FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

20463 Volume 15, Numbe

Texas Special Election

Texas has scheduled a special election 

November 7, 1989, to fill the 18th Congressi

District seat held by the late Mickey Leland,

As in Mississippi, a second election may 

necessary if no candidate wins a majority of 

votes in the November 7 election. In that cas

second special election will be scheduled w

five days after the official election results 

declared. Only the two top vote-getters in 

previous election-regardless of party affiliat

will participate in the second election.

Reporting by Authorized Com mittees

Authorized committees of candidates 

participate in these elections must file rep

according to the schedules given in the ta

below. A committee should consult the table 

corresponds to the candidate's situation. 

Note that an authorized committee must 

file notices of contributions of $1,000 or m

contin

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 REPORTS

SPECIAL ELECTIONS

1 Mississippi and Texas Reporting Informat

3 PAC and Party Reporting

COMMISSIONERS

4 Report on Visit to Soviet Union Released

4 ADVISORY OPINIONS

REGULATIONS

6 New Affiliation and Transfer Rules

COURT CASES

8 New Litigation

9 COMPLIANCE: MUR 1837

STATISTICS

11 Final Report on 1988 Presidential Primar

11 Major Party Activity, January - June 198

CLEARINGHOUSE

14 FEe Journal on Election Administration

14 Advisory Panel Members Appointed

14 INFORMATION: State Corporations Divi

15 PUBLICATIONS: E&:J Compilation

15 INDEX

October 1989 999 E Street NW Washington DC

SPECIAL ELECTIONS IN

TEXAS AND MISSISSIPPI

Texas and Mississippi have scheduled special

elections to fill recently vacated House seats.

The reporting requirements explained in this article apply only to committees a~tive in the

special elections. All other. committees sho~ld

follow the normal nonelection year reporting

schedule (see the January and June 1989 issues of

the Record, as well as the article on October

Reports, above).

Mississippi Special Election

Mississippi will hold a special election on

October 3, 1989, to fin the 5th Congressional

District seat left vacant by the death of Conzressman Larkin Smith. If no candidate wins a

7najority of the votes in the October 3 election, a

runoff will be held on October iz.

Presidential Candidates

Authorized Presidential com mi ttees that

have chosen to file on a quarterly schedule in

1989 (instead of monthly) must file a quarterly

report by October 15. The report should cover all

activity from the close of books of the last report

filed or from the date of registration (whichever

is later) through September 30, 1989.

All Monthly Filers

Party committees, PACs and other committees filing on a monthly schedule must file reports

by the 20th of each month. Reports should cover

all financial activity from the close of books of

the last report filed or from the date of registration (whichever is later). For example, the October monthly report should be filed by October

20 and should cover all activity through September 30.

REPORTS DUE IN OCTOBER
FEDERAL ELECTION COrvlrVllSSION Volume 15, Number 

------------------

TEXAS 18th DISTRICT SPECIAL ELECTION

REPORTING DATES

Filing

Date

9/21

10/5

U/16

1/31

9/21

1/31

Filing

Date

10/26

12/7

1/31

10/26

TBA

TEA

1/31

10/23

12/7

1/31

10/23

TBA

'fBA

1/31

9/18

1/31

9/18

10/5 *** 11/16

1/31

Reg.I

Cert.

Mailing

Date**

Reg.I Filing

Cert. Date

Mailing

Date**

7/1 -10/1B

10/19 - TBA

TBA

TBA - 12/31

'1/1 - 9/13

9/14 - 9/27

9/28 - 11/6

11/'1 - 12/31

Period

Covered*

Period

Covered*

._---------

----_.__._--------

Pre-Special 7/1 - 10/18

Post-Special 10/19 - 11127

Year-End 11/28 - 12/31

Pre-Special

Pre-Runoff

Post-Runoff

Year-End

Report

Report

Pre-Special

Pre-Runoff

Post-Runoff

Year-End

Pre-Special 7/1 - 9/13

Year-End 9/14 - 12/31

Table ll: Two Elections Heldj Committees

Supporting Candidates in Both 11/7 Special

And Runoff, to be Announced (TBA)

-----"----_._._~-

Report Period Reg./ Filing

Covered* Cert. Date

Mailing

Date**

Table II: Two Elections Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in Both 10/3 Special

and 10/1'1 Runoff

Table ill: Two Elections Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in 10/3 Special Only

------_._------~------

-------

Table I: Only One Election Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in 11/'1 Special

Report Period Reg.!

Covered* Cert.

Mailing

Date*'"

2

October 1989

Report Period Reg.! Filing

Covered* Cert. Date

Mailing

Date** -~---_._-_.--_._~-------"-

Pre-Special 7/1 - 9/13 9/18 9/21

Post-Special 9/14 - 10/23 11/2 11/2

Year-End 10/2 4- 12/3 1 1/31 1/31

Table I: Only One Election Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in the 10/3 Special

received after the close of books of the preelection report but more than 2 days before an

election. The notice must reach the Clerk of the

House and the appropriate state office within 48

hours of the committee's receipt of the contribution. 11 CPR 104.5(f). See also AO 198B-32.

MISSISSIPPISPECIAL ELECTION

REPORTING DATES

"'The period-begins ~ith th-;~lose of bookS of

the last report filed by the committee. If the

committee has filed no previous reports, the period begins with the date of the committee's first

activity.

"''''Reports sent by registered or certified mail

must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must he received by the filing date.

"'''''''Committees involved in the runoff may use

the October 5 filing date '1S the mailing date for

the Pre-RUIloff report.

Contribution Limits

The limits on contributions to a candidate

apply separately to each election held. 11 CFR

100.2, 110.1(j) and 110.2(i). A candidate must

participate in an election to qualify for the contribution limit for that election.

Where to File

Authorized com mittees of candidates file

with the Clerk of the House (see Form 3 for the

address) and simultaneously file copies of reports

with the appropriate state office:

o Mississippi Secretary of State, 401 Mississippi

Street, Jackson, 1\1S 39205

a Texas Secretary of State, P.O. Box 12070,

Austin, TX 78711

For more information, call the Information

Services Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/376-

3120.
3

The Record is pUb~is~,ed by the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Danny L. McDonald, Chairman; Lee Ann Elliott Vice ChairmanJoan Aikens; Thomas J. Josefiak; John Warren McGarry; Scott E. Thomas' waiter J. Stewart'

Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the Haus'e of Representatives'

Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530. (TDD For Hearin~ Impaired 202/376-3136)

Table III: Two Elections Held; Committees

Supporting Candidates in 11/7 Special Only (Not

in Runoff)

PARTY EXPENDITURE LIMITS FOR

MISSISSIPPI AND TEXAS SPECIAL ELECTIONS

The coordinated party expenditure limit 

both the Mississippi and Texas special election

$23,990 ($10,000 multiplied by 2.399, the 1

cost-of-living adjustment). This amount may 

spent by the party's national committee in c

nection with the general election campaigns 

the candidates running in each special electi

The parties' Mississippi and Texas state comm

tees may also each spend up to $23,990 in 

ordinated party expenditures in connection w

the special election in their states.

For purposes of coordinated party expen

tures, the November 7 Texas election and 

October 3 Mississippi election are considered g

eral elections. Nate, however, that a sin

$23,990 limit (that is, one limit for the natio

party and one limit for the state party) appl

regardless of the number of candidates 

regardless of whether a second election is he

(A second election would be considered 

continuation of the first. AO 1983-16.)

Monthly Filers

PACs and party committees that file mont

during 1989 do not have to file pre- and po

election reports for special elections. PACs fil

on a monthly schedule, however, may have to 

independent expenditure reports, as explai

below.

PAC Reports on Independent Expenditures

Any PAC (including a monthly filer) t

makes independent expendi tures in connect

with a special election may have to file a la

minute report. Independent expenditures agg

gating $1,000 or more that are made after 

close of books of a pre-election report (see tabl

but more than 24 hom's before the election m

be reported within 24 hours after the expendit

is made. 11 CFR 104.4(b) and 104.S(g).

10/26

1/31

Filing

Date

10/23

1/31

Reg.!

Cert.

Mailing

Date**

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

-----------------"

Period

Covered*

7/l - 10/18

10/19 - 12/31

October 1989

Pre-Special

Year-End

Report

*The per~d begi~ withthe~lose ofbOoks of

the last report filed by the committee. If the

committee has filed no previous reports, the period begins with the date of the committee's first

activity.

*ItReports sent by registered or certified mail

must be postmarked by the mailing date. Otherwise, they must be received by the filing date.

Semiannual Filers

PACs and party committees that report

semiannually during 1989 may have to file pre-and

post-election reports. A filing requirement for a

special election is triggered if:

a The committee makes contributions or expenditures in connection with a special election

during the coverage dates shown in the tables;

and

o The committee has not previously disclosed the

special election activity in an earlier report.

11 CF R 104.5(c)(l)(ii) and (h).

SPECIAL ELECTION REPORTING FOR

PAC AND PARTY COMMITTEES

PACs and party committees active in the

Mississippi and Texas special elections may also

have to file reports, depending on whether they

file on a monthly or a semiannual schedule. (To

change filing schedules, see 11 CF R 104,5(c).)

Additionally, P ACs--including monthly filersmay have to file last-minute reports of independent expenditures made in connection with special

elections.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

Membership organization PAC's us

raffle for fundraising. (Date m

public: September 1, 1989; Len

including supplements: 30 pages)

Multibank holding company P ACTs s

citation of personnel of affilia

banks scheduled to merge with c

pany in future (Date made pub

September :>, 1989; Length, inlclud

supplements: 156 pages)

SUbject

Transfers between unaffiliated corp

ate PACs in connection with b

takeover by U.S. Office of the Co

troller of the Currency and recei

ship by FDIC. (Date made pub

August 29, 1989; Length, inclu

supplements: 33 pages)

Sale of copies of FEC reports filed 

candidates (Date made public: S

tember 7, 1989; Length: 6 pages)

Contributions to nonfederal candid

by PAC of foreign-owned and fore

funded corporation (Date made pub

September 11, 1989; Length: 2 page

1989-17

1989-19

1939-18

AOR

1989-16

1989-20

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent requests 

advisory opinions (AORs). The full text of e

AOR is available to the public from the FE

Public Records Office.

ADVISORY OPINION SUMMARIES

AO 1989-13: Corporation's Plan to Provide

Candidates with Computer

Equipment for Compliance Purpo

International Business Machines Corporation (I

may not provide equipment and training free 

charge to federal candidate committees under 

Act's legal and accounting exemption. The p

posed donation would result in a prohibited c

porate contribution.

IBM had planned to provide candidates of 

choice with personal computers, software 

training by corporate employees in order to fac

tate the candidates' compliance with the rep

ing and recordkeeping requirements of the 

and FEC regulations. Under the proposed p

the company would have retained title to 

equipment. Chosen candidates would have b

required to guarantee in writing that they w

4

October 1989

PUBLIC APPEARANCES

October 13 California Political Attorneys

Association

Los Angeles, California

Craig M. Engle

October 17 Second Friday Group

Los Angeles, California

Craig M. Engle

. Mr. Engle is Executive Assistant to Vice

Chairman Lee Ann Elliott

COMMISSION RELEASES REPORT ON

TRIP TO SOVIET UNION

In September the Com mission released a report on the FE CIS eight-day visit to the Soviet

Union in June 1989. At the invitation of the

Soviet Central Electoral Commission, the FEC

delegation, headed by Chairman Danny L.

McDonald, met with Soviet election officials,

academics, Communist Party leaders, and candidates who participated in the spring elections to

the Congress of the People's Deputies.

In the "Overview and Findlngs," the report

notes that:

o The March elections can be seen as a significant move toward democratization, in that the

Soviets permitted multicandidate slates, the

secret ballot and grass roots participation in

the ini tial selection of nominees.

o Despite the stated goal of democratization,

Soviet officials acknowledged many problems in

the electoral system--among others, the need

to equalize campaign resources, encourage rnulticandidate contests, facilitate more grass

roots participation in the nomination process

and strengthen enforcement of the election

laws.

o Soviet officials stated that, in further reforming their election law, they wanted to draw

upon the experience and constitutional laws of

Western nations.

Highlights of the report include:

o Summaries of private meetings with Soviet Vice

President Anatoliy Lukyanov and Boris Yeltsin,

an opposition figure in the recent elections;

a Observations on the Soviet election law;

o Campaign financing in the Soviet Union;

o The role of the Communist Party in the elections;

a Pluralism in Soviet politics;

o The role of women in Soviet politics; and

o Future electoral reform in the USSR.

Copies of the report are available free of

charge from the Commission's Public Records

Office.
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

use the equipment and assistance only for compliance. IBM had planned to repossess the equip- . ment if the agreement were broken.

Corporate in-kind contributions-el.e., gifts of

"anything of value"-are prohibited under 2 U.S.C.

§44Ib(a} and (b)(2). Congress, however, has exempted from the definitions of "eontrioution" and

"expenditure" the donation of legal and accounting services to help political committees comply

with the election law. 2 U.S.C. §§43l(8)(B)(ix)(II)

and 43l(9)(B)(vii)(II). This exemption applies only

to payments by the regular employer of the

individual providing the legal or accounting services. For example, the Commission has permitted corporations to donate the services of their

lawyer-employees and accountant-employees to

political committees while the employees continued to draw their regular corporate salaries. See

AOs 1982-31J 1981-54 J 1979-77 and 1979-22.

IBM's proposal differs from those approved in

earlier opinions because IBM wanted to donate

equipment rather than services. (The training was

subordinate to the primary gift of the equipment.)

Therefore, the company's plan fails to qualify

under the legal and accounting exemption. (Date

issued: August 11J 1989; Length, 4 pages)

AO 1989-14: Restaurant's Method of

Charging Political Customers

Anthony's Pier 4 Restaurant, Inc., may charge

political candidates and committees on a "cost

plus" basis when they use its facilities for fundraisers. This method of charging is a usual and

normal practice of the restaurant for both political and nonpolitical customers.

The restaurant usually charges either on a

"flat Iee" or a "cost plus" basis for receptions.

The "flat fee" option involves charging customers

on a per-person basis; the "cost plus" option involves billing for the actual cost of the food and

drink consumed, multiplied by certain amounts.

Because of lower costs to the restaurant for

providing the "cost plus" option, which requires

fewer employees and includes a more limited

menu, Anthony's Pier 4 charges less for the this

option. Many. political fundraisers choose the

"cost plus" option for their receptions.

The ban on corporate contributions generally

prohibits a corporate vendor from granting discounts to federal candidates or committees (with

certain limited exceptions). However, reduced

charges to a poli tieal client are not considered

contributions if they are established as a "usual

and normal" practice of the vendor. Since Anthony's Pier 4 offers the "cost plus" option to both

political and nonpolitical customers, the method

does not result in a prohibited corporate contribution when offered to political clients. See AOs

1987-24, 1986-22, 1985-28 and 1982-30. (Date

issued: August 18, 1989; Length: 3 pages)

5

AO 1989-15: Contributions to Special

Election Nominee Not Running

in Primary Runoff

Individual contributors to Ileana Ros-Lehtine

special election campaign for Congress did 

have a separate $1,000 limit for the August 

primary runoff election in which Mrs. R

Lehtinen was not a candidate. Contributi

made after the primary (in which she was 

candidate) were subject to the $1,000 gene

election limit.

Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen won a majority of vote

an August I primary election, thus becoming 

Republican nominee for the general election, h

on August 29 to fill the 18th Congressional D

trict seat left vacant by the death of Congre

man Claude Pepper. An August 15 runoff w

held to select a Democratic nominee. Mrs. R

Lehtinen was not a candidate in that election.

The election law and FEC regulations plac

$1,000 per candidate, per election, limit on c

tributions from individuals. 2 U.S.C. S44Ia(a); 

CFR 110.10)(1). Separate limits apply to 

primary and general elections; a separate li

also applies to a runoff election, defined as 

election held after 9. primary to select a nomi

for the federal office sought. 11 CFR 10

(d)(1). Because Mrs. Res-Lehtinen was no

candidate in the August 15 runoff, she was 

entitled to a separate lunit for that electi

Individual contributors to her campaign, the

fore, have only two contribution limits--$IJO

each for the primary and the general. See a

AO 1978-25.

Contributors who designated their contri

tions for the runoff could redesignate them 

Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen's general election campai

provided the redesignations did not cause the c

tributors to exceed their limits for the gene

election. 11 CFR 110.1(b)(4)-(5) and llO.2(b)

(5). Similarly, if Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen had de

outstanding from the prtrnary, the commit

could ask contributors to redesignate their run

contributions for the primary, as long as they 

contin

SAN FRANCISCO CONFERENCE

On October 12 and 13J the Federal Election Commission and the California Secretary

of State's Office will be cosponsoring a conference on campaign finance law. The conference will feature workshops on candidate

campaigns, PAC and party activity, contributions and reporting. The California Fair

Political Practices Commission will also con

duct a workshop on the new state campaign

finance law.

The conference will take place at the

Holiday Inn-Fisherman's Wharf in San Fran

cisco. The cost is $100. For information on

registration, call the Information Service

Division at 800/424-9530 or 202/376-3120.
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMIVlISSIOI\J Volume 15. Numbe

not already given up to their limit for that

election. (Date issued: August 11, 1989; Length:

4 pages)

SUMMARY OF REVISED RULES ON

AFFILIATION AND TRANSFERS

On August 14, 1989, the Commission sent to

C';lngress revised rules concerning affiliated committees, transfers, prohibited contributions annual contribution limits, and earmarked contributions. The final rules and the Explanation and

Justifieatlon (E&J) were published in the Federal

Registe~ on August 17. See 54 Fed. Reg. 34098.

The major changes concerning affiliation, transfers and prohibited contributions are summarized

below. (NOTE: The changes concerning the annual contribution limit for individuals and earmarked contributions will be summarized in the

Record next month.)

Effective dates for the new rules will be

announced after the rules have been before Congress for 30 legislative days.

Contribution Limitation for Affiliated

Committees and Political Party Committees;

Transfers: 11 CFR 110.3

Section llO.3 has been retitled to reflect

that several provisions pertain to party committees us well as to other political committees. The

section has also been reorganized.

Contribution Limitations for Affiliated

Committees: 11 CPR 110.3(a)0}-{2)

Sectio~ 11O.3(a){ 1) states the general rule

tha,t c~mlmttees commonly established, financed,

maintained or controlled are affiliated and thus

are subject to common contribution limit~tions: This provision has been revised to:

o Specify that the shared limits for affiliated

committees apply to both contributions they

make and contributions they receive;

o ?larify that committeas may be affiliated even

If one of them is not a political committee as

defined in 11 CPR 100.5;

o Clarify that, common ~ontribution limits apply

to all authorized committees of a candidate for

the same election; and

o State in paragraph (a)(l)(ii) that, in appropriate

cases, the term 1110cal unit" (of the entity that

establishes, finances, maintains or controls a

political committee) may include a franchisee

licensee, or state or regional association. '

A list of committees viewed as per affiliated

~currently set forth in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) appears

In amended paragcapb (a)(2).

6

Factors of Affiliation: 11 CFR 110.3(8)(3)

A revised paragraph (a)(3) lists "circums

tial factors of aff'iliatlon," which are called "i

cia of affiliation" under the current rules.

A new paragraph (a)(3)(i) explains that

determining whether entities are affiliated-

whether they are commonly established, finan

maintained or controlled-the Commission 

examine a variety of relationships, such as t

between organizations sponsoring PACs, betw

committees themselves, and between one s

soring organization and a committee sponsore

another organization.

In evaluating these relationships, the C

mission will consider a revised list of affilia

factors, set forth in new paragraphs (a)(3)(ii

(J); given below. Note that changes from cur

rules have been printed in bold:

(A) An organization owns a controlling intere

the voting stock or securities of an organ

tion sponsoring another committee;

(B) A sponsoring organization has the auth

or ability to direct or participate in 

governance of another sponsoring organ

tion or comIII ittee through its constitu

bylaws, contracts or other rules, or thr

formal or informal practices or procedure

(C) A committee or sponsoring organization 

the authority or ability to hire, appoint 

mote or otherwise control the office;

employees of another sponsoring organiz

or committee;

(D) &(E) A sponsoring organization or comm

has a common or overlapping membership

common or overlapping officers or emp

ees, with another sponsoring organizatio

committee, indicating a formal or ong

relationship between them;

(F) A committee or sponsoring organization 

members, officers or employees who 

members, officers or employees of ano

sponsoring organization or committee, 

cating a formal or ongoing relationship o

creation of a successor;

(G) A sponsoring organization provides fund

goods in a significant amount or on an 

going basis to another organization or 

mittee, such as through direct or ind

payments for administrative, fundraisin

other costs, but not including joint fund

ing proceeds;

(H) A sponsoring organization or committee 

ranges for funds to be provided to ano

organization or committee in a signif

amount or on an ongoing basis, with 

exception of joint fundraising transfers;

(I) A sponsoring organization, committee o

agent of one of them had an active or sig

cant role in the formation of another or

zation or committee; and

(,J) A sponsoring organization or committee 

similar pattern of contributions or eon
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSIOI\J Volume 15, Numbe

utors with another entity, indicating a formal

or ongoing relationship between them.

Finally, the Commission emphasizes that the

following principles in evaluating affiliation have

not changed:

o The presumption that state and local party

committees are affiliated; and

o The application of affiliation factors to committees set up by the same candidate.

Contribution Limitations for Political

Party Committees: II CFR IIO.3(b)

Section 110.3(b) has been reorganized. New

paragraph (b){ 1) generally follows current (b){1).

which states that national and state party committees have separate limits. New language clarifies, however, that the limitations apply to contributions both made and received. New paragraph (b)(2) has been reorganized, consolidating

the current provisions in (b)(2)(i) and (b)(4) and

clarifying that the Congressional campaign committee and the national committee of a political

party have separate per-election limits on contributions they give to federal candidates, including House, Senate and Presidential candidates.

Similarly, the Senatorial campaign committee has

separate limits from the national committee, with

the exception of their combined limit on contributions to Senate candidates.

Current paragraph (b)(3), which contains examples of how the contribution limits apply to

different party committees, has been deleted-the

examples are now in the E&J. The Commission

added new paragraph (b)(3). which retains the

approach of the current section (b)(2)(ii) by presuming that state and subordinate party committees are affiliated but granting them the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise.

Transfers: 11 CFR 1I0.3(c)

The revised rules for transfers between affiliated committees, currently set forth in sections

110.3(a)(2) and (c), have now been consolidated in

new paragraph (c).

Transfers Between Affiliated or Unaffiliated

Committees of the Same Political Party, and

Transfers Made by a Collecting Agent to a

Separate Segregated Fund: 11 CFR llO.3(e)(I)

Paragraph (c)el) continues to permit unlimited transfers between party committees of the

same party, whether affiliated or not. New

language states that the contribution limits do not

restrict transfers between affiliated corn mittees

or transfers by a collecting agent to a separate

segregated fund. However, the rules still specify

that only permissible funds may be transfered and

that transfers can trigger the Act's registration

and reporting requirements for previously unregistered entities.

7

Transfers Between Committees Involved in

Joint Fundraising: 11 CPR llO.3(c)(2)

New paragraph (c)(2) revises curren t p

graph (a)(2)(0, claeifying that, under joint f

raising rules, a participating com rnittee or org

zation may not receive more than its alloc

share of the funds raised.

Transfers Between Current and Previous

Campaign Committees of the Same Candidate

II CF R llO.3(c)(4)

With regard to transfers between current 

previous campaign com mittees of the same ca

date, new paragraph (c)(4) continues the appr

taken by the current rules in section 110.3(

(iv), It also adds that transfers of permis

funds between two previous federal camp

committees of the same candidate are per

sible.

Further, the section specifies that the "

of funds" from which a transfer is made con

of the funds most recently received, and 

there must be sufficient permissible funds in 

pool to transfer. New language clarifies 

contributions made after the previous elec

was held, or after the candidate withdrew from 

became ineligible to participate in the prev

election, must be aggregated with other contr

tions from the same donor to the next elec

However, post-election contributions do not 

to be aggregated with others from the same d

if they are properly designated for outstan

debts.

The new paragraph (c){4) defines "prev

Federal campaign committee" and "current 

eral campaign committee."

Dual Federal Candidates: 11 CFR IIO.3(c)(5)

The Commission clarified the restriction

transfers between the authorized committees 

candidate seeking election to more than one 

eral office.

First, a "dual candidate" is defined a

candidate concurrently seeking election to m

than one federal office during the same or o

lapping election cycles. This section implem

2 U.S.C. S441a(a){5)(C), which provides that tr

fers between committees authorized by dual 

didates are prohibited until the candidate s

actively seeking election to more than one of

New language in paragraph (c)(5)(i) offers 

additional examples of instances where the C

mission would not presume a candidate to 

"actively seeking" more than one federal of

(1) when the candidate is ineligible for nomina

or election to more than one office by opera

of law and (2) when the individual publicly w

draws from one race and ceases to campaign.

The "pool of funds" principle of parag

(c)(4) applies here, as well. New paragraph (c

(it) clarifies that aggregation is required 

contin
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

donor has contributed to both committees and

funds are transferred between them. Furthermore, a donor's contributions may not be transfered if the aggregation will cause the donor to

exceed the limits on his or her contributions to

the committee receiving the transfer.

The Commission revised paragraph (c)(5)(iii),

which prohibits transfers when a dual candidate

"has elected to receive" public funding under the

Presidential public funding statutes; to clarify

that the prohibition is effective regardless of the

timing of the receipt of the public funding.

Transfers Between Federal and Nonfederal

Committees: 11 CFR 110.3(c)(6)

As with transfers between current and previous federal committees of the same candidate,

new paragraph (c)(6)(l) clarifies that, while a

previous nonfederal candidate COmmittee may

transfer unlimited amounts of money to a previous or current federal committee of the same

candidate, the funds transfered must come from

permissible sources. To ensure this, the committee transferring the money must be able to demonstrate that it had sufficient permissible funds

on hand at the time of the transfer. (Permissible

funds are funds that are not from excessive

contributions or from sources prohibited by the

Federal Election Campaign Act.) The com mittee

must also keep records of the sources of the funds

and make these records available to the Commission upon request.

New paragraph (c)(6}(ii) requires that contributions to the nonfederal committee that are

transfered to the federal committee must be

aggregated with contributions made by the same

donor to the federal committee if they were

originally given after:

o The nonfederal election took place;

o The candidate withdrew from the nonfederal

election; or

o The candidate publicly announced his or her

candidacy for federal office.

Again, transfers to the federal committee must

also come from a "pool of funds" containing

sufficient permissible funds to cover the amount

of the transfer. New paragraph (c)(6)(iii) clarifies

that a transfer of funds in excess of $1,000 from a

nonfederal to a federal committee triggers registration and reporting requirements for the nonfederal committee. New language also permits a

nonfederal commmittee required to report under

these circumstances to terminate with the first

report filed, if appropriate.

8

Prohibited Contributions: 11 CFR 110.4 1

The Commission added new paragraph (b

(iii) to specifically prohibit any person from kno

ingly helping or assisting any other person in 

making ofa contribution in the name of anoth

Also, forner paragraph (b)(l)(iii) was renumbe

as (b}(l)(iv).

Conforming Amendments

The Commission revised other parts of 

regulations to make them consistent with 

revisions described above. The conform

amendments modify cross references and defi

tions and apply the new rules to corporate a

labor PACs and to the Presidential primary re

latio~. The modified rules are: 11 CFR 100.5(

102.2, 1l0.I(f}(3), llO.8(d)(2), 114.5(g)(l), 11

(g)(l) and 9034.4(d).

Explanation and Justification

The E&'J, published August 17 in the Fede

Register along with the amended regulations, f

ther explains the significance of the new rul

provides illustrations of their application and d

cusses some aspects of the rules which the Co

mission decided not to change. For more inf

mation, call the Information Services Division 

300/424-9530 or 202/376-3120.

NEW LITIGATION

FEC v. John Bryant Campaign Committee

The Commission asks the court to decl

that the John Bryant Campaign Committee a

Kenneth H. Melberg, as treasurer, violated t

Federal Election Campaign Act by:

o Knowingly accepting $2,000 in excessive cont

butions for the 1986 Congressional primary 

Texas (2 U.S.C. §441a(f))j and

o Using information copied from another com m

tee's FEC reports for purposes of solicitation 

U.S.C. §438(a)(4).

The agency also asks the court to assess c

penalties and to order the defendants to refr

from future similar violations of the law.

U.S. District Court for the Northern Distr

of Texas (Dallas Division), No. CA3-89-1694

July 6, 1989.

1The Commission has recently proposed oth

changes to section 110.4. These proposals we

summarized on page 1 of the July Record.
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

FEe v. Webb for Congress

The Commission asks the court to declare

that the Webb for Congress Committee and Roy

D. Fowler, as treasurer, violated the Federal

Election Campaign Act by:

o Accepting an excessive contribution in the form

of a $19,000 loan from the candidate's wife (2

U.S.c. s 441 a(f))i and

o Failing to accurately disclose the source and

nature of the same contribution (2 U.S.C

S434(b».

The agency also asks the court to find that

William Woodward Webb, a 1986 Congressional

candidate from North Carolina, also violated the

law by accepting the excessive contribution.

The Com mission claims that the com mittee

reported the contribution as coming from Mr.

Webb's personal funds. (Under the election law,

candidates may contribute unlimited amounts of

personal funds to their own campaigns. Other

individuals, however, including family members,

may contribute no more than $1,000 per election

to a candidate.)

The FEC further asks the court to assess civil

penalties and impose permanent injunctions

against the defendants.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District

of North Carolina, No 89-664-CIV-5-BO, August

21, 1989.

MUR 1837: Impermissible Activities of

Senate Campaign Committee

This MUR, resolved through conciliation and payment of civil penalties (including a $30,000 civil

penalty against the respondent candidate committee), involved the activity of the principal campaign committee of a 1984 Senate candidate.

Violations by the committee and its treasurer

included:

o Acceptance of excessive contributions totaling

over $690,000 from 874 persons;

o Failure to continuously report all outstanding

debts;

o Acceptance of 127 corporate contributions totaling over $9,700;

o Failure to disclose all required information regarding the identification of each person making contributions aggregating over $200 per

calendar year;

o Failure to disclose all expenditures requiring

individual itemization;

o Failure to deposit a significant number of contributlons into the depository account within 10

9

days of the treasurer's receipt of the contri

tions; and

o Failure to comply with the Commission's re

lations with respect to joint fundraising act

ity.

Background

This matter was initiated by a compla

filed by a citizen who reviewed the committe

finance reports and alleged that the commit

had failed to report debts or, alternatively, 

received excessive contributions. Further vio

tions also came to light as a result of the Co

mission's review of the committee's reports.

The complaint noted that the committe

July 15 quarterly report showed no outstand

debts or obligations from the May 5 prima

Press accounts, however, indicated that betw

JUly 1 and September 30, the committee 

accepted over $110,000 in contributions des

nated for the primary election from individu

who had also contributed $1,000 each to 

general election during the reporting period. (U

der 11 CFR 1l0.I(b)(3)(i) and IlO.2(b)(3)(i), a c

tribution designated in writing for a particu

election but made after that election is perm

sible only if the contribution does not exceed 

net debts outstanding from the election and 

contributor's contribution Iirnits.) Reviewing 

committee's July and October quarterly repo

and the pre-election report, the complainant 

serted that at least 163 individuals and nine PA

had made over $150,000 in excessive contributi

after- the primary election.

The complaint said that the committee 

the nine PACs had violated 11 CFR Part 110 

accepting and making impermissible contri

tions. Alternatively, the complaint said, if 

com mittee did have outstanding debts from 

primary, it had violated the election law by 

properly r-eporting outstanding debts and obl

. tions as required by 11 CFR 104.3. The compl

contended that, in either case, the committ

violations were knowing and willful.

The Commission found reason to believe t

the committee had violated numerous section

the Act and FEe regulations, The Commis

also authorized an audit of the com mitt

finances, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. §437g(a)(2) 

rejected the com mittee's offer to enter into p

probable-cause conciliation at that time. W

regard to the other respondents, however, 

Com mission found "no reason to believe" that 

respondents had violated 2 U.S.C. §44la(a)(l)

by making excessive contributions and took 

further action with respect to the ot

respondents, except for the matter involvin

broadcasting company, described below.

contin
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

Broadcasting Company. The complaint also

alleged excessive contributions by the president

of a broadcasting company who had contributed

$1,250 to the Senate campaign. Responding to

the notification of the complaint in this MUR, the

president denied that he had made the excessive

contribution; instead, he explained, the contribution had been made by the corporation, because

the corporation had reimbursed him. The Commission found reason to believe that the president

had violated the law by authorizing the making of

a corporate contribution and by permitting his

name to be used for a contribution in the name of

another (2 U.S.C. ss441b and 441ft respectively).

Notified of the Commission's "reason to believe" finding, the president returned $1,250 to

the corporation. The Com mission entered into

conciliation agreements with both the corporation

and the president. Both the corporation and the

president paid a $200 civil penalty.

Legal Challenge. After the Commission's

"reason to believe" determinations, the Senate

committee filed a motion asking the,Commission

to reconsider its actions. The commIttee argued

that the Commission's audit was time-barred, that

tile Commission was required to grant the respondent's request for pre-probable-cause conciliation, and that the "reason to believe" determinations extended beyond the allegations contained in

the complaint. The Commission considered the

arguments and denied the committee's motion.

Subsequently the committee filed suit against the

Commission, challenging the audit. The committee said that the Commission had to begin the

audit within the time frame established under

section 438(b); the Commission argued, in response, that section 43S(b) did not apply here

because the audit had been authorized under section 437g(a)(2). The court granted the FEC's

motion to dismiss the suit and determined that

the committee had to comply with the FEe's

audit.

General Counsel's Report

The General Counsel's report analyzed the

findings of the Commission's audit of the committee.

Excessive/Misattributed Contributions. In

all. the auditors! review found 874 excessive contributions totaling $691,000. Twelve of the excessive contributions resulted from 15 mlsattributed checks and money orders totaling $33,800,

which were found to be signed by only one individual but attributed by the committee (either in

whole or in part) to persons other than the one

signing the instru.nent or accompanying documentation.

FEC regulations provide that each contributor in a joint contribution must sign the check

(or other written instrument) or a statement that

accompanies the contribution. The committee

apparently had attributed contributions to certain

lU

individuals without receiving the required sig

documentation, resulting in excessive contr

tions of $21,550 for the twelve checks and mo

orders.

Failure to Report Debts and Obligations. 

auditors' review of reports filed during the c

mittee's first six reporting periods found that 

committee initially reported no debts, su

quently amended some reports to show debts, 

finally reported all required debts.

FEC regulations require that debts and o

gations must be continuously reported until 

tinguished. 11 CFR 104. l1(a). The audi

concluded that the committee had failed to 

tinuously disclose over $1,072,000 in debts 

obligations.

Pl"imary Debt. Under the Commission's re

lations, a principal campaign committee 

accept contributions designated for the prim

election after the date of the primary, but onl

the extent that the contribution does not exc

the net debts outstanding from the primary e

tion. 11 CFR 110.1(a)(2)0); 2 U.S.C. §44l

The Commission concluded that the commi

had sufficient primary debts lito accommodate 

Committee-generated contributions total."

Corporate Contributions. The audit reve

that the com mittee had accepted and later 

funded 127 contributions totaling over $9t70

corporate funds. Corporations are prohib

from making contributions in connection 

federal elections, and political committees 

prohibited from knowingly accepting corpo

contributions. 2 U.S.C. S441b(a). Although 

contributions were refunded, the refunds were 

made in a timely manner.

Insufficient Disclosure of Information. 

committee's original reports filed with the C

mission did not fully itemize contributions 

expenditures, as required under 2 U.S.C. §§43

(3)(A) and (5}(A). Although the committee f

amendments to correct the insufficient dis

sure, incomplete and inaccurate informa

about contributions and expenditures was on 

public record for over a year.

Timely Deposit of Contributions. The a

further revealed that a significant number 

contributions were not deposited in a timely m

ner, as required under 2 U.S.C. S432(b)(l).

Joint Fundraising Violations. Responses 

the complaint indicated that the committee 

engaged in a joint fundraising event, although 

committees's initial reports did not show any j

fundraising activity. The auditors identified th

specific ;?roblems with the committee's j

fundraising activity.

1. Misallocation of Proceeds. The audi

found that the committee apparently misca

lated gross proceeds as $613,997.11 instead 

$645,320.61. The miscalulation of gross proce

led to a miscalculation of allocated opera

expenditures. As a result, the committee overp
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COIVIIVIISSION Volume 15, Number 

its share of operating expenditures by nearly

$8,700.

2. Failure to Report Joint Fundraising Activity. The auditors found a number of apparent

violations of 11 CFR 102.17, regarding the receipt

and reporting of joint fundraising proceeds. First,

the committee did not deposit all of the gross

proceeds into the joint fundr aising depository

account but instead deposited over $28,000 directly into a com mittee account. Second, not all

disbursements were made from the fundraising

account. Third, although the committees held the

joint fundraising event in August 1984, none of

the joint fundraising activity was disclosed until

the committee amended its reports in August

1985. Before these amendments, the committee

had reported the contributions representing its

share of net proceeds as if they had been received

directly from the contributors rather than as a

transfer-in.

3. Fundraising Notice. FEC regulations at

11 CFR 102.17(c)(2)(i) set out detailed requir-ements for the notice that must be included on

eyery joint fundraising solicitation. The notice

must inform contributors that: (1) contributions

may be designated for a. particular participant and

(2) the stated allocation formula may be changed

if a contribution would otherwise result in an

excessive contribution to one of the joint fundraising participants. The committee did not include this information on the fundraislng notice.

Bank Overdrafts. The General Counsel recommended that that Commission find reason to

bel~eve that the committee, its treasurer, and a

national bank violated 2 U.S.C. §441b(a.) in connection with overdrafts paid on the committee's

primary account. (See 11 CFR 100. 7(b)( 11).) The

Com mission decided to take no further action on

the matter.

Commission Determination

The Commission voted to enter into a conciliation agreement in which the committee and its

treasurer agreed to pay a civil penalty of $30,000.

The committee made refunds to all known contributors who were identified as having made excessive contributions, and also agreed to seek reimbursement for the operating expenditures it paid

on behalf of other participants in its joint fundraising activity.

CORRECTION

The MUR summary published in September's Record was incorrectly numbered 2594.

The correct number is 2924.

11

FINAL REPORT ON 1988 PRESIDENTIAL

PRIMARY ACTIVITY ISSUED

In August the Commission released the F

Report on the 1983 Presidential primary c

paigns, summarizing the activity of 16 Repu

can, Democratic and minor party candidates 

raised or spent more than $500,000.

Disclosure reports filed by the candid

showed "adjusted" campaign receipts (i.e., z

receipts minus transfers, refunds and rebate~

about $214 million for the primary electi

Among the 16 campaigns, adjusted rece

ranged from just over $2 million for New Alli

Party candidate Lenora Fulani to over $30 mi

each for George Bush and Pat Robertson. A

31 percent of adjusted receipts in the prim

campaigns came from federal matching fu

Two-thirds of primary receipts carne from 

viduals, and the remaining receipts came f

PAC contributions and other sources.

The chart on the following page shows 

amounts each candidate received from indiv

als, political committees and matching funds.

Adjusted expenditures (Le., gross disbu

ments minus transfers, refunds and rebates) 

closed in the reports totaled $211 million for 

16 campaigns. Independent expenditures mad

support Presidential candidates amounted to $

million; independent spending in opposi tlon 

candidates totaled $3.4 million.

A copy of FEe Reports on Financial Act

1987-88, Final Report, Presidential Pre-Nom

tion Campaigns is available for $1.00 from 

FEC's Public Records Office. A statistical p

release is also available.

MAJOR PARTY ACTIVITY AT MID-YEAR.

An FEC compilation of figures from 

national committees of the two major par

mid-year reports shows the Republicans wit

five to one lead in fundraising during the firs

months of 1989.

At the same point during the 1987-88 e

tion cycle, the Republicans at the national c

mittee level had more than a three to one lea

total receipts. During the previous non-Presi

tial election cycle in 1985-86, however the 

publicans' lead was more than seven to o~e. The chart on page 13 compares comm

activity for the first half of 1989 as shown in 

year reports of receipts and disbursements 

by the Republican and Democratic National, 

atorial and Congressional Campaign Committe

A copy of the statistical press release 

taining the mid-year party data can be obta

from the FEC's PUblic Records Office.
1988 PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CAMPAIGNS:

SOURCES OF ADJUSTED CAMPAIGN RECEIPTS1 Key

IEiI] Individuals

_ commltteess

_ Matching Funds

FEDERALELECTION COIVIIVlISSIOI\J Volume 15, Number 

Democrats

Bruce Babbitt

Joseph Biden

MichaelOukakis

Richard Gephardt

Albert Gore, Jr.

Gary Hart

Jesse L. Jackson

Lyndon H. LaRouche

Paul Simon

Republicans

George Bush

Robert J. Dole

Pete du Pont

Alexander M. Haig

Jack Kemp

Marion G. Robertson

October 1989

New Alliance Party

Lenora B. Fulani

o 5 10 15 20 25

Millions of Dollars

30 35 

1Does not include outstanding loans, contributions from candidates, and some miscellaneous receipts.

21ncludes contributions from PACs and other political committees.

12
Democratic

Receipts

... Disbursements

... Cash on Hand

_ Debts

13

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

Republican

5

0'----

40

Key 45 -- ------

20 ------

30 --

35

15

25

10 - . -------

50

Millions of Dollars

MAJOR PARTY ACTIVITY, JANUARY JUNE 1989

October 1989
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 

Telephone Num

205/261-5

907/563-2

602/542-3

501/682-3

916/445-2

303/894-2

203/566-8

302/7 36-3

202/727-7

904/488-6

404/656-2

808/548-6

208/334-2

217/782-7

317/232-6

515/281-5

913/296-4

502/564-7

504/925-4

207/289-4

301/225-1

617/727-2

517/334-6

CONFIRMING CORPORATE STATUS OF

CONTRIBUTORS THROUGH STATE

CORPORATIONS DIVISIONS

Campaign and committee workers calling 

Commission often ask how to be sure tha

contribution has not been received from a co

ration, which is a prohiblted source under 2 U.

§441b(a). Under FEe regulations, it is unlawfu

knowingly accept a corporate contribution. 

CFR 114,2(c).

To help determine whether a contributor 

corporation, committees can contact the rele

state's Corporations Division, which usually o

ates under the Secretary of State. 

Corporations Divisions maintain information 

can help committees determine whether:

o The contributor in question is incorporate

that state; or

o The contributor is a corporation registere

licensed to operate in that state.

The list below provides telephone number

the Corporations Divisions throughout the c

try. Note that contacting state Corporations 

visions is only one possible way of determi

whether a contributor is incorporated. State 

vary with respect to registration and licen

requirements; consequently, a company often 

not be registered in a state where it is d

business. Persons accepting contributions m

determine that the money comes from a la

source. 11 CFR 103.3(b).

State (City)

Alabama (Montgomery)

Alaska (Anchorage)

Arizona (Phoenix)

Arkansas (Little Rock)

California (Sacramento)

Colorado (Denver)

Connecticut (Har-tford)

Delaware (Dover)

District of Columbia

Florida (Tallahassee)

Georgia (Atlanta)

Hawaii (Honolulu)

Idaho (Boise)

Illinois (Springfield)

Indiana (Indianapolis)

Iowa (Des Moines)

Kansas (Topeka)

Kentucky (Frankfort)

Louisiana (Baton Rouge)

Maine (Augusta)

Maryland (Baltimore)

Massachusetts (Boston)

Michigan (Lansing)

14

October 1989

THE FEC JOURNAL OF ELECTION

ADMINISTRATION

The National Clearinghouse on Election

Administration recently published Volume 16 of

The FEC Journal on Election Administration.

This edition focuses on the role of the federal

government in American elections.

In a series of articles, the Journal discusses

the roles of the following:

o Congressional committees:

o The FEe;

o Department of Justice;

o Census Bureau;

o Department of Defense;

o National associations; and

o The private sector.

The Journal also lists state-by-state final

results of the 1988 Presidential election and discusses voter participation. For a free copy of the

Journal, call the Clearinghouse at 800/424-9530

or 202/376-5670.

ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERS APPOINTED

In July the Commission appointed eight new

members of the Advisory Panel of the National

Clearinghouse on Election Administration. Composed of election officials from throughout the

country, the Advisory Panel makes recommendations to the Com mission on possible topics for

Clearinghouse research and other actions to assist

state and local election administrators. Filling

four vacancies and four newly established seats,

the new members are:

o Sherrod Brown, Secretary of State, Ohio;

o Jane Carroll, Supervisor of Elections, Broward

County, Florida;

a Marge Christianson, Supervisor of Elections;

Hennepin County, Minnesota;

o Bremer Ehrler, Secretary of State, Kentucky;

o Ralph Munro, Secretary of State, Washington;

o Barbara Rossetti, Assistant Secretary, Tulsa

Board of Elections, Tulsa, Oklahoma;

a Deborah Seiler, Chief of Elections and Political

Reform, California; and

o Jim Shumway, Secretary of State, Arizona.

The full panel conducted its annual meeting

in WaShington on August 23-25.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Number 1

OPINIONS

1987-31: Solicitable membership classes of secu

ities exchange (reconsideration), 4:3

1988-37: Affiliated status of two corporate PA

after leveraged buy-out, 1:6

1988-44; Effect of statute of limitations on co

mlttce's debts, 2;4

1988-45: Definition of national party committe

2;4

1988-46: Corporation's solicitation of licensee

2:4

1988-47; Publisher's donation of free magazines 

candidate prohibited, 1:6

1988-48: Contributions to trade association PA

matched with charitable donations, 2:5

1988-49: Federal bankruptcy trustees not cons

ered government contractors, 2:5

1989-1; Payment to Congressional employee f

manuscript not an honorarium, 6:4

1989-2: Committee's settlement of debt w

corporate creditor, 6:4

1989-3: Stockholder contributions to trade ass

ciation PAC through payroll deduction, 6:5

1989-4: Federal committee's sale of assets 

state committee, 7;4

1989-5: Refund of contribution made in the nam

of another, 7;4

1989-6: Contribution of stock to Congression

candidate, 7:5

1989-7: Corporation's matching of PAC co

tributions with donations to charity, 8;4

1989-8: Solicitable class and name of PAC esta

lished by corporation affiliated with partnersh

8:4

1989-9: PAC contributions matched with cha

table donations, 8:5

1989-10: Candidate committee's financial stat

after embezzlement by former treasurer, 9:3

1989-12: Act's preemption of state law governi

contributions, 9:3

This cumulative index lists advisory opi

ions, court cases, MUR summaries and 800 Li

articles published in the Record during 1989. T

first number in each citation refers to the unum

ber" (month) of the Record issue; the sec.o

number, following the colon, indicates the pa

number in that issue.

work regularly with federal election law.

The volume costs $25.00, which includes 

subscription for automatic notifications of u

dates. To order the volume, call the F£ C's Publ

Records Office at 300/424-9530 or 202/376-3140

15

612/296-2833

GO 1/359-1350

314/751-4153

406/444-31365

402/471-4079

702/885-5203

603/271-3246

609/530-6400

505/827-4504

518/474-6200

919/733-4201

701/224-2900

614/466-3910

405/521-3048

503/378-4166

717/787-1057

401/277-3040

803/734-2158

605/773-3537

615/741-2286

512/463-5555

801/530-4849

802/828-2386

804/786-3672

206/753-7115

304/342-8000

608/266-3590

307/777-7311

October 1989

EXPLANATION & °JUSTIFICATIONS FOR

FEC REGULATIONS: 1975 - PRESENT

The Commission has recently updated its

compilation of Explanation and -lusttftcations

(E&Js) that have been issued for proposed FEe

regulations since 1975. The E&Js accompany

regulations submitted to Congress and explain the

origin and intent of the rules proposed, °

Designed as a loose-leaf binder insert, the

compilation contains the following;

o E&Js for all current regulations, as well as for

older rules that have been revised or deleted;

o E&Js for rules that never took effect, along

with the text of the proposed rules;

o A citation index identifying all E&J<' applicable

to each regulation;

o A subject index to help locate topics addressed

by more than one E&J;

o A conversion table showing the widespread

changes in FEC regulations that resulted from

the 1979 amendments to the Federal Election

Campaign Act; and

o An appendix that lists previoius citations for

current regulations.

The E&J compilation is a useful reference

tool for attorneys, accountants and others who

Minnesota (St. Paul)

Mississippi (J aekson)

Missouri (Jefferson City)

Montana (Helena)

Nebraska (Lincoln)

Nevada (Carson City)

New Hampshire (Concord)

New Jersey (Trenton)

New Mexico (Santa Fe)

New York (Albany)

North Carolina (Raleigh)

North Dakota (Bismarck)

Ohio (Columbus)

Oklahoma (Oklahoma City)

Oregon (Salem)

Pennsylvania (Harrisburg)

Rhode Island (Providence)

South Carolina (Columbia)

South Dakota (Pierre)

Tennessee (N ashville)

Texas (Austin)

Utah (Salt Lake City)

Vermont (Montpelier)

Virginia (Richmond)

Washington (Olympia)

West Virginia (Charleston)

Wisconsin (Madison)

Wyoming (Cheyenne)
October 1989 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 15, Numbe

1989-13: Corporation's plan to provide candidates

with computer equipment for compliance purposes, 10:5

1989-14: Restaurant's method of charging political customers, 10:5

1939-15: Contrioutions to special election nominee not running in pri mary runoff, to:5

COURT CASES

FEC v,

-AFSClVlE-PQ, i.n

-Ba tts, Com mittee to Elect, 5:8

-Bookrnan & Associates, 6:8

-Braun for Congress Committee, 1:10

-Bryant Campaign Committee, 10:8

-Bull for Congress, l:l1

-Calif'ornians for a Strong America (88-

1554), 1:9; (88-6499), 1:11 and 9:8

-Citizens Party, 1:12 and 7:6

-Colorado Republican Federal Campaign

Committee, 8:9

-Dietl for Congress, 1:10

-Franklin, 9:8

-Friends of Isaiah Fletcher, 6:8

-Furgatch (88-6047), 5:7 and 7:7

-Haley Congressional Committee, 1:9

-Holmes Committee, 3:3

-Life Amendment PAC, h11 and 8:11

-National Organization for Women, 7:7

-Populist Party, 1:12 and 5:8

-Richards for President (89-0254) 4:9 and

9:8; (38-2832), 5:8

-Rodriguez, 1:10

-Survival Education Fund, lnc., 3:4

-Taylor Congressional Committee, 1:10

-Webb for Congress, 10:9

-Weinberg, 5:9

Fund for a Conservative Majority, Debtor, 3:4 and

8:10

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Go1and v, U.S. and FEC, 6:8

United States v. Ooland, 6:8

v.FEC

-Common Cause (35-1130),9:7

-Common Cause (87-2224),3:3

-Common Cause (39-0524-0AG), 4:10

-Maine Right to Life Committee, Ine., 

-Miller, 3:3 and 9:8

-Stern, 3:4

-USDC, ,1:9 and 3:3

MUR SUMMARIES

MURs 1528/1739: Party activitiest prohi

funds, transfers, allocations and loans, 4:7

MUR 1837: Impermissible activities of Se

campaign com mittee, 10:9

MUR 2175: Excessive and prohibited cont

tions accepted by 1984 Presidential camp

3:G

:vI UR 2262: Presidential candidate's failur

register and report on time, 6:5

MUR 2286: Membership organization's poli

activity, 6:7

MUR 2356: PAC's failure to file reports on t

4:7

MUR 2545: Excessive contributions made and 

cepted by PAC, 5:6

MU R 2924: Contributions from party Senat

commitee to House candidates and from 

gressional committee to Senate candidates, 9

800 LINE

Debt retirement by candidate committees, 1:7

Designating a principal campaign com mittee, 

Multicandidate committees, 7:10

Names of corporate and labor PACs, 9:10

Opinion polls, 8:8

Political activity and the workplace, 7:8

Recordkeeping rules for all com rnittees, 5:9

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31