U1aIl inthe 1988 election,

when the voter turnout was91,594,693,

a little over 50 percent of the YAP.

The pressrelease lists the stale-bystate a.nd tot.aJ VOles cast for the 23

Presidential candidates who were on

the ballot in one or more states. Only

BillClinton,George Bush. Ross Perot

and AmITe Marrou were on the ballot

in aU 50 stales. The release also lists

the number of write-in VOleS.

In coming months, there may be

minor changes to the voting results.

The FEC wiJl issue final resu ltsthis

summer when it publishes Federal

Elections 92. The publication will

include House and Senate results...

I For theprimary results, order afree copy

of 1992 Presidential PrimaryElection

ResullsfronJ(lie Public Records Office.

4

Tuesday Faxing Service

NowAvailable

The Public Records Office is now

offering a Tuesday afternoon faxing

service 10 those who wish 10 receive

certain information on a regular basis.

Each Tuesday preceding a Thursday

Commission meeting. the Public

Records Office will transmit the

followingdocuments(consisting of

about 3 or 4 pages) after 2:00 PM:

• The agenda for the upcoming

meeting; (;> • •

• A lisl of any new advisory opuuon

requests made public duri.ng the

week; and

• Anv new press releases listing

recently closed compliance cases

(Maners Under Review or MURs)

that have been made public.

If you request this service. please

keep in mind that, in order to provide

efficientservice to multiple requesters, your transmission wiII not be

addressed to a specific person.The

charge is $2.00 per transmission.

As reported in the January 1993

Record. the office will also fax any

requested FEC documents, such as

campaign finance reports, up to a 20-

page limit, at a charge of $2.00 plus

the regular charge for reproducing

documents.

In order \0 receive any fax transmissions from the PublicRecords

Office-including the regular Tuesday transmission-s-you must first set

up an account with the office by

maiJing 3 check or moneyorder for at

least $25 (made out 10 the Federal

Election Commission) 10 : Public

Records Office, Federal Election

Commission, 999 E Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20463. Please

include the name, address and phone

number of the contact person for the

account.

If you wish to sign up for the

Tuesday faxing service. send a le~ t

requesting the service and authorizing

deductions from your Public Records

account.Include your fax number

(with area code) and an alternative fax

number, if available. MaiJ the letter

February /

-- 

(address given above) 10 the attent

of AndreaCromwell, who can also

answer your questions on the servi

She can be reached at 800/424-953

(ask for Public Records) or 202/21

4140. •

Post-Election ational Part)

Statistics

As of November23 (20 daysaf

the November election), the Repub

can national committees I surpasse

their Democratic counterpartsin

federal fundraising by $85 million

the same point during the 1990 and

1988 election cycles. the Republic

led by $130 million and $101 milli

respectively.

Between January 1, 1991, and

November 23. 1992. the Republic

national committees raised $187.3

million for their federnJ accounts a

spent $ 180.6 million, while the

Democratic committeesraised $10

million and spent $100 million. Th

Republicans gave $2.5 million in

federnl contributions and spent $32

million in coordinated party expen

lures (which support federal candi

dales running in the general electio

The Democrats spent $ 1.6 million 

contributions and $25.5 million in

coordinated expenditures.

The graph on page 5 compares

federal receipts of the Democratic

National Committee and the Repu

can National Committee at differen

pointsin the 1991·92 election cycl

With respect 10 their nonfederaJ

receipts, as of November 23 the

Republicans had raised $51.4 mill

(22 percent of theiroverall receipt

federal and nonfederal) and the

Democrats, $36.3 million (26 perc

I Each party lUIS threenaiional-ieve! conuna

(lie national committeeand (he House

and Senate campaign committees.
February 1993 - - - Federal ElectionCommissionRE

AOR 1993-1

Campaign's rental of storage un

from candidate. (Congressman D

Burton. January 8, 1993. I page

Advisory Opinion Reques

Recent requests for advisory

opinions (AORs) are listed below

The full text of each AOR is ava

for review and comment in theF

Public RecordsOffice .

phone bill. Past advisory opinion

have considered similar sirualion

the use of committee assets (in t

case, parry goodwill and the iden

cation of party supporters) to gen

income through ongoing busines

ventures, Those opinions conclu

that such activities are a form of

fundraising and result in contrib

10 the committee. See AOs 1991 

1990-3 and 1988-[2.

In AO 1988-12 and AO /979

the Commission specifically reje

proposals under which banks.in 

keting credit card services, would 

commissions to party comm ittee

exchange for access 10 the part

membership list and the use of 

party's name and goodwill. The 

ion concluded that the commiss

would be prohibited contribution

the banks. LEe's proposal close

resembles those opinions, and L

commissions would likewise be c

sidered prohibitedcorporate con

dons from LECunder 2 U.S.c. §

Party committees thai do nor 

federal accounts may participate 

LEC's proposal, subject [0 slate 

local law. Party committees with 

federal and nonfederal accounts 

also participate if the commissio

placed in their nonfederal accou

(subject to state or local law) and 

the funds are not used 10 influen

federal elections or 10 pay the fe

share of the cornrnirtees' adrnini

live and fundraising costs. See

II CFR 102.5(a) and 106.5(b); s

also AOs 1991-34 and 1986-40.

Dale Issued: December I I. 1

Length: 5 pages. +

Advisory

Opinions

AO1992-40

CommissionsEarned by State

Party Committees

Commissions earned by state party

committees for recruiting partysupporters as customers for Leading Edge

Communications, Inc. (LEC). which

sells discounted long-distance telephone

services, would be considered prohibited corporate comributions from LEe.

UnderLEe's proposal, a state puny

committee would sign up customers

for the company, which would pay

the comrniuee a commission consisting of a percentage of each recruited

customer's monthl y long-distance

of their total receipts), The 1991 -92

election cycle was the first cycle

when national party committees had

to report their nonfederal activity.

Nonfederal accounts contain "soft

money," that is, money raised outside

the limits and prohibitions of the

federal campaign finance law. These

funds are used 10 influence state and

local elections and to pay for the

nonfederal portion of activities thai

intluence both federal and nonfederal

elections.

A press release issued December

14, 1992, provides further statisrics on

the federal and nonfederal acti viry of

the national party committees as of

November 23. Comparable data are

given on federal activity in previous

election cycles. To order the release.

call 800/424-9530 (ask for Public

Records) or 202/2 19-4 140. +

e Federal Account Receipts - ONC Federal Receipts

ofDNC and RNC I

- RNC Federal Receipts During 1992 Election Cycle

Millions of Dollars

40

35

30

25

20

IS

10

5

0

1991 January- April- July 1- October 15-

e larch 1992 June1992 October 14, November 23,

1992 1992

I DNC isthe DemocraticNationalCommittee: RNCisthe RepublicanNationalCommittee.
reaerot Eltrt;o'l Can/miSS;"'l RECORD

Regulations

(contilll from page 1)

this infonnation. The requirement

would apply 10 both solicited and

unsolicited contribuuons lacking the

necessary contributor information.

111e proposed changes would also

require treasurers to report informarion that was kno......n to them but nOI

provided by the contributor. Moreover, therevisions clarify the existing

requirement that treasurers must

amend reports upon obtaining missing

contributor information.

The Commission is especially

interested in tesnrnony on whether the

proposals would be excessively

burdensome or whether they would

provide a workable method of

ensuring complete public disclosure

of contributor information. In addition. the agency welcomes testimony

on the timingof amended reports

containing this information.

The NOIice of Public Hearing was

published in the Federal Registeron

January J3. J993 (58 FR 4 11 0). This

notice and the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaklng (57 FR44l37, Sepremher 24,1 992) may be ordered from

the Public Records Office. Call 800/

424-9530 (ask for Public Records) or

202/219-4J40. •

Hearing Heldon Definition

of Member

At a December 9. 1992, hearing,

the Commission heard testimony

from II membership groups and one

individual on proposed revisions to

the regulations that define who

qualifies as a member of a membership association.The revisions would

require membership associations 10

satisfy certain requirements in order

for theirindividual members to be

eligible to receive solicitations from

the organization's separate segregated

fund or 10 receive panlsan communications from the organization. The

proposed changesreflect a 1982

Supreme Court opinion, Federal

Election Commission v. National

6

Right to Work Committee (NRWCJ, as

"ell as several FEC advisoryopinions.

In addition 10 comments made at

the hearing. the agency received 30

written comments on the proposed

rules, which wootd revise I I eFR

JOO.8(b)(4)(;v) and 114 .I(e).

A transcript ofthe hearing is

available from the FEe's Public

Records Office at a COSI of SI5.20.

The wriuen comments and the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking I are also

available. To order. call SOO/424-9530

(ask for Public Records) or 202/2 19-

4140.

Proposed Revisions

Theproposed revisionswould require

a membership association 110 specifically provide for members in hs articles

and bylaws. Moreover. the association

would have 10 expressly solicit irdividuals to become members arid expressly

acknowledge a person's acceptance of

1Tmll:etihip.!i.dl asbysadingarrembership card or placing the person's

name on a rewsjene- mailing tisi.

The member. in addinonto

satisfying the association's requiremenrs for membership(current

regulation). would have 10 affumatively accept the membership invitation and meet one of t he following

three qualifications:

1. The obligation (0 pay dues on a

regular basis coupled with the right

to vote either(a) dlrecny for a

majority of the officers or directors

I The Notice 01 Prnpostd Rulemokillg

was published in rhe Federat Regjster on

Oaober S. /992 (57 FR 46346).

' The proposed rules would define 0

membershipassociation /0 include 0

membership gani ion lr J~ associalion, cooperative or corpnror;lIlI ..·;thoul

capital stod. Tht prOf'OSM rilles would

also defint a labor orgQlli:alwn as a

membeTJhip association bllt ...ould

cominue (0 considerindividual members of a locaf union as memb ers ofOilY

affiliated nanonat or illlernationa! IUlioll

(JI/d as members ofany federolioll

qffiliated wuh tIlt tocal. nasionat 01"

imernational umon.

or(b) for those who select 3

majority of the officers or directo

2. The right ro vote directly for all o

rn~ association's officers or

directors.

3. Asignificant financial anachrre

10 the organization (nOI counting

dues), such as 3 substantial

investment or ownership stake.

Testimony

TheNational Rifle Association o

America generally agreed with the

proposed rules bUI advocated a srric 

definitionof member. such as a

requirement mal members have

nomination as well as voting rights

'The witness also said t hat dues

paymentsshould be a mandatory

element for all members, regardless 

their other financial lies or organiza

1ional ties.

By ccncasr. witnesses represear

several membership groups-c-the

AmericanSociery of Association

Executives. the National Associatio

of Social Workers. the National Rig

to Life Comrniuee . Inc.. and the

National Righi to Work Commine

testified thai the proposed defiru rion

of member was 100 narrow.The

witnesses were generally concerned

about the voting rights requjremeru

which they believed went beyond t

requirements of the Supreme Court

ruling in NRWC. This view was als

held by William J. Olson. an attorn

whose firm advises membership

groups. TIle National Right 10 Wor

Comminee representative and some

of the other witnesses proposed tha

each membership organizatioo be

allowed 10 SCI irs own membership

standards (that is, retain the current

rule).

A number of cooperatives urged

the Commission to change the rules 

allow indirect or "third tier" membe

of federated cooperatives to qualify 

members, in addition 10 the "second

tier" members included in the

proposed rule. Testifying on this iss

were representatives of the Indiana

Fann BUTeau. lnc.• KAMO Power,

Land O'Lakes and the National

Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
Order Form: Revised Supplement on Allocation

Send yourorderto: Federal Election Commission

lnformation Divi.ion

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

~-----------------------

February 1991

Finally. representatives of the

Chicago Board of Trade and the

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

supported the proposed definition of

member. which they believed would

confer membership status on all their

members, 801h of these organizations

have multiple categories of owned

and leased memberships, each with

varying financial attachments and

voting rights,

The Commission wi ll consider the

testimony and written comments

when developing final rules. +

Publications

Revised AUocation Supplement

The Commission recently published

a Revised Supplement all Allocation.

which explains the rules for allocating

expenses that jointly benefit both

federa l and nonfederal candidates and

elections. Updating the original

November 1990 supplement. the new

supplement highlights the 1992

changes to the allocation regulations,

These changesappear in boldface.

As the publication explains. the

allocation rules apply to political

cornrniuees (specifically, party committees. nonconnected cornrniuees

and separate segregated funds) that

maintain federa l and nonfederal

accounts. The rules also apply to

organizations that are not poli tical

commiuees (as defined under the

Federal Election Campaign Act) bUI

that make disbursements in connecLion with both federal and nonfederal

ejections.

The revised supplement explains

which expenses have to be allocated,

how to allocate them and how 10

report allocated expenses. The

reporting section includes samples of

completed forms to illustrate the

reponing rules and, like the other

material, incorporales (he 1992

regulatory changes.

The supplement was sent to the

treasurers of registered party committees and nonconnecred committees.

Anyone may order a freecopy using

the form below. ..

FederalElectionCommission R

SOOLine

Party Committee Allocati

Carrying Debts from Prev

Election Cycle

January I, 1993, was the star

new two-year federal election cy

for allocation purposes. Starean

local party committees subject t

allocation rules had to recalcula

their ballot composition ratios fo

new cycle. This ratio is (he alloc

method used by state and local p

cornminees 10determine the fed

and nonfederalshares of their ad

istrative expenses and generic v

drive costs.'

11)e ballot composition ratio 

based all the number of federal 

to (01:'11 federal and nonfederal o

expected on the ballot in Ihe nex

general election in the state or

geographic area where the comm

is located. Only categories of fe

and nonfederal offices are inclu

the ratio. For more inform ation 

allccntion. including an explana

how to calculate the ballot comp

tion ratio, consult II eFR I06.5

and the Revised Supplemellf 011

Allocation (sec previous article)

For some state and local part

comrniuees, the ballot composit

ratio for the current election cyc

1993-94. may be the same as th

used ill the previous cycle, 1991 

This article, however. focuses o

those cornrniuees whose ballot

composition ratio changed for 

current cycle. For them. the que

ari ses: When making payments 

[continued on p

ume

Organiz.ation

"' if ordering more than 25 copies. please include your plume number.

Address

City

I umb er of Copies

St..te

Phone umber *

ZipCode

I Committees Iota red i ll states oldi

federal and nonfedem l elections in 

rate yean allocote gene ric "m er dr

COSI.\' according 10 II ballot compos

ratiocalrulotedfo r rileyear iu whi

election is !Ieltl. Administrative (·05

however. arc allocated based 0/1 th

bailor CO/llPOSiliOiI ratio calculated

the two-veorfed erat election cycle

I I CFR 1(}()5(d)(2).
FederalElection Commission RECORD

--- --- - - - - - - Fehmary /

800 Line

(contlnuedfrom page 7)

retire a debt incurred in the previous

election cycle for an administrative

expense. which ballot composition

ratio should beused to allocate the

payments- the ratio for the previous

cycle or the ratio for the current cycle?

The answer is that committees

must use the ratio for the election

cycle in which the goods or services

were received. AO 1991 -6, note 5.

For example. a committee incurred

a debt during the previous election

cycle by contracting for a computer

system but did not receive deli very

until the start of the current cycle.

Therefore. payments 10 retire the debt

would be allocated using the ballot

composition ratio for the current

cycle.

lf, however, the committee had

received delivery before the end of

the previous cycle, the ballot composition ratio for that cycle would be

applied to any debt retirement

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street. NW

Washington, DC 20463

OHicial Business

payments made during the current

cycle. When reponing such payments

on Schedule H4, the committee would

have to note that the disbursement

related to goods or services received

in the previous election cycle...

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the " number" (month) of the

1993 Record issue in which the article

appeared. The second number. following the colon, indicates the page number in that issue.

I Advisory Opinions

AO 1992-38: Loan from Presidential

campaign's legal and compliance

fund to public funding account. 1:6

AO 1992-40: Commissions earned by

state parry cornrninees. 2:5

Court Cases

FEe \,.

- lntemational Funding Institute, 

v. FEe

- Common Cause (92-2538), 1:8

- Lyndon H. LaRouche (92-1555)

1:8

U.S. Senator John Seymour Comm

tee v. Dianne Feinstein, 1:8

Reportin g

ScheduIe for J993, I:3

800 Line Arlicles

PaI1)' comm ittee allocation: carryin

debts from previous election cyc

2:7

First Class Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31