September 1998 Federal Election Commission Volume 24, Number 9

Table of Contents

Commissioners

1 Three New Commissioners Join

FEC

1 Commissioner McGarry Retires

Reports

2 Contributor Search Feature Added

to FEC Web Site

2 Use of FEC Web Site, Electronic

Filing Up

Court Cases

3 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC

3 DNC v. FEC (97-676)

3 Right to Life of Dutchess County,

Inc. v. FEC

4 Hollenbeck v. FEC

4 Advisory Opinions

Statistics

5 Congressional Fundraising

Continues Climb

6 Midyear PAC Count Shows Slight

Decrease From 1997

Compliance

6 Nonfilers

6 MUR 4582

7 Index

Commissioners Commissioner McGarryRetires

On August 11, Commissioner

John Warren McGarry retired from

the FEC after over 20 years of

outstanding public service during

the administrations of four Presidents.

Mr. McGarry, a native of Massachusetts, was first appointed to the

FEC in 1978, reappointed in 1983

and 1989, and nominated for

reappointment in 1997. He last

served as FEC Vice Chairman

during 1996 and Chairman during

1997.

Mr. McGarry’s pivotal contributions to the agency’s core mission

and programs, from full disclosure

to uniform law enforcement, remain

a testament to his public service. He

safeguarded the delicate balance

between fundamental First Amendment rights and compelling governmental interests in ensuring that

federal elections remain free from

apparent or real corruption.

In an August 6 memorandum to

FEC staff, Mr. McGarry said, “This

is a time of joy. Joy for the twenty

years of work that I love. Joy of

having worked with the best people

and professionals of any agency in

Washington. Joy for the friendships

that I hope will last a lifetime.” He

concluded by noting that, “It’s been

a wonderful twenty years—some of

the best years of my life. I thank you

all for being a part of it.” ✦

(continued on page 2)

Three New Commissioners

Join FEC

On July 30, the Senate confirmed

the nominations of David M.

Mason, Karl J. Sandstrom and

Darryl R. Wold to the Commission,

and the renomination of Commissioner Scott E. Thomas. Mr. Mason

and Mr. Sandstrom began their

duties at the Commission in August,

and Mr. Wold is expected to take his

seat on the Commission this month.

Mr. Mason was a senior fellow at

The Heritage Foundation, where he

concentrated on research, writings

and commentary on Congress and

national politics. Before joining the

Heritage Foundation, Mr. Mason

served as a deputy assistant secretary for the Department of Defense.

For nearly a decade, he worked on

Capitol Hill in the offices of Senator

John Warner, Representative Tom

Bliley and former House Republican

Whip Trent Lott. Mr. Mason holds

an honors degree in political science

from Claremont McKenna College.

He assumed the seat on the Commission that had been vacant since

the 1995 resignation of former

Commissioner Trevor Potter.

Mr. Sandstrom was formerly

chairman of the Administrative

Review Board at the Department of

Labor. Before that, he served as
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1998

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)

Joan D. Aikens, Chairman

Scott E. Thomas, Vice Chairman

Lee Ann Elliott, Commissioner

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald,

 Commissioner

Karl J. Sandstrom, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Acting Staff

 Director

Lawrence M. Noble, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Louise D. Wides, Director

Angela Rucker, Editor

http://www.fec.gov

Commissioners

(continued from page 1)

Use of FEC Web Site,

Electronic Filing Up

The FEC’s web disclosure system

received about 380,000 hits between

July 1 and July 27, prime time for

viewing political committees’ July

quarterly and monthly reports.

Using the FEC’s web site, the public

could view images of actual reports

recently filed by candidates and

political committees.

Other people chose to access

these documents by contacting the

Commission’s Public Records

Office. That office recorded nearly

1,100 walk-in customers and almost

1,250 telephone inquiries, July 6-27.

A growing number of reports

filed with the Commission were

done so electronically. Electronic

filing by FEC filers increased to 178

political committees, up from the

101 committees that filed electronically during the first quarter. More

than half of the committees that

filed electronically did so over the

Internet or by dialing up one of the

FEC’s modems dedicated to receiving reports transmitted to the

agency. The majority of those

committees used the FEC’s software, FECFile, in filing their

reports.

New committees now receive a

copy of FECFile along with their

registration packets. Existing

committees can request a copy of

FECFile by calling the Electronic

Filing Office at 202/694-1293 or

800/424-9530 (press 5 and ask for

the Electronic Filing Office). ✦

Reports

Contributor Search Feature

Added to FEC Web Site

Internet users who log on to

http://www.fec.gov now have

immediate access to the name and

contribution amount of any individual who has contributed $200 or

more to a federal political committee during the 1997-1998 election

cycle. The FEC’s new searchable

database also allows users to access

lists of PACs or party committees

that have contributed to specific

candidates and view lists of candidates to whom selected PACs and

parties have contributed.

The new database search process

became accessible on July 21, and is

updated daily. Already, Internet

users can visit the FEC’s web site to

view images of original reports

dating back to the 1995-1996

staff director of the House Subcommittee on Elections and was staff

director of the House Task Force on

Electoral Reform. Mr. Sandstrom

also served as the deputy chief

counsel to the House Administration

Committee and was an adjunct

professor at American University.

He received a bachelor’s degree

from the University of Washington,

and holds a law degree from George

Washington University and a

master’s degree in tax law from

Georgetown University Law Center.

He fills the seat of former Commissioner John Warren McGarry.

Mr. Wold has been an attorney in

private practice in California. In his

practice, where he has specialized in

business, election and political law,

Mr. Wold has represented candidates, ballot measure committees,

political action committees and

others under federal, state and local

laws. Mr. Wold, a native of California, graduated with honors from

Claremont McKenna College and

received a law degree from Stanford

University. He will assume the

Commission seat being vacated by

Commissioner Joan D. Aikens.

Mr. Thomas, currently the

Commission’s vice chairman, was

first appointed by President Ronald

Reagan in 1986 and was reappointed

by President George Bush in 1991.

Prior to serving as a commissioner,

Mr. Thomas was the executive

assistant to former Commissioner

Thomas E. Harris. He originally

came to the FEC as a legal intern

and later became an assistant

general counsel for enforcement. A

Wyoming native, Mr. Thomas

graduated from Stanford University

and holds a law degree from

Georgetown University Law Center.

Mr. Sandstrom’s and Mr. Wold’s

terms expire in 2001; Mr. Mason’s

and Mr. Thomas’s terms expire in

2003. ✦

election cycle, and examine reports

that have been filed electronically.

The FEC’s web site will soon

include reports dating back to the

1993-1994 election cycle.

To start a search, click on “View

Contributions and Financial Reports

Filed by Presidential and House

Campaigns, Parties and PACs” and

follow the on-screen instructions. ✦
September 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

3

Court Cases

DNC v. FEC (97-676)

On July 2, at the request of the

FEC, and with the consent of the

Democratic National Committee

(DNC), the U.S. District Court for

the District of Columbia dismissed

this case without prejudice and

remanded the matter back to the

FEC to review the impact of the

appellate and U.S. Supreme Court

decisions in Akins v. FEC on issues

presented in this case. See the

December 1995, February 1997 and

July 1998 Record issues (all articles

are on p. 1).

The suit concerned the

Commission’s dismissal of the DNC

complaint alleging that the Christian

Coalition is a political committee.

See the June 1997 Record, p. 7.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 97-676. ✦

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC

On July 2, the U.S. District Court

for the District of Columbia denied

the FEC’s motion to dismiss this

lawsuit challenging the agency’s

dismissal of an administrative

complaint filed by Judicial Watch,

Inc. The court remanded the case to

the FEC and ordered it to decide

whether to pursue the administrative

complaint within 120 days. The

FEC has filed notice that it will

appeal this decision.

Background

In February, Judicial Watch filed

this lawsuit after the Commission

voted to take no action on its

administrative complaint, which

alleged that the White House,

Democratic National Committee

(DNC), Department of Commerce

and Clinton administration had sold

seats on foreign trade missions for

large campaign contributions to the

DNC and the Clinton/Gore 1996

reelection campaign. Judicial Watch

contended that the contributions

violated 18 U.S.C. §600, a criminal

statute which makes it unlawful to

promise any special benefit or

treatment as a reward for political

activities in support of or opposition

to a particular candidate, election or

political event. See the April 1998

Record, p. 4.

District Court Decision

The FEC moved to dismiss this

case for lack of standing. In order to

establish standing, a plaintiff such as

Judicial Watch must show that it has

suffered an injury in fact, that there

is a causal connection between the

injury and the conduct being

complained about and that it is

likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. The

FEC claimed that Judicial Watch

failed to allege an injury flowing

from the Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act).

The court disagreed. It pointed

out that, in FEC v. Akins, the U.S.

Supreme Court concluded that, for

purposes of standing, an injury was

created when a plaintiff failed to

obtain information that had to be

publicly disclosed. Thus, affected

voters who do not have access to

such information have standing to

sue. The district court held that, in

this case, information that trade

mission seats may have been

exchanged for contributions to the

DNC and Clinton/Gore committee

was “important and useful to

voters.”

The FEC also argued that Judicial

Watch did not have standing

because its administrative complaint

failed to identify violations of the

Act over which the Commission had

jurisdiction. The complaint only

made allegations of bribery, not of

reporting violations. The court

stated, however, that no plaintiff is

required to supply the FEC with a

“legal theory” under the Act in order

for the agency to pursue an administrative complaint. “At minimum, the

FEC, as an agency acting in the

public interest, should not interpret

complaints narrowly,” the court

stated.

The court went on to note that the

matters outlined in the administrative complaint could raise reporting

issues. The court said a contribution

in exchange for participation in

trade missions could be classified as

an offset to a contribution, a refund

of a contribution or a disbursement.

The DNC and Clinton/Gore committee might have had an obligation

to report such transactions.

The court further noted that the

FEC failed to notify Judicial Watch

that its administrative complaint was

technically deficient, as is required

by 11 CFR 111.5. The court also

stated that, “If ... the allegations

were not within its prosecutorial

jurisdiction, the FEC should have

referred the matter to the Department of Justice or the appropriate

agency.”

The court also dismissed the

FEC’s argument that a huge backlog

of cases at the agency requires it to

dismiss administrative complaints

such as the one filed by Judicial

Watch without investigating them

because of a lack of financial and

human resources. The court said the

FEC should have raised this issue in

the administrative proceedings.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 98-0386. ✦

Right to Life of Dutchess

County, Inc. v. FEC

On July 20, the U.S. District

Court for the Southern District of

New York granted the FEC’s

motion to clarify that its June ruling

enjoined the FEC only from enforcing 11 CFR 100.22(b) against Right

to Life of Dutchess County, Inc.

In June, the court determined that

the Commission’s regulation at 11

CFR 100.22(b) violated the First

Amendment. The part of the regulation in dispute defines express

advocacy as a communication that,

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1998

4

Court Cases

(continued from page 3)

Hollenbeck v. FEC

On July 27, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia

granted the FEC’s motion to dismiss

this case for lack of standing.

Thomas Hollenbeck, a Pennsylvania resident, had filed suit against

the FEC after it had dismissed his

administrative complaint alleging

that a 1994 candidate for federal

office had accepted excessive loans.

See the April 1998 Record, p. 4.

In order to show standing, a

plaintiff must meet the requirements

found in Article III of the Constitution—injury in fact, causation and

redressability. The court concluded

that Mr. Hollenbeck did not meet

the requirements for standing

because he failed to allege a “concrete and particularized injury” that

came about as a result of a violation

of the Federal Election Campaign

Act. Mr. Hollenbeck, the court said,

only vaguely alleged an injury,

claiming violations of his First and

Fourteenth Amendment rights and

the need to protect the public from

abuses by federal candidates.

U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia, 98-469. ✦

when taken as a whole and with

limited reference to external events

(such as proximity to an election),

can only be interpreted by a reasonable person as unambiguously

advocating the election or defeat of

a clearly identified candidate. In its

initial order, the court simply

enjoined the FEC from enforcing

this regulation. See the July 1998

Record, p. 3.

U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of New York, 97-

2614. ✦

Advisory

Opinions

AO 1998-12

Solicitation of Employee

Stockholders

Ashland Inc. Political Action

Committee for Employees (the

Committee) may solicit, as stockholders, Ashland employees who

hold stock in the company, but who

are not executive or administrative

personnel, so long as the employees

can draw at least one share of

Ashland stock without incurring a

suspension period. Additionally, the

Committee’s parent company,

Ashland, Inc., may use a payroll

deduction plan to collect contributions from employees who qualify

as Ashland stockholders.

Background

The Ashland Employee Savings

Plan is open to employees with one

year of service with the company or

one of its subsidiaries. Participants

choose from several investment

alternatives, including mutual funds

and Ashland’s own common stock

fund. Employee contributions are

placed either in an after tax account

(funds in it are deposited from

employee salaries after taxes have

been assessed) or a tax-deferred

account (funds in it are deposited

from employee salaries before taxes

are assessed). Ashland matches each

participant’s contributions to the

plan, with a portion of the match

automatically invested in the

Ashland fund. Ashland also matches

any Ashland stock designated by the

participant employee for other

accounts.

Stockholder Defined

The Federal Election Campaign

Act (the Act) allows a corporation

or its separate segregated fund

(SSF) to solicit contributions any

time from its executive and administrative personnel, stockholders and

the families of such individuals. 2

U.S.C. §441b(b)(4)(A)(i). A stockholder is a person who:

• Has a vested beneficial interest in

stock,

• Has the power to direct how that

stock will be voted (if it is voting

stock), and

• Has the right to receive dividends.

11 CFR 114.5(g)(1).

Ashland employees meet the first

and second requirements. All

participants in the employee savings

plan are fully vested regardless of

their years of service to the company. Additionally, participants can

vote their stock. A participant

exercises this power by giving

voting instructions to the trustee of

the plan, who then votes the

participant’s shares.

The third requirement, the ability

to receive dividends, is somewhat

comparable to the right of employees to withdraw funds from their

accounts. The test that the Commission has used to measure this is

whether “participants are able to

withdraw at least one share of stock

purchased ...without incurring a

suspension period.” Thus, those who

have already withdrawn at least one

share of Ashland stock, and who

continue to hold one share of the

company’s stock, have withdrawal

rights and qualify as stockholders

for purposes of the Act. For other

employees, withdrawal rights vary

with the type of contribution plan

account through which the employee has ownership of Ashland

stock.

Depending on the technical

features of the various accounts, an

employee can be eligible to withdraw stock without incurring a

suspension, and could hold at least

one share of Ashland stock. If that is

the case, he or she may be solicited

as a stockholder.

Payroll Deduction

In two advisory opinions (AO

1996-10 and AO 1983-17), the
September 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

5

Congressional Fundraising

Continues Climb

U.S. House and Senate candidates disclosed $484.3 million in

receipts for the 1997-1998 election

cycle, an 8 percent increase over the

same total for the 1995-1996

election cycle. Spending was up by

only 3 percent, with candidates

reporting a total of $301.6 million in

disbursements. These figures are

based on information contained in

reports covering activity through

June 30.

Contributions received by Senate

candidates ($191.5 million) increased by 13 percent over the

previous election cycle, but disbursements ($117.9 million) increased by a negligible .9 percent.

House candidates reported small

increases from the last election

cycle, with a 5 percent increase in

receipts, or $292.8 million, and a 4

percent increase in disbursements,

or $183.7 million.

The median receipts for House

candidates increased over the

previous election cycle in all

Statistics

Type of Candidate 1996 Median

Receipts

1998 Median

Receipts

Democratic Incumbents

Republican Challengers

$296,826

$34,486

$348,602

$42,970

Republican Incumbents

Democratic Challengers

$433,153

$35,756

$420,813

$44,385

Open Seats – Democrats

Open Seats – Republicans

$123,602

$80,838

$179,183

$115,120

* Median figures include only candidates who reported raising some money before

June 30, 1998.

Median Receipts of House Candidates for 1998

Election Cycle Through June 30*

Commission has concluded that the

payroll deduction method may be

used to collect contributions to a

company’s SSF from employees

who qualify as stockholders, even if

they are not executive or administrative personnel. Based on those

opinions, Ashland may use payroll

deduction to collect contributions

for its PAC from employees who

qualify as stockholders.

Date Issued: July 16, 1998;

Length: 5 pages. ✦

categories with the exception of

Republican incumbents. See the

chart below. There also are fewer

open seats in this election cycle and

fewer nonincumbents who reported

receipts of at least $50,000.

A comprehensive compilation of

candidate fundraising during the

1997-1998 election cycle as reported in July quarterly reports is

available in an August 14 news

release. The release is available:

• At the FEC’s web site: http://

www.fec.gov (click “News

Releases and Media Advisories” at

the main menu);

• From the Public Records Office

and the Press Office (call 800/424-

9530); and

• By fax (call FEC Faxline at 202/

501-3413 and request document

610).

The chart on this page is based on

data taken from this news release.

To view digital images of candidate

committees’ reports submitted to the

Commission, visit the FEC’s web

site and click “View Financial

Reports Filed by Presidential and

House Campaigns, Parties and

PACs.” ✦

(Statistics continued on page 6)

Advisory Opinion Requests

Advisory opinion requests are

available for review and comment in

the Public Records Office.

AOR 1998-17

Application of press exemption to

free 30 second spot time slots

offered by cable broadcasting

system to televise candidate campaign advertisements (Daniels

Cablevision, Inc., August 3, 1998; 9

pages plus 5-page attachment) ✦

Back Issues of the

Record Available on

the Internet

This issue of the Record and all

other issues of the Record from

1996, 1997 and 1998 are available through the Internet as PDF

files. Visit the FEC’s World Wide

Web site at http://www.fec.gov

and click on “What’s New” for

this issue. Click “Help for Candidates, Parties and PACs” to see

back issues. Future Record issues

will be posted on the web as well.

You will need Adobe® Acrobat®

Reader software to view the publication. The FEC’s web site has

a link that will take you to Adobe’s

web site, where you can download

the latest version of the software

for free.
Federal Election Commission RECORD September 1998

6

MUR 4582

Contributions in the Names

of Others

Two Baltimore restaurant owners

and a third man have paid a total of

$15,500 in civil penalties as part of

three conciliation agreements

concerning contributions made in

the names of others, violations of 2

U.S.C. §441f.

This section of the Federal

Election Campaign Act (the Act)

prohibits making a contribution in

the name of another, knowingly

permitting one’s name to be used to

make such a contribution and

knowingly accepting such a contribution. Commission regulations go

on to state that no person may

knowingly help or assist any person

in making a contribution in the

name of another. 11 CFR

110.4(b)(1)(iii).

Compliance

Trade/ Corp. w/o

Member/ Coop- Capital NonCorporate Labor Health erative Stock connected 1 Total

Jul. ’91 1,745 339 749 57 137 1,096 4,123

Dec. ’91 1,738 338 742 57 136 1,083 4,094

Jul. ’92 1,731 344 759 56 144 1,091 4,125

Dec. ’92 1,735 347 770 56 142 1,145 4,195

Jul. ’93 1,715 338 767 55 139 1,011 4,025

Dec. ’93 1,789 337 761 56 146 1,121 4,210

Jul. ’94 1,666 336 777 53 138 963 3,933

Dec. ’94 1,660 333 792 53 136 980 3,954

Jul. ’95 1,670 334 804 43 129 1,002 3,982

Dec. ’95 1,674 334 815 44 129 1,020 4,016

Jul. ’96 1,645 332 829 43 126 1,058 4,033

Dec. ’96 1,642 332 838 41 123 1,103 4,079

Jul. ’972 1,602 332 826 41 118 953 3,875

Dec. ’97 1,597 332 825 42 117 931 3,844

Jul. ’98 1,565 325 820 43 112 897 3,762

1 Nonconnected PACs must use their own funds to pay fundraising and administrative expenses, while the other categories of PACs have corporate or labor “connected organizations” that are permitted to pay those expenses for their PACs. On

the other hand, nonconnected PACs may solicit contributions from the general

public, while solicitations by corporate and labor PACs are restricted.

2

 During the first six months of 1997, 227 PACs were administratively terminated

because of inactivity.

Midyear PAC Count Shows

Slight Decrease From 1997

The FEC’s semi-annual PAC

count reveals that the number of

PACs has decreased slightly since

the last count was taken in December 1997. The table at right shows

the midyear and year-end PAC

figures since 1991. To see a complete listing of PAC statistics dating

back to 1974, visit the FEC’s web

site (http://www.fec.gov) or

request a copy of the agency’s July

21 press release (call 800/424-9530

and press 3 for the Public Records

Office or press 5 and ask for the

Press Office). ✦

Nonfilers

The campaign committees of the

candidates listed below failed to file

required campaign finance discloStatistics

(continued from page 5)

Candidate Office Sought Report Not Filed

Clark, Barbara Marlene House NY/06 July Quarterly

Darling, Alberta Senate WI July Quarterly

James, Bruce Senate NV July Quarterly

Kelly, Sue W. House NY/19 July Quarterly

Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks House MI/15 Pre-Primary

Meeks, Gregory W. House NY/06 July Quarterly

Munsell, Susan Grimes House MI/08 Pre-Primary

Roberts, Darryl F. House OK/03 July Quarterly

Schwartz, Kenneth L. House NY/14 July Quarterly

Starky, Stuart M. House AZ/03 July Quarterly

Sutherland, Doug Senate WA July Quarterly

Wright, Walter W. II House MO/05 Pre-Primary

sure reports. The list is based on

recent FEC news releases. The FEC

is required by law to publicize the

names of nonfiling campaign

committees. 2 U.S.C. §438(a)(7).

The agency pursues enforcement

actions against nonfilers on a caseby-case basis. ✦
September 1998 Federal Election Commission RECORD

7

During the 1993-1994 election

cycle, attorney Lalit Gadhia asked

his clients Vinay Wahi and Satish

Bahl, owners of a Baltimore restaurant, to make contributions to the

Indian-American Leadership

Investment Fund (IALIF) or to

certain candidates. Mr. Gadhia

promised them that their contributions would be reimbursed in cash

as long as they or someone else

could provide him a contribution in

the form of a personal check of

$1,000.

Mr. Wahi made five contributions

totaling $4,500. Mr. Bahl contributed $1,000. Additionally, Mr. Wahi

and Mr. Bahl solicited several other

individuals—many of whom worked

at their restaurant—for $8,500 in

contributions. Another of the Mr.

Gadhia’s clients, Dr. S.V.

Ramamurthy, made $4,000 in

contributions at the attorney’s

request, and solicited $3,000 in

contributions from several individuals. The contributions went to IALIF

and to several candidate committees. Mr. Gadhia subsequently

reimbursed the three men for all of

their contributions and for the

contributions they solicited.1

The candidate committees that

received contributions from the

three men included Ben Cardin for

Congress, Citizens for Sarbanes,

Robb for the Senate, Murtha for

Congress and Citizens for Senator

Wofford. All of the committees

have since disgorged the funds from

their accounts, and paid the money

to the U.S. Treasury. ✦

Index

The first number in each citation

refers to the “number” (month) of

the 1998 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

1997-18: Status of committee as

local party committee, 1:14

1997-21: Refund to candidate who

had made contribution to own

campaign, 6:5

1997-22: Communicating membership corporation’s endorsements

of federal candidates to members

and their restricted classes, 1:14

1997-25: Affiliation of corporate

SSFs after reorganization, 3:5

1997-26: Establishment of

nonconnected PAC by individuals

affiliated with trade association, 3:7

1997-27: Use of campaign funds to

pay legal expenses, 4:7

1997-28: Reinstatement of terminated candidate committee to

retire debt to candidate, 4:8

1997-29: Status as state committee

of political party, 4:8

1998-1: Use of campaign funds to

pay legal expenses, 4:8

1998-2: Status as national committee of political party; status of

affiliated state parties as state

committees of political party, 4:10

1998-3: Status as state committee of

political party, 4:11

1998-4: Use of contributor lists

from FEC reports for marketing

“data mining” technologies, 6:5

1998-7: Exemption for party office

building fund and construction of

state party office facilities and

parking lot, 7:8

1998-8: Preemption of Iowa law

prohibiting corporate contributions to party building fund, 7:9

1998-9: Generic party expenditures

made in connection with special

election, 7:9

1998-12: Status of employee

stockholders as part of restricted

class, 9:4

Court Cases

FEC v. _____

– Al Salvi for Senate Committee, 4:4

– California Democratic Party, 8:5

– Charles Woods for U.S. Senate, 3:3

– National Medical Political Action

Committee, 1:3; 7:5

– Williams, 1:3

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 7:1

– Clifton, 4:5; 7:4

– DNC (97-676), 9:3

– DSCC (97-5160 and 97-5161),

6:4; 8:7

– Fulani, (97-1466), 8:6

– Gottlieb, 7:4

– Hollenbeck, 4:4; 9:4

– Judd, 6:5

– Judicial Watch, Inc., 4:4; 9:3

– National Committee of the Reform

Party, 1:2; 4:4

– Natural Law Party (98-1025), 6:3

– Ohio Democratic Party (98-0991),

6:2; 8:5

– Perot ’96, Inc., (97-2554), 6:3

– Perot ’96, Inc., (98-1022), 6:3

– RNC (97-1552), 6:4

– RNC (98-1207 (WBB)), 6:1; 8:5

– Right to Life of Dutchess County,

Inc., 7:3; 9:3

– Stockman, 5:3

Reports

Electronic filing, 2:2; 4:1; 4:2; 9:2

On FEC web site, 2:1; 4:2; 6:1; 9:2

Pre-Election Reporting Dates: 1998

Primary and Runoff Elections, 1:8

Reports, Alabama Runoff, 2:1

Reports due in 1998, 1:6; 1:11

Reports due in April, 4:2

Reports due in July, 7:11

Special Elections, California, 1:12;

3:9

Special Election, New Mexico, 5:3

Special Election, New York, 2:4

Special Election, Pennsylvania, 1:13

1

 Lalit Gadhia was criminally prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for

these actions. Subsequently, the

Commission found probable cause to

believe that Mr. Gadhia knowingly and

willfully made contributions in the

names of others and solicited contributions from foreign nationals.
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 September 1998