•

•

January 1992

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999EStreet NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 18, Number 1

•

.-

COMMI"SSIDNERS .-

(DIlIUSSI(H!;R POl"l'ER APPOINTID;

aJIllISSICfiER 'llDR\S RFAPPOINl'ED

on November 22, 1991, the U.S. Senate

confirmed the appointment of Trevor Potter

and the reappointment of Scott E. Thomas

as members 'of the Commission for the terms

ending April 30, 1997. Mr. Thomas and Mr.

Potter were nominated by President Bush on

November 21. Mr. Potter was sworn into

office early in January.

Commdssioner Potter assumes the seat

formerly held by Thomas J. Josefiak.

Coromdssioner Josefiak did not seek reappointment but agreed to serve after his

appointment expired in April 1991 (pursuant

to 2 U.S.C. §437c(a)(2)(B)) until his successor was confirmed and reported for duty.

(continued p. 2)

CCJI1ZlIISSICfiER JOSEFIM::

Commissioner Thomas J. Josefiak

first came to the Commission in

January 1981, when he was appointed as

Special Deputy to the Secretary of the

senate. (The Secretary of the Senate

serves as an ex-officio Commdssioner.)

Mr. Josefiak continued in that posi

"'tion until August 1985, when President

Reagan appointed him to the Commdssion

for a six-year term. He was elected

FEe Chaitman in 1988. When his term

expired in April 1991, he continued to

serve until Commissioner Potter took

office in January 1992. .

During his tenure as Commissioner,

Mr. Josefiak's knowledge of the law

and understanding of people helped

shape numerous Commission decisions.

Regulations, advisory opinions,

compliance matters, litigation and

audit reports all bear the signature

of his work.

FEC Commissioners and staff wish

him success in all his future

eMP-avors

COIKISSlamRS

1 New Appointments

1 Commdssioner Josefiak

2 1992 Officers Elected

RmJLATlCfiS

3 Comments Sought on Petition to Amend

Nonfederal Transfer Rules

3 FEC Decision on Common Cause Petition

to Amend Corporate Aircraft Rules

4 ADVISORY OPINICfiS

c:aJRr CASES

7 FEe v. AFSCME-PQ

7 FEe v. NRA political Victory Fund

8 New Litigation

9 PUBLICATIm8: Court Case Abstracts

10 REPORTS: 1992 Reporting Schedule

800 LINE

18 48-Hour Notices on contributions

PUBLIC FUNDIlG

19 Seven More candidates Qualify-for

Matching Funds

19 Gephart Committee Presentation on

Repayment Determination

20 STATISTICS: Final Report on 1990 Cycle

.AlJDITS

20 Final Report on Simon Committee

22 List of Reports Released to Public

PRfJCmURES

22 Revised policy on Administrative

Termination

<Xm'ERmCES

24 Nonconnected Cammdttee Conference,

January 27

24 INDEX
January 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

(continued from p. 1)

Commissioner Thomas, elected 1992 Vice

Chairman, has been a member of the commission since October 1986 and served as

Chairman in 1987. He was executive assistant to former Commissioner Thomas J. Harris

before succeeding him as Cammdssioner.

Joining the FEe as a legal intern in 1975,

Mr. Thomas eventually became the Assistant

General Counsel for Enforcement. A native

of Wyoming, he graduated from Stanford

university and holds a J.D. degree from the

Georgetown university Law Center. He is a

member of the bars for the District of

Columbia, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit and the U.S. SUpreme Court.

COtllltissioner Potter was an assoCiate

and then partner of the Washington, DC law

finn of Wiley, Rein '& rielding before his

appointment to the Commission. His

previous experience includes serving as

Assistant General Counsel at 'the Federal

Communications commdssion from 1984 to 1985

and as a Department of Justice attorney

from 1982 to 1984. An Illinois native, M.r.

Potter is a graduate of Harvard College and

the unive:-sity of ViI:ginia school of Law.

He served as editor-in-chief of the Virginia Journal of International Law and was a

meiriber of the order of the Coif. He is

currently vice chairman of the American Bar

Association Camndttee on Election Law,

Admdnistrative Law Section.

Volume 18, Number 1

1992: CDUlUWl .I'IND VICE c::BAIRIWf EL!X:TED

on December 19, 1991, the Commission

unanimously elected the 1992 officers:

Joan D. Aikens as FEe Chairman and Scott E.

Thomas as Vice Chairman. Mrs. Aikens, who

served as Vice Chairman in 1991, succeeds

John warren McGarry as Chairman.

One of the original members.of the

Conmission, Chairman Aikens was first

appointed in 1975. Before joining the

agency, she was an executive with Lew

Hodges eonrnunications, a public relations

firm in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. She

was also a metllber of the Pennsylvania

Republican state Committee, president of

the pennsylvania Council of Republican

women and on the Board of Directors of the

National Federation of Republican Women.

A native of Delaware county, Pennsylvania, Mrs. Aikens has been active in a

variety of volunteer organi'zations. She

served 10' years asa member of the Commonwealth Board of the Medical College of

pennsylvania and is currently on the Board

of Directors of ursinus College, where she

received her B.A. and an honorary Doctor of

Law degree. She is also a member of the

Washington Host Lion's club and a member

and fonner president of' Executive Wornen in

GOVernment. Most recently reappointed to

the Commission in 1989. Mrs. Aikens'

current tenn expires ~ril 30, 1995. She

previously served as Chai~ in 1986 and

between May 1978 and May 1979.

A biography of Vice Chairman Thomas

appears opposite.

Federal Election CoaIIlission, 999 E Street, tM', Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530 202;219-3420 202;219-3336 (TeD)

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

Scott E. 'lbomas, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott

Danny L. McDonald

John Warren McGarry

Trevor Potter

walter J. stewart, Secretary of the Senate,

Ex Officio Commissioner ' .

Donnald E.. Anderson, Clerk of, the House of

Representatives, EK Officio Commissioner 
FEDERAL ELECllON COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1992

I!'I!'.C SEI!ZS <XI9Il!Nl'S Of P1!i'xfl'IW

'10 .MDm IllJLES Of TlUlNSPBRS PDQl

tummERAL OMPAJ:GNS

The Connission is seeking cOll'lllenh on a

rulemaking petition from congressman

William M. 'Itl.omas (R-c1V20) to amend FEC

regulations on transfers fram a candidate's

nonfederal campaign to his or her federal

campaign. The regulations allow such

transfers as long as the funds are not

composed of any contributions that would

violate the prohibitions or limits of the

Federal Election campaign Act (the Act).

11 CFR uo.srensr. Congressman 'l11omas

alleges that the regulations are ineffective because they "do not address the loophole through which••• 'soft maney' {Le.,

lOOney that violates the Act r S lim!ts and

prohibitions] is•••spent by nanfederal

committees to raise 'hard' dollars that are

then transferred to federal committees."

He urges the Commission to amend the regulations "to ensure" that the Act is "fully

enforced to the extent that 'soft money' is

not indirectly used by nonfederal committees to raise funds that will be used in

Federal races,"

On December 26, 1991, the Cormdssion

published a Notice of Availability on the

petition in the Federal Registe!,=. Public

comments are due February 10, 1992, and

must be submitted in writing. Congressman

Thomas's petition is available in the

Public Records Office; to order a copy call

800/424-9530 (ask for Public Records) or

202/219-4140.

rEX: DECLINES <DIUf CAUSE PE'l'ITIClf CN USE

OF COBPClRM'E AIBPLANES

on December 5, 1991, the Commission

decided not to open a rulernaking concerning

candidate payments for use of corporate

aircraft. Common Cause had requested such

a change in a rulernaking petition filed on

July 25, 1991.

CClIIDOn cause Petition

under the current rules at 11 eFR

114.9(e), when a candidate committee uses

an airplane owned or leased by a corporation or labor organization, the committee

must pay the organization in advance of the

trip at the. appropriate rate: Either the

first class airfare or, if the trip is to a

location not serviced by commercial air-

'lines, the usual charter rate. Common

cause argued that the first class payment

3

Volume 18, Number 1

rate is lower than the organization's

actual costs in providing transportation

and thus proposed amending the rules to

requi.re, in all cases, payment "at the same

price it ~d cost to charter similar

aircraft."

The Camodssion published a notice

seeking comments on the petition on August

21, 1991 (56 FR 41496) and received two

c01'l'lltents in support of the Common Cause

proposal, two against, and two neutral

comments from government agencies.

Calmission Decision

After considering the' proposal and the

comments, the Cormnission decided not to

in1tiate a rulemaking. The agency explained its reasons in a Federal Register

notice published December 11, 1991 (56 Fa

6(566).

The agency pointed out that Common

cause did not present any evidence of

specific Instances in which the current

regulations have, permittecl corporations to

provide travel services of greater value

than the payment recedved.

Common cause had claimed that the current regulations result in "corporations

providing special treatment and f~nancial

benefits for Members of Congress and candidates and opening the door for special

access for corpOrations. u However, in the

Commission's view, if this were actually a

problem, charging campaigns the charter

rate would not resolve it. The solution

would be a complete ban on the campaign use

of corporate airplanes.

The Commission considered such a ban,

and a uniform application of the charter

rate standard, before adopting the current

rule in 1977. Since the approach in the

current rule has proved to be practical and

readily enforceable, the agency concluded

that it does not warrant revision.

The agency also pointed out that the

payment rate at section 114.9(e) is consistent with rates used by the House of Representatives' Committee on Standards of Official conduct and by the General services

Administration.
January 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

.'ADVI$,ijR~;opiNIONS _,-' '".-. ';~'><'":,::;~)J~\ c.. .

.AJ:NISORY OPINICN REQJESTS

Recent requests for advisory opinions

(AORs) are listed below·, 'Itle full text of

each AOR is available for review and comment in the FEe's Public Records Office.

NJR 1991-36

Corporation's payment of travel expenses of

PAC representative to attend political

party fundraiser. (Date Made Public:

November 26, 1991; Length: 8 pages)

1991-37

PAC's payment for use of incorporated fi~'s facilities and employee services.

(Date Made Public: November 26, 1991;

Length: 6 pages)

NJR 1991-38

Transfer of embezzlement restitution payments from Senator's 1988 campaign to 1994

catfilaign. (Date Made Public: December 2,

1991; Length: 4 pages)

liaR 1991-39

Obligation to refund contributions

allegedly made in names of others. (Date

Made Public: December 6, 1991-; Length: 8

pages)

AOR 1991-40

Use of President's name in special project

of joint fundraising committee created by

party' 5 national House and Senate campaign

committees. (Date Made Public: December

12, 1991; Length: 12 pages)

ADVISORY OPINIOO SlJIIIIWUES

NJ 1991-29: Contributions Received and

Made by Corporation's Employee

Pledge Program

Contributions to the Sundstrand Corporation

Good Government Pledge Program (the Pledge

program or the PAC), a separate segregated

fund, are kept in "individual accountst1

set up in the names of executive and

adndnistrative employees but maintained in

the PAC account. Employee contributions

deposited in these "accounts" are

considered contributions to the PAC. The

funds are subsequently disbursed by the PAC

to candidates designated by the employees.

Employee-designated contributions to

candidates must be reported as earmarked

contributions from the employees, with the

PAC acting as the conduit. Although the

4

Volume 18, Number1

Commission was unable to agree whether the

PAC exercises "direction or control" over

the choice of recipient candidates, the PAC

informed the agency that it treats

employee-designated contributions as

subject to its own lim!t •

structure of the Pledge Program.

Sundstrand Corporation solicits

restricted class employees to make contributions through the Pledge Program. Each

participating employee contributes to an

"individual account" established in his or

her name. These "individual accounts" are

actually bookkeeping accounts maintained in

the PAC's bank account. The employee

decides how the funds in haa or her

"account;" should be spent. An AdviGocy

Board, appointed by Sundstrand management"

recommends support of selected candidates

and political, committees in letters sent to

participating employees; employees, however, may choose to support other candidates and committees.

An employee authorizes the PAC, to make

a contribution to a designated recipient by

signing a form requesting that a check fot

a specific amount be contributed to a' candidate or committee. The PAC then draws

the check and transmits it to the recipient

along with a lette~ stating that the check

represents a contribution from the employ~

ee. As as another way of contributing, the

employee may request a refund from his or

her "account" and then make a direct

contribution to the chosen recipient. An.·

employee may also obtain a refund for any

other reason, at his or her discretion.'

Pledge Program as separate segreqated Fund

The pledge program operates as a sepa~

rate segregated fund (SSF). It 1s regis-_

tered as such and, in most respects,

functions as a conventional SSF: It was

established by a corporation and it solicits the restricted'cl8ss for contributions

to be used,for federal election purposes.

2 U.S.C. §441b(b)(2)(C). Although the

intent to give employees control over their

contributions does resemble an "employee

participation plan" described at 11 CFR

114.11, the PAC does not meet the qualifying criteria for that type of plan.

Reporting contributions to the

Pledge program.

Funds solicited for federal election

purposes and received by an SSF are considered reportable contributions to the

SSF, 2 U.S ,C. §§431(8)(0)(i) and 434(b),

Therefore, the Pledge Program must report

all receipts from participating employees_'

as contributions to the PAC at the time
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1992

they are donated, regardless of how the

funds are eventually designated.

contributions Treated ae Earmarked

Contributions

Deferred Farmarking. A conduit for an

earmarked contribution.!/ is not usually

viewed as itself receivins the contribution

and would not generally report the earmarked contribution as a contribution to

itself (counting against the individual's

limit for the conduit). This, however, was

the case in AD 1981-21, which discussed a

"deferred earmarking" program similar to

the Pledge program. In that opinion,

employees contributed to "individual

accounts" maintained in an SSF's account;

contributions to candidates from these

"accounts" required prior approval by means of employees' signatures on a release fann.

The conmdssion sincilarly concluded that

receipts in the individual accounts were

reportable as contributions to the SSF.

FUrthermore, the Commission viewed

employee-designated contributions to

candidates as "earmarked contributions"

made by the employees through the condult

SSF. Contributions to the SSF were not

earmarked at the time they were made but,

like contributions to the Pledge Program• were subsequently earmarked by employees.

Direction or Control. Earmarked

contributions count against the original

contributor's limit for the designated

candidate but do not additionally count

against the conduit's limit unless the

conduit exercises "direction or control

over the choice of recipient candidate."

11 CFR 110.6(d)(2). The Commission could

not reach a majority decision as to whether

the "direction or control" standard applied

to the Pledge Program in the circumstances

presented in the advisory opinion request.

The Commission noted, however, that the PAC

treats contributions made to candidates as

contributions subject to its own limits.

Reporting. Because employee-designated

contributions are considered earmarked, the

PAC must follow the special reporting

requirements for earmarked contributions

under 11 CFR 110.6(c). Each reporting

period during which the PAC receives

candidate designations from employees, the

PAC must report information on each

lcontributions designated for a particular

candidate and transmitted through a conduit

are earmarked contributions. 2 u.S.C.

S441alal (8); 11 eFR 110.6Ib)(11.

5

Volume 18, Number 1

earmarked contribution. The information

must also be reported to each recipient

authorized committee when the contribution

is forwarded.2/

If an earmarked contribution is not

also considered a contribution from the

PAC, the PAC would report a refund of the

same amount to the employee as of the same

date it reports the receipt of the

earmarked contribution. If the earmarked

contribution is considered a contribution

from the PAC,as' the advisory opinion

request suggested, PAC would report the

disbursement of the earmarked contrfbutdcn

as attributable to both itself and the

employee. See 11 CFR 110.6{d)(2).

Refunds of &1lployee Contributions

When an employee requests the return of

funds previously contributed in order to

make direct contributions to candidates or

for any other reason, the PAC must report

the refund on Schedule B.

contributions Made Directly by the PAC

The PAC may, if it wishes, operate in

such a manner whereby contributions to

candidates are considered made directly by

the PAC itself (rather than earmarked) yet

still encourage employee participation in

the choice of candidates to be Supported.

FEC regulations allow complete control of a

separate segregated fund to reside with the

corporation. 11 era 114.5(d). The method

by which recipients of SSF contributions

are selected is an internal management and

policy matter. For example, a corporation

may use a "donor selection" approach that

permits PAC "members" to choose the candidate recipients for PAC contributions (as

distinct from earmarking by indiVidual

contributors, as indicated in the facts

presented by the Pledge Program). 11 CFR

114.51 cl (11 (iii).

Vice Chairman Joan D. Aikens and

Commissioner Lee Ann Elliott filed a joint·

concurring opinion; Commissioner Thomas J.

Josefiak also filed a concurring opinion.

(Date Issued: December 3, 1991; Length:

9 pages plus ll-page concurring opinions.)

(Advisory Opinions continued)

2

The PAC must report the name and address

of each contributor and, for each earmarked

contribution in excess of $200, the

contributor's occupation and employer; the

amount of the contribution, the date the

PAC received it and the name of the

intended recipient; and the date the

contribution was forwarded to the intended

recipient. 11 CFR 110.6(c)(1)(iv).
January 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

N> 1991-33: Allocatim of Expenses When

Party Committee lldministers prima~ Election

under Texas law, Democratic and Republican

state and county executive committees

administer primary elections (including

runoffs). P~yment6 for this activity,

generally made from a separate account, are

not subject to federalJhonfederal allocation under 11 eFR 106.5(a)(2) and are not

reportable under FEe rules. Although a

portion of a commdttee's day-to-day

admdnistrative exPenses may be attributed

as primary administration activity and be

paid from the nonfederal account, only the

remaining portion must be allocated between

the federal and nonfederal accounts.

Background

'rtie Texas party executive committees

receive state funds, ballot access fees and

privately raised donations to pay the costs·

of administering primary elections. State

law requires a committee to de~sit these

funds into a separate account used solely

to pay for expenses directly related to

election administration activity. State

law also permits a corrmittee to attribute a

reasonable portion of its admdnistrative

expenses (i.e .• office overhead and staff

costs) as primary administration expenses.

Application of FEe Allocation Rules

Under FEC rules, party committees JlUst

allocate certain types of disbursements

between their federal and nonfederal

accounts. Allocable expenses include

administrative costs and other expenses

which promote the party or enable it to

function and influence elections. 11 CFR

106. 5(a) (2). Activities to operate a prima~ election--e.g., providing for the

mechanics of ballot access filing, procuring voting equipment and paying voting

personnel-do not involve the kinds of

expenses that are allocable under FEe

rules. Expenses wholly related to the

admdnistration of a primary election are

therefore not allocable. With respect to

administrative expenses incurred partly for

primary admdnistration and partly for other

party operations, a coramittee Il1Ust first

determine what share is attributable to

primary administration and then allocate

the remaining portion between the federal

and nonfederalaccounts according to FEC

regulations. . .

As represented in the advisory opinion

request, a c01Tttl\ittee will pay pciIt'ary

administration expenses either from the

primary account set up under state law or

from'the nonfederal account, as opposed. to

using the federal account or a separate

6

Volume 18. Number 1

allocation account.l/ The nonfederal

account will pay that portdcn of day-to-day

administrative expenses attributable to

primary administration activity and will

receive reimbursement from the primary

account, This use of the nonfederal

account is permissible as long as primary

admdnistration expenses are not included

When allocating expenses between the

federal and nonfederal accounts. Under

these arrangements, paylll!nts for primary

administration are not reportable under FEe

rules. (Date Issued: November 13, 1991;

Length: 5 pages)

HJ 1991-34: CCllIDittee sale of

Access to Voter Data BaSe as

Ongoing Venture

unless deposited in a nonfederal account,

proceeds received by the West Virginia

Republican State Committee from its

proposed venture-c-sef.Hnc access to a

leased data base of registered voterswould be considered contributions, subject

to federal lim!ts and prohibitions. '

The Cornrnittee recently leased a data

base of all West Virginia registered voters

for use in the ColllIlli.ttee's fundraising and

candidate-support direct mail prog:ram. 'lt1e

Comlittee also purchased a computer system

to ron the data base. Ouring off-election

years, the Committee wishes to sub-lease

the data base to various entities, including corporations. (Because, under a

contract agreement, the Committee is not

permitted to transmit the data base electronically to customers, it plans instead

to package the data on lists, labels and

the like.) We proceeds would be used as

an offset to operating expenditures related

to the computer operation.

The Commission generally views the sale

of committee assets as a fundraising activity resulting in contributions from the

purchasers. See ADs 1990-3, 1989-4, 1988-

12 and 1983-2. zxceptfons to this general

rule apply to isolated sales of assets that

have been purchased or developed for the

committee's particular use (rather than for

sale to others as fundraising items) and

that have an ascertainable market Value.

See ADS 1989-4 (mailing lists and computer

lCommittees with separate fedElral and

nonfederal accounts may use either the

federal account or an allocation account to

pay allocated expenses. See 11 cm

106.S(g)(1). Although not proposed by the

requesters, an allocation account tray not

be used to pay primary acininistration

expenses.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1992

hardware), 1986-14 (campaign van), 1981-53

(mailing list) and 1979-24 (yard sign

stakes and office equipment).

The Committee's activity does not qualify as an exception because the Committee

proposes to engage in an ongoing enterprise, rather than an isolated transaction,

in order to raise funds to maintain the

computer system during a nonelection year.

This proposal is similar to the situation

in Advisory Opinion 1983-2, where the

Commission concluded that a candidate

cemni.ttee's sale of computer services on an

ongoing basis was sirrply a way of raising

contributions to retire debts. Like the

committee in AD 1983-2, the West Virginia

Commdttee's activity would result in

contributions subject to federal prohibitions, limits and disclosure requirements.

For example, the Committee's proposed sale

of data base access to a corporation would

result, in a prohibited contribution.

To avoid federal contribution restrictions, the COBttee would have to deposit

the funds in a nonfederal account that

would not be used for federal election

purposes or for payment of the federal

share of administrative and fundraising

costs. See 11 CFR l02.5(a)(1) and AO

1986-40. The Commdssion expressed no

opinion on the possible application of West

Virginia law or tax laws to the proposed

activity, as those issues are outside its

jurisdiction. (Date Issued: December 6,

1991; Length: 4 pages)

COUR1CASES····· - . --, ,

FEe' v. AP'SCME-PQ

On October 31, 1991, the u.s. District

Court for the District of Columbia assessed

a $2,000 civil penalty against the American

Federation of State, County and Municipal

Emp1oyees-p.E.O.P.L.E., Qualified (AFSCMEPO), the separate segregated fund of AFSCME

and the fund's treasurer for violating

reporting provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). The court, however, did not grant the FEe's request to

issue a permanent injunction against the

defendants. Civil Action No. 88-3208.

The court addressed the merits of the

case on July 10, 1990, when it ruled that

defendants failed to disclose in-kind contributions in a, timely manner. Instead of

disclosing the contribution in the reports

covering the period when the contributions

were actually made (i.e., when the services

7

Volume 18, Number 1

were provided to candidates), AFSME-PQ had

incorrectly disclosed them same months

afterwards, when it paid the bills for the

services.

In its OCtober 1991 ruling on the

penalty, the court observed that, although

there was no bad faith by the defendants,

"there is always harm to the public when

the FECA is violated." Considering the

maximum penalty of $10,000 inappropriate

here, the court said a $2,000 penalty would

serve the public'S interest "by punishing a

violation of the plain language of the

statute." The court declined, however, to

permanently enjoin defendants from future

violations of 2 U.S.C. §434(b). The court

pointed out that defendants cured the

violation and have since complied with the

reporting provision. Because "there has

been no showing of a reasonable likelihood

that the defendants will commit future

violations," the court decided the public

interest would not be substantially

advanced by an injunction.

f'EC v, NRA POLITICAL VICWRY FUND

In a NOVember 15, 1991, order, modified

on December 11, the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia found that a

$415,745 payment made by the National Rifle

Association--Institute For Legislative

Action (IlA) to NRA's separate segregated

fund was a corporate contribution in

violation of 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). (The ILA

is a component of NRA, a nonprofit

corporation.) Civil Action No. 90-3090.

The court ordered defendants IrA, the NRA

Political Victory Fund (the separate

segregated fund) and the Fund's treasurer

to pay a $40,000 civil penalty. The court

also ordered defendants to comply with

11 CFR 114.5(b)(3) in future transactions.

Under that regulation, a corporation may

reimburse its separate segregated fund

(SSF) for expenses that the corporation

could lawfully have paid as an administrative or solicitation expense I but the

reimbursement must be made no later than 30

days after the SSF's payment.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal on

November 21, 1991.

A{:t>lication of section 114.5(b)(3)

The payment at issue originated from

transactions that took place in March and

July 1988, when ILA paid for two solicitation mailings. The Fund reimbursed ILA

$415,745, the full cost; of the mailings, on

August 1. IIA returned that amount to the

Fund on OCtober 20-81 days after the

(continued)
January 1992 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSION

August payment. Because this reimbursement

was made after the 30-day period specified

in section 114.5(b)(3), the court found

that the October 20 payment was not a

permissible reimbursement of solicitation

expenses, as defendants had argued, but was

instead an illegal corporate contribution

to the Fund. The court observed that the

October 20 payment was not used to pay for

the solicitation material purchased in

March and July. By defendants' own

account, the money was returned to the Fund

to bolster its budget for campaign

activities related to the 1988 elections.

Application of JIICFL

The court also rejected defendants'

argument that the OCtober 20 payment was

permissible under the Supreme Court's

decision in FEe v. Massachusetts Citizens

for Life, Inc. (MCFL), 479 u.s. 238 (1986).

MCFL permitted a nonprofit corporation to

make independent expenditures if, among

other conditions, the corporation had a

policy of not accepting donations from

business corporations and labor Wlions.

The district court found MeFL inapplicable

here because the lLA does-receive corporate

donations.

constitutional Status of FEe

Defendants also argued that the FEC

lacked authority to bring suit because the

FEC is a constitutionally flawed agency.

They first claimed that the appointment of

Commission members impermdssibly restricts

the appointment power granted the President

under Article II because, under the Federal

Election Campaign Act, the President is

prevented from appointing more then three

Commissioners from the same political

party. oefendants further claimed that,

because the President cannot control or

remove Commissioners, the execution of the

law does not rest with the President, an

infringement of the sole executive power

vested in the President under Article II.

The court, however, ruled that the defendants did not have standing to raise these

claims: "(D]efendants have raised an issue

that bears on the rights of a third party,

namely the president, and not on their own

legal interests."

Defendants also argued that the

statute's designation of the Clerk of the

House and the Secretary of the Senate as

nonvoting Cammdssion members violated the

separation of powers. Finding no showing

that the nonvoting members participated in

any decisions involving the present case,

the court said that there was "no need to

concern itself" with this argument.

8

Volume 18, Number 1

\

FEe Ilequests 0>an<Je in Civil Penalty

In its original order of NOvember 15,

the court had imposed a civil penalty in

the amount of the FEC's total costs in

investigating and prosecuting the

violation, the amount to be calculated by

the FEC.

On December 2, the FEe filed a motion

asking the court to amend the civil penalty

so that it reflected the amount necessary

to deter similar violations rather than the

costs of the agency's enforcement efforts,

which the l"EC viewed as unrelated to the

violation at issue. The FEe also noted

that such a penalty would be time consuming

and burdensome to calculate.

In an amended opinion issued on December 10, the court; ordered defendants to pay

a $40,000 penalty. In imposing that

amount, the court considered the defendants' bad faith, the injury to the public,

the defendants' ability to pay and the need

to vindicate the FEe's authority. The

court concluded: "Because of the deliberate nature of defendants' actions, the

Court Jrnlst impose a substantial penalty in

order to deter them from repeating this

vtofatdcn," The court added that defendants could have accomplished their objective legitimately if they had used proper

fiscal plarm.ing.

NEJf LITIGA1'IW

Akins v. FEe

James E. Akins and five other

individuals ask the court to: Declare that

the FEe's failure to act on their complaint

within 120 days is contrary to law pursuant

to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(8)(C); and order the

agency to conform within 30 days.

Plaintiffs claim that they filed a

complaint with the coomission on January

12, 1989. 1UnOng other allegations, the

complaint alleges that the American Israel

Public Affairs commdttee (AlPAC) violated

the Federal Election Campaign Act by failing to register as a political comudttee

and by using corporate funds to make prohibited contributions and expenditures in

support of candidates. Plaintiffs contend

that the FEe has failed to take any action

relative to the AIPAC allegations, although

the 120-day period expired on May 12, 1989.

u.S. District Court for the District of

Columbia, civil ACtion No. 91-2831, November 4, 1991.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOI\J

•

•

•

January 1992

CalIOOD cause v , FEe (91-2914)

Common Cause asks the court to:

o Declare that the FEe's dismissal of an

administrative complaint filed by Common

Cause was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse

of discretion and contrary to law.

o Order the FEe to conform with the court's

decision within 30 days; and

o Award costs and attorneys' fees to Common

cause.

Plaintiff claims that the C~ssion

should have determined that NRSC violated

the contribution limdts and reporting

provisions of the law, as alleged in the

complaint.

The complaint arose from a 1990 fundraising program. In spring and summer of

that year, two joint fundraising committees

(the "Inner Circle Committees") used the

NRSC' s "Inner Circle" contributor list to

conduct a mass mailing that solicited

contributions on behalf of the NRSC and

Republican Senate candidates. Contributors

sent their checks to the Inner Circle

Committee conducting the fundraiser; that

Committee then forwarded net proceeds to

each participant, based on the joint fundraising allocation formula: NRSC received

1 percent of net proceeds; the remaining

proceeds were allocated, in varying

percentages, to campaigns of Republican

Senate candidates running in 1990, 1992 or

1994.

In its suit (~s in its admdnistrative

complaint), plaintiff Common Cause claims

that the Inner Circle fundraising.effort

resulted in contributions from NRSC to the

participating Republican Senatorial candidates-contributions that NRSC failed to

report and that exceeded the contribution

limits for 24 candidates by over $1.4

million. According to Common Cause, the

1990 program was a mirror image of a 1986

NRSC fundraising program that was found

illegal by the courts.1/

To support its claIms, Common cause

makes the following allegations:

L By virtue of being controlled by NRSC,

the Inner Circle committees were affiliated with NRSC and therefore operated

under the same contribution and expenditure limits.

2. The Inner Circle program "could not

properly be considered joint

l common cause v. FEC, 729 F. Supp. 148

(D.D.C. 1990), aff'd mem., 923 F.2d 200

(D.C. Cir. 1990); FEC v. NRSC. 761 F. Supp.

813 (D.D.C. 1991), appeal filed, NO. 91-

5176 (D.C. Cir.).

9

Volume 18, Number 1

fW'ldraising"; therefore, the joint

fundraising regulations did not apply.2/

3. Because donors did not ea~rk their -

contributions to specific candidates,

the contributions represented oontribu-'

tions made to NRSC, and contributions to

the candidates represented contributions

from NRSC.

4. Alternatively, the contributions were

earmarked and, because they were within

NRSC's direction and control, they

counted against NRSC's limits for the

recipient candidates.

u.s. District Court for the District of

columbia, Civil Action No. 91-2914,

November 12, 1991.

PUBLlCA1'IONS

NI!JiJ EDITICN OF CUJRT CASE ABS'I'RAC'l'S

The FEe recently published the ninth

edition of Selected Court Case Abstracts, a

compilation of court cases pertaining to

federal canpaign finance laws. Virtually

all the summaries first appeared in the

Record; the new editian is current through

the December 1990 issue.

Free copies may be ordered from the

FEC's Information Division. Call 800/424-

9530 or 202;219-3420.

The publication contains summaries of

significant Supreme Court and appeals court

cases concerning the Federal Election Campaign Act, FEe regulations and enforcement

actions, including: Buckley v. valeo, FEe

v, National Right to Work committee, california Medical Assocation v. FEC and FEe v.

Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Inc. Recent district court decisions are also S~

marized. The volume additionally contains

cases that did not directly involve the

FEC, such as First National Bank of Boston

v. Bellotti and Galliano v. u.s. Postal

Service. Legal citations are provided for

most cases. Name and subject indexes make

the volume a useful research tool.

2The joint fundraising rules at 11 eFR

102.17 specify that, for purposes of the

contribution limits and reporting requirements, the allocated portion of each contribution received by a participating

committee is treated as though the donor

had directly made the contribution to the

committee.
January 1992 FEDERAL ELECllON COMMISSION

REPORTS OOB IN 1992

This article on filing requirements for

election year 1992 is supplemented by the

reporting tables that follow.

It is the responsibility of the committee treasurer to file required reports on

time. To assist treasurers, the Commission

sends cormnittees FEe reporting forms and

notices of upcoming -reporting deadlines.

ror further information on reporting or

to order extra reporting forms, call the

FEC: 800/424-9530 or 202;219-3420.

All Coamittees: Year-End Reports coveril19'

1991 Activity

All committees must file a 1991 yearend report due January 31, 1992.

Authorized Ct:mIi ttees of Candidates

1992 House and senate candidates.

Authorized cormnittees of 1992 House and

senate candidates file the following

reports:

o Quarterly reports;l/

a A pre-primary report;~/

o Pre- and post-general election reports

(if the candidate participates in the

general election); and

o 48-hour notices on contributions received

shortly before each election in which the

candidate participates (see article on

page 18). 11 CFR 104.5(a)(1) and (f).

NOTE: commdttees are required to file

election reports and 48-hour notices even

if the candidate is unopposed in the election. Moreover, these reporting requirements still apply even if a primary or

general election is not held because the

candidate is unopposed or received a

majority of votes in the previous election.

However, a primary election that is not

held because' the candidate was nominated by

lNote that an authorized cammdttee of a

1992 candidate must file on a quarterly

basis in 1992 even if the candidate withdraws before participating in the primary.

However, such a committee would not have to ~ile a pre-primary report (or other election reports) unless the candidate's name

remained on the ballot.

2A pre-convention report is required only

if the convention has authority to nominate. See 11 eFR 100.2(e).

Volume 18, Number 1

a caucus or convention is not considered a

separate election for reporting purposes

(and for purposes of the contribution

limits). See 11 CFR 110.1(j).

other Bouse and senate candidates.

Cormdttees authorized by House and Senate'

candidates not running in 1992 elections

file on a semiannual basis. 11 eFR

104.5(a)(2).

1992 Presidential candidates. Authorized committees of 1992 Presidential

candidates file on a monthly or quarterly

basis:

o campaigns that have received contributions or made expenditures aggregating $100,000 or that anticipate this level of

activity file on a monthly basis. If the

candidate runs in the general election,

the campaign must fHe pre- and postgeneral election reports in lieu of the

monthly reports due in Novembe r and

December.

o Campaigns with financial activity under

$100,000 file the following reports:

quarterly reports; pre-primary reports

for those primary elections in which the

candidate seeks election; and pre- and

post-general election reports if the

candidate participates in the general

election. 11 CFR 104.5(b)(1); see also

104.5(a)(I).

other Presidential Candidates. Presidential co-.ittees retiring debts from

previous campaigns may file on either a

monthly or a quarterly schedule. 11 CFR

l04.5(b)(2). A Presidential committee

wishing to change its filing schedule

should notify the Commission in writing.

PACs and Party Ccmmittees

PACs (separate segregated funds and

nonconnected committees) and party cormnittees that filed on a semiannual basis

during 1991 now file on a quarterly basis.

Monthly filers continue on the monthly

schedule. PACs and patty commit tees may, however, change their filing schedule, as

explained later in this section.

Note that all PACs, whichever schedule

they follow, are subject to the 24-hour

filing requirement for last-minute

independent expenditures (also explained

later.)

Quartedy Filers. A PAC or party comndttee that files on a quarterly basis must

additionally file a post-general election

report. 11 erR 104.5(c)(l)(i) and (iii).'

10
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1992

Quarterly filers may also have to file

pre-convention, pre-primary, pre.:.runoff and

pre-general election reports. The requirement to file a pre-election report is

triggered if the committee makes a contribution or expend!ture in cormection with

the election during the applicable reporting period. 11 eFR l04.5(c)(1)(ii). A

reporting period begins the day after the

close of books for the last report filed

and continues through the close of books

for the pre-election report.

For example, a PAC or party committee's

last report flIed was the third quarter

report that covered activity through

September 30 (the close-of-books date).

The committee makes a contribution on

OCtober 12, to a candidate's general election campaign. The committee must therefore file a pre-general election report,

which covers activity between OCtober 1 and

OCtober 14.

Note that, although the FEe sends

committees notices of upcoming rePorting

deadlines for quarterly reports and general

election reports, the agency does not send

PACs and party committees pre-election

reporting notices for Congressional or

Presidential conventions, primaries or runoffs.

lkHlthly Filers. unlike quarterly

filers, fACs and party committees filing on

a monthly basis do not file pre-election

reports for conventions, primaries or runoff elections. They must, however, file

pre- and post-general election reports,

which are filed in lieu of monthly reports filed in November and December. 11 CFR

104.5(c)(3).

(banging the Filing SChedule. fACs and

party commdttees filing on a quarterly

schedule may change to a monthly schedule

in order to avoid having to file preconvention, pre-primary and pre-runoff

reports. The committee must first notify

the Commission in writing. The notification should accompany a report filed under

the committee's current reporting schedule.

A committee may change its filing frequency

only once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

24-Bour Reports on IOOependent Expenditures. Any PAC (including a monthly filer)

that makes independent expenditures in

connection with any election (convention,

primary, runoff, general) may have to file

a 24-hour report. This report is required

when a committee makes independent expenditures aggregating $1,000 or more after the

20th day, but more than 24 hours, before

11

Volume 18, Number 1

the day of the election. The report must

be filed within 24-hours -after the expenditure is made. For more information on the

24-hour reporting requirement, see 11 CrR

104.4(bl and (c) and 104.5(g). 'See also

"Where to File" (below) for special filing

requirements.

Where to File

Cammdttee treasurers must file FEe

reports with the appropriate federal and

state filing offices. Please note that:

o The addresses for the federal offices

(FEC, Clerk of the House and Secretary of

the Senate) appear in the instructions to

the Detailed SUDrnary Page of FEe Forms 3

and 3x.

a A list of state filing offices is available from the COmmission.

Bouse and senate candidate CCmnittees.

Principal campaign committees file with the

Clerk of the House or the Secretary of the

Senate. as appropriate. 11 CFR 105.1 and

105.2.

The principal campaign committee must

also file a copy of every report and statement (including 48-hour notices) with the

filing office of the state in which the

candidate seeks election. 2 U.S.C.

§439(a) (2)(B).

Presidential candidate CoDmittees.

principal campaign commdttees of Presidential candidates file with the FEC. 11 CFR

105.3.

The principal campaign committee must

also file a copy of each report and statement with the filing office of each state

in which the committee makes expenditures.

11 CFR 108.2.

candidate Coomittees with !'lore than CDe

Authorized Coomittee. If a campaign

includes more than one authorized committee, the principal campaign committee

files, with its own report, the reports

prepared by the other authorized committees

as well as a consolidated report (FEe Form

3z or page 5 of FEe Form 3f, as appropriate). 11 CFR 104.3(f).

PACS and party COIDDittees. Generally

PACs and party conunittees file with the

FEC. There are, however, exceptions:

o Committees supporting only House candidates file with the Clerk of the House;

o Committees supporting only Senate

candidates file with the Secretary of the

Senate;

.(continued)
1992 IUmlLY BEPCIlTS

1992 ~yBEPOO'l'S

Close of Books Filinq Date!

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Filing Datel

April 15

July 15

October 15

Jan. 31, '93

February 20

March 20

April 20

May 20

June 20

July 20

August 20

September 20

OCtober 20

OCtober 22

December 3

Jan. 31, '93

Volume 18, Number 1

March 31

June 30

September 30

December 31

Report Period covered

Report

1st Quarter

2nd Quarter

3rd Quarter

Year-End

January January 1-31

February February 1-29

March March 1-31

April April 1-30

May May 1-31

June June 1-30

July July 1-31

August August 1-31

September 2 September 1-30

Pre-General oct. l-oct. 14

Post-Genera1 Oct. 15- Nov. 23

Year-End Nov. 24-Dec. 31

January 1992

o PACs file 24-hour notices disclosing

independent expenditures on behalf of

House or Senate candidates with the Clerk

of the House or the Secretary of the

Senate, as appropriate. (Twenty-four

hour notices disclosing independent

expenditures on behalf of Presidential

candidates are filed with the FEC.)

11 CFR 104.4(c) and 104.5(9).

PACs and party commdttees must also

file a copy of each statement and report

with the appropriate state filing office:

o Committees making contributions or

expendi tures in connection with House and

Senate candidates file in the state in

which the candidate seeks election. The

commdttee is required to file only that

portion of the report applicable to the

candidate (e.g., the Fonn 3 Detailed

summary Page and the schedule showing the

contribution or expenditure). 2 U.S.C.

§439(a)(2)(B); 11 CFR 108.3.

o Committees making contributions or

expenditures in connection with Presidential candidates file in the states in

which the Presidential committee and the

donor committee have their headquarters.

11 cn 108.4.

o Committees making independent expenditures on behalf of Presidential candidates (including those disclosed in 24-

hour notices) file in the state in which

the expenditure is made. 11 eFR

104.4(c)(1), 104.5(9) and 108.2.

Close of Books Filing Datel

1991 YEAR-Em REI?OR'l'

NOTE: All committees file this report.

Report Period Covered Filing Datel

Report

pre-General2 October 14

Post-General November 23

OCtober 22

December 3

Year-End Closing Date January 31,

of Last Report 1992

Through 12/31/91

1Repo~ts sent by registered or certified . mail must be postmarked by the filing date

(except in the case of the pre-general

election report; see footnote 2). Reports

sent by other means must be received by the

filing date. 11 CFR 104.5(e).

lReports sent by registered or certified

mail must be postmarked by the filing date

(except in the case of the pre-general

election report; see footnote 2). Reports

sent by other means must be received by the

filing date. 11 eFR 104.5(e).

2I f sent by registered or certified mail,

the pre-general must be postmarked by

October 19. 

12
January 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

• GUIDE 'ID 1992 REPQR'.l'IM; (All caIIlli.ttees must also file a 1991 year-end report due 1/31/92

Required Reports

•

•

5emi- Quar- Pre- Pre- PastType of Filer annual terly Monthly Primarl General General

House and Senate campaigns .f .f .f .f

of 1992 Candidates required only if candidate

runs in election

Other House and Senate .f

campaigns

1992 Presidential campaigns .f .f .f

Anticipating Activity of required only if

$100,000 or Above candidate runs in

election; filed i

lieu of Nov. &

Dec. mo. reports

1992 Presidential campaigns .f .f .f r

with Activity Less Than required only if candidate

$100,000 runs in election

other Presidential Campaigns2 l--or-l

PACs and party Committees .f .f .f

Filing Monthly in lieu of Nov. &

Dec. roo. reports

PACs and Party 3committees .f r .f .f

Filing Quarterly required only if require

committee makes regard

'contributions or less of

expenditures in activit

connection with

election during4 report period

(Reporting Tables continued

lcategory also includes pre-convention and pre-runoff reports.

2presidential committees in this category that wish to change their filing frequency during

1992 should notify the Commission in writing.

3pACS and party committees that filed on a sendannual basis in 1991 file on a quarterly

basis in 1992. To avoid the need to file pre-primary and pre-runoff reports, these

committees may change to monthly filing if they first notify the Commission in writing. Committees may change filing "frequency only once a year. 11 CFR 104.5(c).

4A reporting period begins with the close of the last report filed and ends with the closin

date for the applicable report.

13
January 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

PRE-ELECTIQl REPORTIOO M'l'F3 FOR

1992 B:JUSE .AND SENATE PRDIZ\RY AND RlN)FF ELECTICtiS

state or Territory Election Day Close of Book~

'Alabama June 2 May 13

Runoff June 30 June 10

'Alaska 'Se~t.'l [;ugust- ~S August g 11

American samoa-/ November 3 october 14

Runoff November 17 october 28

*Arizona September 8 August 19

*Arkansas May 26 May 6

Runoff June-9 May 20

*California June 2 May 13

"'Colorado August 11 July 22

*ConnecticutE/ September 15 August 26

Delaware september 12 August 23

Dist. of Columbia May 5 April 15

"'Florida September 1 August 12

Runoff Ocf, ...septeamer 29 SeptemberA' II

*Georgia July 21 July 1

Runoff August 11 July 22

Guam September 5 August 16

Reg.jCert• .,¥

Mailing oat Filing Dat~/

May 18 May 21

June 15 June 18

August ),if 7- 'i August)O"z1

OCtober 194/ OCtober 22

Novembe r 52' November 5

August 24 August 27

May 1W May 14

May 2 May 28

May 18 May 21

July 27 July 30

August 31 september 3

August 28 August 31

April 20 April 23

August 17 August 20 

September>4' I(; Septemberyr/1

July 6 July 9

July 27 July 30

August 21 August 24

.States holding 1992 Senate elections.

I Thi s date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the

day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the conunittee is new and has not

previously filed a report, the first report'must cover all activity that occurred before the

corrmittee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

2Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date.

otherwise, they meet; be received by the filing date.

3In American Samoa. if a runoff is not held, the November 3 election is considered. the

general election, and a post-general election report is therefore required. If a runoff is

held. the November 17 election is considered. the general election, with the post-general

reporting dates as follows: close of books. December 7; mailing and filing date. December

17.

4The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mailing date would

fall one day before the primary was held. '

SIn connecticut, each party may hold a convention that has the authority to nominate a

candidate; participating candidates must file a pre-convention report. If a candidate i6 60 

naminated at a convention, and the nomination is not challenged, the naminee does not

participate in the primary and has no contribution limit or reporting requirements for the

primary. 11 CFR 110.1(j)(4); see also AD 1982-49.

14
•

•

•

January 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Numbe,.1.

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books!/ Beg./Cart. 2/

Mailing Date= ' Filing ~~/

*Hawaii September 19 August 30 September 4 September 711

*Idaho May 26 May 6 May 11 May 14

*111100is March 17 February 26 March 2 March 5

*Indiana 'May 5 April 15 April 20 April 23

*IowJ/ JUJ".e 2 May 13 May 18 May 21

*Kansas August 4 July 15 July 20 July 23

*Kentucky May 26 May 6 May 11 May 14

*r.ouiSianaS

/ october 3 September 13 September 18 September 21

General- November 3 October 14 October 19 october 22

Maine June 9 May 20 May 2~/ May 28

"'Maryland March 3 February 12 February 17§.1 February 20

Massachusetts September 15 August 26 August 31 September 3

Michigan August 4 July 15 July 20 July 23

Minnesota September lS 1Ulgust 26 August 31 September 3

Mississippi March 10 February 19 February 24 February 27

Runoff March 31 March 11 March 16 March 19

"'Missouri August 4 July 15 July: 20 July 23

(Table continued)

*States holding 1992 Senate elections.

IThis date indicates the end cf the reporting pedro. A reporting per.rod always begins the

day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not

previously filed a report, the first report; must cover all activity that occurred before the

committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

2Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date.

Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

3Not e that the filing date is a federal holiday. Because filing dates are not extended when

they fall on nonworking days, the report should be received by the appropriate filing

Qffices by september 4, the Friday before (or sent by registered or certified mail and

postmarked by that date).

41n Iowa, a party may, under certain circumstances, have the option of holding a conventdon

to nominate a candidate for the general election. In that case, a pre-convention report

would be requi red instead of a pre-primary report.

SA post-general election report is also required. Note that if a candidate is unopposed in

the general election, his or her committee nevertheless has a contribution limit for the

general and is required to file pre- and post-general election reports. 11 eFR 110.1(j)(3)

and AO 1984-54.

6Not e that the last day for a registered/certified postmark is a federal holiday, when post

offices are closed. The report should therefore be postmarked before that date.

lS
January 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

State or Territory Election Day Close of BookJ/ Reg.;t:ort. 2/

Mailing 0Ilte= Filing Da~/

Montana June 2 May 13 May 18 May 21

Nebraska May 12 April 22 April 27 April 30

*Nevada September 1 August 12 August 17 August 20

*New Hampshire September 8 August ,19 August 24 August 27

New Jersey June 2 May 13 May 16 May 21

New Mexico June 2 May 13 May 18 May 21

*New York September 15 August 26 August 31 September 3

~North Carolina May 5 April 15 April 20 April 23

Runoff June 2 May 13 May 18 May 21

*North. Dakota June 9 May 20 May 2SY May 28

*Ohio MayS April 15 April 20 April 23

*Oklahoma August 25 August 5 August 10 August 13

Runoff September 15 August 26 August 31 September 3

*Oregon May 19 April 29 May 4 May 7

*pennsylvania April 28 April 8 April 13 April 16

Puerto Rico June 14 May 25 May 30 June 2

Rhode Island September 15 August 26 August 31 Septe1l'lber 3

*South Carolina June 9 May 20 May 25Y May 28

Runoff June 23 June 3 June 11~/ June 11

*South Dakota June 2 May 13 May 18 4/ May 21

Runoff June 16 May 27 June June 4

Tennessea August 6 July 17 July 22 July zJ/

~st~tes holding 1992 Senate elections.

IThiS date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reportinq period always begins the

day after the closing dateof the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not

previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the

committee reqrstered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

2Reports sent by reqistered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailinq date.

Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

3Not e that the last day for a registere(Vcertified postmark is a federal holiday, when post

offices are closed. The report should therefore be postmarked before that date.

4The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mailing date would

fall one day before the primary was held.

5Not e that the filing date is a Saturday. Because filing dates are not extended when they 

fall on nonworking days, the report should be received by the appropriate filing offices by

July 24, the Friday before.

16
January 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

• state or Territory Election Day Close of Books!/ Req.jCert. 2/

Mailing Date- Filill9 Da~/

Texas March 10 February 19 February 24 February 27

Runoff April 14 March 2S March 30 April 2

*utatJ1 September e August 19 August 24 _August 27

"'Vermont September 8 August 19 August 24 August 27

vlrginiJI June 9 May 20 May 2~/ May 28

Virgin Islands September e August 19 August 24 August 27

*washington September 15 August 26 August 31 September 3

West vi '9ioia May 12 April 22 April 27 April 30

*Wisqonsin Septernber 8 August 19 August 24 August 27

Wyoming August 18 July 29 August 3 August 6

•

•

.States holding 1992 Senate elections.

IThis date indicates the end of the reporting period. A reporting period always begins the

day after the closing date of the last report filed. If the committee is new and has not

previously filed a report, the first report must cover all activity that occurred before the

committee registered and, if applicable, before the individual became a candidate.

2Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date.

Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

3In Utah, the Democratic and Republican conventions are scheduled for June 13 and June 28,

respectively, and participating candidates must file a pre-convention report. A candidate

receiving at least 70 percent of the convention vote becomes the party's nominee and does

not participate in the primary. In that case, the nominee has .no contribution limit Or

reporting requirements for the primary. 11 CFR 110.1(j)(4); see also AD 1978-30.

4I n Virginia, each party within a congressional District decides Whether to hold a prima~ or a convention. Candidates participating in a convention must file a pre-convention

report. The 1992 convention dates are not yet set, pending redistricting approval.

5Not e that the last day for a registered/certified postmark is a federal holiday, When post

offices are closed. The report should therefore be postmarked before that date.

17
January 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION

LAST-MIW1'E -camu:mmrns:

48-BOOR tm'ICES R!QJIRED

Authorized committees of federal

candidates must file special notices if

they receive contributions of $1,000 or

more shortly before the election. 2 U.S.C.

s434(a)(6)(A); 11 eFR 104.5(£). These

notices are called "48-hour notices"

because they are due within 48 hours of the

commdttee's receipt of the contribution.

Overview of 48-Bour Notice Rules

The 48-hour notice requirement applies

to contributions of $1,000 or more received

after the 20th day, but more than 48 hours,

before any election (primary, runoff,

general or special) .1/ Authorized

committees, must file-notices on such

contributions with the appropriate state

and federal offices.2/ A notice must be

rece i ved by the filing offices within 48

hours of the campaign's receipt of the

contribution. 2 U.S.C. §434(a)(6)(A);

11 CFR 104.5(f).

Types of contributions. The 48-hour

notice requirement applies to all types of

contributions of $1,000 or more, including:

o Monetary and in-kind contributions;

o Loans (~ther than bank loans);

lAuthorized committees of House candidates

file with the Clerk of the House; authorized committees of Senate candidates file

with the Secretary of the Senate; committees of Presidential candidates file with

the FEe. 2 U.S.C. 5432(g); 11 eFR 105.1-

105.3. House and Senate committees must

simultaneOusly file copies of 48-hour

notices with the secretary of State (or

equivalent filing officer) in the state in

which the candidate is seeking election•.

2 u.s.C. §439{a)(2)(B). Presidential candidate committeeS should consult 2: U.S.C.

§439(a)(2)(A) for requirements on filing

with state offices.

2Because 4B-hour notices do not have to be

signed by the treasurerI they may be sent

by mailgram, telegram or telefacsimile

(fax) machine in order to meet the 48-hour

requirement. Ni 198B-32. The fax numbers

for the Clerk of the House and the Secret3ry of' the Senate are: House-202/225-

7781; Senate--202j224-185l. NOTE: Other

reports and statements may not be faxed.

18

Volume 18, Number 1

o Guarantees and endorsements of bank

loans;

o Contributions, personal loans and

endorsements of bank loans made by the

candidate. 2 U.S.C. S431(8)(A); 11 CFR

100.7(a).

contents of Notice. The notice must

disclose:

o The name of the candidate and the office

sought;

o The complete identification of the

contributor (name, address and, if the

contributor is an individual, occupation

and eIllPloyer); and . o The date and amount of the contribution.

2 U.S.C. S434(a)(6)(A); 11 CFR 104.5(f).

Reporting Contributions a second Time.

The cormnittee must itemize contributions

disclosed in a 46-hour notice a second time

on the next regularly scheduled report.

2 U.S.C. i434(a)(6)(B)} 11 CFR 104.5{f).

Issues Arising in me Enforcement cases

When reviewing reports filed after an

election, the Commission checks to see if

contributions subject to the 48-hour

requirement have been properly disclosed in

notices. If not, the Commission may initiate an enforcement action (referred to as a

Matter Under Review or MUR). The following

summaries of selected MURs clarify some

misunderstandings about the 48-hour notice

requirament.

Failure to Jlleet 48-Bour Deadline. In

MUR 3172, a Senate carrpaign's 48-hour

notices did not reach the filing offices

within 48 hours. Instead of filing notices

on large contributions as they were received, the campaign delayed filing until

the day after the primary, when it filed a

single notice disclosing 26 contributions

totaling $35,350. The carrpaign also failed

to file any notices at all on another set

of c~tributions totaling $32,500. The'

campaign agreed to pay a $5,700 civil

penalty.

unopposed CNpaign's Failure to File.

In MUR3171, the campaign of a HOUse candidate who was unopposed in the primary

failed to file 48-hour notices on six contributions totaling $19,350. The campaign

did not understand that 48-hour notices

are required even when a candidate is

unopposed and his or her name does not

appear on the ballot. The Commission,

however, has determfned that the reporting

requirements ilpply even in such cases; the

date the election would have been held is

the date used for reporting purposes. ADs
FEDERALELECTlON COMMISSION

•

•

•

January 1992

1986-21, 1984-54 and 1978-65; see also

11 CFR 110.1(j ) ( 3) • '!he campaign paid a

$2,135 civil penalty.

Failure to Report Loans and Loan Guarantees. In MUR 3215/3156, a Senate campaign did not understand that 48-hour

notices are required for all types of

contributions. '!he carrpaign failed to file

48-hour notices on guarantees of bank loans

and a personal loan from the candidateboth of which are consd.dered contributions.

These and other contributions not disclosed

in 48-hour notices totaled $61,000. The

civil penalty was $2,000.

A House campaign, the respondent in MUR

3057, agreed to pay a $3, 000 civi! penalty

for failing to file 48-hour notices on two

bank loans 9Uaranteed by the candidate

($61,201) and two other contributions

($3,500).

Failure to Identify Contributors in

FUll. In MUR 2766, a Senate campaign's 48-

hour notices failed to include complete

contributor identification, omitting

contributor addresses, occupations and

employers from contributions totaling

$381,050. The campaign agreed to pay a

$3,500 civil penalty.

Pressures of campaign unacceptable

Reason for Failure to caoply. The respondent in MUR 3044, a special election House

campaign, failed to include complete

contributor information on last-minute

contributions totaling $200,500 (the c~

paign omitted addresses, occupations and

employers) and failed to file any notices

at all on $156,000 in contributions,

inclUding two $50,000 bank loans endorsed

by the candidate. The c~ign argued that

it was unable to corrply in full with the

48-hour notice requirements due to unique

circumstances: The campaign was under

pressure because the candidate ran in three

special elections all scheduled within the

same month; the carrpaign received a large

number of last-minute contributions (about

100) shortly before the special general election; and the campaign staff was inexperienced. Rejecting these arguments, the

Commission found probable cause to believe

that the ccurpaign violated the 48-hour

notice requirement. The campaign agreed to

pay a $3,000 civil penalty.

More Information

If you have questions on the 48-hour

notice requirement, call the Info~tion

Services Division: 800/424-9530 or

202;219-3420.

19

Volume 18,Number 1

PRESIDENr AND SIX 0l'HER CANDIDII.'JES, (JW.IFY

FOR KM'CIIIf«; FlN)S

During November and December, the

following 1992 Presidential candidates

became eligible to receive matching funds

for their primary campaigns:

o Former Senator Paul E. Tsongas

o President George Bush

o Governor Bill Clinton

o Senator Tom Harkin

o Senator J. Robert Kerrey

o Governor L. Douglas Wilder

o Former Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Dr. Lenora B. Fulani, a minor party

candidate, was the first candidate to

qualify for matching funds. SM became

eligible in OCtober.

Under the matching fund program, eligible candidates receive matching federal

dollars for a portion of the contributions

they ral.se , The federal government will

match up to $250 per contributor, but only

contributions from individuals qualify for

matching. To establish eligibility for the

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 (i.e., over

$100,000). This threshold submdssion is

reviewed by the'FEe's Audit Division before

the Comndssion makes its determination.

The candidate must also agree to comply

with the law in a letter of agreement and

certification (a "9033 letter").

Presidential candidates may establish

their eligibility for matching funds during

1991 and, once eligible, submdt additional

contributions for matching funds (called

matching fund submissions) on specified

dates. The U.S. Treasury is expected to

make the first matching fund payments early

in January 1992. Candidates may continue

to make matching fund submissions once a

month through March 1, 1993.

GEPHNUJl' CQVIIT'I'EE PRESENTATICN 00

REPAn!!m' DEl'ERMINM'IW

In an open session on November 6, 1991,

Robert F. Bauer, counsel for the Gephardt

for President Committee, Inc., responded to

the Commission's initial determination that

the Committee must repay $126,383 in primary matching funds to the U.S. Treasury.

The Committee had received $4.396 ndllion

in primary matching funds for Congressman

Gephardt's 1988 Presidential campaign'. The

(continued)
January 1992 FEDERAL EL£CTlON COMMISSION

repayment represents a pro rata portion of

the amount the Comrni.ttee spent in excess of

the Iowa expenditure limit, based on the

final audit report.!1

Mr. Bauer elaborated on the Committee's

written response to the initial repayment

determination. Arguing that the repayment should be reduced, he contested several

findings in the audit report. For example,

he' contended that the Committee's allocation of 25 percent of Iowa expenditures to

the national limit should be allowed

because the Iowa caucus has assumed a

national dimension, blurritl9 the distinction between expenditures incurred to

influence the Iowa voters and efforts to

influence voters nationwide. The cceeassian, however, rejected that approach in

the final audit report.

The Commission will consider the

committee's oral and written responses when

it makes a final repayment determination,

which will be accompanied by a Statement of

Reasons.

Volume 18, Number 1

···AUDITS

FEe R.E;LF.ASES SIflI:fi IlIJDIT 1CEPORl'

. On October 22, 1991, the Commission

approved the final audit report on Paul

simon for President, Senator Si~n's 1986

Presidential carrpaign ccneutitee , The

report contained the Comrndssion's initial

determination that the committee repay

$430,465 in federal funds to the U.S.

Treasury. The Simon Cotl'IUi ttee had received

$3.774 million in federal matching funds.

The Simon Committee has .the opportunity

to dispute the initial determination in

writing. Under the public funding regulations, the agency may also grant a comittee's request to make an oral presentation.

When making its final repayment determination, the agency considers all committee

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

This article highlights the findings in

the audit report, which is available for

review in the Public Records Office.

Exempt Fundraising Expenses. The

Committee had excluded 45 percent of its

total Iowa spending as exempt fundraising

Based on audit.findings, the Commission

increased bY $892,a89 and ~238,295. respectively, the amounts the Conunittee had allocated to the Iowa and New HaIrpshire limits.

The material below explains why the Conunissian adjusted the allocations in selected

categories of expenses.

Expend!tures in Excess of the Iowa

and New BaJlpshire Spending Limits

The Commission initially deteomined

that the Simon Committee exceeded the state

spending limits in Iowa and New Hampshire

by over $1 million.

Amounts spent in excess of the state

spending limdts are considered nonqualified

campaign expenses, which are subject to repayment based on a ratio formula (explained

at 11 CFR 9038.2(b)(2)(iii». Application

of the ratio to the Simon Committee's

expenditeres in excess of the state limits

resulted in a $367,906 initial repayment

detemunatacn.

Spending Repayment

OVer Limit Amount

$294,963

$ 72,943

$367,906

S.tate

Limit

$775,218 $ 909,962

$461,000 $ 224,850

$1,134,813

Iowa -HaDp.

TCl'l2\L

IThe audit report was summarized in the

July 1991 Record.

. ,'~-

STATISTICS '., ". " "~" :,-c, ,'_., ,.

I'INAL REl'QI<r til 1989-90 CYCLE RELl!ASED

on December 10, 1991, the Commission

released its final statistics on the 1989-

90 election cycle. The S-volurne Final

Report gives a complete picture o~

1989-90 financial activity of House and

Senate conunittees, party committees and

PACs. The study is a compiliation of data

from reports filed by conunittees during the

cycle.

The Final Report is a valuable source

for researchers in the campaign finance

field. Copies may be ordered from the

Public Records Office at a cost of $10 per

volume (advance payment is required). Call

or write the office: 999 E Street, NW,

washington, DC 20463; 800/424-9530 (ask for

Public Records) or 202;219-4140.

The Report is also available on three

computer tapes at a cost of $50 per tape;

to order, call the FEC's Data Systems

Development Division on the 800 number

listed above (ask for the Data Division) or

on 202;219-3730.

20
• January1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1

•

•

•

costs without providing adequate documentation to support that percentage.

The Comndttee also mdsapplied a 10 percent compliance exemption to all of its

Iowa spending. under 11 eFR l06.2(c)(S),

the 10 percent c01lpliance exemption applies

only to salary and overhead expenditures.

As a result of the misapplied exemptions. the COmmission considered that an

additional $375,763 was allocable to the

Iowa limit.

l'Iedi.a Costs. The audit report found

that the Committee had also incorrectly

applied a 50 percent fundraising exemption

to its purchase costs for Iowa media spots

even though the ads did not contain any

fundraising appeal. See AD 198B-6. The

Commission rejected the Committee's argument'that the ads were the first step in a

multi-tiered fundraising strategy in which

fundraising appeals would follow. The

Cammdttee also underallocated or failed to

allocate costs for media commissions.

Based on these findings, the Commission

considered $62,841 in media costs as

allocable to the Iowa limit. An additional

$5,142 in media costs was found to be allocable to the New Hampshire limit.

The Commission rejected the Committee's

claim that a 50 percent compliance exemption should apply to its media c~ssion

costs. The Committee had asserted that the

exemption was reasonable because the media

tim performed some "compliance-related work" and because the ads contained the

required disclaimer notice (2 U.S.C.,

S441d(a)). However, the compliance exemption applies only to legal and accounting

costs incurred solely to insure compliance with the law. 11 CFR 106.2(c)(5)(i), The

one narrow exception to this rule (the 10

percent salary and overhead exemption) does

not cover broadcast media.

Travel and SUbsistence. The conwission

considered $102,408 in travel and subsistence expenses as allocable to Iowa, and

$40,478 as allocable to New Hampshire. The

Commdttee had, in same cases, failed to

allocate travel and subsistence costs of

individuals who worked in the state for

five or more consecutive days as required

under 11 CFR 106.2(b)(2)(iii). Moreover,

the Committee had misapplied the 5-day rule

to staff assigned to the Iowa and New ~shire field offices, whose travel and

subsistence expenses could not be excluded

under that rule.

Reqiooal and State Offices. Although

the Committee claimed that its office in

Rock Island, Illinois (near the Iowa

21

border) focused on the Illinois campaiqn,

FEC auditors found evidence indicating that

the office'S activities were overwhelmingly

directed toward influencing the Iowa election. Accordingly, the Conunission viewed

$103,997 in Rock Island expenses as

allocable to the Iowa liftdt.

For similar reasons', the Commission

found $46,773 in expenses related to the

Committee's Manchester and Boston offices

as allocable to the New Hampshire limit.

Documentation submitted by the Committee

failed to support its claim that· the

Manchester office operated as a New England

regional office and that the Boston office

was a Massachusetts field office.

Vendors. The audit report identified

$143,113 in expenditures to various vendors

that should have been allocated to Iowa,

and $39,320 that should have' been allocated

to New Hampshire. The committee had failed

to allocate costs of opinion polls and

related travel costs. Moreover, the Commission found no evidence to support the

Committee's claim that payments for the

computer processing of Iowa voter information and for the development of Iowa and

New Hampshire campaign plans were exempt

fundraising expenses.

salary. The audi t found that the

Commdttee had failed to allocate $21,624

(Iowa) and $55,153 (NeW Hampshire) in

salary and FICA payments for staff assigned

to Iowa and New Hampshire and for other

staff who stayed in those states for five

or more consecutive days. ,11 CFR

106.2(b)(2)(ii).

other Nonqualified' campaign Expenses

In addition to amounts spent in excess

of the state limits, the audit report

identified other nonqualified expenses: $134, 081 in undocumented expenditures and

$25,865 in Iowa tax penalties and expenses

incurred after the candidate's date of

ineligibility that did not qualify as

winding down costs. See' 11 CFR 9032.9,

9033.11, 9034.4(a)(3) and (b)(3); The

Commission therefore made an initial

determination that the Committee repay $53,014, the portion of these nonqualified

expenses that was paid with public funds.

other Repayments

The Contmission made an initial determination that the Co.mmittee repay $9,545,

representing matching funds the Cammdttee

received for contributions that were not

matchable and uncashed Committee checks.

See 11 CFR 9034.3(e} and 9038.6.

(Audits continued)
January 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

ADDIT REPOR'IS RELmSED

Listed below, in chronological order,

are the final audit reports that have been

released between December 1990 and December

1991. The 'FEe is required to audit Presidential and convention cammdttees that

received public funds. In addition, the

cOll!llission may audit, any conmittee whose

reports indicate that the comudttee has not

met threshold requi rements for substantial

c01t'{lliance with the Federal Election

campaign Act. 2 U.S.C. S438(b).

Copies of audit reports are available

for review at the Public Records Office and

may be ordered from that office. call

&00/424-9530 (ask for Public Records) or

202;219-4140.

"'nplign for a New Jllajority (Federal)

Date Released: December 4, 1990

Length: 2 pages

Durenherger for U.S. senate Volunteer

CODIrdttee

Date Released: January 14, 1991

Length: 5 pages

Dole for President CCI!IDittee

Date Released: April 30, 1991

Length: 67 pages plus attachments

GeJi1ardt for President C<lJlllittee, Inc.

Date Released: June 18, 1991

Length: 54 pages

Anna Eshoo for COngress

Date Released: July 17~ 1991

Length: '5 pages

Jack Kemp for president; Reup,lDan.nemyur

carmittee and Victory '88 (joint

fundraisil'l9' calIIIittees)

Date Released: July 31, 1991

Length: 52 pages

Curry for Congress

Date Released: AUgust 19, _1991

Length: S pages

Friends of sam Beard for the u.s. senate

Date Released: August 27, 1991

Length: 4 pages

'!be Gephardt CorrIDittee (joint fundraising

eaamittee)

Date Released: September 9, 1991

Lell9'th: 5 pages

Taylor for Congress CcxlIIlittee,

Date Released: September 17, ,< 1991

Length: 4 pages

22

Volume 18, Number 1

Paul siJxJn for President

Date Released: OCtober 30, 1991

Length: 76 pages plUS attachments

Bush-Quayle 88; George Bush for president,

Inc.,IOJapliance ee:-dttee

Date Released: November 6, 1991

Length: 32 pages plus attachments

DukakisjBentsen for President CCIAIllit~,

Inc.; Dukakis,/Bentsen General Election

Legal arx1 CCIIpliance FUnd

Date Released: December 3, 1991

Length: 26 pages

DukaJtis for President COdIllittee, Inc.

Date Released: December 17, 1991

Length: 35 pages

REVISED POLICY (If <D9II"l"l"I!:E '1'!1ll'IIMTI(If

The commission recently revised

Directive No. 45, which contains agency

policy and procedures for the administrative termination of political committees.

Most committees terminate by meeting the

requirements of 11 CFR 102.3 (Le., the

committee has no debts and will no longer

receive contributions or make expenditures). under the administrative termination procedures of 11 crn 102.4, the

Commdssion may adadnistratively terminate

the reporting obligations of an inactive

cOIMllittee.l/ The agency may take this

action on Its own or- at the request of the

committee. If the agency initiates the

action, the corrmi.ttee has an opportunity -to

object. 11 eFR 102.4(c). ~nistrative termination allows

certain committees that have outstanding

debts to be relieved of reporting obligations. For example, if a committee and a

creditor have reached an impasse with '

respect to a disputed -debt, the conrnittee

would have to keep reporting the debt

indefinitely unless the committee were

administratively terminated. ThiS procedure would alleviate the coaadttee's

reporting obligations, but not the debt

claim. See AD 1990-15.

Admdnistrative termination also allows

the CommiSsion to purge its computer system

1The Comssion, for some years, put a hold

on administrative terminations but revived

the procedure after N:J 1990-15 was issued

in AUgust 1990.
•

•

January 1992 FEDERAL HEenaN COMMISSION Volume 18.. Number 1

•

•

•

of inactive committees, thus saving computer space as well as the costs of mailing

notices to these committees. Directive No.

45 states that the FEe will review its data

bases every nonelection year to select committees that may be eligible for administrative termination.

FEe-Initiated ltdministrative Terminations

The new Directive revises the criteria

the agency uses to select committees for

possible administrative. termination. These

criteria, previously based on dollar

thresholds, are now based on a commdttee's

financial activity and reporting status

over several years' time.

Under the revised Directive, an

authorized cOnmdttee may be selected for

administrative termination if:

c It was established for an election that

was held £1ve or more years ago and it

either has not filed reports for a year

or appears to be reporting solely to

disclose its debts; or

o It was authorized by an dndlvidual who

never met the definition of candidate

under 2 u.s.c. 5431(2).

An unauthorized committee may be

selected if:

o It has not filed reports for at least

three years and its debts exceed its cash

on hand (based on previous reports); or

o It has had no significant financial

activity in the last three years and

appears to be reporting solely to

disclose its debts; or

o It does not appear to have met the

definition of political committee at

2 U.S.C. §431(4) and has not comnumicated

with the FEe for at least one year.

Requests for lldministrative Termination

When a committee requests a~nistracfve termination, it must include the

following information for each outstanding

debt:

a The tenms and conditions of the initial

extension of credit;

o The steps taken by the com¢ttee to repay

the debt; and

o The efforts made by the creditor to

obtain payment.

If necessa~, the Commission will send

the committee a request for additional

information (RFAI) to obtain the above

information or an explanat,ion of any

discrepan~. The Directive was revised to

make clear, that if a committee fails to

provide the above information, its request

will not be processed.

Review of Administrative Terminations

The revised Directive assigns the

Office of General Counsel the responsibility to review administrative terminations

to ensure compliance wi th 11 .eFR 102.4 (see

below) and other, relevant regulations.

section 102.4(a) Factors. A committee

maybe administratively, terminated based on

the following factors listed in section

102.4(a)2/ of FEe regulations:

o The coiiimittee's aggregate activity for

one year is less than $5,000.

o The committee did not report receiving

any contributions the previous year.

o The comnittee's last report disclosed

minimal expenditures.

o The committee's primary purpose in filing

reports has been to disclose outstanding

debts and obligations. -

o The committee's outstanding debts exceed

its cash on hand.

o The commi ttee does not have substantial

accounts receivable.

o The committee's debts and obligations do

not appear to present a possible violation of the prohibitions or limits on

contributions.

o The committee has failed-to file reports

for the previous year. (However, this

may result in an FEC enforcement action;

see below.)

Directive ~rements. Under Directive No. 45, all committees must meet two

general conditions: .

o '!'he committee may not be involved in any

FEe enforcement or litigation action; and

o The committee may not be an authorized

commdttee of a candidate who is seeking

election.

2See also 11 eFR 102.4(c).

23 'lI u.e. Gov~r~"'ent Prlntlng Qffic_ I 19~1 c lU-oH/40DDI
January 1992 FEDERALELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 1 

<XJIIIIITI'EE

On January 27, 1992, the FEC will hold

a conference in Washington, D.C., to assist

nonconnected political' action committees

with their 1992 election activity.

WOrkshops

In addition to an introduction to the

campaign finance law, the conference will

include workshops on fundraising, candidate

support, reporting, and allocation of

federal and nonfederal activity. A workshop for partnerships will also be offered.

In addition, a representative of the Internal Revenue service will be available to

answer election-related tax questions.

Registration InforDlation

The $100 registration fee for the

conference covers the cost of the conference, materials and meals (continental

breakfast and lunch). call the FEe to

order a registration form and schedule of

workshops (800)424-9530 or (202)219-3420.

To avoid a late fee, the registration

form (with fee enclosed) must be postmarked

by January 13, 1992.

Hotel

The conference will be held at the

Sheraton-carlton, 923 16th street, NW,

Washington, DC 20006. call 202/63B-2626

for room reservations. To receive the

group rate of $165 per night, notify the

hotel that you will be attending the FEe

conference.

FEDERAL ELECTiON COMMiSSiON

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

The first number in each citation

refers to the "number" (month) of the 1992

Record issue in which the article appeared,

the second number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that issue.

ADVISORY OPINIm8

1991-29: Contributions received and. made by

corporation's employee pledge program,

1:4

1991-33: Allocation of expenses when party

commdttee admdnisters primary election,

1:6

1991-34: Committee sale of access to voter

data ba~e as ongoing venture, 1:6

croRr CASES

FEe v. - AFSom:PQ, 1:7

- NRA Political Victory Fund, 1:7

v. FEC

----=--Akins, 1:8

- common Cause (91-2914), 1:9

800 LINE

Last-mdnute contributions: 48-hour notices

required, 1:18

1992 REPCRTIR; Dl\TES:

SEE AR'l'ICLE m PHiE 10.

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number 0-31