FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Volume 17, Number9

7 ADVISORY OPINIms

RlGJLATIWS

1 Common Cause Rulemaking Petition

2 Final Rules: Redesignations and

Reattributions; Joint Fundraising

2 Final Rules: Public Funding

5 Final Rules: Excess Funds and Assets

6 CLFAlUI«BXJSE: Federal voting Laws

6 LEGISLATIW: Senate Honorarium Ban

15 INDEX.

11 CXJn'ERENCES: Eoston, Chicago

12 INFOBMTIW: 1992 Ba110tjPrimary Dates

14 C'DU'LIlll«:E: MURs Released to the Publi

9 AUDITS: Jack Remp for President

10 STATISTICS: '92 Senate Races; PAC Coun

11 PUBLI~ONS: 1990 Election Results

11 PUBLIC .APPEAIU\NCES

organi2ation's actual cost in providing th

transportation and thus results in what

"-"QuId otherwise be an illegal contribution

COl1Il\Of1 cause therefore proposes amending

the rules to require, in all cases, paymen

"at the same price it would cost to charte

similar aircraft."

The C~ssion published a Notice of

AvailC!bility on the Conunon cause petition

in the Federal Register on August 21, 1991

The Notice summarizes the Cornmon Cause

proposal and announces that the petition i

available for review and copying in the

FEC's Public Records Office. Comments on

the petition are due september 20 and

should be addressed to Susan E. Propper,

Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20463.

(Regulations continued

Clearinghouse....•.••.......... 219-3670

Congressional Affairs•...••.... 219-4136

rnfonmation Services...•.••..•. 219-3420

Library..........••....•.•.....219-3312

Personnel••••.....•.......•.•..219-4290

Press Offlce •..••••••••••••.... 219-4155

Public Records••....••..•.•.•.. 2l9-4140

Reports Analysis....•.•..••..•. 219-3580

Local Numbers (Area Code 202)

NOTE: Out-af-town callers may also

reach these offices by calling the 800

number and asking for the office

needed.

tD FEe PHOOE NUMB1mS

Effective August 26, all of the

FEC's local telephone numbers changed.

New numbers for selected offices are

listed below.

Note that the aOO-line number (800/

424-9530) remains the same.

September 1991 999 EStreet NW Washingtor1 DC 20463 r-------.----------~

'lDD Number for the

Bearing Impaired••••••••••• 202;219-3336

caller s on the TOD line may [everse

the charges when calling Erom outside

the Washington, DC area.

'....-··REGULA1~IONS

- '... : .. "

FEe SEEKS <XJIII!ENl'S Ctl PETITIOO 'IO CIWQ;

RULES (If USE OF COBPORATE/UNIai AIRCBAF'l'

The COImIission is seeking conments on a

rulemaking petition filed by common Cause

to increase the paymerlt that candidate

committees must make to corporations and

labor organizations for the use of their

aircraft. Under the current rules at

11 CFR 114.9(e), the committee must pay the

organization either the first class airfare

or, if the trip is to a location not

serviced by commercial airlines. the usual

charter rate. (The payment must be made in

advance of the trip.)

Common Cause alleges that the first

class payment rate is lower than the

•
Federal Election CcmIli.ssion, 999 IE street, NN'~ washington, DC 204.63

800/424-9530 202/219-3420 202/219-3336 (TOO)

September 1991 FEDERAL ElECTION COMMISSION

ffl:NA.L RULES: REDESI~CtiS AND

RFA1"l'RIBlmClfS; JOINT FlH>RAISING;

SUBSIS'lDlCE EXPENSES

on July 19, 1991, the Commission sent

to Congress final revisions to the rules

governing public funding of Presidential

candidates. Included in that rulemaking

were certain changes to the general regulations that apply to all committees. These

changes are summarized below. (A stul1lllary

of changes to the public funding rules

appears in the following article.)

The Commission will announce the effective date of the rules after 30 legislative

days have elapsed. The final rules and

their explanation and justification were

published in the Federal Register on July

29, 1991 (56 FR 35898).

Redesignations and Reattributions

TO monitor compliance with the 60-day

tiue period for obtaining reattributions

and red.esignations of contributions, a

change to 11 CFR UO.l{l) requires committees to retain documentation showing that

the redesignation or reattribution was

received within 60 days of the cotmlittee's

receipt of the original contribution. This

documentation may be:

o A copy of the postmarked envelope bearing

the contributor's name, return address or

other identifying code;

a A copy of the written redesignation or

reattribution with a date stamp showing

the date of the commdttee's receipt~ or

o A copy of the redesignation or reattributien as dated by the contributor. 11 CFR

110.1(1)(6).

Joint Fundraising

The new rules revise -the joint fund-

~aising rules (11 CFR 102.17) in several

respects:

o A separate committee that serves as the

fundraising representative may not act as

a participant in any other joint fund-

~aising effort. 11 CFR 102.17(a)(1)(i).

o 7he allocation formula must indicate the

amount or percentage of each contribution

John warren McGarry, Chairman

Joan D. Aikens, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott.

'1bomas J. Josefiak.

Danny L JIlcDonal d

Scott E. 'IbaIas

Volume 17, Number 9

that will be allocated to each participant. 11 eFR 102.17(c)(1).

o The statement that participants must use

the allocation formula to allocate

expenses has been deleted from section

l02.17(c)(1). Allocation of expenses is

addressed in current section

102.17(c)(7), which remains effective.

Under that paragraph, expenses must be

allocated based on the percentage of

total receipts allocated to each participant; this allocation may differ from the

original formula.

o Expenses fo~ a series of fundraising

activities must be allocated on a perevent basis. 11 CFR 102.17{c)(7)(i)(C).

corresponding changes are included in

the joint fundraisinq rules applicable to

Presidential primary candidates receiving

matching funds (11 CFR 9034.8).

Definition of SUbsistence Expenses

The new rules moved the definition of

"subsistence expenses" from section 106.2

(allocation of expenditures by Presidential

primary candidates) to 116.5(b), the

section that addresses advances for travel

and subsistence expenses on behalf of a

candidate or party committee. t1SUbsistence

expenses" are defined as an individual's

personal living expenses related to his or

her travel on committee business (e.g.,

food and lodging expenses).

FINAL RULES: POBLIC FtH>ING OF

PRe:SmmrIAL C1aNDIDl\'l'ES

on July 19, 1991, the commission sent

to Congress final ~evisions to the rules

governing the public funding of Presidential primary and general election candidates. Certain changes were also made to

regulations that apply to all committees.

'lhe Commission will announce the

effective date of the rules after 30

legislative days have elapsed. The final

rules and their explanation and justification were published in the Federal Register

on July 29, 1991 (56 FR 35898).

walter J. Stewart, Secretary of the Senate,

Ex Officio Commissioner

Donnal.d K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of

Representatives, Ex officio Commissioner

2
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

September 1991

The material below summarizes major

revisions contained in the regulations that

apply to publicly funded candidates.

Changes that apply to all ~ttees are

summarized in the preceding article.

Simplification of State Allocation

by primary Cimpaigns

The revised rules simplify the process

of allocating expenses to the state spending limits, a requirement for primary

can::1idates receiving matching funds , Under

the new rules, expenses are allocable only

if they fall within one of the five

categories listed below. By contrast, the

previous rules required allocation of all

expenses unless an expenSe was covered by a

specific exemption.

Allocable E!q)enses. The following

categories of expenses are subject to

allocation;

1. Media E!q)enses. Expenses for campaign

advertising distributed through broadcast and print media in a particular

state are allocable. Excluded from

allocation are production costs, commdssions for media purchases and costs for

advertising distributed nationwide.

11 CFR 106.2(b)(2)(i).

2. JlIass Mailings. Costs associated with

mass mailings of over 500 pieces to a

particular state are allocable, as are

the costs of shipping other campaign

materials to a state. 11 CrR

106.2(b)(2)(ii) •

3.. Overhead Expenses. Overhead expenses of

a state campaign offic~including a

temporary office-and a regional campaign office are allocable. Up to 10

percent of overhead expenditures for a

state office may be treated as exempt

compliance expenses and thus excluded

from allocation. In the case of a

regional office, the overhead expenses

must be allocated to the next primary

state in the region. 11 eFR

l06.2(b)(2)(iii).

4. Special '1'eleprone Program5. section

106.2(b)(2)(iv) replaces the previous

rules for interstate and intrastate

telephone calls. under the new prevision, costs for telephone calls are

allocable only if they are part of a

special program targeted at a particular

state (i.e , , 10 percent or rna re of the

calls made that month are made to that

state). Special programs include voter

registration, get-out-the-vote'efforts,

fundraising and telemarketing operations. Related allocable expenses

include consultants' fees, travel costs

and office rental.

3

Volume 17, Number

5. Public Opinion Polls. ' Costs of conducting a public opinion poll are allocable,

unless the poll is conducted on a

nationwide basis. Related expenses,

such as consultants' fees and travel

costs, are also allocable. 11 CPR

106.2(b) (2) (v).

Expenses Not Allocable. Expenses that

fall outside the categories listed above

are not allocable to the state spending

limits (but do count against the national

spending limit). For example, national

consulting fees are no longer allocable to

a particular state.

Recordkeeping. under a new provision,

a committee must retain all documents that

support (1) allocations of expenditures to

particular states and (2) claims that an

expense is exempt from allocation; otherwise, the expenditures will be allocated to

the state holding the next primary election

after the expense is incurred. 11 CFR

106.2(d) • Moreover, under new 11 CPR

9034.4(b)(7), payments for allocable

expenses will not be considered qualified

campaign expenses if the coounittee's

records do not provide information necessary to allocate the payments to a particu

lar state, such as the date on which the

expense was incurred.

Fundraising ExeDption for primary

candidates

primary committees may treat up to 50

percent of their allocable expenditures fo

a particular state as exempt fundraising

costs and thus exclude them from the state

spending limit. This revision replaces the

previous 28-day rule under which a fundraising exemption could be claimed only if

the activity occurred more than 28 days

before the state's primary, caucus or

convention. There is one exception:

cormnittees may treat up to 100 percent of

mass mailing expenditures as exempt fundraising costs, but the 2B-day rule applies

in this case. 11 eFR 110.8(c)(2).

Amounts excluded as exempt fundraising

costs at the state level, when added to

amounts excluded at the national level, ma

not exceed 20 percent of the national

spending lindt. 11 CFR 100.B(b)(21).

PJatchincj n.md SUbmissions

The revised rules on matching fund

submdssions require committees that have

computerized their contributor lists to

submdt them on computer tapes or diskettes

in accordance with FEC magnetic media

(continued
September 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

standa rds. 11 CPR 9036.1 (b) (2) • Submissions must also now include a list of

refunded contributions. 11 CFR

9036.l(b)(6) and 9036.2(b)(1)(iv).

Noti that, under a separate rulemaking, mtching fund submissions will be

rejected, during limited periods, if the

error rate exceeds 15 percent. The

rejection policy is not, however, reflected

in this set of rules.

Continuation of pri.Dal:y C81piign

After Date of Ineligibility

After a candidate's date of ineligibility, the committee may no longer receive

any matching fWlds to continue the campaign. At that point, matching funds must

be used only to retire debts incurred

before the date of ineligibility. Under

the previous rules, however, private

contributions raised after the date of

ineligibility also had to be used to pay

pre-ineligibility debts. until those debts

were retired. the contributions could not

be used to pay the expenses of the continuing CaIrpaign; otherwise, the committee

would have to repay matching funds. The

revised rules now provide a method under

which a candidate may use private contributions to continue campaigning without being

penalized. Moreover, contributions

received after the date of ineligibility

may also be sutmdtted for matching funds.

11 CFR 9034.4(a)(3)(ii).

Repayment of Matching Funds

'!he revised rules address two situations, under which a cornmittee may be

subject to overlapping repayment determinations.

The first situation involves repayments

for receiving matching funds in excess of

the candidate's entitlement and repayments

for making nonqualified campaign expenses.

This would occur if a committee artificially increased the candidate's entitlement to

matching funds by including nonqualified

campaign expenses in its statement of net

outstanding campaign obligations (NOCO).

The revised regulations require the conmi btee to repay both: (1) the entire amount

that exceeds the entitlement and (2) a

1see 56 FR 34130. July 25, 1991. This

rulemaking. which was summarized in the

August 1991 Record. substantially revises

procedures for matching fund submissions

and certifications. The revisions were

necessitated by recent Treasury Department

regulations that address payment procedures

in the case of a shortfall in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

4

Volume 17, Number 9

portion of the nonqualified campaign

expenses that were paid before the cOlllllittee's accounts no longer contained any

matching funds. (Nonqualified campaign

expenses are subject to repayment based on

the portion of matching funds-as opposed

to private contributions-that were used-to

pay the expense.) 11 CFR 9038.2(b)(2)(iv).

The second situation concerns candidates that have exceeded both the state

spending limits and the national spending

limit. (Disbursements that exceed a limit

are considered nonqualified campaign

expenses.) The revised rules explain that,

in this situation, only one repayment will

be required, based on the larger of the

excessive amounts. 11 CFR 9038;2(b)(2)(v).

Changes to Both Pdmary and General

Election Public FUnding Rules

In addition to the above changes, which

pertain to Presidential primary candidates,

the new rules contain parallel changes to

the primary and general election sections

of the rules.

candidate Agreeuents. Presidential

candidates seeking public funds must sign

letters in which they agree to comply with

certain conditions. '!he revised rules add

two condftions to the candidate agreement

provisions:

o If the cammdttee maintains computerized

records. it must submit required

materials in a computer format that

complies with the FEC's magnetic media

requirements. (See 11 CFR 9003.6 and

9033.12.) 11 eFR 9003.1(b)(4) and

9033.1(b)(5).

o The campaign committee must provide

documentation on funds received and spent

on the candidate's behalf by other

committees and organizations associated

with the candidate (e.g•• candidate

PACs), if the Commdssion so requests.

11 CFR 9003.1(b)(S) and 9033.1(b)(6).

Reimbursements for Transportation.

Primary and general election candidates

receiving public funds may seek reimbursement from media personnel for the costs of

providing transportation and services to

media representatives accompanying the

candidate on campaign trips. These provis- -

ions contain several changes. including the

following:

o Because the Treasury Department's

reimbursement rates may not cover the pro

rata share of costs attributable to

Secret Service personnel, the commdttee

must pay the difference. under the

revised rules, the unreimbursed amount

does not count toward any expenditure
FEDERAL ELECllQ\J COMMISSION

•

september 1991

limit although it is still considered a

qualified canpaign expense. 11 ern

9004.6(a) and 9034.6(a). A general election ccmnittee may pay the unreiinbursed

amount from its legal and accounting

compliance fund.

o In calculating each media representative's pro rata share of transportation

and services, the conuuittee may include

the total number of individuals to whom

the transportation and services were made

available. The new rules explain that

the total number may include conuui ttee

staff, all media personnel, Secret

servic~ personnel and national security

staff. 11 CFR 9004.6(b) and 9034.6(b).

Redesi9RC!ltions for ee.pliance Fund.

General election committees may ask

contributors to redesignate their primary

contributions so that they apply to the

general election legal and accounting

compliance fund. The current rules, however, permit such redesignations only if

the contributions: (1) exceeded the

primary limit or (2) were made after the

party's Presidential nominee was chosen.

The. new rules permit general election

ccmmittees to request compliance-fund

redesignations of contributions that were

not excessive and that were received before

the primary period ended, but certain

conditions must be met:

o The redesignated contributions must

represent funds in excess of amounts

needed to pay remaining primary

expenses;

o The redesignations must be received

within 60 days of the treasurer's receipt

of the contributions and must comply with

the other redesignation requirements at

11 eFR l10.l(b)(5) and (1); and

o The contributions must not have been

subni.tted for matching funds. 11 CFR

9003.3(a)(1)(iii).

with respect to the last condition, a

parallel provision appears in the primary

regulations at 11 eFR 9034.3(k). Under

that regulation, contributions redesignated

for a compliance fund or for a different

election may not be matched.

2The CorrIllission first approved and then

rejected an approach that would have

permitted a conanittee, when calculating a

media representative's share of expenses,

to include a pro rata portion of: (1)

unreimbursed expenses for the Secret Serv~ce personnel and (2) expenses of

committee staff whose sale purpose was to

provide travel services for the media.

5

Volume 17, Number 

other Changes. The revised regulation

contain other changes that apply to both

primary and general election candidates;

o The rules incorporate the conclusion

reached in AO 1988-5 that transfers made

by a publicly funded candidate c01llfllittee

to another committee of the same candidate are nonqualified campaign expenses.

11 CFR 9004.4(b)(7) and 9034.4(b)(6).

o The revised rules make clear that, in th

course of conducting audits of publicly

funded candidate committees, the Commission may invoke the investigative procedures set forth at 11 CFR Part 111,

including the issuance of subpoenas.

11 eFR 9007.1{b)(ll(v) and

903S.l(b) (1)(v).

o The current rules state that the commission will notify candidates of repayment

determinations no later than three years

after the end of the matching payment

period (primary candidates) or the

expenditure report period. (general election candidates). The new rules explain

that the issuance of the interim audit

report constitutes notification for

purposes of the three-year period.

11 CFR 9007.2(a)(2) and 9038.2(a)(2).

PINl\L RULES: USE OF E:XCFSS CAMPAIGN ftH)5

ANI> JOD\SB ASSETS

On July 19, 1991, the Cammdssion sent

to Congress final rules on the conversion

of excess campaign funds to the candidate'

personal use. The revised regulations at

11 eFR 113.1 and 113.2 apply to "grandfathered" candidates-Members of Congress

who held office on January 8, 1980.

Candidates who are not grandfathered

continue to be prohibited from converting

excess funds to personal use. The new

rules make clear that this prohibition also

applies to the conversion of noncash asset

to personal use. See "Other Candidates, n

below.

The COIlItlission will announce the effec

tive date of the rules after 30 legislative

days have elapsed. The final rules and

their explanation and justification were

published in the Federal Register on July

25, 1991 (see 56 FR 34124).

The material below highlights the

changes contained in the new rules.

Grandfathered. candidates; Personal Use of

Excess Cimpaign Funds

Grandfathered candidates, who \/Ieee

previously allowed to convert unlimited

excess campaign funds to personal use, may

no longec do so. This change is contained

in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, enacted

(continued
FEDERAL 8£CTlON COMMISSION

Volume 17, Number 9

1

26 U.S.C. 57701(k), as amended by the 1990

amendments to the Ethics Reform Act of

1989.

. . , -,~ '-'

,. ';LEGIS~tldtl.·:~ '\;}~:}r/:t-~;~:;_.,_ .

BAN CH RH)RARIA NON APPLIES 'IO SENATE

on August 14, 1991, President Bush

signed into law an amendment to the Ethics

in Government Act of 1978 that,prohibits

u.s. Senators and Senate officers and

employees from receiving honoraria. The

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,

Public Law 102-90, also repeals 2 U.S.C.

5441i, the Federal Election campaign Act's

provision on honoraria. 'I11e honorarium ban

became effective when the President signed

the bill.

Before this recent amendment, the

Ethics Reform Act of 1989 had amended the

Ethics in Government Act to prohibit the

receipt of honoraria by u.s. House Members

and all federal officers and employees

except those in the Senate. That prohibition became effective January 1, 1991.

In addition to extending the honorarium

ban to the senate, the August amendment

expands the definition of honorarium under

the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C.

5505(3) to include stipends, that is,

payments for a series of appearances,

speeches or articles if the subject matter

is directly related to the individual's

official duties or if the payment is made

because of the individual's status with the

federal government. However, Senators Who

are currently under agreements to receive

stipends may continue to receive them

through the end of 1991. .

Still in effect is the Ethics in

Government Act provision on donating honoraria to charity (5 U.S.C. 5501(c». under

this provision, an individual will not be

considered to have received an honorarium

if he or she asks that it be donated to a

designated charity, although the donation

may not exceed $2,000, and the i~iVidual

may not receive any tax benefit. Moreover, the charity selected may not be an

organization from which the individual, or

his or her family, derives any financial

benefit.

Also still in effect is the provision

in the Ethics in Government Act that

excludes travel and subsistence expenses

from the definition of honorarium (5 U.S.C.

§505(3»).

6

September 1991

on November 30, 1989. That Act amended

2 u.S.c. 5439a in two respects:

o Grandfathered Members of congress who

serve in the 103rd or a later Congress

will be unable to convert any excess

funds to personal use once the 103rd

Congress convenes on January 3, 1993.

o Until then, nqrandfathered" Members may

convert only an amount equal to the campaign's unobligated balance as of November 30, 1989.

The revised regulations reflect the

Ethics Reform Act amendments and provide

alternative methods of calculating the

November 30. 1989, c~ign balance.

under the first method, the campaign of

a "qualified" (Le•• grandfathered ) Member

simply determine$ its cash on hand, minus

outstandin<J debts, as of November 30. 1989.

'I1le second method permits the campaign to

include noncash caIltXlign assets and committee receivables in its November 30,

1989, balance. but additional reporting is

required. These methods follow the

COJII'Dission's determination in NJ 1990-26.

NZIf PDBLICATICIf (fi FEDElWo vonNG

The National Clearinghouse on Election

Administration recently released Federal

Election Law 91, a sunvnary of federal laws

pertaining to registration and voting.

Although elections-including federal

elections-are for the roost part governed

by the laws of each individual state, there

are some Constitutional provisions and

federal statues that affect state election

procedures. Tbenew publication summarizes

selected federal provisions on registration

and voting. providing federal government

sources ~re readers can obtain further

information.

To order a free copy of Federal Election Law 91, call 800/424-9530 (ask for the

Clearinghouse) or 2021219-3610.

other candidates: Personal Use of

Noncash Assets

Terminating committees are already

required to report how residual funds will

be used. 11 CFR 102. 3(a) • The revised

rules add a new paragraph to section 102.3

under which the committee of a nongrandfathered candidate must include in its

termination report a statement that noncash

cOlllllittee assets will not be converted to

personal use. The statement must be signed

by the' treasurer.
FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Number 9

(continued)

Application of Corporate Prohibition.

SUbject to certain conditions, the CUrrent

Donor Program will not, result in a prohibited corporate contribution from GSI.

Although the program may involve a temporary withholding of payment to GSI in some

months, this does not necessarily constitute an advance of corporate funds since

the Committee is obligated to pay GSI in

full at the end of a short, defined period

(1. e., the two-and-a-half-mon~cycle).

See AD 1979-36.

The Ccmmission therefore approved the

CUrrent Donor Program, subject to three

conditions:

o GSI' s estimates-the basis for determining the amount remitted to the Committee

each month--should be good faith projections; they should not be altered to

accommodate the committee's need for

funds at certain times (e.g., close to

the general election).

Description. The CUrrent Donor program

involves a series of two-and-a-half month

cycles. Each cycle consists of GSI's

solicitation of all the names on the donor

list and the collection of the proceeds.

The Committee and GSI plan to conduct three

cycles in the nonelection year and four in

the election year.

At the beginning of each cycle, GSI

estimates the total amount to be raised. and

the compensation it expects to earn. These

estimates, which are based on GSI's past

experience, are then used to determine how

nnlch revenue GSI remits to the Committee at

the end of each month. In some months, 001

may remit full payment to the Committee

without paying full compensation to itself.

At the end of the cycle, adjustments

are made to ensure that 051 is paid in full

for the cycle. In the event that insufficient funds are raised to pay GSI in full,

the shortfall converts to a debt that is

immediately due. The Committee would use

other funds on hand to pay the debt.

Current Donor prograJll

permissible under the Federal, Election

campaign Act. (Impermissible contributions

are either returned to the donors or forwarded to the conmittee for deposit in a

nonfederal account.) GSI then deposits

permissible contributions in a custodial

account set up in the Committee's name and

pays itself compensation from the account

(an hourly rate for making the calls plus

an amount for each pledge). GSI also

provides the committee with required

recordkeeping and reporting info~tion.

7

September 1991

AL'l'ERNATE DISPOSITIm OF

AIJIlIsr:mY OPINICfi IUQ.IEST

MWISORY OPINIOO StlDWUES

NJ 1991-18: TelemarketiI19 services

Provided by COrporate

Verdar

The New York State Democratic Committee has

entered into an agreement with an incorporated telemarketing company, Gordon and

Schwenkmeyer, Inc. (GSI), to conduct two

types of telephone solicitation programs to

raise funds for the Commdttee's federal

accounts. Subject to certain conditions,

the CUrrent Donor Program will not result

in prohibited corporate contributions from

GSI because the Committee will pay any

compensation owed to GSI by the end of a

short, defined time period. By contrast,

the prospecting Program could result in a

long-term payment shortfall to GSI; the

program must therefore be modified to avoid

a prohibited advance of corporate funds in

the form of unpaid compensation.

" .. _, '.'-.

Agreement

under the agreement, GSI conducts the

solicitations, collects the contributions

and verifies whether the contributions are

AIJilISORY OPINI<JiJ RIQJESTS

Recent requests for advisory opinions

(ADRS) are listed below. The full text of

each ADR is available for review and comment in the FEC's Public Records Office.

.MJR 1991-11: Activities to Detenaine

Viability of New Political

Party

This ADR was withdrawn by the requester on

July 26, 1991.

AOR 1991-26

Independent company's billing and collection services for 900-1ine fundraising

programs. (Date Made Public: August 9,

1991; Length: 10 pages plus attachments)

1lOR 1991-27

Effect of u.s. SUpreme Court decision on

inclusion of nonpartisan local offices in

state party's ballot composition ratio.

(Date Made Public: August 15, 1991,:

Length: 8 pages)

•

•
September 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

o GSI's compensation should cover all of

its expenses plus a reasonable profit.

Any shortfall at the end of a cycle is an

immediately payable debt.

o uncler 11 eFR 116.3(b) and (c), extensions

of credit by incorporated vendors must be

made in the vendor's ordinary course of

business and on te~ substantially

simdlar to credit extended to nonpolitical debtors. Therefore, the Commission

assumes that GSI will make available

simdlar programs to all of its customers

on a nondiscriminatory basis. See AOs

1990-19, 1986-23 and 1979-36.

prospecting Program

Description~ The prospecting program

actually began in the fall of 1989, when

GSI made initial telephone calls to

prospective donors. In spring 1990, GSI

resolicited new donors who responded to the

first solicitation. The agreement provides

that new donors be solicited three times

each nonelection year and four times in the

election year.

Unlike the CUrrent Donor program, full

compensation to GSI under the Prospecting

Program is tied to long-range contingencies. In the early stages of the program,

the amount raised is unlikely to cover

GSI'a expenses. Moreover, if the program

runs its course without yielding sufficient

contributions to pay GSI in full, GSI has

no recourse to the Committee for payment.

Instead, GSI may continue to solicit donations in the Committee's name for five

years, retaining any proceeds until it

recovers full payment. 051 will also

receive compensation in the form of half

ownership of the new donor list, which it

may use on behalf of other clients.

Application of Corporate Prohibition.

Because of the program's speculative nature

and the consequent possibility of a shortfall to GSI, the Comission could not

approve the prospecting program wi thout

some record that GSI or companies like it

conduct similar programs in the ordinary

course of business. In the absence of such

a record, the Conunlttee must modify the

program to avoid a possible unlawful

advance of corporate funds over an extended.

period of time. The Cormnittee may advance

funds to cover GSI's expenses or, alternatively, pay GSI full compensation at the

end of short,. defined periods of time.

under either alternative, the Committee

would also have to satisfy the conditions

that apply to the CUrrent Donor program,

described above.

8

Volume 17, Number 9

other considerations

eustcxlial Account. The custodial

account set up by GSI is an account of the

Committee and must therefore be established

at a state bank or federally chartered or

insured depository. If necessary, the

Committee must amend its Statement of

Organization to list the bank as a designated campaign depository. 2 U.S.C.

§§432(h)(1) and 433(b)(6); 11 CFR 103.2 and

l02.2(a)(vi). Each contribution is considered to be received by the Cornmittee on the

date 051 rece!ves it. Within 10 days of

receiving a contribution, GSI must deposit

it in the custodial account. 11 eFR

l03.3(a). The Committee must report GSI's

withdrawals from the custodial account as

operating expenditures. 2 U.S.C.

S434(b) (5) (A).

OUtstanding Caapensation Reported as

Debts. with respect to the Current Donor

Program, the Committee must report as a

debt (on Schedule D) any coepensataon

earned by GSI that was not paid during the

reporting period. (The same procedure

would apply to the prospecting program if

the remedies and conditions discussed above

are satisfied; otherwise, the debt would

constitute a prohibited contribUtion from

GSr.) If GSI normally charges interest on

unpaid 'balances, then the Committee must

pay the usual interest to avoid a corporate

contribution. 11 eFR 116.3(b) and (c).

(Date issued: July 12, 1991; Length: 10

pages)

AD 1991-19: &Iployee Payroll Deductions

After corporate Merger

As a result of a corporate merger, ConteI

Corporation (CONTEL) is now a wholly owned

subsidiary of GTE Corporation. GTE plans

to consolidate the PACs of both corporations into one PAC at some future date. In

the meantime, payroll deduction contributions that were previously authorized by

CONTEL employees for CONrELPAC may now be

remdtted to GTE's PAC, but the employees

must receive advance notice of the change.

GTE's proposed activity is permissible

under Commission regulations, which permit

a corporation to solicit the executive and

administrative employees of a wholly owned

subsidiary and which also permit the use of

payroll deductions to collect employee

contributions to the corporation'S PAC.

11 CFR 114.5(9)(1) and 114.5(k)(I).

However, when providing advance notice

to aE1'EL employees, GTE must follow the

solicitation rules at 11 CFR 114.S(a)(2)
FEDERALElECTIOI\J COIV1MISSIOI\J

$114,680

$ 73,920

Volume 17, Number

$775,218

$461,000

State Spend- Amount Spen

ing Limit OVer Limit

vendor Payments. 'Itle Committee's

breakdown of allocations contained a

category of expenses consisting of payment

for office overhead and other expenses. I

this category, the Commission allocated

additional amounts to the Iowa and New

Hampshire limits for the following- reasons

o The Conunittee took a 10 percent compliance exemption and a 10 percent fundrais

ing exemption on certain expenses that

were not overhead expenses and therefore

did not qualify for the exemptions under

11 CFR 106.2(c)(5).

o The Committee double counted the 10 percent compliance and fundraising exemptions for certain overhead expenditures.

o The Committee improperly depreciated

furniture and equipment costs When

calculating the allocable amount.

o The Cammdttee improperly excluded certai

post-primary expenses from the Iowa and

New Hampshire lirnits; everhead expenses

(e.g., rent, utilities, equipment lease

payments) and a consultant's fee for tim

spen1;. closing down the New Hampshire

office.

o The committee allocated certain expenses

as regional expenses but failed to

provide supporting documentation that th

expenses were not entirely allocable to

the New Hampshire limit.

o The Committee failed to allocate, as Iow

expendi tures, payments to the Iowa

(continued

Allocation of Expenditures. -Based on

audit findings, the Commission increased

the amounts the Committee originally

allocated to the Iowa and New Hampshire

limits by $135,847 and $75,099, respectively. The material below explains why

the Commdssion adjusted the allocations in

selected catego~ies of expenses.

Iowa

New Hampshire

FEe Audit staff applied a f0Im11a to

the excessive amount to determine what por

tion of that amount was paid with public

funds as opposed to private contributions

in the Committee's account. (The formula

is explained at 11 CFR 9038.2(b)(2)(iii).)

The formula yielded a repayment amount of

$60,259.

Hampshire spending lindts by a total of

$188,600;

9

.'.- -.

-'~--A- .•. '.~j>.' U'D'll'S" . .,.. -,• ,', , ., ,. . . ,- .

-,~ <-~.-:~,~.:,<:.. ".. ..:..... <.: :.~,

, "'.~ ...

September 1991

I!:Xpenditures in Excess of the Iowa

and New Haq>wre Limits

calculation of Repayment. The

CoJmnission determined that the Kemp

Committee had exceeded the Iowa and New

and (3) to ensure that contributions are

made on a voluntary basis. Additionally,

GTE must notify employees of their right to ~evoke their o~iginal authorizations for

payroll deduction at any time, without

reprisal. 11 eFR 114.5{a)(4); ADs 1991-1

and 1981-14.

GTE does not have to obtain new authorizations from the CONTEL employees, since

they will be contributing to the PAC of an

affiliated corporation. That was not the

case in N:J 1989-16, where the Cotmrission

concluded that employees had to execute new

authorizations when they became employees

of a spin-off corporation not affiliated

with their original employer.

(Date issued: July 26, 1991; Length:

3 pages)

PEe RELFASES DMP AlJ)IT REl'OR'l'

On July 25, 1991, the Commission made

an initial determination that the Jack Kemp

for President committee (the Kemp committee) must repay $187,069 in federal matching funds. The Conmittee had received

$5.985 million in primary matching funds

for Mr. Kemp'S 1988 Presidential primary

canplign.

The initial repayment determination was

based on the audit of the Kemp Committee

and two joint fundraising committees

(Kemp;Dannemeyer and Victory '88) that had

raised funds for the Kemp Presidential

campaign. The repayment amount includes a

$60,259 repayment for exceeding the Iowa

and New Hampshire expendi ture lirnits (see

below) • The remainder of the repayment-- $126,8ll--is the total of stale-dated

comnittee checks that were never cashed by

the payees. uncle r 11 erR 9038.6, the total

of outstanding checks must be repaid.

(Should the checks be negotiated, this

total will be revised accordingly.)

If the Committee does not dispute the

initial determination within 30 days, the

repayment amount becomes final and is

payable within 90 days of the initial

determination. 11 CFR 9038.2(c) and (d).

Final audit reports are available for

review in the Public Records Office.

•

•
September 1991 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

Republican party for a Presidential straw

poll.

a The Committee claimed that payments for

staff to attend party-sponsored events in

New Hampshire were covered by the fundraising exemption since staff could meet

potential contributors. However, the

Committee failed to provide supporting

documentation that solicitations took

place.

o The COl'IIIti.Uee failed to allocate the

costs of producing campaign buttons for

Iowa and New Hampshire, claiming the

costs could be excluded as production

costs for "advertising 1'lledia." 11 eFR

106•2(e )( 2) . cartq;:taign buttons, howeve r ,

are not considered "advertising media."

o 'ltle Committee improperly excluded

interstate shipping costs for campaign

materials.

o Finally, the Commission made several

miscellaneous adjustments that increased

the amounts allocable to the Iowa and New

Hampshire limits; the Commission also

rejected a number of insufficiently

documented adjustments the Committee had

made to reduce allocable amounts.

Travel. The Coromission allocated additional amount8 to the Iowa spending limit

for travel, subsistence and payroll

expenses of campaign staff who spent five

consecutive days or more in Iowa. 11 em

106.2(b)(2)(iii).

Testing-the-Waters Expenditures by

canpaign for prosperity. The CO!lmission

allocated certain amolUlts spent by campaign

for Prosperity (CFP), a PAC associated with

Jack Keq;>, to the Iowa and New Hampshire

limits. CFP had paid for costs associated

with events Hr. Kemp attended before he

announced his candidacy. Because the

events appeared to be connected wi th his

prospective Presidential bid, the payments

became campaign expendi tures-allocable to

the state spending limits-when Mr. Ke~

became a candidate. 11 eFR 9034.4(a)(2).

10

Vol ume 17, Number 9

me RELBASES INFQRll!ATICN CN

1992 SF.NATE CANDIM'I'ES

The FEC recently issued a press release

providing a reference guide on the financial activity of 1992 Senate candidates.

'I11e guide includes a chart sUllDIIarizing the

activity of 1992 Senate candidates through

the end of 1990. Divided into two-year

cycles (1987-88, 1980-90), the chart lists

infor:mation on total receipts, disbursements and cash on hand, The guide also

ranks 1992 Senate candidates based on the

size of their cash on hand at the end of

1990. Finally, the guide compares cash-enhand. totals of incumbent Senate candidates

for the preceding election cycle (1984) and

the current election cycle.

For a free copy of the July 26, 1991,

press release, call the Public Records

Office: 800/424-9530 (ask for Public

Records) or 202;219-4140.

SEJIIU!HW, PAC <DNl'

As of July 1, 1991, the number of

registered political action comnrittees

(PACs) registered with the FECtotaled

4,123, the lowest point in four years.

The number of PACs decreased by 49 since

the last semiannual survey, taken on

December 31, 1990·. The number of corporate-sponsored PACs dropped by 50. Nonconnected PACs, however, increased by 34, as

shown in the table below. For statistics

on PAC counts taken semiannually since

1975, order a free copy of the FEC press

release dated July 11, 1991, from the

Public Records Office. Call 800/424-9530

(ask for Public Records) or 202;219-4140.

fblIber Gain,lLoss

category as of Since Percent.

of PAC 7/1/91 12/31/90 Change

Corporate 1,745 -50 -3%

Labor 339 -7 -2%

Trade/MemberShip/Health 749 -25 -3%

Nonconnected 1,096 +34 +3%

Other.!1 194 -1

Total 4,123 -49 -1\

1"Other" category consists of PACs formed

by corporations without capital stock and

PACs formed by incorporated cooperatives.
: .

Volume 17, Number 9

"'. - - . '.. :~

CONfERENCES' ., ~'. ~',v / .' :-.' .~ (-

workshops

In addition to workshops on the federal

campaign laws, the conferences will include

a workshop on state campaign finance laws

presented by the state election office (in

Boston, the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance; in Chicago,

the Illinois state Board of Elections).

At both conferences, a representative

of the Internal Revenue Service will be

available to answer election-related tax

questions.

FEe 'IO fI)[l) CXIWERBr«:ES IN BOS'l'(JiJ, l1IICACD

This fall, the FEe is holding two-day

regional conferences in Boston and Chicago

to assist candidates, political party

organizations and PACs with their preparations for the 1992 elections.

o The Boston conference will be held on

september 11-12.

o The Chicago conference will be held on

November 14-15.

Reqistration Information

The $130 registration fee for each

conference covers the cost of the conference, materials and meals for both days

(continental breakfast, lunch). call the

FEe to order a registration form and

schedule of workshops (800/424-9530 or

202/219-3420).

Please note that. for the Boston

conference, the registration form with the

fee enclosed had to be postmarked by August

28 to avoid a $10 late fee.

To avoid a late fee for the Chicago

conference, the registration form (with fee

enclosed) must be postmarked by October 30.

Hotels

The Boston conference will be held at

the sheraton Boston Hotel and Towers, 39

Dalton Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02199.

Call 617/236-2000 for room reservations.

To receive the group rate of $140 per

night, notify the hotel that you will be

attending the FEe conference.

The Chicago conference will be held at

the swissotel Chicago, 323 East wacker

Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601-9722. Call

312/565-0565 for room reservations. To

receive the group rate of $110 per night,

notify the hotel that you will be attending

the FEe conference.

11

September 1991 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

9/10 washington Semester Program

The American University

washington. DC

commissioner Thomas J. Josefiak

Michael G. Dickerson, Chief

Public Record Branch

Ian H. Stirton, Public Affairs

specialist

9/20 The Journal of Law and Politics

university of Virginia School of Law

Charlottesville, Virginia

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott

10/1 National Association of Business

Political Action Commdttees

washington, IX:

Patricia A. Klein, Public Affairs

Specialist

9;12 1991 Office of Government Ethics

Conference

washington, DC

David S. Orr, Director

Personnel and Labor Relations

nx::: PUBLISHES OfFICIAL

1990 ELEC'1'ICJli RESULTS

In July 1990, the Commission released

Federal Elections 90, which lists the official results of the u.s. House and Senate

general elections held in November 1990.

'!he results were provided by state election

officials.

The Commission first published federal

election results for the 1982 general elections and has continued the practice every

two years to prOVide an accurate historical

record.

Free copies may be ordered from the

National Technical Information Service

(~S), U.S. Department of commerce, 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, 22161.

The entire series is available at over 800

federal depository libraries (state,

university and major metropolitan

libraries) •

•

•
September 1991 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 1}, Number 

1992 PRIJo1ARY ELPX:TIOO'

AND BAU.01' ACCESS MTES

The FEe's Public Reco~ds Office

recently compiled the accompanying chart

that lists, for each state, the preliminary

1992 primary dates and filin<J deadlines for

ballot access. The chart covers Presidential and Congressional primaries for major

party candidates; it also includes deadlines for independent candidates seeking

ballot access for the 1992 general election

(November 3). Please consult your state

office for information on ballot access

requirements.

The Public Records Office has also

formatted the list chronologically by date

of the Presidential and Congressional

primaries. To order a free copy of that

list or to inquire about updates to the

list shown below, call Dick Thomas or

Jennifer Fit2patrick at 800/424-9530 (ask

for Public Records) or 202)219-4140.

please note that all dates are current

as of July 19, 1991, and are subject to

change by state legislatures.

Note also that, in 1992, the Record

will carry the pre-primary reporting dates

for the Congressional primaries.

1992 PRIMRY DMES Am FILIW DEN>LINES POR MLLO'l' ACCESS

As of July 19, 1991; all dates are subject to change by state legislatures.

lIDI'E: states with Senate elections are printed in bold.

u.s. Hause Independent

state Presidential caooidates and senate caooidates candidates -- Ballot Access primary Ballot Access primary/ Ballot Access

Runoff for Nov. 3

Gen' 1. Election

Alabama 4/3 6)2 4/3 6)2 4/3

6/30 runoff

Alaska 6/1 8/25 penchng

American Samoa* 9/1 11/3 9"l

11/17 runoff

Arizona 6/25 . 9/8 9/18

Arkansas 3/31 noon 5)26 3/31 noon 5/26 5/1

6;9 runoff

california* Dem. 3/19 6/2 3/6 6/2 3rd party 3/20

Rep. 3)20 Ind. 8/7

Colorado 1/2 3;3 6/7 8/11 8/4 3pm

COIUlecticut* 2/7 4J;Wn 3/24 penchng** 9/15 9;9

Delaware 7/31 9/12 9/1

Dist. of Col. 3/6 5/5 2/26 5/5 8/26

Florida 1/14 3,110 7/10 noon 9/1 7/10 noon

9/29 runoff

Georgia - 3/10 5/1 7/21 6/26

8/11 runoff

Guam 7/31 9/5 7/31

Hawaii 7/21 9/19 . 7/21

Idaho 4)27 5;26 4/3 5;26 6)24

Illinois* Rep. 12/16/91 3/17 12/16;91 3/11 Ind. 12/16/91

Dem. 1/15 ' 3rd Party 8/3

Indiana 2/21 5/5 2/21 5/5 7/l5 noon

Iowa 3/13 6/2 6,114

*Survey returns for these states mention possible legislative changes in primary and

ballot access dates.

**In Connecticut, the ballot access date "for the Congressional primaty is 14 days after th

date on which the party (DeJllDcratic or Republican) holds its convention, convention dates

will be set in late 1991.

12
13

"'Survey returns for these states mention possible legislative changes in primary and

ballot access dates.

**10 Minnet;;ota, the date for affidavits is 12/31/91; the date for petitions is 1/28/92.

***In Utah, each political party holds a convention to select two candidates to run in the

primary. The primary wiMer becomes the party's general election nominee. If, however, a

candidate receives 70 percent of the votes at the convention, that cendtdate becomes the

general election nominee, and the primary is not held. AO 1978-30.

*"'**10 several virginia Congressional Districts, political parties nominate candidates at

conventions rather than through primary elections.

FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 17, Number9

u.s. House Independent

State Presidential Cardidates and senate candidates candidates -- Ballot Access Primary Ballot Access primary/ Ballot Access

Runoff for Nov. 3

Gen' 1. Election

Kansas 2/12 noon 4/7 6/10 noon 8/4 8/6

Kentucky 1/28 5/26 8/4

Louisiana 1/10 3/10 7,124 10/3 7;24

11/3 runoff

Maine'" 4/1 6/9 6/9

Maryland Rep. 12/23/91 3/3 12;31/91 3/3 8/3

Dem. 1/2

Massachusetts 1/3 3/10 6/2 9/15 a

M1Chiqan 1/10 4~ 3/17 5/12 4pm 8/4 7

Mlnnesota ** 4/7 7/21 9/15 "]

Mississippi 1/15 3/10 l/10 3/10 1/10

3/31 runoff

JUssoun.* 3/31 8/6 8/3

Montana 3/19 6/2 3;19 6/2 6/1

Nebraska 3/13 5/12 2/27-3/13 5/12 8/25

Nevada 5/12 9/1 6/26

New re 12/Z3/91 2/1B 6/12 9/S 8/19

New Jersey 4/9 4pm 6/2 4/9 4pm 6;2 4/9 4pm

New Mexico 3/15 6/2 3;3 6/2 7/14

New York* 2/6 4/7 7./12 9/15 8/20

North carohna 2/4 5/5 2/3 5/5 7./1

6/2 runoff

North Dakota 4/10 6/9 4/10 6/9 9/4

<Jti.o 2/20 5/5 2/20 5/5 5/4 4pm

Ok''''~ 1 '15 3/10 7/8 8/25 7/8

9/15 runoff

oregon 3/10 5/19 3/10 5/19 8/25

vania 2/18 4/28 2/18 4/28 8/1

Peurto Rico'" oenclinQ 3/15 cending 6/14 pendinq

Rhode Island'" 2/4 3110 7/17 9/15 7/17

SOUth carolina* Dem. 2(1 Dem. 3/1 4/30 noon 6/9 9/1-noon

RePUblican pending 6/23 runoff

South Dakota 12/31/'91 2/25 4/7 6/2 8/4

6;16 runoff

Tennessee 1/7 3/10 5/21 8/6 8/20

Texas 1;2 3/10 1;2 3/10 1/2

4/14 runoff

utah"''''''' 4/15 9/8 4/15

ver:mont 7/20 9/8 9/17

Vir inla"'*** 4/10 6/9 8/2: noon

Vir in Islands 7/28 9/8 9/l.!

on 5/19 7/24 9/15 7;2

West Virginia 2/3 5/12 2/3 5/12 2/3

Wisconsin 2/18 4/1 7/14 9/8 7/14

wvominQ 6/5 8/18 8/2

September 1991

•

•
FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

Volume 17, Number 

I'IJR 3221

Respondents: Friends of Frank

Hutchinson, carl Berger, t.reas

urer (HI)

CoIplainant: FEe initiated

SUb1ect: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: Reason to believe

but took no further action

I'Ul 3222

Reap.u:lei1t8: (a) David K.

MCCloud (DC); (b) Robert Watson

(VA); (cl Robb for the Senate,

Alson H. smith, sc., treasurer

(VA)

COlIplainant: Joseph Elton,

E:xecutive Director, Republican

Party of Virginia

Stj)ject: Enforcement confiden

tiality

-Dispositicn: (a)-{c) No reason

to believe

SUbject: Failure to file 4Bhour notice

Disposition: $700 civil

penalty

JlIJR 3203

Respondents: Lonsdale for

Senate, Shirley Richards,

treasurer (OR)

ee:.plainant: FEe iniHated

SUb1ect: Failure to file 48-

hour notice

Disposition: $1,200 civil

penalty

llIJR 3230/3219/3210

Respondents: (a) citizens

united. Floyd. Brown, President.;

et 31. (bHc) c~Jainant: Ruth Cymber, on

behalf of Friends for phil

GrMO ('!'Xl

SUbject: Improper solicitations based on candidate's

contributor list

Dispositioo.: (a)-(c) No reason

to believe

IIJR 3266

Reiipoi:dents: Harrp Hcxlges for

congress Committee, Paul T.

wells, treasurer (TX)

ca.pJat nant: FEe initiated

SUb1ect: Failure to file 48-

hour notices on time

Dispositioo.: $2,500 civil

penalty

IIJR 3272

Respondents: H&R Block PAC,

Sherry Van Dorn, treasurer (MO)

14

!Ul 3166

Respondents: Bob Lawrence for

Congress, William. C. Hennessy,

Jr., treasurer (NY)

~ainent: John Nolan, Chairman, Republican County COlImittee of saratoqa count.y (NY)

SUbject: Failure to disclose

contributions on time;

Disposition: Reason to believe

but took no further action

fIJR 3019

Respondents: (a) Intellicom of

Raleigh, North carolina (aobert

Rodman, President); (b) Dem0-

cratic Party of North Carolina

Cm{'Jainant: William B. canfield, Legal Counsel, National

Republican senatorial cemni t.tee

(DC)

SUbject: Failure to file

Statement of Organization and

reports; disclaimer

Disposition: (a) $1,000 civil

penalty; (b) no reason to

believe

JUt 3174

Resp'n1ents: LaRocco for Congress COIlIllittee, John R. Tait,

treasurer

COqiIainant: FEe initiated

JUl 3025

Respoo:Jellu: IWFf" Political

ACtion COllmittee, TaDIll'f J.

Lyles, treasurer (DC)

ee-p.1.ilinant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to disclose

debts accurately, itemize

information, disclose activity

timely and sign reports

Disposition: $7,500 civil

penalty

JlIJR. 3162

R&spcIldetlta: CitizelUl for

Informed VOting in the CoallORwealth (CIVIC), Glen Harold

Stassen, treasurer (KY)

CCIIplainant: Larry J. Steinberg (ICY)

Subject: Disclaimer

Dispositioo.: NO action

(divided vote)

Disposition: (al" $250 civil

penalty; (b) and (c) reason to

belieVe but took he further

action; (d) (1) no reason to

believe (conduit); (2) t.ook no

action (contributions in name

, of another); (eJ-(i) took no

action

September 1991

I'IJRS RELEASED 'l'O 'tHE PUBLIC

Listed below are MURs (FEe

enforcement cases) recently

released for public review.

'I1le list is based on the FEe

press releases of June 27 and

July 10 and 15, 1991. Files on

closed MURs are available for

review in the Public Records

Office.

tInless otherwise noted,

civil penalties resulted from

conciliation a9reements reached

between the respondents and the

COlIIlission.

KJR 2935

Respondents: (a) District of

Colud:lia DellDcratic State Committee, Jack Evans, treasurer;

(b) vesharn N. Scales (DC)

CCIIlplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: EXcessive contribution; failure to: file reports

on time, maintain federal

campaign depository, disclose

receipts and disbursements

properly, file debt settlement

statement and pay federal

account debt wi th federal

account funds

Disposition: (a) $1,000 civil

penalty; (b) _00 probable cause

to beleive

JUt 3067

ReBpOndents: (all located in

AZ) (a) .Rhodes for Con9ress

comittee, Kent Mulkey, treasurer; (b) Craig Ahlstrom;

(c) Joe Farnsworth; (d) ROSS

Farnsworth, Sr.; et al. (e)-(i)

~lainant: John T. Wnesinski (AZ)

SUbject: Excessive contribu-'

tions; failure to report as

condui t; contributions in name

of another

JIKJR 2795

Respondents: (a) OUkakis;Bentsen Committee, Inc. (MA);

(b) Hubert n. Leonard {NC};

(c) Senator Terry Sanford (NC);

(d) Madison County DellDcratic

Executive Co~ttee, Flossie

Bell, treasurer (NC)

COOpJainant: Larry Roger swan

(NC)

SUbject: Disclaimer

Disposition: (a) No probable

cause to believe; (b) and

(c) took no action; (d) reason

to believe but took no further

action
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

-I< U. S. Gove rn ne n t rr,nting Office : 1991 - 281-739/40002

Volume 17, Number

fIIJR 3299

Respondents: NN'US PAC for

Postmasters (AXA Political

Education for Postmsters),

Gerd Logan, treasurer (VA)

COIIp1ainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Dispositim: $500 civil

penalty

rut 3305

Rssp:nlllnU: Preston Gates

Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds PAC (AM

Preston, 'I'horgrimson, Ellis'

Holman PAC). Ro6anne Phillips,

treasurer (DC)

CCIIplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition; $375 civil

penalty

KJR 3308

Re&pCl1dents: Soft Drink PAC,

Mark N. Hamtond, treasurer (DC

CcqJlIlinant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $375 civil

penalty

1991-6: calculating ballet c~sition ratiosl allocating pce-l991 expenses, 6:6

1991-8: Payment to Senator for

radio series, 6:8

1991-9: Retroactive interest

payments on loans made by

candidate, 7:5

1991-10: candidate's use of

assets jointly held with

spouse, 6:8

1991-12: Transfer from candidate's llIJ1ti-purpose cClDlllittee to campaign committee,

8:6

1991-13: Labor union jointly

established by two other

unions, 7:5

1991-14: State tax checkoff

funds used foe party'S

federal activity, 8:7

1991-15: Party committee'S

transfer to correct federal

account's overpayment of

allocated expenses, 8:7

(continued)

-', ... -

15

Dispositim: $725 civil

penalty

JIIJR 32B8

Respan:lents: Gun Owners of

AIlleriCOl campaign commi ttee, oavid Bauer, treasurer (CA)

Calplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $625 civil

penalty

1'IJR 3295

Respondents: Lockheed EI'l\'loyee's political Action Camauttee,. Robert W. Cannon, treasurer (CA)

ColIplainant: FEe iniHOIted

sutdect: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $375 civil

penalty

!'lJR 3298

Respondents: Minnesota Kining

&Manufacturing Company Political Action COnmi ttee {3M PACJ,

Scott T. Henderson, treasurer

(f9l')

CaIIJlainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $375 civil

penalty

'.-:'·I·N····O.. ·· 'E'::X·"··::''', ' ... ,... ,.

1990-27: Transfer to party's f~ral account of funds

mistakenly deposited in state

account, 3:9

1990-29: Return to federal

account of funds transferred

to state account, 4:5

1990-30: Designation of postelection contributions to

retire debts, 4:6

1991-1: Credit card

contributions to nonconnected

PAC of federal contractor

partnership, 5:4

1991-2: Disposition of possibly

illegal funds raised through

900-1ine telephone calls, 5:5

1991-3: PAC newsletter distributed outside restricted

class, 6:6

1991-4: Payment to Senate

employee for two-week

teaching appointment, 5:6

1991-5: Party office building

fund; preemption issues, 7:4

September 1991

fIIJR 3282

Resp:u::lents: committee for

Good GoVernment of TelrpleInland Forest Products Corporation, M. Richard warner,

treasurer (TX)

CaIiplainant: FEC initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

Dispositioo: $565 civil

penalty

JlIJR 3286

Respondents: Enterprise Leasing company political Action

Committee, Van-Lear Black, III,

treasurer (1'1))

oomplainant: FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

report on time

CCIIplainant= FEe initiated

SUbject: Failure to file

reports on time

Disposition: $3,000 civil

penalty

fIIJR 3279

Respondents: ASsociation of

Flight Attendants PAC, R. Fred

Casey, treasurer (NY)

ceap1ainant: FEe initiated

Subdect: Failure to file

report on time

Disposition: $750 civil

penalty

'Itle first number in each

citation refers to the "number"

(aonth) of the 1991 Record

issue in which the article

appeaced; the second number,

follOldng the colon, indicates

the page number in that issue.

HWIfDU ClPINIaIS

1990-14: AT&T's 900-line

fundraising service, 2:4

1990-19: Vendor/committee

relationship; sale and

repurchase of fundraising

items, 1:8

1990-22: Blue Cross/Blue

Shield's solicitation of ~mber plans' personnel, 1:9

1990-25: Parent corporation'S

obligations to'labor

organization under

twice-yearly provisions, 2:5

1990-26: sale of campaign

asset; personal use of excess

funds after November 30,

1989, 3:7

•
September 1991 FEDffi6LELECTION COMMISSION

1991-16: sale/Usc restriction

applied to FEe forms filed

under Indiana law, 8:8

1991-17: Corporate sponsorship

of "good citizenship" video

tape featuring Member of

Congress. 6:9

1991-18: Telemarketing services

provided by corporate vendor,

9:1

1991-19: Employee payroll

deductions aftee corporate

ll'leeqer, 9:8

CXlJRl' eN;BS

Dole v. International

Association Managers, Inc.,

6:9

P'EC v ;

- AUgustine fo"r congress, 2:7

- Dcamesi for C~, 3:10 - rietchir, yriencs of

Isaiah. 4:6 - Lawson. 6:10 - ~Tech, Inc., 3:11

- Mann for Congress - eotrrnittee , 5:7

- l'Iid-llmerica Conservative

PAC, 2:10

- National Re~can SeriatodaI ttee, 6: 10

- NR1l. Political Victory Fund,

3:10

- Political Contributions

oata. Inc •• 2:81 5:7 - populist Party, 8:11 - Schaefer, Friends of, 7:8 - smith, Dennis, for

Congress, 5:7 - Speelman, 3:10

- Webb for corr-ess

Conmittee, :io - West virginia Repcl?lican

State Executive CQIlIIIittee. 3:10 - WOrking Names. Inc. (90-

I009-GAG and 87-2467-GAG),

5:7

Volume 17, Number 9

v ; FEe

- - Common cause, National

RepUblIcan Senatorial

Com.!ttee. Appellant (90-

5317). 1:7

- Faucher and Maine Right to

Life Ciiillittee. Inc. (9o1832), 5:8

- International ASsociation 3rs, Inc., 7:8 - Repub lean Party of

Kentucky, 7:8

- SchAefer, 6:11

- Spannaus (91-0681), 6:11

- Stern. 2:7 ste~General Electric

Company, 7:6

800 LINE

Allocating expenses through

ballot cODlpOSitian, 2:1

Debt retirement by candidate

call1littees, 4:7

PACs: allocating federal and

nonfederal i!xpenses. 6:1

Redistricting, 8:12

Staff advances and salaries.

2:6

New FEC Telephone Numbers •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••page 1

1992 Ballot Access and Prima~ Dates•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• page 12

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

PermitNumberG-31

OfficialBusiness

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

IN 'l'HIS ISSUE:

FEe Boston and Chicago conferences...•.•..•.••.•........•.••.•..•.....•.......page 11