January 2000 Federal Election Commission Volume 26, Number 1

A Message from the Chairman

The year 2000 promises to be an exciting and challenging one at the FEC,

particularly with respect to the expanding role of computer technology in

campaign finance.

Responding to political committees’ growing interest in using the Internet

for political advocacy and fundraising, the Commission has formally asked

for public comment on the possible need for new rules specifically governing

this type of activity (64 Federal Register 60360, November 5, 1999).

We have already taken advantage of the possibilities the Internet presents

by giving the public access to campaign finance reports and our own publications through our Web site (www.fec.gov). And, since last August, we have

made our advisory opinions available there also. In the final weeks of 1999,

we redesigned our Web site, offering additional information in a more user

friendly way.

This year, we will implement a legislative amendment to the Federal

Election Campaign Act requiring political committees operating above a

certain threshold of activity to file their FEC reports electronically. Publicly

funded Presidential committees are already required to electronically file

their reports. In addition, many other committees have already begun to file

their reports electronically on a voluntary basis.

Questions will arise as we make these changes. When they do, call our

800 number (800/424-9530) for assistance. In addition, you can obtain our

publications and other materials 24 hours a day through our Faxline, an

automated fax-on-demand system (202/501-3413).

As we try to meet the challenges of the coming year, we welcome your

comments and suggestions.✦

State Filing Waivers Reduce Committees’

Filing Obligations, see page 2.

Table of Contents

1 Message from the Chairman

Information

2 State Filing Waivers

Court Cases

2 DSCC v. FEC

3 Renato P. Mariani v. USA

13 Simon C. Fireman v. USA

13 On Appeal?

Commissioners

3 2000 Chairman and Vice

Chairman Elected

Reports

5 Reports Due in 2000

13 Federal Register

Regulations

14 NPRM on Coordination

Public Funding

16 Reform Party Convention

Publications

16 PACronyms

16 Corrections

Outreach

16 Public Appearances

17 Conferences

17 Monthly Roundtables

17 Advisory Opinions

23 Index
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

2

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

800/424-9530

202/694-1100

202/501-3413 (FEC Faxline)

202/219-3336 (TDD for the

 hearing impaired)

800/877-8339 (FIRS)

Scott E. Thomas, Chairman

Darryl R. Wold, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Jennifer A. Han, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Most Committees No Longer

File State Copies of Reports

in Twelve States

On December 8, the Commission

certified Arkansas, Florida, Idaho,

Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin

as eligible for the State Filing

Waiver Program. These states no

longer have to receive and maintain

paper copies of most FEC reports in

their state’s campaign finance

records office.

As a result, beginning with the

December 1999 monthly report,

most political committees that used

to file copies of their reports in these

12 states will no longer have to do

so. Senate candidates, however,

must continue to file copies of their

reports with the states.1

In the twelve states certified, the

public will now be able to review

and copy campaign reports of most

federal candidates by accessing the

FEC’s Web site (www.fec.gov) on

computers located at the state’s

campaign finance records office.

The FEC began posting disclosure reports filed by Presidential and

House candidates, parties and

political action committees on its

Web site in 1997. It has since

expanded the site to include electronic filings and a query system

that allows for on-line searches of

the campaign finance database. By

accessing the FEC’s Web site, the

public in the certified states will be

able to view PAC, party and Presidential reports filed since 1993 and

House candidate reports filed since

1996.

The concept for the state waiver

program originated in December

1995, when President Clinton

signed Public Law 104-79, which

exempts a state from receiving and

maintaining paper copies of federal

campaign finance reports provided

that the state, “as determined by the

Commission, has a system that

permits electronic access to, and

duplication of, reports and statements that are filed with the Commission.”

On October 14, 1999, the Commission implemented the law by

approving the State Filing Waiver

Program. Under this program, the

Commission requires states to

submit a letter certifying that they

have a computer system that allows

the public:

• To electronically access the reports

and statements that are filed with

the Commission; and

• To duplicate them.

1

 The law requires Senate candidate

committees to file their reports and

statements with the Secretary of the

Senate. Because the Commission is

unable at the present time to scan these

reports, the reports are not currently

available to the public through the

Commission’s Web site.

To receive the FEC’s state waiver

certification, states:

• Must have at least one computer

terminal that can electronically

access the Commission’s Web

page, with at least one printer

(connected either directly or

through a network); and

• Must, to the greatest extent possible, allow anyone requesting

federal campaign finance data to

use the computer terminal at any

time during regular business hours.

As more states request and

receive FEC certification for the

program, the Commission will

announce their names in future

issues of the Record and will post

them on the FEC Web site

(www.fec.gov).

For more information on the

waiver, please see page 17 of the

December 1999 Record.✦

Information

Court Cases

Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee, Inc.,

v. FEC, et al.

This case, which dates back to

1993, began when the Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee

(DSCC) filed an administrative

complaint, alleging that the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

(NRSC) had circumvented the

Federal Election Campaign Act’s

(the Act’s) contribution limits by

funneling soft money through

nonprofit organizations, which then

made expenditures on behalf of the

NRSC.

In 1995, the DSCC filed suit in

the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia against the

FEC, charging that the agency had

failed to take action on its administrative complaint within a reasonable time. In April 1996, the court

ruled that the FEC’s inaction was
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Commissioners

New Chairman and Vice

Chairman Elected

On December 16, 1999, the

Commission elected Darryl R. Wold

as its Chairman and Danny L.

McDonald as Vice Chairman for

2000.

Mr. Wold, a Republican, was

nominated to the FEC by President

Clinton on November 5, 1997, and

confirmed by the Senate on July 30,

1998.

Prior to his appointment, Mr.

Wold was in private law practice in

Orange County, California. In

addition to his own practice, he was

counsel for election law litigation

and enforcement matters to Reed

and Davidson, a firm that practices

election and political law.

Chairman Wold graduated cum

laude from Claremont McKenna

College in California and received a

law degree from Stanford University. He is a member of the California bar, and is admitted to practice

before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Vice Chairman McDonald, a

Democrat, has previously served as

both chairman and vice chairman.

Prior to his initial appointment in

1981, Commissioner McDonald

served as General Administrator of

the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Additionally, he served as

secretary of the Tulsa County

Election Board and as Chief Clerk

of that Board. Commissioner

McDonald was a member of the

Advisory Panel to the FEC’s

National Clearinghouse on Election

Administration. He is currently

president of the American Council

of Young Political Leaders.

Commissioner McDonald received

a Bachelors degree from Oklahoma

State University and attended the John

F. Kennedy School of Government at

Harvard University. He has served as

a member of the JFK School Advisory Board for State and Local

Government.✦

contrary to law. 2 U.S.C.

§437g(a)(8). The court denied the

DSCC’s request for injunctive

relief, however, because the FEC

had recently found “reason to

believe” that the NRSC had violated

the Act. The court subsequently

ordered the Commission to pay the

DSCC’s attorney’s fees. A year

later, the court again found that the

Commission had acted contrary to

law, this time because the FEC had

not completed its investigation nor

decided whether there was “probable cause to believe” that the

NRSC had violated the Act. The

court ordered the FEC to take action

within 30 days. In June 1997, the

FEC explained that it could not

complete its work by that deadline,

and it appealed the district court

order. The FEC also appealed the

previous court order to pay the

DSCC’s attorney’s fees. On April

10, 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

remanded these two cases to the

district court after finding that the

issue of whether the DSCC had

standing under the Constitution to

litigate its claims had not been

resolved.

On October 18, 1999, the U.S.

District Court concluded that the

DSCC had constitutional standing to

litigate these cases. However, in

regard to the first case, the court

decided that the DSCC did not

qualify as a “prevailing party” as

defined in the Equal Access to

Justice Act, and therefore vacated its

earlier decision to award the DSCC

attorney’s fees. The court did

reconfirm its prior order in the

second case that found the Commission to have unreasonably delayed

taking action on the administrative

complaint filed by the DSCC and

required the Commission to conclude the matter within 30 days.

For previous Record articles, see

page 4 of the June 1998 issue and

page 7 of the August 1998 issue.✦

Renato P. Mariani v. USA, et al.

On December 15, 1998, Renato

P. Mariani filed a civil action under

2 U.S.C. §437h, challenging the

constitutionality of the Federal

Election Campaign Act’s (the Act’s)

prohibitions on corporate contributions and contributions in the name

of others. 2 U.S.C. §§441b and

441f. Section 437h of Title 2

assigns the en banc court of appeals

the role of decision maker on

constitutional challenges to the

Act’s provisions. The district court

is responsible for:

• Determining whether a constitutional challenge is frivolous and, if

not,

• Making findings of fact and

certifying the issues to be resolved

by the appellate court.

The FEC successfully petitioned

the U.S. District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania to

intervene in this case and filed a

motion to have the matter dismissed,

which was denied by the district

court on March 25, 1999.

Factual Findings

On October 27, 1999, the U.S.

District Court for the Middle

District of Pennsylvania came to the

following factual conclusions:

• Mr. Mariani, a corporate executive, is being prosecuted in federal

court for violating the Act’s

prohibitions on corporate contributions and contributions in the name

of others by funneling funds

through individuals to various

federal campaign committees.

• The purpose of the corporate and

conduit contribution bans is to

avoid corruption and the appearance of corruption in the federal

elective process that may occur

when large and/or undisclosed

contributions are made to candidates seeking federal office.

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

4

• “Contributions or expenditures

made on behalf of candidates for

federal office are referred to [as]

‘hard money.’”

• Corporations have the ability to

make large contributions to

political parties and to fund “issue

advocacy” communications.

“Such contributions are referred to

as ‘soft money.’”

• There are important theoretical

distinctions between hard and soft

money—distinctions that are

“intended to avoid the corrupting

influence of large contributors

supporting a particular candidate.”

• Soft money is easier to raise than

hard money because it can be

donated in large sums and it can

come from corporate treasuries.

• Soft money has grown from about

$19 million in 1980 to more than

$260 million in 1996.

• Soft money is used in part to fund

“issue advocacy.” “While ‘issue

advocacy’ is supposed to be

distinguishable from ‘candidate

advocacy,’ the distinction is often

illusory.”

• “Issue advocacy” funded by soft

money has increased substantially.

• “Sponsors of ‘issue advocacy’ are

able to avoid the Act’s contribution limits and disclosure requirements applicable to candidate ads.”

• Candidates for federal office are

involved in raising “soft money.”

“Candidates raising soft money are

often rewarded by having allocated

to their campaigns all or part of the

soft money they raise.”

• “Candidates for federal office

know which corporations are large

contributors of soft money.”

• “The contribution of corporate

treasury funds secures corporate

officials access to high government

officials, including elected officials, as well as candidates for

federal office.”

• “Access to candidates and high

federal government officeholders

is often the quid pro quo for large

soft money contributions.”

• “Corporations are often motivated

to make large soft money contributions by the access it buys.”

• “Access to candidates for federal

office provided by soft money

corporate contributions has the

same appearance of corruption as

would access provided by corporate hard money contributions to

those same candidates.”

• “Soft money contributions from

corporate treasuries can influence

the outcome of federal elections.”

• Soft money contributions from

corporate treasuries in connection

with federal elections, by way of

both donations to political parties

and issue advocacy, “have the

same ability to corrupt and give

rise to the same appearance of

corruption as would contributions

from corporate treasuries to the

campaign committees of candidates for federal office.”

• “The public does not perceive any

meaningful distinction between

hard money and soft money.”

• “Corporations are now able to

make expenditures that influence

the outcome of federal elections

without the public having a clear

understanding that a particular

corporation is making substantial

contributions with the intent to

promote the chances of a particular

candidate for federal office.”

• “Corporate soft money contributions enable corporations to do

that which the corporate hard

money contribution ban is intended

to avoid: corporate support of

candidates for federal elective

office.”

• “Corporations are now able to

make expenditures in connection

with federal elections that have the

ability to corrupt and cause an

appearance of corruption that the

ban on corporate contributions to

candidates for federal elective

office was intended to avoid.”

Certified Issues of Law

Based on the above findings of

fact, the district court certified the

following issues of law for consideration by the appellate court:

• Whether the prohibition in 2

U.S.C. §441b on contributions by

corporations from corporate

treasury funds to candidates for

federal office, in the context of the

presently existing law that otherwise permits corporations to

expend unlimited amounts of

corporate treasury funds that

influence the outcome of federal

elections, violates the First

Amendments.

• Whether the prohibition in 2

U.S.C. §441b on contributions by

corporations from corporate

treasury funds to candidates for

federal office is overly broad and

therefore unconstitutional on its

face.

• Whether the prohibition in 2

U.S.C. §441f on contributions in

the name of another to candidates

for federal office violates the First

Amendment.

• If the answer to the first two

questions above is “yes” but the

answer to the third is “no”:

—Whether 2 U.S.C. §441f is

unconstitutional when it prohibits

conduit contributions of corporate

funds to candidates for federal

office; and

—Whether 2 U.S.C. §441f is

inseverable from 2 U.S.C. §441b

and should therefore be invalidated

in light of the unconstitutionality

of the latter provision.✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

(continued on page 13)
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

2Note that an authorized committee of a

2000 candidate must file on a quarterly

basis in 2000 even if the candidate

withdraws before participating in the

primary. However, such a committee

would not have to file a pre-primary

report (or other election reports) unless

the candidate’s name remained on the

ballot.

3 Since 48-hour notices do not have to

be signed by the treasurer, they may be

sent by mailgram, telegram or

telefacsimile (fax) machine in order to

meet the 48-hour requirement. AO

1988-32. Fax numbers for: the

Secretary of the Senate--202/224-1851;

FEC--202/219-0174. Note: Other

reports and statements may not be

faxed.

4 A pre-convention report is required

only if the convention has authority to

nominate. See 11 CFR 100.2(e).

Reports Due in 2000

This article on filing requirements for election year 2000 is

supplemented by accompanying

reporting tables.

It is the responsibility of the

committee treasurer to file required

reports on time. To assist treasurers,

the Commission sends committees

FEC reporting forms and notices of

upcoming reporting deadlines.

For further information on

reporting or to order extra forms,

call the FEC: 800/424-9530 (press

1) or 202/694-1100. Additionally,

most forms are available at the

FEC’s Web site (http://

www.fec.gov) and from the

agency’s Faxline system (dial 202/

501-3413).

Reports Covering 2000 Activity

To find out which reports your

committee must file in 2000, check

the Guide to Reporting chart on

page 6. Please note that committees

active in special elections in 2000

may have to file additional special

election reports, as explained below.

Committees Active in Special

Elections

Committees authorized by

candidates running in any 2000

special election must file special

election reports in addition to

regularly scheduled reports. 11

CFR 104.5(h). They are also

required to comply with the 48-hour

notice requirement for contributions

of $1,000 or more (including loans)

received shortly before an election.

See 11 CFR 104.5(f).

Reports

1Currently twelve states have qualified

for the state waiver: Arkansas, Florida,

Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan,

Nebraska, New York, North Dakota,

South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin.

PACs and party committees

supporting candidates running in

special elections also may have to

file pre- and post-election reports

unless they file on a monthly basis.

11 CFR 104.5(c)(3) and 104.5(h).

However, all PACs are subject to

24-hour reporting of independent

expenditures made shortly before an

election. See 11 CFR 104.4(b) and

(c) and 104.5(g).

When timing permits, the Record

will alert committees to special

election reporting dates in 2000.

Waiver of State Filing

On October 14, 1999, the Commission approved a state filing

waiver program, relieving qualified

states of the requirement to make

paper copies of FEC reports available to the public.

As a result, beginning with the

December 1999 monthly report,

most political committees will no

longer have to file copies of their

reports at the state level in the states

that have received the waiver.1 The

exception is Senate candidates.

They must continue to file copies of

their reports with the states.

All Committees: Year-End

Reports Covering 1999 Activity

All committees must file a 1999

Year-End report due January 31,

2000. The coverage and reporting

dates are found on page 7.

Authorized Committees

of Candidates

2000 House and Senate Candidates. Authorized committees of

2000 House and Senate candidates

file the following reports:

• Quarterly reports; 2

• A pre-primary report;

• Pre- and post-general election

reports (if the candidate participates in the general election); and

• 48-hour notices on contributions of

$1,000 or more received after the

20th day, but more than 48 hours,

before the day of each election in

which the candidate participates.

These notices are due within 48

hours of the committee’s receipt of

the contribution. 11 CFR 104.5(a)

(1) and (f).3

Note: Committees 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, no

report is required for a primary

election that is not held because the

candidate was nominated by a

caucus or convention,4

 for which a

pre-election report would have

already been filed. See 11 CFR

110.1(j).

(continued on page 7)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

6

Guide to 2000 Reporting

All committees must also file a 1999 Year-End Report, due January 31, 2000.

Required Reports

Pre- Pre- PostType of Filer Semiannual Quarterly Monthly Primary 1 General General

House and Senate Campaigns ✓ ✓✓✓

of 2000 Candidates required only if candidate runs in election

Other House and Senate ✓

Campaigns 2

Presidential Campaigns 3 ✓ ✓✓

Anticipating Activity required only if candidate

of at Least $100,000 runs in election

Presidential Campaigns 3 ✓ ✓✓ ✓

With Activity required only if candidate runs in election

Less Than $100,000

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓✓

Filing Monthly filed in lieu of November and

 December monthly reports

PACs and Party Committees ✓ ✓✓✓

Filing Quarterly 4 required only if committee required

 makes contributions or regardless

expenditures in connection of activity

 with election during the

 reporting period 5

1Category also includes pre-convention and pre-runoff reports.

2 Special election candidates must file additional reports pertaining to their special elections. See periodic Record announcements.

3Presidential committees that wish to change their filing frequency during 2000 should notify the Commission in writing.

4PACs and party committees that filed on a semiannual basis in 1999 file on a quarterly basis in 2000. 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).

5A reporting period begins with the close of books for the last report filed and ends with the closing date for the applicable

report.
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

1999 Year-End Report

Note: All committees file this report.

Report Period Covered Filing Date 1

Year-End Closing date January 31, 2000

of last report

through 12/31/99

2000 Monthly Reports

Report Period Covered Filing Date 1

February January 1-31 February 20 2

March February 1-29 March 20

April March 1-31 April 20

May April 1-30 May 20 2

June May 1-31 June 20

July June 1-30 July 20

August July 1-31 August 20 2

September August 1-31 September 20

October September 1-30 October 20

Pre-General 3 October 1-18 October 26

Post-General Oct. 19-Nov. 27 December 7

Year-End Nov. 28-Dec. 31 January 31, 2001

2000 Quarterly Reports

Report Close of Books Filing Date 1

1st Quarter March 31 April 15 2

2nd Quarter June 30 July 15 2

3rd Quarter September 30 October 15 2

Year-End December 31 January 31, 2001

Pre- and Post-Election Reports

for November 7 General Election2

Report Close of Books Filing Date 1

Pre-General 3 October 18 October 26

Post-General November 27 December 7

1Reports 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).

2Note that the filing date falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended when

they fall on nonworking days.

3

 If sent by registered or certified mail, the pre-general must be postmarked by

October 23.

Other House and Senate Candidates. Committees authorized by

House and Senate candidates who

ran or intend to run in a year other

than 2000 file on a semiannual

basis. 11 CFR 104.5(a)(2).

Presidential Candidates. All

committees authorized by Presidential candidates must file on either a

monthly or a quarterly schedule.

11 CFR 104.5(b)(2).

A Presidential committee wishing

to change its filing schedule should

notify the Commission in writing.

Presidential committees active in

the 2000 race 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 file pre-and postgeneral election reports in lieu of the

November and December monthly

reports.

Presidential committees active in

the 2000 race with financial activity

under $100,000 file on a quarterly

basis. They must also file pre- and

post-election reports for the elections they run in.

Presidential committees retiring

debts from previous campaigns may

file on either a monthly or a quarterly schedule.

PACs and Party Committees

PACs (separate segregated funds

and nonconnected committees) and

party committees that filed on a

semiannual basis during 1999 now

file on a quarterly basis. Monthly

filers continue on the monthly

schedule. PACs and party committees

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).

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

8

Quarterly Filers. A PAC or party

committee that files on a quarterly

basis must additionally file a postgeneral election report. 11 CFR

104.5(c)(1)(i) and (iii).

Quarterly filers may also have to

file pre-convention, pre-primary, prerunoff and pre-general election

reports. The requirement to file a

pre-election report is triggered if the

committee makes a contribution or

expenditure in connection with the

election during the applicable

reporting period. 11 CFR 104.5(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.

Note that, although the FEC

sends committees notices of upcoming reporting deadlines for quarterly

reports and general election reports,

the agency does not send PACs or

party committees pre-election

reporting notices for Congressional

conventions, primaries or runoffs.

Monthly Filers. Unlike quarterly

filers, PACs 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 postgeneral election reports in lieu of the

November and December monthly

reports. Monthly filers must also

file a Year-End report. 11 CFR

104.5(c)(3).

Changing the Filing Schedule.

PACs and party committees filing

on a quarterly schedule may change

to a monthly schedule in order to

avoid having to file pre-convention,

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-Hour Reports on Independent

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

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 CFR

104.4(b) and (c) and 104.5(g). See

also “Where to File” (below) for

special filing requirements.

Where to File

Committee treasurers must file

FEC reports with the appropriate

federal and state filing offices.

Please note that:

• The addresses for the federal

offices (FEC and Secretary of the

Senate) appear in the instructions

to the Summary Page of FEC

Forms 3 and 3X.

• A list of state filing offices is

available from the Commission.

House Candidate Committees.

Principal campaign committees of

House candidates file with the FEC.

11 CFR 105.1. The principal

campaign committee must simultaneously file a copy of each report

and statement with the Secretary of

State (or equivalent officer) of the

state in which the candidate seeks

(or sought) election. 2 U.S.C.

§439(a)(2)(B).5

Senate Candidate Committees.

Principal campaign committees of

Senate candidates file with the

Secretary of the Senate, as appropriate. 11 CFR 105.2. The principal

campaign committee must simultaneously file a copy of each report

and statement with the Secretary of

State (or equivalent officer) of the

state in which the candidate seeks

(or sought) election. 2 U.S.C.

§439(a)(2)(B).

Presidential Candidate Committees. Principal campaign committees 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. 2 U.S.C.

§439(a)(2)(A); 11 CFR 108.2.5

Candidate Committees with More

Than One Authorized Committee. 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 (FEC

Form 3Z or page 5 of FEC Form 3P,

as appropriate). 11 CFR 104.3(f).

PACs and Party Committees.

Generally PACs and party committees file with the FEC. There are,

however, exceptions:

• Committees supporting only

Senate candidates file with the

Secretary of the Senate; and

• PACs file 24-hour notices disclosing independent expenditures on

behalf of House and Senate

candidates with the FEC and the

Secretary of the Senate as appropriate. 11 CFR 104.4(c) and

104.5(g).

PACs and party committees must

simultaneously file copies of reports

and statements with the Secretary of

the State (or equivalent officer) as

follows5

:

• Committees making contributions

or expenditures in connection with

House and Senate campaigns also

file in the state in which the

candidate seeks election. The

committee is required to file only

that portion of the report applicable to the candidate in that state

(e.g., the Summary Page and the

schedule showing the contribution

or expenditure). 2 U.S.C. §439(a)

(2)(B); 11 CFR 108.3.

5Please see article on the waiver of

state office filings on page 2.

(continued on page 13)
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

9

Pre-Election Reporting Dates:

2000 Primary and Runoff Elections

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

 Alabama June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

Runoff: June 27 June 7 June 12 June 15

 Alaska August 22 August 2 August 7 August 10

American Samoa November 7 October 18 October 23 October 26

Runoff: November 21 November 1 November 9 1 November 9

*Arizona September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

 Arkansas May 23 May 3 May 8 May 11

Runoff: June 13 May 24 May 29 2 June 1

*California March 7 February 16 February 21 2 February 24

 Colorado August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

*Connecticut September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*Delaware September 9 August 20 August 25 August 28

District of Columbia May 2 April 12 April 17 April 20

*Florida September 5 August 16 August 21 August 24

Runoff: October 3 September 13 September 18 September 21

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.

† This 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.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the

filing date.

1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed date falls one day before the primary date.

2Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

10

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

 Georgia July 18 June 28 July 3 July 6 3

Runoff: August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

Guam September 2 August 13 August 18 August 21

*Hawaii September 23 September 3 September 8 September 11

 Idaho May 23 May 3 May 8 May 11

 Illinois March 21 March 1 March 6 March 9

*Indiana May 2 April 12 April 17 April 20

Iowa June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

Kansas August 1 July 12 July 17 July 20

Kentucky May 23 May 3 May 8 May 11

Louisiana November 7 October 18 October 23 October 26

Runoff: December 9 November 19 November 24 November 27

*Maine June 13 May 24 May 29 2 June 1

*Maryland March 7 February 16 February 21 2 February 24

*Massachusetts September 19 August 30 September 4 2 September 7

*Michigan August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

*Minnesota September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.

† This 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.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the

filing date.

2Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.

3 The July Quarterly report is waived for committees filing the Georgia pre-primary report. See 11 CFR 104.5(a)(1)(iii)(C) and

(c)(1)(i)(C).
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

11

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

*Mississippi March 14 February 23 February 28 March 2

Runoff: April 4 March 15 March 20 March 23

*Missouri August 8 July 19 July 24 July 27

*Montana June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

*Nebraska May 9 April 19 April 24 April 27

*Nevada September 5 August 16 August 21 August 24

 New Hampshire September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*New Jersey June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

*New Mexico June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

*New York September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

 North Carolina May 2 April 12 April 17 April 20

Runoff: May 30 May 10 May 15 May 18

*North Dakota June 13 May 24 May 29 2 June 1

*Ohio March 7 February 16 February 21 February 24

Oklahoma August 22 August 2 August 7 August 10

Runoff: September 19 August 30 September 4 2 September 7

Oregon May 16 April 26 May 1 May 4

*Pennsylvania April 4 March 15 March 20 March 23

Puerto Rico November 14, 1999 October 25, 1999 October 30, 1999 November 2,

1999

*Rhode Island September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

South Carolina June 13 May 24 May 29 2 June 1

Runoff: June 27 June 7 June 15 1 June 15

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.

† This 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.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mail date would fall one day before the primary is held.

2Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

12

Registered/Certified

State or Territory Election Day Close of Books † Mailing Date ‡ Filing Date ‡

South Dakota June 6 May 17 May 22 May 25

Runoff: June 20 May 31 June 8 1 June 8

*Tennessee August 3 July 14 July 19 July 22 4

*Texas March 14 February 23 February 28 March 2

Runoff: April 11 March 22 March 27 March 30

*Utah June 27 June 7 June 12 June 15

*Vermont September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*Virginia June 13 May 24 May 29 2 June 1

Virgin Islands September 9 August 20 August 25 August 28

*Washington September 19 August 30 September 4 2 September 7

*West Virginia May 9 April 19 April 24 April 27

*Wisconsin September 12 August 23 August 28 August 31

*Wyoming August 22 August 2 August 7 August 10

* States holding 2000 Senate elections.

† This 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.

‡Reports sent by registered or certified mail must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

1 The mailing date is the same as the filing date because the computed mailing date would fall one day before the primary was held.

2Federal holiday. For registered/certified mailing date, the report should be postmarked before that date.

4Note that the filing date falls on a weekend. Filing dates are not extended when they fall on nonworking days.
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

13

A Great Idea in 2000...

becomes a requirement in 2001!

 In the months to come, electronic filing thresholds will be announced.

Any committee that exceeds or expects to exceed these thresholds in 2001

will be required to file its 2001 reports electronically. While the

Commission has not yet determined the thresholds, it is expected that

approximately two thousand committees will be required to file

electronically.

 What does electronic filing mean for your committee? It means start

electronic filing now! Changing or upgrading your software systems and

becoming comfortable with them are easily done over the course of a

year, but not so easily done just a few days or weeks before a filing

deadline. Starting early has the added benefit of minimizing data entry,

which saves time and decreases the possibility for errors.

 If you have questions concerning electronic filing, call 800/424-9530

(press 5) or 202/694-1100. To order the FEC’s electronic filing software,

go to page 22.

Simon C. Fireman, et al. v.

USA

In October 1999, the parties in this

case signed a settlement agreement,

which did not constitute an admission

of liability on the part of either party.

The plaintiffs, Simon C. Fireman

and Aqua-Leisure Industries, Inc.

(Aqua-Leisure), brought this action to

recover from the government illegal

campaign contributions they had

made to the Dole for President

Committee, which had disgorged the

illegal contributions to the U.S.

Treasury.

In 1996, Mr. Fireman pleaded

guilty to making contributions in the

names of others and making excessive

contributions to two 1996 Presidential

campaign committees of former

Senator Bob Dole. The U.S. District

Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered him to pay a $1 million

fine and sentenced him to one year of

probation. Upon learning that the

contributions were likely impermissible, Mr. Dole’s primary and compliance committees disgorged $69,000 to

the U.S. Treasury.

Mr. Fireman alleged that FEC

regulations mandate that a contribution that does not appear impermissible at the time it is made, but later is

found to be from a prohibited source,

be refunded to the contributor within

30 days. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(2). He

also alleged that Commission advisory opinions concluding that a

campaign committee could also

refund impermissible contributions to

the U.S. Treasury are beyond the

Commission’s authority and contrary

to its regulations.

On October 26, the USA agreed

to settle the matter in full by paying

Mr. Fireman $69,000. The payment

fully discharges the USA of all

claims and demands made by Mr.

Fireman. The parties entered into

the agreement solely for the purpose

of settling this action and all disputes between the parties involved.

The agreement should not be cited

or otherwise referred to, in any

proceeding, whether judicial or

administrative.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 99-

17C, October 26, 1999.✦

Court Cases

(continued from page 4)

• Committees making contributions

or expenditures in connection with

Presidential candidates also file in

the states in which the Presidential

committee and the donor committee have their headquarters.

11 CFR 108.4.

• 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 CFR 104.4(c)(1),

104.5(g) and 108.2.

Late Filing

The Act does not permit the

Commission to grant extensions of

filing deadlines under any circumstances. Filing late reports could

result in enforcement action by the

Commission.✦

On Appeal?

FEC v. Public Citizen, Inc., et. al.

On November 10, 1999, the FEC

appealed this case to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The

U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,

had ruled in favor of the defendants

against the FEC’s claims that Public

Citizen, Inc., and its separate segregated fund had violated the Act by

failing to indicate whether a television

advertisement and a set of flyers were

authorized by a candidate or candidate

committee. See page 2 of the November 1999 Record.✦

Federal Register

Federal Register notices are

available from the FEC’s Public

Records Office.

Notice 1999-27

General Public Political

Communications Coordinated

with Candidates;

Supplemental Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (64 FR 68951,

December 9, 1999)
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

14

Commission Seeks

Comments on General Public

Political Communications

Coordinated with

Candidates

On December 2, the Commission

approved a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) on coordinated communications made in

support of or in opposition to clearly

identified candidates that are paid

for by persons other than candidates,

candidates’ authorized committees

and party committees. The Commission is also seeking comment on

whether these same rules, or a

different standard, should apply to

expenditures made by party committees that are coordinated with the

parties’ candidates. The last day to

submit comments on this NPRM is

January 24, 2000. The Commission

will hold a hearing on these proposed rules on February 16, 2000, if

sufficient requests to testify are

received.

The proposed rules, which define

the term “coordinated general public

political communications,” would

be located in a new section of the

Commission’s rules, 11 CFR

100.23. The proposed section

largely follows the language of the

Christian Coalition decision.1

 See

September 1999 Record, page 4.

Definitions

The Commission is proposing to

define the term “general public

political communications”2

 to

include those communications that

are made through a broadcasting

station, including cable television,

newspaper, magazine, outdoor

advertising facility, mailing or any

electronic medium, including the

Internet and the World Wide Web.

The term would be limited to those

communications with an intended

audience of over one hundred

people, which would be consistent

with the disclaimer rules at 11 CFR

110.11(a)(3). Those rules exempt

direct mailings of one hundred

pieces or less from the disclaimer

requirements.

The proposed rules would also be

limited to communications that

include a “clearly identified candidate,” as defined in 11 CFR 100.17

and 2 U.S.C. §431(17). Thus, they

would include instances where the

candidate’s name, nickname,

photograph or drawing appears, or

where the identity of the candidate

is otherwise apparent through an

unambiguous reference such as “the

President,” “your Congressman,” or

“the incumbent,” or through an

unambiguous reference to his or her

status as a candidate such as “the

Democratic Presidential nominee”

or “the Republican candidate for

Senate in the State of Georgia.”

Coordination Standard

Proposed paragraph 11 CFR

100.23(c) contains the text of the

coordination standard. The Commission is seeking comments on

alternative language at two places in

this paragraph.

Introduction: Alternatives 1-A

and 1-B. Under Alternative 1-A, a

communication would be considered

to be coordinated if the communication was paid for by persons other

than the candidate, the candidate’s

authorized committee, or a party

committee, and was created, produced or distributed in accordance

with the provisions discussed below.

Alternative 1-B would include

the additional qualification that, to

be considered coordinated with a

candidate or party committee, the

communication would have to be

distributed primarily in the geographic area in which the candidate

was running. Alternative 1-B would

also ensure that, when the costs of

national legislative campaigns that

refer to clearly identified candidates

are endorsed by or designed by one

or more of the named candidates,

the communication would not be

considered expenditures on behalf

of those candidates’ campaigns. For

example, under Alternative 1-B,

expenditures made in connection

with a national campaign to support

the so-called “Shays-Meehan”

campaign finance legislation would

not be considered contributions to

Representatives Shays or Meehan,

even if the group distributing the

advertisement had consulted with

them to design the campaign and

had referred to it as the “ShaysMeehan bill” in the advertising.

One potential concern with the

geographic limitation language

proposed in Alternative 1-B is that

in many parts of the country the

media market may cover several

adjacent states. Thus, political

advertisements broadcast from a

station in these areas may not be

“distributed primarily in the geographic area in which [a] candidate

[is] running.” For example, television and radio advertisements made

in connection with New Hampshire

elections are aired over Boston

broadcast media because there is no

other major city from which to air

these broadcasts. Such broadcasts

would not be considered coordinated under Alternative 1-B.

The net effect of Alternative 1-B

would also be to exclude from the

definition communications in which

a candidate in one state solicits

funds on behalf of a candidate in

another, as long as contributors were

asked to send their contributions

directly to the candidate on whose

behalf the solicitations were made.

Similarly, Alternative 1-B would

not cover an outside organization’s

solicitations on behalf of a candidate

if these were made primarily outside

the geographic area in which the

Regulations

1 FEC v. The Christian Coalition, 52

F.Supp.2d 45, 85 (D.D.C. 1999)

2

 The Commission proposes using this

phrase in place of the term “expressive

expenditure,” which the court used in

the Christian Coalition decision.
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

15

candidate was running, and if the

outside organization did not collect

and forward the contributions to the

candidate.

Communications Suggested or

Requested by Campaign or Party:

Alternatives 2-A and 2-B. The

Commission is also seeking comment on two alternatives of a

provision to be located in 11 CFR

100.23(c)(1), which addresses

communications made at the request

or suggestion of a candidate or

campaign. Alternative 2-A would

state that coordination occurred

when a communication was created, produced or distributed at the

request or suggestion of, or when

authorized by, a candidate, a

candidate’s authorized committee, a

party committee or the agent of any

of the foregoing. Alternative 2-B

would limit such coordination to

only those instances where, in

addition to the foregoing, the parties

discussed the content, timing,

location, mode, intended audience,

volume of distribution or frequency

of placement of that communication, the result of which was collaboration or agreement between the

campaign and the person paying for

the communication.

Communications Controlled by

the Campaign or Party. Proposed

11 CFR 100.23(c)(2) would treat

communications as coordinated

after the candidate or the

candidate’s agent, or a party committee or its agent, exercised control

or decision-making authority over

the content, timing, location, mode,

intended audience, volume of

distribution or frequency of placement of the communication.

Substantial Discussion or Negotiation. Under proposed 11 CFR

100.23(c)(3), a communication

would be considered coordinated if

it was made after substantial discussion or negotiation between the

creator, producer or distributor of

the communication, or person

paying for the communication, and a

candidate, a candidate’s authorized

committee or a party committee,

regarding the content, timing,

location, mode, intended audience,

volume of distribution or frequency

of placement of that communication, the result of which was collaboration or agreement. It would

further provide that substantial

discussion or negotiation could be

evidenced by one or more meetings,

conversations or conferences

regarding the value or importance of

that communication for a particular

election.

Exception. The proposed rules at

11 CFR 100.23(d) would provide

that a candidate’s or political party’s

response to an inquiry regarding its

position on legislative or public

policy issues would not alone make

the communication coordinated.

The proposed rules state at 11

CFR 100.23(b) that any general

public political communication that

includes a clearly identified candidate and is coordinated with that

candidate, an opposing candidate or

a party committee supporting or

opposing that candidate is both an

expenditure under 11 CFR 100.8(a)

and an in-kind contribution under

100.7(a)(1)(iii). As such, it is

subject to the contribution limits of

2 U.S.C. §441a, and it must be

reported as a contribution and an

expenditure, as required at 2 U.S.C.

§434.

The NPRM also seeks comments

on the application of the proposed

rules to two hypothetical situations.

Coordinated Party Expenditures

The Commission has an ongoing

rulemaking addressing coordinated

party expenditures, i.e., political

party expenditures that are coordinated with particular candidates and

subject to the limits set out at 2

U.S.C. §441a(d). The details of

those proposals, which include

several alternatives, can be found in

the NPRM published on May 5,

1997. 62 Federal Register 24367

(May 5, 1997); see page 1 of the

June 1997 Record. That rulemaking

has been on hold because the issues

are involved in ongoing litigation.

However, the Commission welcomes comments on whether the

standard for coordination proposed

in this supplemental NPRM should

be applied to party expenditures for

general public political communications that are coordinated with

particular candidates. If not, why

should a different standard be

applied to coordinated party expenditures, and what should that

different standard be?

The NPRM is available from the

Public Records Office at 800/424-

9530 (press 3) or 202/694-1120;

through the FEC’s Faxline at 202/

501-3413 (document 246); and at

the FEC’s Web site—http://

www.fec.gov. The notice was

published in the December 9, 1999,

Federal Register (64 FR 68951,

December 9, 1999).

All comments should be addressed to Rosemary C. Smith,

Assistant General Counsel, and

must be submitted in either written

or electronic form. Persons wishing

to testify at the February 16, 2000,

hearing should so indicate in their

written or electronic comments.

Written comments should be sent to

the Federal Election Commission,

999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20463. Faxed comments

should be sent to 202/219-3923,

with a printed copy follow-up to

insure legibility. Electronic mail

comments should be sent to

coordnprm@fec.gov. Commenters

sending comments by electronic

mail should include their full name

and postal service address within the

text of their comments. Comments

that do not contain the full name,

electronic mail address and postal

service address of the commenter

will not be considered. No oral

comments can be accepted. The

deadline for comments is January

24, 2000.✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

16

Updated List of Federal PACs

The Commission has published

the 1999 edition of PACronyms, a

list of the acronyms, abbreviations

and common names of federal

political action committees (PACs).

For each PAC listed, the index

provides the full name of the PAC,

its city, state, FEC identification

number and, if not identifiable from

the full name, its connected, sponsoring or affiliated organization.

The index is helpful in identifying PACs that are not readily

identified in their reports and

statements on file with the FEC.

To order a free copy of

PACronyms, call the FEC’s Public

Records Office at 800/424-9530

(press 3) or 202/694-1120.

PACronyms is also available on

diskette for $1 and can be accessed

for free under the “Using FEC

Services” icon at the FEC’s Web

site—http: www.fec.gov.

Other PAC indexes, described

below, may be ordered from the

Public Records Office. Prepayment

is required.

• An alphabetical list of all registered PACs showing each PAC’s

identification number, address,

treasurer and connected organization ($13.25).

• A list of registered PACs arranged

by state providing the same

information as above ($13.25).

• An alphabetical list of organizations that sponsor PACs, showing

the PAC’s name and identification

number ($7.50).

The Public Records Office can

also conduct database research to

locate federal political committees

when only part of the committee

name is known. Call the telephone

numbers above for assistance or

visit the Public Records Office in

Washington at 999 E St., N.W.✦

Publications

Corrections

 Advisory Opinion 1999-23.

The December 1999 Record

incorrectly identified the

requester as the American

Bankers, Inc., PAC. The correct

name of the requester was the

Arkansas Bankers, Inc., PAC.

 USA v. Kanchanalak, et al. The

December 1999 Record contained

an incorrect citation to the

Federal Election Campaign Act

on page 4, which read 2

U.S.C.41e. The cite should have

read 2 U.S.C. §441e.

 Waiver of State Office Filings.

The December 1999 Record

stated that, “the waiver would not

apply to reports filed by the

campaigns for U.S. Senate

candidates and other political

committees that support only U.S.

Senate candidates.” This

statement requires the following

qualification: The Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee

(DSCC) and the National

Republican Senatorial Committee

(NRSC) are exceptions to this

rule. Although they file with the

Secretary of the Senate, the FEC

receives paper copies of their

reports and subsequently places

them on its Web site where the

public can access and duplicate

them. Consequently, the DSCC

and the NRSC do not have to file

copies of their reports with the 12

states that have qualified for the

waiver.

Public Appearances

January 12, 2000

Public Affairs Council

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

George Smaragdis

Public Affairs Specialist

Information Division

Public Funding for Reform

Party Convention

On November 22, the FEC

certified the Reform Party 2000

Convention Committee as eligible to

receive $2,468,921 in public funds.

Federal election law permits all

eligible national committees of

major and minor parties to receive

public funds to pay the official costs

of their Presidential nominating

conventions. The National Committee of the Reform Party, USA, and

its convention committee qualify as

a minor party under the Presidential

Election Campaign Fund Act for

purposes of convention financing

and eligibility. A minor party is

defined as a political party whose

candidate for the Presidency in the

preceding Presidential election

received more than 5 percent, but

less than 25 percent, of the total

popular votes cast. In the 1996

general election, the Reform Party

candidate, Ross Perot, received 8.4

percent of the popular vote. Accordingly, the Reform Party is

entitled to partial convention

funding for 2000.

In exchange for public funding of

the conventions, committees must

agree to certain requirements,

including spending limits, the filing

of periodic disclosure reports and

detailed audits by the FEC.

The public funding portions of

Presidential elections are financed

by the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, which receives funds

through dollars voluntarily “checked

off” by taxpayers on federal income

tax forms.✦

Public Funding Public Funding Public Funding
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

17

Candidate Conference

Date: February 10-11, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill)

Registration: $265

Regional Conference (includes

candidate, corporate/labor and

party workshops)

Date: March 8-10, 2000

Location: Miami, FL

(Sheraton Biscayne Bay)

Registration: $240

Corporate and Labor

Conference

Date: April 6-7, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill)

Registration: To be determined

Membership and Trade

Association Conference

Date: May 16-17, 2000

Location: Washington, DC

(Hilton Crystal City)

Registration: To be determined

FEC Conference Schedule

 The FEC continues its series of conferences on campaign finance. See

below for details. To register for any conference, call Sylvester Management

at 800/246-7277 or send an e-mail to tsylvester@worldnet.att.net. For program

information, call the FEC’s Information Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/694-

1100. A regularly updated schedule for the conferences and a downloadable

invitation/registration form appear at the FEC’s Web site. Go to

http://www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.htm for the latest information.

Date Subject Intended Audience

Roundtable Schedule

February 2 Soliciting Funds For • Corporate/Labor/

9:30 - 11 a.m. Corporate/Labor/Trade Trade Association

PACs Using Newsletters PAC staff

and Web Sites • Lawyers and

(Code #200) Consultants to Above

March 1 Reporting Basics for • Corporate/Labor/

9:30 - 11 a.m. Corporate/Labor/Trade Trade Association

Association PACs PAC staff

(Code #300) • Lawyers and

 Consultants to Above

AO 1999-24

Web Site Sponsored by LLC

Featuring Information on

Candidates

Election Zone LLC (EZone) may

operate a Web site providing a means

of communication between candidates

and voters on a nonpartisan basis,

without making an expenditure.

EZone is a limited liability company (LLC) organized under Colorado law and treated as a partnership

for tax purposes.1

 It is “a nonpartisan

company, not affiliated with any

political candidate, political party,

political action committee or advocacy group.” EZone seeks to “expand

democracy” through the Internet by

operating its Web site,

“ElectionZone.com,” which will serve

as a channel for communication

between voters and candidates.

The Proposal

The key feature of the Web site

will be the “Q & A Zone,” where

viewers submit questions to the

candidates in a selected political

race. EZone will transmit the

questions to each of the race’s

participating candidates for his or

her response. Once the question is

answered, EZone will post the

question and answers on the Web

site. EZone will screen incoming

questions from voters based on the

following criteria:

• Questions must rationally relate to

the selected race;

• Questions may not repeat previously posed questions;

Advisory

Opinions

1

 As an LLC with partnership status for

income tax purposes, EZone may not

make contributions in excess of $1,000

per election to a federal candidate. 2

U.S.C. §§431(11) and 441a(1)(1)(A);

11 CFR 110.1(g)(2) and 110.1(e).

(continued on page 18)

Outreach

FEC Conducts Monthly

Roundtable Sessions

FEC roundtable sessions, limited

to 12 participants per session, focus

on a range of topics. See the table

below for dates and topics.

Registration is $25 and will be

accepted on a first-come, firstserved basis. Please call the FEC

before registering or sending money

to be sure that openings remain in

the session of your choice. Prepayment is required. The registration

form is available at the FEC’s Web

site—http://www.fec.gov—and

from Faxline, the FEC’s automated

fax system (202/501-3413, request

document 590). For more information, call 800/424-9530 or 202/694-

1100.✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

18

• Questions must be addressed to all

participating candidates in a race;

• Questions may not request that

candidates offer opinions about the

other candidates; and

• Questions must be limited to a

specified length.

If a question does not abide by

these restrictions, the questioner will

be encouraged to resubmit the

question in accordance with these

criteria.

With regard to the candidates’

responses, they will be limited to a

specified length, and they must

answer the question that was posed.

If a response does not comply with

the restrictions, the candidate will be

allowed to re-issue the response, but

EZone will not edit a candidate’s

response on its own.

Candidates will be able to avail

themselves of two other features as

well. The first is a “Candidate Chat

Zone,” where each candidate will

have an equal opportunity to have a

live, on-line discussion with his or

her voting constituency. The second

feature is the “On-Line Debate

Zone,” available for each race

covered by EZone. All participating

candidates in a race will be invited

to debate, but a debate will be

conducted only if two or more

candidates in the particular race

agree to debate.

EZone is considering hyperlinks to

candidate sites through the Q & A

Zone. If it includes hyperlinks to

political parties, it will offer the same

opportunity to every political party.

EZone will not charge viewers for

use of the site, nor will it charge

candidates for participation in the site.

It will seek and accept sponsorship or

advertising revenues from commercial

entities only. The Web site may

contain hyperlinks to the Web sites of

the sponsors or advertisers.

Legal Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) and Commission

regulations define expenditures and

contributions to include, in part, any

gift or payment of money or anything of value “made by any person

for the purpose of influencing any

election for Federal office.” 2

U.S.C. §431(8)(A)(i) and (9)(A)(i);

11 CFR 100.7(a)(1) and 100.8(a)(1).

In past advisory opinions, the

Commission has concluded that the

costs associated with creating and

maintaining a Web site could be

considered an expenditure or in-kind

contribution, depending upon the

content of the site and whether

certain exceptions are applicable.

Advisory Opinions 1999-25, 1999-

7, 1998-22 and 1997-16. At the

same time, however, the Act

provides that the term “expenditure”

does not apply to “nonpartisan

activity designed to encourage

individuals to vote or register to

vote.” 2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii).

In a recent advisory opinion, the

Commission examined an online

project known as Democracy

Network (DNet), which was created

and sponsored by two 501(c)(3) taxexempt corporations that operated a

Web site containing certain features

that were similar to EZone’s proposed Web site. AO 1999-25.

In that opinion, the Commission

determined, based upon an analysis

of the nature of DNet and its

sponsors and upon the purposes and

functions of the Web site, that the

activity was permissible under the

nonpartisan activities exception

cited above.

In this case, although EZone is a

for-profit company, not tax exempt

under 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3), its

expenditures for the proposed Web

site would similarly be exempt from

the definition of expenditure, under

2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii), based on

the facts and the assumptions made

by the Commission, as discussed

below. Moreover, the activity

would not be considered a contribution in-kind to any candidate.

Composition and Purpose of

EZone. EZone is not affiliated with

any candidate, political party, PAC

or advocacy group. It has been

created for the purpose of “expanding democracy” by serving as a

channel between candidates and

voters on a nonpartisan basis.

Standards for Inviting Candidates and Degree of Candidate

Participation. With regard to the

proposed Q&A activity between the

public and candidates, EZone will

invite each ballot-qualified candidate, other than a Presidential

general election candidate, to

participate.2

 (The limitation with

respect to Presidential candidates in

the general election conforms to the

voter guide regulations at 11 CFR

114.4(c)(5)(ii)). EZone will pose the

same questions to all participating

candidates, and candidate responses

will be subject to the same word

limits and the same criteria.

With respect to the Chat Zone,

the Commission assumes that time

will be apportioned equally to

candidates and that time slots for

candidates’ use of the Chat Zone

will be allotted on a basis that

ensures that no candidate is purposely given a more active or more

popular time slot than another.

As to the On-line Debate Zone, the

Commission assumes that these same

characteristics will apply to the time

period allotted, the scheduled order of

response and the time limits on

responses during the candidate

exchanges.3

 Moreover, if hyperlinks

2

 This is the same standard approved in

Advisory Opinion 1999-7, which was

issued to the State of Minnesota.

3

 Although this exchange is characterized as a candidate “debate,” the

debate-staging regulations at 11 CFR

110.13(a) and 114.4(f) are not applicable because the Debate Zone is part

of a multifaceted program to present

candidate views in several different

ways.

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 17)
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

19

to candidates’ Web sites are posted,

they will be created for all participating candidates with a Web site.

Audience. The EZone Web site

will be available for viewing and

interaction by the general public. No

effort will be made to determine the

political party or candidate preference

of the viewers. See 11 CFR

110.8(b)(3). As such, the Web site

will not encourage participation or

voting by any selected group of

persons of a particular party or other

group. Moreover, EZone is applying

objective standards for participation

(e.g., posing questions) by viewers.

Hyperlinks. Each political party

will have an opportunity to post its

Web site. Moreover, EZone will not

seek advertising revenue or other

payments from political parties,

PACs, interest group advocates or

other social, political or ideological

sources. By contrast, it will solicit

and accept advertising from commercial entities alone.

The EZone site will have commercial advertisements and, possibly,

hyperlinks to the advertisers’ Web

sites. If EZone’s Web site activity

conforms to the cited nonpartisan

exception, the payments for the ads or

sponsorship references will not be

contributions for the purpose of

influencing a federal election.

Coordination Between EZone and

Campaigns. EZone will communicate with the candidates (or their

campaigns) in order to invite and

arrange their participation in the

various features of the Web site; to

pose viewers’ or the moderator’s

questions to all the candidates; and

to inform them when a response

does not meet EZone’s criteria and

afford them a chance to reformulate

their responses. The Commission

assumes that those communications

with the candidates that pertain to

the substance of the candidates’

statements (e.g., issue positions)

will be made only to ensure that the

candidates “strictly answer the

question posed.” The Commission

also assumes that, in engaging in the

proposed communications, EZone

will not discuss the candidate’s

plans, projects or needs. Under

these facts and assumptions, EZone’s

communications with the candidates

will be limited to those necessary for

the effective operation of the Web

site. Consequently, EZone’s communication with a campaign will not

constitute acting in cooperation or

with the prior consent of, or in

consultation with, or at the request or

suggestion of, a candidate, his or her

committee, or his or her agent. See 2

U.S.C. §§431(17) and

441a(1)(7)(B)(i); 11 CFR 100.16,

109.1(a) and (b)(4)(i)(A). As such,

EZone’s efforts to provide candidates

with an opportunity to participate in

the Web site would not constitute an

in-kind contribution by EZone to

those candidates.

EZone’s Views. EZone itself will

not score or rate the candidates or

make any statements expressly

advocating the election or defeat of a

clearly identified candidate or of the

candidates of a political party.

Moreover, EZone will function in

such a way that none of the statements

made by candidates can be attributed

to EZone.

Based on the above discussion of

the nature of EZone and the Web site

itself, EZone’s proposed activity is

exempt from the definition of “expenditure” at 2 U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii) and

is therefore permissible under the

Act.4

Date Issued: November 15, 1999;

Length: 8 pages. ✦

4

 A Web site does not need to be

identical to the EZone site, either as to

the kinds of information presented or as

to the technology used on the Web site,

in order to fall within the exception to

the definition of “expenditure” at 2

U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(ii). Although all

factors considered by the Commission

in reaching its decision were relevant,

different facts with respect to particular

factors may or may not lead to a

conclusion that a Web site’s activities

are permissible.

(continued on page 20)

AO 1999-29

Fundraising Exemption from

State Limits for Direct

Mailing by Presidential

Committee

Bill Bradley for President, Inc.

(the Committee) must count the

costs incurred for its mass mailings

to addresses in a given state against

the overall national spending limit,

as increased by 20 percent for

exempt fundraising expenses.

Expenses for a mass mailing sent to

addresses in a given state and made

more than 28 days before a primary

or caucus in that state do not,

however, count against the state

limit. Moreover, the 50 percent

exemption for fundraising expenses

applies to the actual amount of

expenditures that are made by the

Committee and allocable to the

relevant state’s limit.

Mr. Bradley, a Democratic

candidate for the Presidency, has

agreed to comply with the spending

limits of the Matching Act and has,

accordingly, qualified to receive

public funds. The Committee plans

to send mass mailings to addresses

in the state that is scheduled to hold

the first presidential primary or

caucus in January 2000. The mailings would be made more than 28

days before the date of the primary

or caucus.

Both the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and the Matching Fund Act place limits on the

amount of campaign expenditures

that may be made by publicly

financed Presidential candidates. 2

U.S.C. §441a(b)(1)(A) and 26

U.S.C. §9035(a). The cited provisions include both a national (or

overall) expenditure limit, as well as

limits for expenditures “in any one

state.” 2 U.S.C. §441a(b)(1)(A).

The Act further provides, however,

that costs incurred by a publicly
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

20

AO 1999-30

Application of Allocation

Ratio in State with Single

House Legislature

When using the ballot composition method to calculate the appropriate allocation of expenses

between its federal and nonfederal

account, the Nebraska State Democratic Party (NDP) may take only

one nonfederal point with respect to

the state legislative office.

The NDP, as a state party committee with separate federal and

nonfederal accounts, must allocate

its administrative and generic voter

drive costs between those accounts

using the “ballot composition

method.” 11 CFR 106.5 and

104.10(b)(1). Normally, state party

committees can avail themselves of

two nonfederal points, one for each

house in a bicameral legislature.

See 11 CFR 106.5(d). Unlike every

other state legislature, the Nebraska

legislature consists of only one

house. The individual members of

the legislature each hold the office

of State Senator, and one-half of the

seats are up for election every two

years. The NDP has therefore been

using only one nonfederal point

with respect to the legislative office

represented.

The ballot composition method

uses a ratio of federal offices

expected on the ballot to total

federal and nonfederal offices

expected on the ballot in the next

general election to be held in the

state. This ratio is determined by

the number of categories of federal

and nonfederal offices on the ballot.

11 CFR 106.5(d)(1)(i). The offices

of President, U.S. Senator and U.S.

Representative each count as one

federal point, and the offices of

Governor, State Senator and State

Representative each count as one

nonfederal point, if these offices are

expected on the ballot in the next

general election. 11 CFR

106.5(d)(1)(ii).

funded candidate “in connection

with the solicitation of contributions

on behalf of” that candidate are

excluded from the expenditure limit,

but only in an amount equal to 20

percent of the expenditure limit. 2

U.S.C. §431(9)(B)(vi). Commission

regulations refer to these costs as

“exempt fundraising expenses.”

The regulations clarify and

interpret this fundraising exclusion,

both generally and in the specific

context of the state expenditure

limits. 11 CFR 100.8(b)(21)(iii),

110.8(c)(2); see 11 CFR

106.2(b)(1), 9035(c) and 9035(c)(2).

Basically, the regulations provide

that a covered Presidential candidate

need not count exempt fundraising

costs against any state limit, but

must count them against the national

(overall) expenditure limit. This

limit is, however, adjusted upwards

by 20 percent. With respect to the

state limits, the regulations require

that certain specified categories of

expenditures be allocated to each

relevant state limit (e.g., print and

broadcast media expenses, mass

mailings and other campaign

materials, overhead expenses for

state and regional campaign offices,

special telephone programs, public

opinion polls). 11 CFR 106.2(b)(1),

(b)(2)(i)—(v), (b)(3). Exempt

fundraising expenses are, however,

excepted from all these categories.

11 CFR 106.2(b)(1) and 11 CFR

110.8(c)(2). Furthermore, as long as

a mass mailing is mailed more than

28 days before a state’s primary

election (or convention or caucus),

the associated costs qualify as

fundraising expenses that are 100

percent exempt from the state

expenditure limit. The costs,

however, are still subject to the

overall (or national) expenditure

limit.

Accordingly, the Bradley

Committee’s expenses for mass

mailings sent to addresses in a given

state more than 28 days prior to a

primary or caucus in that state

would be counted against the

aggregate or overall national limit,

as increased by 20 percent for

exempt fundraising expenses.

These expenses would, however, not

count against any state limit.

Similarly, the 50 percent exemption for fundraising expenses applies

to the actual amount of expenditures

that are made by the Committee and

are allocable to the relevant state’s

limit, as opposed to 50 percent of

that state’s limit. The following

example may illustrate the operation

of the exemption.

Assume a state has a limit of $1

million and that the Committee

proposed to spend $2 million on

broadcast media expenditures that

are required to be allocated to that

state’s limit. See 11 CFR

106.2(b)(2)(i)(B). Assume further

that the Committee proposed to

spend an additional $3 million for a

mass mailing that would be sent to

addresses in that state more than 28

days before its Presidential primary.

Only 50 percent (or $1 million) of

the allocable broadcast media

expenditures would have to be

attributed to the state limit. This

would also be the result whether the

state limit were greater or less than

$1 million. By contrast, the full $3

million for the described mass

mailing would be exempt

fundraising expenses and would not

need to be attributed to the state

limit. This $3 million plus the $2

million on broadcast media expenditures would be attributed to the

overall expenditure limit.

Issued: November 15, 1999;

Length: 5 pages.✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 19)
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

21

1 Methods of Allocation Between

Federal and Nonfederal Accounts;

Payments; Reporting, 55 Federal

Register 26058, 26064 (June 26, 1990).

1

 The described payroll deduction

program may only be utilized by

personnel who qualify as members of

the “restricted class” of Oshkosh. 11

CFR 114.1(c), (h) and (j). In addition,

all contributions made through the

payroll deduction must be voluntary.

See 11 CFR 114.1(i), 114.5(a).

Based on the reasons given

below, the NDP can count only one

point for the office of state legislator. First, the concept of using an

“average ballot” approach—

mentioned in the Explanation and

Justification (E & J) for the allocation regulations1

—does not provide

a basis for allowing the NDP to use

two nonfederal points. In its discussion of the addition of a nonfederal

point for every state and local party

committee, the E & J notes that the

ratio “was never anticipated to

precisely reflect all state and local

party activity in all states in all

election cycles.”

Second, Commission regulations

are explicit, allocating one point per

state legislative office on the ballot.

Date Issued: December 2, 1999;

Length: 4 pages.✦

AO 1999-31

Application of One-Third

Rule to Prizes and Premiums

Used in Connection with

Payroll Deduction

The Oshkosh Truck Corporation

(Oshkosh) and its separate segregated fund (SSF), the Oshkosh

Truck Corporation Employees’

Political Acton Committee

(OTCEPAC), may utilize the onethird rule for the purchase of prizes

and premium gifts used in connection with payroll deduction.

Description of Plan

Prior to its annual PAC luncheon,

OTCEPAC will announce that it

will give door prizes to employees

who participate in the payroll

deduction plan during the period

between the announcement of the

1999 luncheon and the date of the

event .1

 The aggregate value of the

door prizes will be approximately

$400. The amount of PAC contributions linked to the door prizes

awarded at the 1999 luncheon will

be based upon the total payrolldeducted contributions received by

OTCEPAC between the date the

PAC luncheon is announced and the

date it is held.

OTCEPAC will announce at the

1999 luncheon that those who

contribute to the PAC through

payroll deduction during the 12

months between the 1999 and 2000

luncheons will be eligible for a

grand door prize valued at approximately $2,500. The aggregate value

of door prizes for the 2000 luncheon

will thus be approximately $2,900.

In addition, OTCEPAC will

create a premium gift program to

encourage employees to sign up

their fellow eligible employees for

the payroll deduction plan. The

value of the gift premium will vary

according to the number of eligible

employees that the employee

successfully encourages to enlist.

Legal Analysis

Under 2 U.S.C. §441b, corporations are expressly prohibited from

making contributions or expenditures in connection with any federal

election. However, 2 U.S.C.

§441b(b)(2)(C) provides an exception to this prohibition by permitting

corporations to pay for the costs

incurred in the establishment,

administration and solicitation of

contributions to a separate segregated fund (SSF or PAC). See also

11 CFR 114.1(a)(2)(iii). Commission regulations at 114.5(b)(2) (continued on page 22)

2

 The Commission developed this rule

to avoid a situation where prizes may

be so numerous or disproportionately

valuable in relation to the cost of the

raffle tickets that the raffle becomes, in

effect, a money trading situation. See

Federal Election Commission Regulations, Explanation and Justification,

House Document No. 95-44, at 107

(1977).

permit corporations to utilize a raffle

or a prize, so long as state law permits

it and the prize is not disproportionately valuable compared to the funds

raised. The regulation further provides that, when using raffles to raise

funds, a reasonable practice to follow

is for the SSF to reimburse the

corporation for costs that exceed onethird of the money it raises. This is

referred to as the “one-third rule.” In

this case, door prizes are indistinguishable from a raffle, and the onethird rule can be utilized as a guide to

avoid a money trading situation,2

 for

both the small prizes and the grand

prize. The length of time in which the

individuals can earn chances to win

the prizes is immaterial.

OTCEPAC should compare the

cost of all the prizes to be awarded

at the 2000 luncheon with the total

amount of all the contributions

received through payroll deduction

during the 12-month period preceding it.

OTCEPAC may also use the onethird rule when determining the

reimbursement for costs of the

premium gift program. Because this

program is linked to Oshkosh’s

other efforts to boost participation in

its payroll deduction program during

the period between the 1999 and

2000 events, OTCEPAC may

aggregate the costs and resulting

contributions from the premium gift

program with those of the 2000

luncheon, when applying the onethird rule.

Issued: December 2, 1999;

Length: 8 pages.✦
Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000

22

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 1999-38

Amending FEC report to eliminate disputed debt amounts erroneously disclosed on previous reports

(Ken Calvert for Congress, November 22, 1999)

Alternative Disposition of

Advisory Opinion Request

AOR 1999-21

The requester withdrew this

request for an advisory opinion.

Submitted on July 7, the AOR

sought the Commission’s opinion on

the qualification of an incorporated

membership organization as a

federation of trade associations and

whether its membership categories

described members for purposes of

the Federal Election Campaign

Act.✦

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 21)

Do you want to file your FEC reports electronically? The FEC will

mail you a copy of the latest version of its free electronic filing software—FECFile. Mail or fax this form to the address/number below. Or,

download the software from the FEC’s web site at http://www.fec.gov.

FECFile requires a PC with Windows 95, 98 or NT, and approximately

8 MB of free disk space.

FEC Identification Number

Committee Name

Electronic Filing Contact Name

Address: Street 1

Address: Street 2

City

State

Zip Code

Phone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address

Federal Election Commission

Data Division—Room 431

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Fax: 202/219-0674

✃

FECFile Order Form
January 2000 Federal Election Commission RECORD

23

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 2000 Record issue in which the

article appeared. The second

number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue. For example, “1:4” means

that the article is in the January

issue on page 4.

Advisory Opinions

1999-24: Web Site Sponsored by

LLC Featuring Information on

Candidates, 1:17

1999-29: Fundraising Exemption

from State Limits for Direct

Mailing by Presidential Committee, 1:19

1999-30: Application of Allocation

Ratio in State with Single House

Legislature, 1:20

1999-31: Application of One-Third

Rule to Prizes and Premiums

Used in Connection with Payroll

Deduction, 1:21

Court Cases

_____ v. FEC

– DSCC, 1:2

Other

– Fireman v. USA, 1:13

– Mariani v. USA, 1:3

Regulations

Coordination, 1:14

Reports

Reports due in 2000, 1:5

State Filing Waiver, 1:2

Index
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Printed on recycled paper

Federal Election Commission RECORD January 2000