May 2004 Federal Election Commission Volume 30, Number 5

Table of Contents

 

 Compliance

 1 MUR 5328: Excessive Leadership 

PAC Contributions 

 Regulations

 1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Inaugural Committees

 3 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Contributions by Minors

 3 Public Hearing on Definition of 

“Political Committee”

 5 Advisory Opinions

 Reports

 10 Convention Reporting for 

Connecticut and Virginia

 

 Court Cases

 12 Lovely v. FEC

 13 FEC v. Malenick

 Audits

 14 Audit of Friends of Marilyn F. 

OʼGrady

 Public Funding

 15 Repayment Determinations for 

2000 Presidential Campaigns

 15 Adjustment to National 

Convention Entitlements

 15 Matching Fund Certifications

 Statistics

 16 PAC and Party Activity for 2003

18 Nonfilers

 Outreach

 18 FEC Conferences

18 Publications

MUR 5328: Excessive 

Contributions to and from 

Affiliated Leadership PACs 

The Commission recently entered 

into conciliation agreements with 

PAC to the Future and Team Majority, leadership PACs that are associated with Representative Nancy 

Pelosi, and three candidate committees. The conciliation agreements 

resolved violations of the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) and 

resulted in total civil penalties of 

$28,000. The investigation stemmed 

from a complaint filed by Kenneth 

F. Boehm, Chairman of the National 

Legal and Policy Center.

Background

The Act and Commission regulations state that political committees that are established, financed, 

maintained or controlled by the 

same person or group of persons 

are “affiliated committees.” 11 CFR 

100.5(g)(2). Affiliated committees 

must disclose their affiliated status. 

2 U.S.C. §433(b)(2). Contributions 

made to or by such committees shall 

be considered to have been made to 

or by a single committee. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(a)(5); 11 CFR 110.3(a). 

Under the Act, a multicandidate PAC is limited to receiving 

Compliance Regulations

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Inaugural 

Committees

On April 1, 2004, the Commission approved a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking 

comments on proposed regulations 

to implement provisions of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002 (BCRA) that affect inaugural 

committees. The proposed rules 

specifically address:

•New disclosure requirements for 

inaugural committees; and 

• The prohibition on donations by 

foreign nationals to inaugural committees.

The NPRM was published in the 

April 7, 2004, Federal Register (69 

FR 18301) and is available on the 

FEC web site at http://www.fec.

gov/register.htm.

The BCRA amended the Federal 

Election Campaign Act (the Act) by 

establishing new requirements for 

inaugural committees. (An inaugural committee is the committee 

appointed by the President-elect to 

coordinate the Presidential inaugural ceremony and activities con-

(continued on page 5) (continued on page 2)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

2

nected with the ceremony.)1 Prior to 

enactment of the BCRA, inaugural 

committees had no disclosure requirements and could accept donations from foreign nationals. Under 

the BCRA, however, in order for 

a committee to be considered the 

inaugural committee, it must agree 

to disclose all donations received aggregating $200 or more, and it must 

not accept a donation from any foreign national. See 36 U.S.C. §510. 

Proposed Disclosure Requirements

Under the proposed regulations, 

an inaugural committee must file a 

letter with the Commission within 

15 days after being appointed. The 

letter must contain contact information for the inaugural committee as 

well as an affirmative statement that 

the committee will comply with the 

new disclosure requirements and 

the new ban on accepting donations from foreign nationals. See 

proposed 11 CFR 104.21(b). The 

Commission seeks comment on 

whether such a filing requirement is 

necessary. If it is, is a form preferable to a letter-filing, and who 

should be designated as the inaugural committeeʼs point of contact with 

the Commission?

To implement the BCRAʼs 

reporting requirements for inaugural committees, the proposed rules 

require the inaugural committee to 

file a report with the FEC no later 

than the 90 days after the inauguration ceremony, using a form to 

be developed by the Commission. 

The Commission has tentatively 

concluded that an inaugural committee is not subject to the mandatory 

electronic filing requirements.2 Thus 

the proposed rules permit inaugural 

committees to file using paper or 

electronically on a voluntary basis. 

The report must contain the name 

and address of each person making a 

donation aggregating $200 or more, 

the amount of each such donation 

and the date of receipt by the inaugural committee. The NPRM seeks 

comment on the following reporting 

issues:

• Should the committee officer identified in the inaugural committeeʼs 

initial letter-filing sign the report, 

or could another official sign?

• Should the Commission require 

inaugural committees to file electronically?

• Should the Commission require inaugural committees to comply with 

the Commissionʼs longstanding 

recordkeeping regulations for political committees, or, alternatively, 

must there be recordkeeping rules 

specific to inaugural committees? 

Should there be any recordkeeping 

requirements?

Proposed Regulations Banning 

Foreign National Donations

To implement the BCRAʼs ban on 

donations from foreign nationals, the 

Commission proposes to amend its 

existing foreign national regulations 

by adding a paragraph to prohibit 

foreign nationals from directly or 

indirectly donating to an inaugural 

committee, and also to prohibit any 

person from knowingly soliciting, 

accepting or receiving donations 

to an inaugural committee from a 

foreign national. 

On its face, section 510(c) of 

Title 36 merely forbids acceptance 

of a foreign national donation by an 

inaugural committee. The Commission seeks comments on whether the 

proposed ruleʼs explicit prohibition 

on donations by foreign nationals 

constitutes a permissible interpretation of the BCRA. The Commission 

also notes that, although the BCRA 

did not include a “knowledge” standard regarding the prohibition on 

acceptance of foreign national donations by an inaugural committee, the 

Commissionʼs current regulations 

banning the acceptance of foreign 

national contributions and donations 

do include such a standard. See 11 

CFR 100.20(g).

Commission Authority

Section 508 of Title 36, U.S.C., 

provides that the “Mayor of the District of Columbia, or other official 

having jurisdiction in the premises, 

shall enforce” the chapter of Title 

1

 Chapter 5 of Title 36, U.S.C., provides 

the inaugural committee with special 

privileges in the District of Columbia 

for the five days before and the four 

days after the inauguration ceremony. 

Under 36 U.S.C. §511, Congress may 

make appropriations for the District of 

Columbia to pay for the swearing-in 

ceremony. All other activities, however, 

are paid for by the inaugural committee.

Regulations

(continued from page 1)

2

 The Act requires electronic filing by filers who receive or make, or have reason 

to expect to receive or make, contributions or expenditures in excess of 

$50,000 in a calendar year. Technically, 

funds raised and spent by an inaugural 

committee are not defined as “contributions” or “expenditures” under the Act 

as amended by the BCRA.

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)

Bradley A. Smith, Chairman

Ellen L. Weintraub, Vice Chair

David M. Mason, Commissioner

Danny L. McDonald, 

 Commissioner

Scott E. Thomas, Commissioner

Michael E. Toner, Commissioner

James A. Pehrkon, Staff Director

Lawrence H. Norton, General

 Counsel

Published by the Information

 Division

Greg J. Scott, Assistant Staff

 Director

Amy Kort, Editor

http://www.fec.gov
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

3

36 under which the BCRA amendments regarding inaugural committees were codified. The Commission 

seeks comments on whether its 

authority is limited to receiving and 

making public the reports required 

by the BCRA. Does the Commission have the authority to enforce 

these proposed regulations, including the authority to audit inaugural 

committees?

Comments

Public comments on these proposed regulations must be submitted, in written or electronic form, to 

John C. Vergelli, Acting Assistant 

General Counsel. Comments may 

be sent by:

• E-mail (encouraged) to 

Inaugural04@fec.gov (e-mailed 

comments must include the full 

name, e-mail address and postal 

address of the commenter in order 

to be considered);

• Fax to 202/219-3923 (send a 

printed copy follow-up to ensure 

legibility); or

• Mail to the Federal Election Commission, 999 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20463.

All comments must be received 

by May 7, 2004. If sufficient 

requests to testify at a public hearing are received, the Commission 

may hold a public hearing on these 

proposals. Commenters who wish 

to testify at such a hearing must 

indicate such in their written or electronic comments.

 —Dorothy Yeager

Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on 

Contributions by Minors

On April 1, 2004, the Commission approved a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comments on proposed amendments to 

its rules governing contributions and 

donations by minors to candidates 

and political committees. The proposed amendments would conform 

to the Supreme Courtʼs decision in 

McConnell v. FEC, which found 

unconstitutional a provision of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 

(BCRA) that barred minors from 

making contributions to candidates 

or from making contributions or donations to political party committees. 

The NPRM was published in the 

April 9, 2004, Federal Register (69 

FR 18841) and is open to public 

comments until May 10, 2004. 

Proposed Rules

Prior to the BCRAʼs enactment, 

Commission regulations provided 

that individuals under 18 years of 

age (minors) could make contributions to candidates or political committees in accordance with the limits 

of the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act), so long as the minor 

knowingly and voluntarily made the 

decision to contribute, and the funds, 

goods or services contributed were 

owned or controlled exclusively by 

the minor. Additionally, the contributions could not come from the 

proceeds of a gift given to the minor 

for the purpose of making a contribution or in any other way be controlled by an individual other than 

the minor. The rules proposed in the 

NPRM would essentially return the 

regulations to their pre-BCRA state. 

In addition, the NPRM seeks 

comments on whether the Commission has the authority to establish a 

minimum age, lower than had been 

set by the BCRA, for making contributions with the following questions 

in mind:

• Should the Commission prohibit individuals below a certain 

age from making contributions, 

recognizing that those individuals 

lack the capacity to manage their 

finances and to dispose of property 

and therefore could not knowingly 

and voluntarily contribute on their 

own behalf;

• If so, what would be the appropriate age;

• Should the Commission instead 

establish a rebuttable presumption 

that individuals below a certain age 

could not make contributions; and

• If the Commission chooses the 

latter approach, what should the 

Commission require from the 

individual and his or her parents or 

guardian to rebut that presumption.

Comments

The Commission invites comments on any of these proposals. 

The full text of the NPRM is available on the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/register.htm and from 

the FEC Faxline, 202/501-3413.

All comments should be addressed to John C. Vergelli, Acting 

Assistant General Counsel, and must 

be submitted in either electronic 

or written format. If the Commission receives sufficient requests to 

testify, it will hold a public hearing. Written comments should 

be sent via overnight mail to the 

Federal Election Commission, 999 

E Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20463. Faxed comments should be 

sent to 202/219-3923, with a printed 

copy follow-up to ensure legibility. 

Electronic mail comments should be 

sent to Minors04@fec.gov and must 

include the full name and postal 

service address of the commenter. 

Comments that do not contain this 

information will not be considered. 

No oral comments can be 

accepted.

 —Kathy Carothers

Public Hearing on Proposed 

Rules on Definition of 

“Political Committee”

On April 14th and 15th, 2004, the 

Commission hosted public hearings 

concerning its Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NRPM) on political 

committee status. More than 30 witnesses offered opinions as to whether the current definition of “political 

committee” should be revised to 

state explicitly that so-called “527 

(continued on page 4)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

4

organizations” 1 and other groups 

would be subject to the limitations, prohibitions and reporting 

requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act). The 

Commission also heard testimony on 

proposed changes to the definition 

of “expenditure” and on the rules 

for allocating funds for activities involving both federal and nonfederal 

elections. For more information on 

the NPRM, see the April issue of the 

Record, page 1. 

Over the course of the two-day 

hearings, the Commission heard 

from election law practitioners, 

representatives from nonprofit political, religious and social welfare 

organizations and tax attorneys, 

some of whom testified that the 

proposed rules are overbroad and 

questioned whether the Commission 

has sufficient statutory authority 

to promulgate these rules without 

Congressional or judicial direction. 

Others emphasized the affects the 

new rules could have on the work of 

nonprofit advocacy groups, particularly nonpartisan voter registration 

and issue advocacy. Still others 

worried that the speed at which the 

rules are being drafted does not allow the Commission adequate time 

for substantial inquiry and felt that it 

would be irresponsible to issue new 

rules six months before a Presidential election. 

Deliberative Process

Jan Baran, representing the 

Chamber of Commerce, remarked 

that this rulemaking represents a 

type of major overhaul not seen 

since the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act (BCRA) was undertaken. Mr. Baran noted that, while 

the BCRA was the product of seven 

years of political negotiation and 

deliberation, these rules are being 

drafted in mere months. Other commenters suggested that the Commission not act in haste and promulgate 

rules without substantial inquiry 

and deliberation. Instead, many 

who testified recommended that in 

lieu of promulgating new rules, the 

Commission should bring this issue 

before Congress, possibly in its 

legislative recommendations. In the 

same vein, commenters noted that 

many groups have made important 

decisions regarding their election 

year activities based on an understanding of the current set of rules; 

to change the regulations halfway 

through an election cycle would do a 

great disservice to them.

Tax-Exempt Status as 

Distinguishing Feature 

Craig Holman, representing Public Citizen, recommended that the 

FEC defer to IRS regulations when 

regulating 501(c) and 527 groups. 

Specifically, he suggested that the 

Commission consider 527 groups to 

have the major purpose of influencing elections and 501(c) groups not 

to have that major purpose. A panel 

of tax law experts, on the other hand, 

cautioned that the IRS “facts and 

circumstances” tests, if employed 

in this context, might not survive 

constitutional analysis and urged 

the FEC not to rely on the IRS code 

to police campaign finance. Others 

cautioned against assuming that the 

chosen tax-status of an organization 

is a declaration that the organizationʼs purpose is to elect federal candidates, noting that groups organized 

under section 527 of the tax code 

engage in a many activities, very 

few of which fall under the scope of 

the FECʼs regulatory authority. Carl 

Pope, representing the Sierra Club, 

remarked that resolution may be impossible if the Commission cannot 

separate those groups who have the 

potential to corrupt from those that 

do not and that the tax code may not 

provide the necessary precision.

Utilization of Existing 

Enforcement Regulations

The Commission also heard 

testimony suggesting that the FEC 

should focus on the actions of certain 527s by enforcing existing federal law. Rather than draft new rules 

that redefine long-standing statutory 

terms, Cleta Mitchell, from Foley & 

Lardner, urged the Commission enforce the rules that already exist and 

conduct investigations to determine 

if groups are operating outside the 

parameters of the statute. Similarly, 

some who testified made reference to the “creeping effect”—that 

inaction by the Commission to stop 

the flow of soft-money eventually 

allowed soft-money spending to 

become the status quo prior to the 

passage of BCRA in 2002. Enforcement action by the Commission at 

this point could prevent the activities 

of 527s from similarly becoming the 

status quo.

Impact on Nonprofit Groups

Representatives from several 

nonprofit organizations expressed 

strenuous objections to the new 

regulations, stating that legitimate issue advocacy groups could be swept 

into the new definition of “political 

committee,” thus “chilling” their advocacy activities. Classification as a 

political committee could potentially 

limit both the sources of funding 

and activities of certain nonpartisan advocacy groups, forcing some 

nonprofit groups organized under 

section 501(c)(3) of the tax code 

to choose between restricting their 

activities or limiting their fundraising to contributions within the limits 

and prohibitions of the Act. Rabbi 

David Saperstein, representing the 

Religious Action Center of Reform 

Judaism, pointed out that many 

of the religious organizations that 

signed on to his comments often en1

 “527 organizations” refers to organizations that are tax exempt pursuant 

to section 527 of the Internal Revenue 

Code, 26 U.S.C. §527. Such organizations are organized and operated 

primarily to influence or attempt to influence the “selection, nomination, election, or appointment” of any individual 

to, inter alia, any federal, State, or local 

public office. See 26 U.S.C. §§527(e)(1) 

and (2). 

Regulations

(continued from page 3)
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

5

gage in praising public officials for 

their moral or religious work. Under 

the proposed rules, such activity 

would run the risk of being labeled 

“overt political work” and might 

confer political committee status on 

religious organizations.

At the same time, however, many 

panelists recommended that the 

Commission not carve out special 

exemptions for certain 501(c) organizations because large organizations often have both 501(c) and 527 

arms. Curtailing activities by 527s 

could result in organizations simply 

shifting those same activities over to 

501(c) organizations. 

Support for Modified 

NPRM Alternatives

Some witnesses expressed support for the concept of Commission 

regulation of certain 527 organizations. Comments submitted jointly 

by Democracy 21, the Campaign 

Legal Center and the Center for 

Responsible Politics favored one of 

the NPRMʼs proposed alternatives, 

with a slight modification. In his 

testimony, Donald Simon, representing Democracy 21, expressed support for the proposed new regulation 

that defines political committee not 

just by whether a group exceeds the 

$1,000 threshold in contributions 

or expenditures but additionally, 

whether the groupʼs “major purpose” 

is the “nomination or election of 

one or more Federal candidates.” 

This “major purpose” test is further 

defined by the organizationʼs status 

under section 527 of the tax code 

and includes several exemptions for 

groups active in nonfederal elections.

Additional Information

The full text of the NPRM and 

public comments submitted to the 

Commission are available on the 

FEC web site at http://www.fec.

gov/register.htm.

 —Amy Pike

$5,000 per calendar year from 

individual contributors. 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(a)(1)(C) and 441a(f). 

Further, a candidate may only 

accept $5,000 per election from 

a multicandidate PAC. 2 U.S.C. 

§§441a(a)(2)(A) and 441a(f). If a 

committee accepts contributions 

that exceed these limits, its treasurer 

must either refund the excessive 

contributions or seek redesignation 

to another election or reattribution 

to another donor within 60 days. 11 

CFR 103.3(b)(3).

According to the conciliation 

agreement with PAC to the Future 

and Team Majority, the PACs failed 

to identify each other as affiliated 

committees when they registered 

with the Commission,1 and both 

PACs made contributions to several 

candidates for the 2002 general 

election, which, when aggregated, 

exceeded their shared $5,000 contribution limit. The PACs also received 

contributions from individuals that 

exceeded their shared $5,000 contribution limit and did not refund the 

excessive portion of the contributions within 60 days. 

As a result of the PACsʼ excessive contributions, Julie Thomas for 

Congress Campaign Committee, 

Van Hollen for Congress and Joe 

Turnham for Congress also received 

excessive contributions from the two 

PACs when they did not refund the 

excessive contributions or receive 

redesignations for the excessive 

contributions within 60 days.

PAC to the Future and Team 

Majority will pay a $21,000 civil 

penalty. The committees also agreed 

to cease and desist from further violations of sections 433 and 441a of 

the Act, and they waived any right to 

refunds of excessive contributions. 

Julie Thomas for Congress Campaign Committee and Van Hollen 

for Congress will each pay a $2,500 

civil penalty, and Joe Turnham for 

Congress will pay a $2,000 civil 

penalty. The three campaigns have 

also agreed to cease and desist from 

further violations of section 441a of 

the Act, and agreed to disgorge the 

excessive contributions to the U.S. 

Treasury.

Documents from this matter are 

available through the Enforcement 

Query System (EQS) on the Commissionʼs web site at http://www.fec.

gov by entering 5328 under the case 

number.

 —Jim Wilson

Compliance

(continued from page 1)

1

 PAC to the Future registered with the 

Commission on March 24, 1999; Team 

Majority registered on April 1, 2002.

Advisory

Opinions

AO 2004-3

Conversion of 

Authorized Committee to 

Multicandidate Committee

Dooley for the Valley, a multicandidate committee that was 

formerly U.S. Representative Calvin 

M. Dooleyʼs principal campaign 

committee, may keep its status as a 

multicandidate committee. However, 

funds the committee received while 

it was a principal campaign committee may only be spent for the four 

permissible uses of campaign funds 

provided for in the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act). 

The Act and Commission 

Regulations

The Act defines a “multicandidate 

committee” as a political committee that has been registered with 

the FEC for at least six months, has 

received contributions from more 

than 50 persons and, except for a 

state political party organization, 

has made contributions to at least 

five federal candidates. 2 U.S.C. 

(continued on page 6)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

6

§441a(a)(4). Nothing in the Act 

or Commission regulations explicitly addresses the conversion of a 

candidateʼs authorized committee 

into a multicandidate committee. 

However, in past advisory opinions, 

the Commission permitted a principal campaign committee to become 

a multicandidate committee. AOs 

1994-31, 1993-22, 1988-41, 1987-

11, 1985-30, 1985-13, 1983-14, 

1982-32 and 1978-86. See also AO 

2000-12. 

The Act lists four permissible 

uses for contributions received by a 

federal candidate: 

• Otherwise authorized expenditures 

in connection with the candidate's 

campaign for federal office; 

• Ordinary and necessary expenses 

incurred in connection with the 

duties of the individual as a federal 

officeholder; 

• Contributions to charitable organizations described in 26 U.S.C. 

§170(c); and 

• Unlimited transfers to national, 

state or local political party committees. 

2 U.S.C. §439a(a); 11 CFR 

113.2(a), (b) and (c).1

 

In the Bipartisan Campaign 

Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which 

took effect on November 6, 2002, 

Congress deleted “any other lawful 

purpose” from the list of permissible 

uses of campaign funds, making this 

list of permissible uses exhaustive. 

See AOs 2003-30 and 2003-26.

Transition to Multicandidate 

Committee

On September 2, 2003, Representative Dooley announced his 

decision to retire from Congress 

as of January 2005. His principal 

campaign committee, Dooley for 

Congress, filed an FEC Form 1M, 

Notification of Multicandidate Status, on September 30, and subsequently filed an amended Statement 

of Organization reflecting the new 

status as a multicandidate committee 

and changing the committeeʼs name 

to Dooley for the Valley (the Committee). 

The BCRAʼs amendments to 

the Act do not per se bar an authorized committee from becoming a 

multicandidate committee. When 

the Committee was converted to 

an unauthorized committee after 

Representative Dooley ceased to 

be a federal candidate, it became a 

multicandidate committee because 

it had already met the requirements 

for multicandidate committee status. 

2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(4). See AOs 

1993-22, 1988-41 and 1985-30. 

Accordingly, the Committee may 

accept contributions of up to $5,000 

per contributor per calendar year. 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(C). 

However, when the Committee 

converted to a multicandidate committee it had a large amount of cashon-hand—money that it had raised 

when it was a principal campaign 

committee. The Actʼs restrictions on 

the use of campaign funds apply expressly to “contribution[s] accepted 

by a candidate.” 2 U.S.C. §439a(a). 

Thus, funds that the Committee 

received when it was a principal 

campaign committee must be spent 

only for the permissible uses listed 

above, and must not be converted to 

the personal use of any individual. 2 

U.S.C. §439a(b). 

In addition, the Committee must 

limit to $1,000 per election any contributions it makes to other federal 

candidates using funds it received 

while it was a principal campaign 

committee. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(B). 

The Act and regulations provide 

that, in general, a political committee that supports more than one 

candidate may not be designated as 

a principal campaign committee or 

authorized committee of a candidate. 

2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(A); 11 CFR 

102.12(c)(1) and 102.13(c)(1). A 

candidateʼs committee may contribute only up to $1,000 per election to 

another federal candidateʼs principal 

campaign committee or authorized 

committee without being considered to “support” another candidate. 

2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(B); 11 CFR 

102.12(c)(2) and 102.13(c)(2). 

The Committee may, however, 

use its other funds—funds not from 

contributions received while it was a 

principal campaign committee—in a 

manner consistent with lawful uses 

by any other multicandidate committee. Therefore, contributions 

and other funds received after the 

Committeeʼs September 30, 2003, 

conversion date may be spent for 

purposes other than the four uses 

listed above, as long as the Committee complies with the other provisions of the Act and Commission 

regulations. 

Determining the Sources of 

Committee Funds

If the Committee makes disbursements that, in total, exceed the 

amount it received since it became 

a multicandidate committee, then 

it will be considered to be spending funds it received as a principal 

campaign committee. The spending 

of amounts exceeding its post-conversion receipts will be subject to 2 

U.S.C. §§439a and 432(e)(3)(B). 

When the Committee spends 

funds from its cash-on-hand as of 

September 30, 2003, that cash-onhand figure will be reduced by the 

amount of the disbursements that are 

lawful under the Actʼs restrictions on 

principal campaign committees. As 

a practical matter, this means that, 

once a permissible disbursement 

of pre-conversion funds has been 

determined to have been made, that 

disbursement will not be included in 

1

 Campaign funds must not be converted 

to “personal use” by any person. 2 

U.S.C. §439a(b)(1). Commission regulations define “personal use” as “any 

use of funds in a campaign account of 

a present or former candidate to fulfill 

a commitment, obligation or expense of 

any person that would exist irrespective 

of the candidateʼs campaign or duties 

as a Federal officeholder.” 11 CFR 

113.1(g); 2 U.S.C. §439a(b)(2).

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 5)
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

7

total post-conversion disbursements 

for the purposes of determining the 

source (i.e., pre-or post-conversion) 

of any subsequent disbursement. 

Refunds

If the Committee made any 

contribution that would constitute 

an impermissible use of funds by 

a principal campaign committee 

using funds that it received while it 

was a principal campaign committee, then it must seek a refund.2

 The 

Committee cannot make donations 

to nonfederal candidates and other 

non-party committees for state and 

local elections from funds it received 

as a principal campaign committee, 

because these donations would not 

be a permissible use of a candidateʼs 

campaign funds. 2 U.S.C. §439a. 

Such donations are only permissible 

in the furtherance of a candidateʼs 

campaign.3 Representative Dooley 

was no longer a candidate for reelection to federal office after the 

conversion date and the donations 

would not fit into any of the categories of permitted uses in 2 U.S.C. 

439a(a).

Date Issued: March 11, 2004; 

Length: 5 pages.

 —Amy Kort

2

 The amounts of any refunds received 

by the Committee will not count toward 

total post-conversion receipts in determining whether total post-conversion 

disbursements exceed post-conversion 

receipts. However, any permissible portion of a disbursement after the receipt 

of a refund (for example, $1,000 of a 

$5,000 contribution to a federal candidate after $4,000 has been refunded) 

will draw down the pre-conversion 

cash-on-hand.

3

 See the Explanation and Justification

for the regulations at 11 CFR Part 113 

(67 FR at 76975), where the Commission explained that such donations 

are permissible “[i]n furtherance of a 

Federal candidateʼs election.” 

AO 2004-4

Abbreviated Name of 

Trade Association SSF

The Air Transport Association of 

America Political Action Committee 

(the Committee), which is the separate segregated fund (SSF) of the Air 

Transport Association of America, 

Inc. (ATA), may use the abbreviation 

“AirPAC” for common uses, such as 

on stationery and checks.

Under the Act and Commission 

regulations, an SSFʼs name must include the full name of its connected 

organization. 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(5) 

and 11 CFR 102.14(c). See also AOs 

1993-7, 1989-8 and 1988-42. The 

regulations also allow the use of a 

clearly recognized abbreviation or 

acronym for common uses, such as 

on stationery and checks, as long as 

the SSF uses both the abbreviation 

(or acronym) and the full name on 

all reports, including the Statement 

of Organization, and in all disclaimer notices. The SSF may make 

contributions using the abbreviation 

or acronym. 11 CFR 102.14(c). See 

also AOs 2003-34, 1987-26 and 

1980-23.

ATA is the only trade association 

representing the American airline 

industry. “AirPAC” incorporates the 

first and most important word in the 

connected organizationʼs full name 

and provides the public with sufficient information as to the identity 

of the industry trade association that 

sponsors the Committee. Thus, the 

Committee may identify itself as 

“AirPAC” on its checks and stationery, but must use its full name on 

all FEC reports and in disclaimer 

notices required by 11 CFR 109.11 

and 110.11.

Length: 3 pages; Date Issued: 

March 11, 2004.

 —Amy Kort

AO 2004-6

Web-Based Meeting 

Services for Candidates 

and Political Committees

Meetup, Inc. (Meetup) may provide both its free and fee-based web 

services to federal candidates, political committees and their supporters 

as long as it does so on the same 

conditions available to the general 

public.

Background

Meetup offers a commercial, 

web-based platform for arranging local gatherings. Meetupʼs basic service, which it provides to all persons 

free of charge, allows users to list 

suggested topics for local gatherings 

on its web site and allows interested people to register to meet at a 

specific location. For additional fees, 

Meetup allows sponsors to control a 

fixed amount of text describing the 

gathering on Meetupʼs web site and 

emails, provides the sponsors with 

the names and other data of its users 

and includes the sponsored event 

in the “Featured Meetups” list on 

Meetupʼs web site. A candidate or 

political committee meetup would 

not be listed as a “Feature Meetup” 

unless it is a sponsored event. 

Meetup intends to charge all Senate candidates one set of fees and 

all House candidates smaller fees. 

These fees are based on fixed criteria 

that also apply to non-candidate 

sponsors, including the volume of 

users, the geographical reach of the 

gathering and the use of Meetupʼs 

resources. As a result, Meetup will 

provide the same services for the 

same fees and terms to all individuals who are similarly situated 

in accordance with Meetupʼs fixed 

criteria, irrespective of whether they 

are federal candidates, political committees, businesses or other groups 

or individuals.

(continued on page 8)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

8

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and Commission 

regulations, corporations are prohibited from making contributions 

or expenditures in connection with 

federal elections. 11 CFR 114.2(b). 

Contributions include the provision of goods or services for free or 

for less than the “usual and normal 

charge.” The Commissionʼs regulations define the “usual and normal 

charge” for goods as the price in 

the market from which the goods 

would have been purchased at the 

time of the contribution. 11 CFR 

100.52(d)(2).

Application to Proposal

Although a corporationʼs provision of a good or a service to a candidate for free ordinarily results in 

a contribution, the provision of a service for free that is always provided 

without charge to every person does 

not generally constitute a contribution. The usual and normal charge 

for Meetupʼs basic service is always 

zero. Meetup, therefore, does not 

make a contribution when it makes 

its basic services available to federal 

candidates for free. 

 Meetup also would not a make 

a contribution by providing federal 

candidates and political committees 

with premium services as long as 

it does so in the ordinary course of 

its business, at the usual and normal 

charge and does not exercise its 

discretion in featuring a candidate 

or political committee event. This 

charge must be in accordance with 

the fixed set of fee criteria described 

above, applied equally among all 

similarly situated political and nonpolitical clients and paid within the 

ordinary amount of time. 

Date Issued: March 25, 2004; 

Length: 5 pages.

 —Amy Kort

AO 2004-7

MTVʼs Mock Presidential 

Election Qualifies for 

Press Exemption

MTV Networks may produce and 

promote a mock Presidential election without making a prohibited 

corporate contribution or expenditure. Most of MTVʼs proposed 

activities fall within the networkʼs 

legitimate press functions and therefore are exempt from the definitions 

of contribution and expenditure. Additional nonpartisan voting activities 

are similarly permissible. 

Background

MTV Networks, a division of 

Viacom International, Inc., plans to 

conduct an online survey of young 

people to determine their choice 

for President of the United States. 

On- and off-air promotion of this 

so-called “Prelection” will be done 

in conjunction with MTVʼs Movie 

Awards and Video Music Awards, 

and with concerts, grassroots initiatives and online communications. 

Voter education activities, including 

candidate information on the Prelection web site, links to the presidential candidatesʼ web sites, links to 

nonpartisan web sources of information and candidate statements for onair or online usage, will be a critical 

part of the Prelection. Voting in the 

Prelection will take place online and 

potentially via a toll-free telephone 

number with the results being announced before the November 2, 

2004, general election. These results 

may be reported as an endorsement 

of a presidential candidate by MTV 

News. 

Prelection participants will 

receive follow-up messages encouraging them to vote in the November 

general election. These messages 

will be sent to all participants who 

are registered to vote in the general 

election, regardless of whom they 

voted for in the Prelection. The 

messages may refer to the results 

of the Prelection, but will not be 

coordinated with any candidate, political party or political committee. 

Corporate advertisers and sponsors 

may choose to run advertisements 

on MTV during Prelection programming, but will have no role in 

determining content or choosing the 

recipient of MTV Newsʼ endorsement. MTV will also identify corporate sponsors as such in various 

Prelection promotions and materials.

Analysis

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) prohibits any corporation from making a contribution or 

expenditure in connection with a 

federal election. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). 

However, certain exemptions from 

the definitions of contribution and 

expenditure permit corporations to 

engage in some activities that might 

otherwise be prohibited. The exemptions include any cost incurred in 

covering or carrying a news story, 

commentary, or editorial by any 

broadcast station unless the facility 

is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or 

candidate—often referred to as the 

“press/media exemption.” 2 U.S.C. 

§431(9)(B)(i); 11 CFR 100.73 and 

100.132. The Act and Commission 

regulations also include a similar exemption at 2 U.S.C. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) 

and 11 CFR 100.29(c)(2) with 

respect to electioneering communications. Unless an exception exists, 

a corporation may not make communications to the general public that 

expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified federal 

candidate. 11 CFR 114.4(c).

In considering the scope of the 

press exemption, the Courts and the 

Commission have concluded specific factors must be present for the 

press exemption to apply. First, the 

entity engaging in the activity must 

be a press entity as described by the 

Act. (AOs 2003-34, 2000-13, 1998-

17, 1996-48, 1996-41, 1996-16.) 

Second, an application of the press 

exemption depends on the two-part 

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 7)
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

9

framework presented in Readerʼs 

Digest Association v. FEC1: 

1. Whether the press entity is owned 

or controlled by a political party, 

political committee or candidate; 

and

2. Whether the press entity is acting 

as a press entity in conducting the 

activity at issue.2

Production and promotion costs 

of the Prelection. Because MTV is a 

press entity that is not owned or controlled by any political party, political committee or candidate, the costs 

it incurs in covering or carrying a 

news story, commentary, or editorial are exempt from the definitions 

of contribution and expenditure. 

The Commission considers funds 

expended to produce or promote 

the Prelection to be exempt, and 

thus MTV will not violate 2 U.S.C. 

§441b by expending funds for these 

purposes.

Broadcasting Prelection Activities. The broadcasting of Prelection 

activities constitutes covering or 

carrying a news story, commentary, 

or editorial, and thus falls within the 

press exemption.

Promoting participation. Promoting and encouraging participation in 

the Prelection through communications made on air, via the web or at 

events would publicize the program 

and would be within MTVʼs legitimate press function; thus, the press 

exemption would apply.

Providing election-related educational materials. Providing election-related educational materials 

via MTVʼs web site is within MTVʼs 

legitimate press functions because 

the news media disseminates news 

stories and related information in 

this manner, and because these materials will be distributed in conjunction with the Prelection. Providing 

election-related materials at community events, however, does not 

qualify as a press function because 

this activity is not one typically 

performed by a press entity.3 Because the press exemption would 

not apply, MTV would be acting as 

a corporate entity when engaging in 

such activity, and therefore may not 

expressly advocate the election or 

defeat of a clearly identified candidate or political party. Additionally, 

voter guides must comply with the 

nonpartisan criteria set forth at 11 

CFR 114.4(c)(5).

Candidate air time. MTVʼs 

proposal to interview candidates on 

the air and/or to provide air time for 

candidates falls within the media 

exemption, provided that MTV 

complies with all of the applicable 

requirements of the Communications 

Act and FCC regulations. MTV 

may also use statements or position 

papers submitted by participating 

candidates on air or online if they 

are part of a news story, commentary, or editorial.

Publicizing prelection results. 

Announcing and publicizing the 

Prelection results via cable broadcast constitutes “covering or carrying a news story, commentary, or 

editorial,” regardless of whether the 

results are framed as an endorsement. Thus, associated costs would 

not violate 2 U.S.C. §441b. Similarly, posting the results on the web 

site is within the entityʼs legitimate 

press functions. MTVʼs proposal to 

announce and publicize Prelection 

results via electronic mail or text 

messages, contemporaneous with the 

on air broadcast and web display of 

the results would cause the electronic mails and text communications 

to fall within the press exemption. 

While MTV may not have historically performed such activity, the 

Commission views it as consistent 

with established industry practice 

and therefore within the exemption.

Follow-up messages containing 

Prelection results. Follow-up communications via electronic mail or 

text messages sent some time after 

the results have been announced that 

refer to the Prelection results and 

encourage participants to vote in the 

general election would not constitute promotion or publicizing of the 

Prelection programming. Furthermore, these communications will be 

directed to Prelection participants 

whose voting preferences have been 

ascertained by MTV. Accordingly, 

such messages are corporate get-outthe-vote activities subject to 11 CFR 

114.4(c)(2)4

 and must not contain 

express advocacy.

Follow-up messages not containing Prelection results. Any 

encouragement to vote made to the 

general public that does not expressly advocate the election or defeat 

1 Readerʼs Digest Association v. FEC, 

509 F. Supp. 1210, 1215 (S.D.N.Y. 

1981). The court noted that the exemption seemed applicable if the magazine 

was acting in its publishing function 

by, for example, disseminating a video 

tape to television stations publicizing 

the issue of the magazine containing the 

specific article in question.

2 Phillips Publishing v. FEC, 517 F. 

Supp. 1308, 1312-1313 (D.D.C. 1981). 

A mailing soliciting subscriptions to a 

biweekly newsletter contained, inter alia, 

a combination subscription form and 

opinion poll that referred to a clearly 

identified federal candidate. The press 

exemption applied because the purpose 

of the solicitation letter was to publicize 

the newsletter and obtain new subscribers, both of which are legitimate press 

functions. See also AOs 2000-13, 1996-

48 and 1982-44.

3 McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S., 124 

S.Ct. 619, 697 (2003). The Supreme 

Court noted that the media exemption 

is “narrow” and “does not afford carte 

blanche to media companies generally 

to ignore FECAʼs provision.” 

4

 The Commission is currently undertaking a rulemaking that may affect the 

analysis of such messages under 11 CFR 

114.4. See “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Political Committee Status,” 69 

FR 11736, 11743 (Mar. 11, 2004).

(continued on page 10)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

10

Reports

of a clearly identified candidate or 

political party is permissible under 

11 CFR 114.4(c)(2).

Corporate sponsors. With respect 

to acknowledgements of MTVʼs 

corporate sponsors in any of the follow-up messages described above, 

MTV may acknowledge its sponsors 

where such activity has been deemed 

permissible.

Electioneering communications. 

The definition of an “electioneering communication” applies only to 

broadcast, satellite or radio communications that are publicly distributed for a fee. 11 CFR 100.29. None 

of the proposed activities outlined 

above would constitute an electioneering communication.

Date Issued: April 1, 2004; 

Length: 8 pages. 

 —Meredith Trimble

Advisory Opinions

(continued from page 9)

AO 2004-9

Status of State Party as State 

Committee of Political Party

The Green Rainbow Party (the 

Party) satisfies the requirements for 

state committee status.

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) defines a state committee as “the organization which, 

by virtue of the bylaws of a political 

party, is responsible for the day-today operation of such political party 

at the State level, as determined 

by the Commission.” 2 U.S.C. 

§431(15). In order to achieve state 

committee status under Commission 

regulations, an organization must 

meet three requirements. 11 CFR 

100.14 and 100.15. It must:

• Have bylaws or a similar document 

that “delineates activities commensurate with the day-to-day operation” of a party at a state level; 

• Be part of the official party structure; and

• Gain ballot access for at least one 

federal candidate who has qualified 

as a candidate under the Act.1

The Green Rainbow Party meets 

all three requirements. It satisfies the 

first requirement because its bylaws 

delineate activity commensurate 

with the day-to-day functions of a 

political party on the state level and 

are consistent with the state party 

rules of other political organizations 

that the Commission has found to 

satisfy this requirement for state 

committee status. See AOs 2003-27, 

2002-10, 2002-6 and 2002-3. It is 

also an affiliate of the Green Party 

of the United States, which qualified for national committee status in 

2001. See AOs 2002-10, 2002-6 and 

2002-3. As the Green Partyʼs state 

party organization in Massachusetts, 

the Party is part of the official party 

structure and, thus, meets the second 

requirement as well. See AO 2003-

27.

Finally, the Party satisfies the 

third requirement—ballot access for 

at least one federal candidate. Ralph 

Nader appeared as the Partyʼs candidate on the Massachusetts ballot in 

2000, and he met the requirements 

for becoming a federal candidate 

under 2 U.S.C. §431(2).2

Date Issued: April 1, 2004; 

Length: 5 pages. 

 —Amy Kort

1

 Gaining ballot access for a federal 

candidate is an essential element for 

qualifying as a political party. See 11 

CFR 100.15.

2

 An individual becomes a candidate for 

the purposes of the Act once he or she 

receives contributions aggregating in 

excess of $5,000 or makes expenditures 

in excess of $5,000. 2 U.S.C. §431(2) 

and 11 CFR 100.3. The Commission has 

granted state committee status to a state 

affiliate of a qualified national party 

committee where its only federal candidates, as defined under the Act, were 

the Presidential and Vice Presidential 

candidates of the national party. AOs 

2000-39, 1999-26 and 1997-3.

Advisory Opinion Requests

AOR 2004-10

Application of “stand by your ad” 

disclaimer requirement to ten-second 

candidate sponsorship message read 

live by radio host (Metro Networks 

Communications, Inc., March 30, 

2004)

AOR 2004-11

Federal candidateʼs receipt of 

appearance fees from speeches about 

his book (Paul Streitz, March 31, 

2004)

AOR 2004-12

Creation of regional party committee by certain Western state party 

committees (Democratic state party 

committees of Alaska, Arizona, New 

Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, 

Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, 

March 23, 2004) 

 —Amy Kort

Convention Reporting for 

Connecticut and Virginia

The reporting dates for committees involved in conventions held 

in Connecticut and Virginia are 

now available—please note that 

reporting dates for the Connecticut conventions have been revised 

to reflect changes in the dates of 

those elections. The chart on page 

11 shows the reporting schedule 

for convention reports due in May. 

A full schedule of reporting dates 

is available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/pages/charts_

primary_dates.htm. 

 —Amy Kort
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

11

Republican Party

 Election Day Close of Books Mailing Date1 Filing Date 48-Hour Notice

 Period

House Districts 3, 8 May 15 April 25 April 30 May 3 April 26—May 12

House District 9 May 22 May 2 May 7 May 10 May 3—May 19

Virginia Convention Reports

Democratic Party

 Election Day Close of Books Mailing Date1 Filing Date 48-Hour Notice

 Period

House Districts May 15 April 25 April 30 May 3 April 26—May 12

1, 6, 7, 9, 10

House District 4 May 22 May 2 May 7 May 10 May 3—May 19

1 Twelve day pre-election reports sent by registered or certified mail are considered timely filed if they are postmarked no later than 

the 15th day before any election, and reports sent via express or priority mail with an on-line tracking system are considered timely 

filed if received by the delivery service no later than the 15th day before any election.

Connecticut Convention Reports

Republican Party

 Election Day Close of Books Mailing Date1 Filing Date 48-Hour Notice

 Period

House Districts May 15 April 25 April 30 May 3 April 26—May 12

2, 3

House District 5 May 22 May 2 May 7 May 10 May 3—May 19

House District 1 May 24 May 4 May 9 May 12 May 5—May 21
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

12

Court Cases

Lovely v. FEC

On March 9, 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Massachusetts, having denied both 

the defendantʼs and the plaintiffsʼ 

motions for summary judgment, 

vacated this case and remanded 

it to the FEC for further proceedings in accordance with the courtʼs 

order. The court found that the FEC 

erred in not interpreting the Federal 

Election Campaign Actʼs (the Act) 

“best efforts” provision to apply to 

the submission of reports and that 

the Commission should have issued 

a statement of reasons with its final 

determination, under the administrative fines regulations, that the 

plaintiffs filed their 2001 Year-End 

report late. 

Background

The Committee to Elect Bill Sinnott (the Committee) and its treasurer, William A. Lovely, III, filed 

a complaint in the district court on 

December 31, 2002, challenging the 

Commissionʼs final determination 

that the Committee filed its 2001 

Year-End report late and its assessment of a $1,800 civil money penalty under the administrative fines 

regulations. 11 CFR 111.30-111.45.

According to that complaint, the 

plaintiffs were unable to file the 

report over the internet on the January 31, 2002, deadline because of 

computer problems. At FEC staffʼs 

suggestion, they filed the report by 

sending the Commission a diskette 

postmarked on January 31. The 

Commission informed the plaintiffs 

on February 13, the day the disk 

was received, that this disk was not 

in an acceptable electronic format 

and did not pass the Commissionʼs 

validation program.1 On February 

26, the plaintiffs sent the report on 

diskette in an acceptable electronic 

format via courier. The Commission 

received the diskette the following 

day.

On June 14, 2002, the Commission found reason to believe that 

the plaintiffs violated 2 U.S.C. 

§434(a) by failing to file the report 

on time and made an initial determination to assess a $3,100 civil 

penalty. An FEC Reviewing Officer, 

after considering objections filed 

by the plaintiffs, determined that, 

because the disk mailed January 31 

was incorrectly formatted and did 

not pass the Commissionʼs validation program, the report was not 

considered to have been filed until 

February 27, when the Commission 

received a properly formatted report. 

On November 25, 2002, the Commission made a final determination 

that the plaintiffs had failed to file 

timely. However, the Commission 

lowered the civil penalty assessed to 

$1,800 “based on the filing, which 

was postmarked on the filing date, 

being fourteen days late, after counting for the irradiation process which 

resulted in mail delays.” See the 

March 2004 Record, page 4.

Court Decision

Best efforts. The plaintiffs alleged 

that they made “best efforts” to file 

their report on time. The Act provides that a committeeʼs report is in 

compliance with the statute “when 

the treasurer of a political committee shows that best efforts have been 

used to obtain, maintain, and submit 

the information required by this 

Act.” 2 U.S.C. §432(i). See also 11 

CFR 104.7 and 102.9(d). The FEC 

argued that it has long interpreted 

the “best efforts” provision as only 

creating a limited safe harbor regarding a committeeʼs failure to provide 

substantive information that may 

be beyond its ability to obtain, such 

as a contributorʼs occupation and 

employer, and that the “best efforts” 

provision does not therefore apply 

to a committeeʼs obligation to file its 

reports on time. Under the administrative fines regulations, challenges 

to civil money penalties may only 

be based on three grounds set out in 

the regulations, and they may not be 

based on a committeeʼs computer 

failure. 11 CFR 111.35. 

The court found that the FECʼs 

interpretation that the “best efforts” provision does not apply to 

the submission of reports “conflicts 

with the plain statutory language.”2

According to the court, “While the 

Commission can refine by regulation 

what best efforts means in the context of submitting a report, it cannot 

define it away by providing that 

submission of reports is governed by 

a ʻstrict liabilityʼ standard.” 

Rationale for Commission decision. The court also noted that in its 

final determination the Commission 

“did not make findings of fact, make 

a statement of reasons, incorporate 

the reviewing officerʼs recommendation by reference, or issue any 

opinion at all.” As a result, the court 

found that it is not clear “how the 

Commission evaluated the plaintiffsʼ 

ʻbest effortsʼ arguments, or whether 

it applied the correct legal standard.” In addition, the court noted 

that neither the Commission nor the 

Reviewing Officer investigated the 

alleged unavailability of technical 

support from the FEC or whether the 

formatting error on the disk resulted 

1

 Under the Commissionʼs electronic 

filing regulations, electronic filers 

who instead file on paper or submit a 

report that does not pass the validation 

program are considered not to have filed 

that report. 11 CFR 104.18.

2

 In Chevron U.S.A. , Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 

(1984), the Supreme Court found that 

courts must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress if it 

has spoken “to the precise question at 

issue.” If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the precise question 

at issue, the court should defer to an 

agencyʼs interpretation if it is reasonable. 
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

13

FEC v. Malenick, et al.

On March 30, 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia granted partial summary judgment to the FEC in this 

case, and denied defendant Carolyn 

Malenickʼs cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that 

Triad Management Services (Triad), 

which subsequently became Triad 

Management Services, Inc. (Triad 

Inc.), was a political committee under the Federal Election Campaign 

Act (the Act) in 1996, that it failed to 

register and report with the Commission and that it accepted contributions in excess of the Actʼs limits.

despite Mr. Lovelyʼs best efforts to 

follow advice from FEC staff, or 

from his own negligence or lastminute compliance efforts.

Order

The court vacated this case and 

remanded it to the FEC, finding that 

“the lack of clarity in the administrative decisions and a possible error of 

law compel a reversal and remand.”

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Massachusetts, 02-12496. 

 —Amy Kort

Background

According to its 1996 promotional materials, Triad was a consulting 

firm devoted to keeping the Republican majority in Congress. From 

1995 to 1996, Carolyn Malenick 

operated Triad as a sole proprietorship, and she became the president, 

sole director and owner of Triad Inc. 

when Triad incorporated in May 

1996. Robert Cone was the primary 

source of funding for Triad and 

Triad Inc. in 1996, and provided the 

organization with well over $1,000 

in funding. 

The Commission began its 

investigation of Triad/Triad Inc. in 

response to a series of administrative 

complaints filed between 1996 and 

1998. After failing to reach a conciliation agreement with the defendants, the Commission filed a court 

complaint on June 21, 2002, alleging 

that Miss Malenick, Triad and Triad 

Inc. violated the Act by, among other 

things, failing to register and file as 

a political committee and accepting 

and making excessive and prohibited 

contributions. 2 U.S.C. §§433, 434, 

441a(a)(1), 441a(f) and 441b.

Court Decision

Under the Act, a political committee is defined in part as “any committee, club, association, or other 

group of persons which receives 

contributions aggregating in excess 

of $1,000 during a calendar year.” 2 

U.S.C. §431(4)(A). A contribution 

includes any gift, loan or deposit of 

money, or any thing of value, given 

for the purpose of influencing a federal election. 2 U.S.C. §431(8)(A)(i). 

An organization that is regulated 

under the Act as a “political committee” must also have as its major 

purpose the nomination or election 

of a federal candidate. See FEC v. 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 

479 U.S. 238 (1986), and Buckley v. 

Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 79 (1976).

The court found that Triad/Triad 

Inc.ʼs major purpose was the nomination or election of specific federal candidates in 1996. The court 

also found that the funds Mr. Cone 

provided to Triad/Triad Inc. were 

contributions under the Act and 

exceeded $1,000. Triad/Triad Inc. 

thus became a political committee 

under the Act, but failed to register 

and file reports as required by the 

Act. 2 U.S.C. §§433 and 434. The 

court additionally found that, while 

the total amount of contributions 

Triad/Triad Inc. received from Mr. 

Cone is uncertain, these contributions certainly exceeded the $5,000 

limit on contributions that a political 

committee may permissibly receive from an individual. 2 U.S.C. 

§441a(f). The court granted the 

Commission a declaratory judgment 

on these points.1

The FEC also alleged in its court 

complaint that Triad Inc. accepted 

prohibited corporate contributions 

and that Triad/Triad Inc. made 

excessive contributions to federal 

candidates through its contributions 

combined with the contributions 

of two affiliated committees, the 

American Free Enterprise PAC and 

the Citizens Allied for Free Enterprise PAC. 2 U.S.C. §§441b and 

441a(a). The court, however, found 

that the record was not sufficient on 

these two issues to grant summary 

judgment to the FEC; it did find that 

American Free Enterprise PAC was 

affiliated with Triad/Triad Inc., but 

stated that further information would 

be needed to determine the amount 

of excessive contributions.

The court declined to impose penalties by way of summary judgment 

or to grant injunctive relief without 

further action first being taken in this 

case.

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia, 02CV1237. 

 —Amy Kort

1

 The court also found two of the FECʼs 

causes of action, presented as an alternative theory if Triad/Triad Inc. was 

not adjudged to have been a political 

committee, to be moot based on its other 

rulings in this case.

Federal Register 

Federal Register notices are 

available from the FECʼs Public 

Records Office, on the web site 

at http://www.fec.gov/register.

htm and from the FEC faxline, 

202/501-3413.

Notice 2004-7

Inaugural Committee Reporting 

and Prohibition on Accepting 

Foreign National Donations; 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(69 FR 18301, April 7, 2004)

Notice 2004-8

Contributions and Donations 

by Minors, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (69 FR 18841, April 

9, 2004)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

14

Audits

Audit of Friends of Marilyn 

F. OʼGrady

On March 22, 2004, the Commission approved the final audit report 

on Marilyn OʼGradyʼs principal 

campaign committee, Friends of 

Marilyn F. OʼGrady (the Committee). The audit found that the Committee:

• Received prohibited corporate 

contributions;

• Received excessive contributions 

from the candidateʼs spouse;

• Failed to file 48-hour notices; 

• Failed to disclose loans;

• Failed to disclose contributions 

correctly; and

• Misstated financial activity.

Corporate Contributions

Under the Federal Election 

Campaign Act (the Act), a political 

committee may not accept contributions made from the general treasury 

funds of any corporation, including a 

non-stock corporation, incorporated 

membership organization or incorporated cooperative. 2 U.S.C. §441b. 

If a committee receives a contribution that appears to be prohibited, 

the treasurer must within ten days 

either return the contribution or deposit it. If the treasurer deposits the 

contribution, he or she must make 

at least one written or oral request 

for evidence that the contribution is 

legal, including, for example, a written statement from the contributor 

explaining why the contribution is 

legal or an oral statement to that effect that is recorded in writing by the 

committee. During this period, the 

committee must not spend the funds 

in question. It must also keep written 

records explaining why the contribution may be prohibited and include 

this information when reporting 

the receipt of the contribution. If 

the committee cannot confirm the 

legality of the contribution within 

30 days, it must refund the question1

 During the period covered by this audit, a candidateʼs authorized committee 

could only accept $1,000 per election 

from any person. On January 1, 2003, 

this contribution limit was raised to 

$2,000 per candidate per election. 2 

U.S.C. §441a(a)(1)(A) and (f); 11 CFR 

110.1(a) and (b) and 110.9(a).

able contribution and note the refund 

on the report covering the period in 

which the refund was made. 11 CFR 

103.3(b).

The committee received 37 contributions from 33 different corporations totaling $9,195. Approximately 

38 percent of these contributors were 

identified as professional corporations. Ms. OʼGrady explained to 

Audit staff that she was unaware that 

contributions from professional corporations were prohibited and stated 

that the contributors probably intended to use their personal accounts 

and inadvertently used their business checks instead. Ms. OʼGrady 

indicated that she would contact the 

individuals to offer refunds, and the 

committee subsequently provided 

evidence showing refunds to 20 

contributors totaling $6,650.

Excessive Contributions

While a federal candidate may 

make unlimited expenditures from 

personal funds, the Act limits the 

amount that the candidate or his or 

her campaign may receive from any 

person—including the candidateʼs 

spouse.1 See 11 CFR 110.10(a). 

Personal funds of the candidate 

include any assets which, at the time 

he or she became a candidate, the 

candidate has legal right of access to 

or control over and with respect to 

which he or she has either legal and 

rightful title or an equitable interest. 

Personal funds also include salary 

and other earned income from bona 

fide employment and dividends 

and proceeds from the sale of the 

candidateʼs stock or other investments. The Commission relies on the 

applicable state law to determine the 

candidateʼs ownership of or relationship to assets. 11 CFR 110.10(b)(2).

The Committee received $25,000 

in loans from a business bank account in the name of Ms. OʼGradyʼs 

husband that is maintained for his 

dental practice. The loans were 

made via checks imprinted with only 

Mr. OʼGradyʼs name and credentials 

as the account holder. Ms. OʼGrady 

stated that, according to the laws of 

the state of New York, the account 

was a joint asset and therefore permissible for campaign use.

New York marital property laws 

provide that any property acquired 

by either spouse during the marriage 

is “marital property,” regardless of 

how the property was acquired or 

titled, and, upon dissolution of the 

marriage, marital property is equally 

divided between the spouses. However, several courts have concluded 

that a spouse has no vested rights 

in marital property titled in the 

name of the other spouse unless the 

marriage has been dissolved. Thus, 

even if the funds in question were 

“marital property” under New York 

law, Ms. OʼGrady did not have any 

vested right to property titled in Mr. 

OʼGradyʼs name, unless the marriage was legally dissolved.

Audit staff recommended that the 

Committee provide evidence that the 

funds were in fact made from Ms. 

OʼGradyʼs personal funds or, absent 

such evidence, refund $23,000 to 

Mr. OʼGrady (the $25,000 loan 

amount minus permissible contributions of $1,000 for the primary and 

$1,000 for the general election). The 

Committee subsequently provided 

evidence that $23,000 had been 

refunded to Mr. OʼGrady, and the 

same amount was taken from the 

OʼGradyʼs joint checking account 

and given to the campaign.

48-Hour Notices

Campaign committees must file 

special notices disclosing contributions for $1,000 or more, including 

loans and contributions from the 

candidate, received less than 20 

days, but more than 48 hours, before 

any election in which the candidate 

is running. 11 CFR 104.5(f). Audit 
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

15

Repayment Determinations 

for Presidential Campaigns 

from 2000

The Commission recently approved repayment determinations for 

several publicly funded Presidential 

campaign committees from the 2000 

elections. The Commission made 

final determinations of the repayment amounts for these committees 

in 2002, and the repayment amounts 

detailed below reflect the Commissionʼs findings after administrative 

review of those determinations. See 

the February 2003 Record, page 10, 

and the June 2003 Record, page 9. 

The Commission is required to audit 

committees that receive public funding under the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund Act and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment 

Account Act. 26 U.S.C. §§9007, 

9008(g) and 9038(a).

Buchanan Committee

The Commission has determined 

that Patrick Buchanan, Ezola Foster 

and Buchanan Foster, Inc. must 

repay $24,554 to the U.S. Treasury representing interest received 

on public funds. 11 CFR 9004.5, 

9007.2(b)(4). Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 

Foster and Buchanan Foster, Inc. 

need not, however, repay an additional $33,479 in surplus funds 

as mandated in the Commissionʼs 

2002 final repayment determination. 

That repayment amount stemmed 

from Buchanan Foster Inc.ʼs overpayment for a mailing list. In light 

of the committeeʼs response to the 

final determination, the Commission 

concluded that no surplus repayment 

is required as a result of the mailing 

list transaction.

Gore Committee

Al Gore and Gore 2000, Inc. must 

repay $170,591 to the U.S. Treasury for surplus funds. 26 U.S.C. 

§9038(b)(3); 11 CFR 9038.2(b)(4) 

and 9038.3(c). The Commission 

determined, upon administrative 

review and consideration of the 

committeeʼs responses, that its 2002 

repayment determination was accurate.

Keyes Committee

Alan Keyes and Keyes 2000, 

Inc. must repay $75,841 to the 

U.S. Treasury for nonqualified 

campaign expenses stemming 

from the committeeʼs insufficient 

documentation of its activities, 

use of cash, costs associated with 

continuing to campaign, winding 

down expenses, duplicate payments 

and convention-related activity. 11 

CFR 9038.2(c)(3). In response to 

Public Funding

Adjustment to National 

Convention Entitlements

The Commission has revised 

upwards the amount of public funds 

that the Democratic and Republican 

parties may receive to finance their 

2004 national conventions. The 

Commissionʼs initial entitlement of 

$14,592,000, approved in July of 

2003, was based on the 2002 Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, 

the Secretary of Labor has now 

released the 2003 CPI, and the FEC 

has recalculated the 2004 convention 

entitlement to be $14,924,000—an 

amount $332,000 greater than the 

initial calculation. The Commission 

certified this additional amount to 

the U.S. Treasury in order to have 

full payment of the 2004 convention 

entitlement made to the two major 

parties. See 2 U.S.C. §441a(c). 

 —Amy Kort

staff found that the Committee failed 

to file 48-hour notices for eight 

contributions totaling $85,000. The 

Committee stated that these notices 

were in fact filed, but could not produce evidence of these filing.

Disclosure of Loans 

and Contributions 

The Committee also received 

$55,000 in loans during the campaign that were not reported in the 

committeeʼs FEC disclosure reports, 

and it failed to disclose properly 

42 contributions that were itemized 

in the disclosure reports. 2 U.S.C. 

§434(b); 11 CFR 100.12, 104.3(a)(4) 

and (d) and 104.11(a). In response 

to the audit findings, the Committee filed amended reports to correct 

these errors. 

Misstatement of Financial Activity

Each report must disclose the 

amount of cash on hand at the 

beginning and end of each reporting period and the total amount of 

receipts and disbursements for the 

reporting period and for the election cycle. The Committee misstated 

receipts, disbursements and cash balances during 2002 but filed amended 

reports to correct the 

misstatements. 

 —Amy Kort

additional documentation provided 

by the committee, the Commission 

revised this payment amount downward from its 2002 final determination of a $104,448 repayment.

LaRouche Committee

Lyndon LaRouche Jr. and LaRoucheʼs for Committee for a New 

Bretton Woods must repay $224,185 

to the U.S. Treasury, consisting of a 

$67,988 pro-rata repayment for nonqualified campaign expenses due to 

vendor overpayments and $154,046 

for matching funds received in excess of the candidateʼs entitlement. 

26 U.S.C. §§9038(b)(1)-(2) and 11 

CFR 9038(b)(1)-(2). 

 —Amy Kort

Commission Certifies 

Matching Funds for 

Presidential Candidates

On March 31, 2004, the Commission certified $2,491.654.27 in 

federal matching funds to five Presidential candidates for the 2004 elec-

(continued on page 16)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

16

Matching Funds for 2004 Presidential Candidates: 

March Certification

Candidate Certification Cumulative 

March 2004 Certifications

Wesley K. Clark (D)1 $613,950.92 $7,552,570.68

John R. Edwards (D)2 $1,634,768.14 $6,108,375.37

Richard A. Gephardt (D)3 $102,078.00 $4,104,319.82

Dennis J. Kucinich (D)4 $0 $3,075,300.72

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (D)5 $86,365.06 $1,276,465.03

Joseph Lieberman (D)6 $54,492.15 $4,233,709.85

Alfred C. Sharpton (D)7 $79,708.99* $179.708.99

1 General Clark publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 11, 2004.

2 Senator Edwards publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on March 3, 2004.

3Congressman Gephardt publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on January 2, 

2004.

4 Congressman Kucinich became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 

2004.

5 Mr. LaRouche became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 4, 2004.

6 Senator Lieberman publicly withdrew from the Presidential race on February 3, 

2004.

7 Reverend Sharpton became ineligible to receive matching funds on March 15, 2004.

* Because the $79,708.99 certification amount was approved on April 1, this payment 

will not be made by the U.S. Treasury until May.

tion. The U.S. Treasury Department 

made the payments on April 1, 2004. 

In addition, the Commission certified $79,708.99 to Reverend Alfred 

Sharpton on April 1.1 Thus far, the 

seven eligible candidates have been 

certified $26,430,450.46. 

Presidential Matching Payment 

Account

Under the Presidential Primary 

Matching Payment Account Act, the 

federal government will match up to 

$250 of an individualʼs total contributions to an eligible Presidential 

primary candidate. A candidate must 

establish eligibility to receive matching payments by raising in excess of 

$5,000 in each of at least 20 states 

(i.e., over $100,000). Although an 

individual may contribute up to 

$2,000 to a primary candidate, only 

a maximum of $250 per individual 

applies toward the $5,000 threshold 

in each state. Candidates who receive matching payments must agree 

to limit their spending and submit 

to an audit by the Commission. 26 

U.S.C. §§9033(a) and (b); 11 CFR 

9033.1 and 9033.3.

Candidates may submit requests 

for matching funds once each 

month. The Commission will certify 

an amount to be paid by the U.S. 

Treasury the following month. Only 

contributions from individuals in 

amounts of $250 or less are matchable. 

The chart at right lists the amount 

most recently certified to each 

eligible candidate who has elected 

to participate in the matching fund 

program, along with the cumulative 

1 On March 11, 2004, the same day that 

the Commission determined Reverend 

Sharpton eligible to receive matching 

funds, the Commission initiated an investigation to resolve whether Reverend 

Sharpton had exceeded his $50,000 

personal expenditure limitation. See 26 

U.S.C. §9035 and 11 CFR 9035.2(a)(1). 

This investigation is ongoing.

PAC and Party Committee 

Activity for 2003

Political Action Committees

Federal political action committees (PACs) raised $376 million, 

spent $288.1 million and contributed 

$105.7 million to federal candidates 

during 2003, representing a 19 

percent increase in receipts and a 16 

percent increase in disbursements 

Statistics

Public Funding

(continued from page 15)

amount that each candidate has been 

certified to date. 

 —Amy Kort

when compared with 2001 activity. 

Contributions to candidates were 

also 6 percent higher than during the 

last non-election year. In addition, 

PACs ended 2003 with $269.4 million on hand, 20 percent more than 

was available when they entered the 

2002 election year. These changes 

were generally consistent with the 

pattern of growth in PAC activity 

over the past several election cycles. 

However, in contrast to previous 

non-election years, contributions 

to House Democratic candidates 

in 2003 were lower for corporate, 

labor, nonconnected and trade, membership and health PACs than they 

had been in 2001. Contributions to 

House Republican candidates from 
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

17

and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) raised 

$114.7 million. The parties reported 

spending a total of $285.2 million—

$193.8 by Republican committees 

and $91.4 million by Democratic 

committees. 

The 2003-2004 election cycle 

is the first since the passage of the 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002, which prohibits unrestricted 

nonfederal fundraising by national 

parties. Thus, all funds raised and 

spent by national party committees 

during this cycle are subject to the 

limits, restrictions and reporting 

requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Contributions 

from individuals made up the vast 

majority of funds raised by the two 

parties, accounting for 93 percent of 

all Republican party receipts and 83 

percent of Democratic receipts. PAC 

contributions to Democratic party 

committees totaled $12.2 million or 

11 percent of receipts. PACs gave 

a similar amount ($12.4 million) 

to Republican committees, but this 

amount represented only 5 percent 

of their receipts. 

Direct contributions to candidates 

and coordinated expenditures on 

behalf of general election candidates 

were modest during this period, as 

they have been at this stage in earlier 

cycles. The DCCC did, however, 

make independent expenditures 

totaling $1.6 million, while the 

NRCC made independent expenditures of approximately $607,000 in 

the special election in Kentuckyʼs 6th

district.

Additional Information

Details concerning PAC activity 

are available in a press release dated 

March 23, 2004, which contains 

summaries of: 

• PAC activity from 1993 through 

2003;

• PAC contributions to federal candidates from 1993 through 2003;

• Receipts and disbursements by 

PAC type; and 

• Top 50 lists of PACs by receipts, 

contributions to candidates and 

cash-on-hand.

A press release dated March 25, 

2004, contains summaries for each 

1

 PAC contributions to Senate candidates vary from one election cycle to the 

next because different states have Senate 

elections each cycle—with only 33 or 34 

races each year, the competitiveness of 

individual races can significantly affect 

financial activity overall.

these PACs increased at rates generally similar to years past. 

The charts below shows PAC 

contributions to House and Senate 

candidates by PAC by party affiliation, 1993-2003.1

National Party Committees

The Democratic and Republican 

national party committees raised 

a total of $370.8 million between 

January 1, 2003, and February 29, 

2004. The national Republican committees (the Republican National 

Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the 

National Republican Congressional 

Committee), reported receipts of 

$256.1 million and Democratic 

national committees (the Democratic 

National Committee, Democratic 

Senatorial Campaign Committee 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Republicans

Democrats

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Chart 6-2

PAC Contributions to House Candidates

in Nonelection Years

Millions of Dollars

0

3

6

9

12

15

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

Chart 6-3

PAC Contributions to Senate Candidates

in Nonelection Years

Millions of Dollars

House Candidates Senate Candidates

10

20

30

40

50

Republicans

Democrats

Chart 6-2

PAC Contributions to House Candidates

in Nonelection Years

Millions of Dollars

PAC Contributions to Republican and Democratic Congressional Candidates—1993-2003

(continued on page 18)
Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004

18

national party committee through 

February of this year, along with 

comparisons to federal fundraising during non-election years from 

1991 through 2003 showing significant growth in federal fundraising 

in 2003 for five of the six national 

committees. Only the National 

Republican Senatorial Committee 

reported raising less hard money in 

2003 than in 2001. 

The press releases are available 

on the FEC web site at http://www.

fec.gov/news.html and from 

the FECʼs Public Records Office 

(800/424-9530, press 3) and Press 

Office (800/424-9530, press 5).

 —Amy Kort

Statistics

(continued from page 17)

Campaign Finance Law 

Conference for Trade 

Associations, Membership 

Organizations and their 

PACs

The FEC will hold a conference 

in Boston, MA, May 25-26, 2004, 

for trade associations, membership 

organizations and their respective 

PACs. The conference will consist 

of a series of workshops conducted 

by Commissioners and experienced 

FEC staff who will explain how the 

federal campaign finance law applies 

to each of these groups. Workshops 

will specifically address rules for 

fundraising and reporting and will 

focus on aspects of the campaign 

finance law that are uniquely applicable to trade associations and 

membership organizations. A representative from the IRS will also be 

available to answer election-related 

tax questions.

The conference will be held at the 

Royal Sonesta Hotel Boston. The 

conference registration fee is $345, 

which covers the cost of the conference, materials, meals and a $10 late 

fee added for registrations received 

after April 27.

The Royal Sonesta Hotel Boston 

is located just across the river from 

downtown Boston at Five Cambridge Parkway, Cambridge, MA. 

To make reservations, call toll free 

(1-800-SONESTA) or locally (617-

806-4200) and state that you are 

attending the FEC conference. 

Registration

Complete conference program 

and registration information is available online. Conference registrations 

will be accepted on a first-come, 

first-served basis, and registrations 

are limited to two representatives per 

organization. FEC conferences are 

selling out quickly, so please register 

early. For registration information 

concerning any FEC conference:

Outreach

Publications

Updated Commission 

Regulations 

The new edition of the Commission regulations at Title 11 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

now available. The Commission has 

mailed copies of the new edition of 

the regulations, current as of January 

2004, to registered political committees. The Commissionʼs regulations 

can be accessed on the FEC web site 

at http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/11_

cfr.html. Free printed copies are also 

available to the public. Simply call 

800/424-9530 (press 1, then 3) or 

202/694-1100.

 —Amy Kort

New and Updated Brochures 

Available

The Commission has recently 

released three new brochures on the 

“Millionairesʼ Amendment,” the “Biennial Limit” and “Frequently Asked 

Questions on the BCRA and Other 

New Rules.” Additionally, the Commission has updated its brochure 

“FEC and the Federal Campaign Finance Law” to reflect changes in the 

law made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). 

All of these brochures are currently 

available on the FEC web site at 

http://www.fec.gov/brochures.html. 

A limited number of printed copies will also be available for those 

without Internet access. To request 

a printed copy, call the Information 

Nonfilers

Nonfilers

The Bob Brady for Congress, 

Mark Boles for Congress and Porter 

for Congress committees failed to 

file a 12-Day Pre-Primary report for 

the Pennsylvania primary held on 

April 27, 2004.

On March 22, 2004, the Commission notified principal campaign 

committees active in the Pennsylvania primary that the Pre-Primary 

report was due on April 15. Committees that failed to file the report were 

notified on April 16 that their reports 

had not been received and that their 

names would be published if they 

did not respond within four business 

days.

The Federal Election Campaign 

Act requires the Commission to publish the names of principal campaign 

committees if they fail to file 12 day 

pre-election reports or the quarterly 

report due before the candidateʼs 

election. 2 U.S.C. §437g(b). The 

agency may also pursue enforcement 

actions against nonfilers and late filers on a case-by-case basis.

 —Amy Kort

• Call Sylvester Management Corporation at 800/246-7277;

• Visit the FEC web site at http://

www.fec.gov/pages/infosvc.

htm#Conferences; or

• Send an e-mail to lauren@sylvester

management.com.

 —Amy Kort
May 2004 Federal Election Commission RECORD 

19

2003-39: Charitable matching plan 

conducted by collecting agent of 

trade association, 3:10

2003-40: Reporting independent 

expenditures, 3:11

2004-1: Endorsement ads result in 

contribution if coordinated communications, 3:12

2004-2: Contributions from testamentary trusts, 4:8

2004-3: Conversion of authorized 

committee to multicandidate committee, 5:5

2004-4: Abbreviated name of trade 

association SSF, 5:7

2004-6: Web-based meeting services 

to candidates and political committees, 5:7

2004-7: MTVʼs mock Presidential 

election qualifies for press exemption, 5:8

2004-9: State committee status, 5:10

Compliance

ADR program cases, 1:25; 4:15

Administrative Fine program cases, 

1:24; 4:14

Enforcement Query System, disclosure policy for closed enforcement 

matters and press release policy 

for closed MURs; “enforcement 

profile” examined, 1:6

MUR 5197: Donations from Congressionally chartered corporations, 4:13

MUR 5229: Collecting agentʼs failure to transfer contributions, 1:7

MUR 5328: Excessive contributions 

to and from affiliated leadership 

PACs, 5:1

MUR 5357: Corporationʼs reimbursement of contributions, 2:1

Naming of treasurers in enforcement 

matters, proposed statement of 

policy, 3:4

Nonfilers, 3:16; 4:13

Court Cases 

_____ v. FEC

– Akins, 4:10

– Alliance for Democracy, 3:8

– Cox for Senate, 3:4

– Hagelin, 4:11

– Kean for Congress, 3:7

– Lovely, 5:12

The first number in each citation 

refers to the “number” (month) of 

the 2004 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

2003-28: Nonconnected PAC established by LLC composed entirely 

of corporations may become an 

SSF with LLC as its connected 

organization, 1:20

2003-29: Transfer of funds from a 

nonfederal PAC to a federal PAC 

of an incorporated membership 

organization, 1:21

2003-30: Retiring campaign debt 

and repaying candidate loans, 2:1

2003-31: Candidateʼs loans to 

campaign apply to Millionairesʼ 

Amendment threshold, 2:2

2003-32: Federal candidateʼs use 

of surplus funds from nonfederal 

campaign account, 2:4

2003-33: Charitable matching plan 

with prizes for donors, 2:5

2003-34: Reality television show to 

simulate Presidential campaign, 

2:6

2003-35: Presidential candidate may 

withdraw from matching payment 

program, 2:7

2003-36: Fundraising by federal 

candidate/officeholder for section 

527 organization, 2:8

2003-37: Nonconnected PACʼs use 

of nonfederal funds for campaign 

activities, 4;4

2003-38: Funds raised and spent 

by federal candidate on behalf of 

redistricting committee to defray 

legal expenses incurred in redistricting litigation, 3:14

Index

– McConnell, 1:1

– Wilkinson, 4:9

– Sykes, 4:12

FEC v. _____ 

– California Democratic Party, 4:9

– Friends of Lane Evans, 3:9

– Malenick, 5:13

Regulations

Administrative Fine program extension, final rule, 3:1

Contributions by minors, Notice of 

Proposed Rukemaking, 5:3

Electioneering communications, 

FCC database, 3:3

Federal election activity periods, 3:1

Inaugural committees, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 5:1

Leadership PACs, final rules, 1: 18

Overnight delivery safe harbor, 3:1

Political committee definition, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 4:1; 

Public hearing, 5:3

Public access to materials from 

closed enforcement matters, Petition for Rulemaking, 3:4

Public financing of Presidential 

candidates and nominating conventions, correction and effective 

date, 1:19

Travel on behalf of candidates and 

political committees, final rules, 

1:19

Reports

Due in 2004, 1:9

April reminder, 4:1

Convention reporting for Connecticut and Virginia, 5:10

Kentucky special election reporting, 

1:9

Division at 800/424-9530 (press 1, 

then 3) or 202/694-1100.

 —Amy Kort
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Federal Election Commission RECORD May 2004