FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

20463 Volume 14, Number 11

16 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

15 INDEX

COMPLIANCE

13 Summary of MUR 1689

PUBLIC FUNDING

16 Matching Funds Approved

COURT CASES

12 Common Cause v, FEC (Suit Seven)

12 New Litigation

3 ADVISORY OPINIONS

800 LINE

7 Election Information from Other Agencies

REGULATIONS

1 Hearing on MCFL Rulemaking

2 Haley Rulemaking Petition Denied

3 Allocation Rules: Hearing Date Changed

continued on p, 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ited corporate or union expenditure is made

under section 441b of the election law?

The Commission received over 17,000 comments in response to its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Of these, almost all exclusively addressed the express advocacy issue which

had been raised by the National Right to Work

Committee (NRWC) in a petition for rulernaking,

The agency decided to hold a public hearing

because: (1) the issues raised by the notice are

difficult and complex, warranting thorough

consideration before the agency drafts proposed

rules and (2) the agency would like to receive

more comments on the issues concerning MCFLtype entities.

November 1988 999 EStreet NW Washington DC

lFor a summary of the Court's decision, see

p.4 of the Februnry 1987 Record.

2ln its MCFL decision, the Court said that,

wtder a narrow exception to the ban on corporate

expenditures, an incorporated membership

organization could make independent expenditures

if, among other things, the organization: (l) was

formed for the express purpose of promoting

political ideas and did not engage in business

activities, (2) had no shareholders and (3) was not

established by a corporation or labor organization

and had a policy of not accepting corporate or

union donations.

FEC HOLDS PUBLIC HEARING

ON MCFL RULEMAKlNG

On November 16, 1988, the Commission will

hold a public hearing on issues outlined in an

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning possible changes to Parts 109 and 114 of its

regulations. See 53 Fed. Reg. 416. These issues

focus on what regulatory changes might be appropriate in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL),

107 S.Ct. 616(1986).1

Persons or organizations wishing to testify at

the hearing should submit such requests in writing

to Ms. Susan E. Propper, Assistant General

Counsel, by November 2. All witnesses who have

not previously submitted written comments on the

proposed rules must also do so by November 2.

Ms. Propper may be contacted at: FEC, 999 E

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463 or by

calling 376-5690 or, toll free, 800/424-9530.

Issues Raised by MCFL Rulemaking

The hearing will focus on several issues:

o How should the Commission determine when a

nonprofit organization is an MCFL-type entity?2

o What are the appropriate reporting and disclosure requirements for an MCFL-type organization?

o When does an MCFL-type organization become

a political committee?

o Should the Commission adopt an "express advocacy" standard for determining when a prohib-
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COIVII\IlISSIOI\J Volume 14, Numbe

continued from p. 1

FEe DENIES HALEY COMMITTEE'S

RULEMAKING PETITION

On September 8, 1988, the Commission denied a petition for rulemaking submitted by the

Ted Haley Congressional Committee in November

1987. See 53 Fed. Reg. 35829. The Commission

made its decision on the disposition of the

petition after:

o The agency had reviewed and considered public

comments solicited on the petitiom! and

o The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

had upheld the Commission's long-standing

policy that donations made to a candidate to

retire the candidate's debts from a previous

election are contributions for that election and,

as such, are subject to the election law's limits

and prohibitions on contributions.2 See 11

CFR 1l0.I.

The Haley Committee's Rulemaking Petition

In its rulemaking petition, the Haley Committee suggested that the FEC add a subsection

to 11 CFR 110.1, which governs limits on contributions to federal candidates and committees.

Under the Committee's proposal, a new subsection

would create a rebuttable presumption that postelection contributions are made for the purpose of

influencing a federal election. Under this

proposal, a contributor could demonstrate that a

post-election contribution to a candidate was not

for the purpose of influencing that election and,

thus, should not be SUbject to the $lJOOO per

election limit.

As a basis for the rulemaking petition, the

Haley Committee cited the U.S. District Court's

February 1987 decision in FEC v. Ted Haley,3

which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit subsequently reversed.

FEe Action on the Petition

In January 1988, the FEC published a Notice

of Availability in the Federal Register which

sought comments in support of, or in opposition

to, the rulemaking petition. See 53 Fed. Reg.

2500. The agency received three comments on

the petition.

In a memorandum to the Commission rec

mending that it deny the Haley Committee's r

making petition, the General Counsel noted 

"neither the petitioner nor any of the comme

tors in this proceeding have presented evide

sufficient to persuade the Commission to alte

policy [that the election law's contribution li

apply fully to post-election contributions]."4 

the Federal < Register statement explaining 

reasons for denying the petition, the Commis

said that, if post-election contributions were 

subject to the law's limits, candidates 

contributors could easily circumvent the l

limits and restrictions. A candidate's camp

could overspend up to the date of the elec

and, after the election, collect donations 

subject to the law) to retire those debts.

In its Federal Register statement, the C

mission noted that the appeals court had affir

the agency's consistent interpretation of its po

on post-election contributions in FEC advi

opinions and regulations. In its JUly 1988 deci

in FEC v. Ted Haley, the appeals court conclu

that the policy was "entitled to due deference 

[was] to be accepted by the court•••" as a rea

able interpretation of the election law's contr

tion limits.

IThe FEe published a notice in the Fed

Register annolUlcing the availability of the p

tion in January 1988. 53 Fed. Reg. 2500.

2The appeals court's decision was summ

ized on p. 7 of the September 1988 Record.

3The district court's decision was summ

ized on p. 6 of the May 1987 Record.

4The Commission noted that one orthe c

mentors had offered an alternate proposal 

cerning post-election contributions to an inac

Presidential candidate who did not plan to c

paign for the Presidency in the next elec

cycle. The agency concluded that this prop

did not present any more compelling rationale 

changing the FECls policy than did the H

Committee proposal.

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

D.C. 20463. Commissioners are: Thomas J. Josefiak, Chairman; Danny L. McDonald, Vice

Chairman; Joan Aikens; Lee Ann Elliott; John Warren McGarry; Scott E. Thomas; Walter ,1.

Stewart, Secretary of the Senate, Ex Officio; Donnald K. Anderson, Clerk of the House of

Representatives, Ex Officio. For more information, call 202/376-3120 or toll-free 800/424-9530.

(TDD For Hearing Impaired 202/376-3136)

2
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMtVlISSION Volume 14, Number 11

ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

The following chart lists recent advisory

opinion requests (AORs). The full text of each

AOR is available to the public in the Commission's Office of Public Records.

ALLOCATION REGULATIONS:

HEARING DATE CHANGED

The Commission has changed the date of

hearings on allocation of committee expenses

from December 14 to December 15, 1988. Written comments and requests to appear at the

hearing must be submitted by November 30, 1988.

The hearing will focus on proposed revisions to

FEC rules on the allocation of spending between a

political committee's federal and nonfederal accounts.I

Written comments on the proposed revisions

should be submitted to Ms. Susan E. Propper,

Assistant General CounseL For more information, Ms. Propper may be contacted by writing the

FEC, 999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20463

or by calling 202/376-5690 or toll-free 800/424-

9530.

Copies of the Federal Register notice concerning proposed revisions to these regulations

are available from the FEC's Public Records Office. To obtain copies, call 202/376-3140 or to11-

free 800/424-9530. (See 53 Fed. Reg. 38012.)

AOR

1988-43

1988-44

1988-45

Subject

Affiliation between PACs established

by state "components" of national

membership organization with no

PAC. (Date made public: September

15, 1988; Length: 4 pages)

Termination of 1982 candidate committee with unpaid debts; application

of state statute of limitations governing creditors' claims. (Date made pUblic: September 16, 1988; Length: 2

pages, plus 7-page supplement)

Status of political committee as party's national committee. (Date made

public: October 3, 1988; Length: 2

pages, plus 67-page supplement)

ALTERNATE DISPOSITION

OF ADVISORY OPINION REQUESTS

AOR 1988-30: Company's Publication of PAC

Information Article in

Employee Newsletter

In a letter of August 12, 1988, the General

Counsel notified the requester that the

Com missioners failed to approve an advisory

opinion by the required four-vote majority.

AOR 1988-34: Solicitability of Membership

Organization's Individual Members

The requester withdrew the request in a letter of

September 21, 1988.

AOR 1988-35: Presidential Candidates' Views

Presented in Corporation's

Newsletter

The requester withdrew the request in a letter of

September 14, 1988.

e IThe FEe's proposed revisions to Part 106 of

its regulations were summarized in the October

1988 RecQry.4 p.l;

3

ADVISORY OPINIONS: SUMMARIES

AO 1988-22: Political Activities Sponsored by

Incorporated Political Organization

The San Joaquin Valley Republican Associates

(Republican Associates) is a nonprofit, nonmember corporation organized lito help elect more

Repubficans to office by enhancing significantly

the visibility of the Republican Party, Republican

ideas, Republlean thought and Republican personalities within the San Joaquin Valley of California." Republican Associates is a tax-exempt

incorporated political organization under the Internal Revenue Code (S527). While the

organization engages in tax-exempt political activities, its charter does not permit Republican

Associates to expressly endorse or solicit contributions to candidates,

If Bepublican Associates sponsored the three

types of political activities described below (l.e.,

a periodicial newsletter, luncheons featuring candidates and candidate debates), the organization

would be making expenditures to influence

federal elections. Consequently, Republican

Associates would have to register and report as a

political committee when it spent more than a

total of $1,000 for these activities, or any other

federal political activities, during the year. 2

U.S.C. S43l(4)(a); II CFR 100.5(a). However,

Republican Associates' spending for a fourth type

of activity, a campaign library, would not count

toward its registration threshold because this

spending would constitute general administrative

expenses.

continuedon p. 4
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSIOI\l Volume 14, Numbe

In reaching this conclusion, the Commission

noted that, although the Supreme Court's ruling in

FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (MCFL)1

drew a narrow exception which permits certain

types of nonprofit incorporated organizations to

make independent expenditures on behalf of or in

opposition to federal candidates, Republican Associates' proposed spending program would not

meet these requirements because: (I) some of

Republican Associates' proposed activities would

be considered in-kind contributions to federal

candidates rather than independent expenditures

on their behalf and (2) the MCFL exception applies to political organizations "that only oceassionally engage in independent spending on behalf

of.candidates"-not to organizations, like Republican Associates, whose major purpose is political

spending.

Republican Associates' Newsletter

Republican Associates plans to publish and

distribute a periodical newsletter that discusses

political events and activities, including federal

candidates and campaigns. The newsletter may

occasionally endorse federal candidates. Republican Associates will distribute the newsletter,

free of charge, to contributors who have attended its events and who may be active with the

organization in the future.

Expenses for the newsletter would not fall

under the "press exemption"Z for two reasons.

The newsletter is not a regular periodical financed by subscription or advertising. Further,

the statute excludes from the exemption publications of political committees. This would apply

should the activities of Republican Associates

trigger political committee status.

Candidate- or election-related payments

should be considered either independent expenditures, in-kind contributions or operating expenditures related to federal elections depending on:

(I) whether Republican Associates coordinates

communications with the candidates' campaigns

and (2) whether the communications expressly

1The Court said that, to qualify for this

narrow exception, an incorporated political organiZ<ltion: (1) must be formed for the express purpose of promoting political ideas and not engaged

in business activities, (2) may not have

shareholders and (3) may not be established by or

accept donations from corporations or labor

organizations. For a summary of the Court's

decision, see p. 4 of the February 1987 Record.

2Under this exception, spending for news

stories, commentaries or editorials distributed

through broadcast media, newspapers or

magazines are not considered expenditures to

influence federal elections provided the media is

not owned or controlled by a political committee,

party or candidate. 2 U.S.C. section 431(9)(B)(i).

4

advocate the election or defeat of candidate

solicit contributions to their campaigns. 

Such payments must be allocated to a fed

account. In some cases (discussed below) 

payments must also be allocated to spe

candidates, as contributions or expendit

Allocation should be based on column in

pertaining to federal candidates or elections o

some other reasonable basis that reflects 

benefit the candidates receive.

Independent Expenditures. If Republican 

sociates publishes communications in its new

ter that expressly advocate the election or de

of clearly 'identified federal candidates or so

contributions to their campaigns, the commu

tions will be considered "independent expe

tures," provided they are not coordinated with 

candidate's campaign. See 2 U.S.C. S431(l7

CFR 109.1. Such expenditures would c

against the $1,000 registration threshold. Se

CFR 105.4 and 109.2. Although Repub

Associates may make unlimited indepen

expenditures, it must allocate the expendi

among the candidates supported and report 

expenditures according to the procedures sp

out in FEe rules for persons or for poli

committees (if the organization achieves poli

committee status).

In-kind Contributions. RepUblican As

ates' expenditures for newsletter communica

that discuss or mention a clearly identified ca

date in an election-related context and that 

coordinated with candidates or their camp

will constitute reportable in-kind contribution

the candidates. (Even if the communication

not contain "express advocacy" statement

solicit -contributions, they will be conSJ]lere

kind contrtbutlons.) The payments would c

against the $ltOOO threshold for registration 

reporting. If such communications are made 

more than one candidate, Republican Assoc

must allocate the expenses among the candida

Expenditures that Generally Influence Fe

al Elections. Expenditures for newsletter 

munications that refer to clearly identified 

eral candidates will be considered operating 

penditures allocated to a federal account if:

o The communications neither contain "ex

advocacy" statements nor solicit contribu

to candidates; and

o The communications are not coordinated 

any candidate or campaign.

Although not allocable to specific candld

these expenditures would nevertheless be mad

influence federal elections. ThUS, the spen

would count toward Republican Associates' th

hold for political committee status. 
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

•

November 1988

Federal Funds. In all three cases, funds used

to pay for communications related to federal

candidates or elections must be made from funds

that are permissible under the election law. 11

CFR 102.5(a). Such payments count against the

$1,000 threshold for registration and reporting. If

Republican Associates crosses this treshold, thus

qualifying as 8. political committee, payments for

these communications must be made from an

account that contains only permissible funds. 11

CFR 102.5(a)(1). If Republican Associates does

not qualify as a political committee and does not

maintain a federal account, it must be able to

demonstrate through a reasonable accounting method that it had sufficient permissible funds to

pay for these communications. 11 CFR

102.5(b)(I)(ii).

Luncheons

Republican Associates plans to sponsor

monthly luncheons for persons who receive its

newsletter. Some of the featured speakers at the

luncheon will be federal candidates. Under rules

set up by Republican Associates, these candidates

will make their literature available, but campaign

posters and other political paraphernalia will not

be displayed. Candidates will not solicit contributions, but they may request campaign volunteers.

In previous advisory opinions, the Commission

stated that a federal officeholder's appearance at

an event would be considered campaign related

and, thus, payments for the event would constitute contributions to the candidate's campaign if:

(1) the candidate was expressly endorsed or (2)

contributions were solicited to his or her campaign. However, the absence of express advocacy

or solicitations at an event would not preclude an

FEC determination that a candidate's appearance

was campaign related. See AOs 1981-37, 1981-26,

1980-89 and 1978-4.

Since Republican Associates' main purpose is

to promote Republican candidates and ideology,

the Commission concluded that it was unlikely

that Republican Associates could rebut a presumption that its luncheons promoted the election

of those candidates it invited. Because

Republican Associates' payments for the

luncheons will be coordinated with the candidates,

they would constitute contributions to the

candidates invited to appear at the luncheons.

See AOs 1986-37~ 1984-13~ 1982-76 and 1982-50.

Again, these payments would count against the

registration threshold and would have to be made

from federal funds (see above).

Candidate Debates

Republican Associates proposes to sponsor

debates between candidates for federal office.

The organization will not allow candidates to

solicit contributions at the debate, but it will

permit candidates to make requests for campaign

volunteers.

5

Under FEC regulations, payments made by a

qualified nonprofit corporation to finance a nonpartisan candidate debate are exempted from the

law's definitions of "contrlbution" and "expenditure," 11 CFR 100.7(b)(2l) and 100.8(b)(23),

110.13 and 114.4(e).

However, since Republican Associates does

not currently qualify as a nonpartisan, nonprofit

(section 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4» corporation, its

payments for the debates would be treated the

same way as its payments for candidate

appearances, that is, as in-kind contributions to

the candidates.

Campaign Library

Republican Associates plans to maintain a

library consisting of material on campaign management and politics, The library will also make

available listings of campaign contributors and

registered voters. Although registered Republicans may use the library's resources free of

charge, users must pay for any requested copies.

Moreover, Republican Associates will not use. the

library's resources to do research for candidates.

Under these circumstances, Republican Associates' funding of the library would constitute

general administrative expenses, rather than

"contributions" or "expenditures" made to influence federal elections. 11 CFR l06.1(c). If

Republican Associates qualified for political committee status, it would have to allocate these

expenditures between federal and nonfederal

election activities. See 11 CFR l06.l(e). Payments for activities allocated to the federal account would have to be made from permissible

funds and would be reportable.

Finally, if Republican Associates provided

additional library services to a federal candidate

who requested them, any additional expenses for

these services would constitute in-kind contributions from Republlean Associates to the candida teo As such, they would count against the

organization's registration threshold. 11 CFR

106.1(a) and (c). (Date issued: July 5, 1988;

Length: 11 pages)

AO 1988-24: Joint Fundraising Committee

Established by Federal/

Nonfederal Candidates

Two federal campaigns (the Jesse Jackson for

President '88 Committee and the Committee for

Congressman Ronald V. Dellums) and two nonfederal campaigns (the Tom Bates Campaign [for a

state assembly seat] and the Committee to Reelect John George to the Alameda County Board

of Supervisors) established a joint fundraising

committee, the June '88 Campaign, to:

o Raise funds for the four campaigns' 1988 primary efforts in California; and

continued
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 

o Produce and distribute joint campaign literature.

The establishment and operation of the June

'88 Campaign, as described to the FEC, met the

basic requirements of the FEC's joint fundraising

regulations for candidate committees.! See II

CFR 102.17. In addition to complying with these

rules, the joint fundraising committee had to

address two unique situations requiring application of other FEC rules:

o The joint fundraiser included a publicly funded

Presidential primary campaign; and

o The joint fundraiser included federal and nonfederal candidates.

FEC Regulations Governing Joint Fundraisers

FEC regulations provide guidelines for such

joint fundraising projects. See II CFR 102.17 and

9034.8. The June '88 Campaign appeared to

satisfy the guidelines, as discussed below.

o Joint fundraising participants must enter into a

written agreement that identifies a fundraising

representative and includes a formula for the

allocation of fundraising proceeds. This formula must be used to: (I) allocate fundraising

expenses and (2) determine the amount of funds

to be advanced for joint fundraisers by each

participant. II CFR 102.17(c)(I) and

9034.8(c)(I) and (c)(2). In this instance, the four

committees drafted an agreement that established a formula for allocating each candidate's

share of receipts and project expenses, based on

the prominence and space given to each candidate in the campaign literature produced by the

joint fundraising committee.

o The participants or a fundraising representative

must establish a separate bank account for the

deposit anddisbursement of the joint fundraising receipts. Moreover, all contributions deposited in this account must be permissible under

the election law. II CFR 100.5, 102.17(c)(3)(I)

and 9034.8(c)(4)(i). (These requirements apply

even if some of the joint fundraising participants do not qualify as political committees

under the regulations.) The June '88 Campaign

satisfied this requirement.

o The participants in a joint fundraising project

may either establish a separate committee or

select a participating committee to act as a

fundraising representative for all the participants. The representative must be a reporting

political committee and must be designated as

an affiliated committee by each of the participating federal committees. II CFR

1These rules govern joint [urulraisere by party

committees, nonconnected committees and candidate committees. A separate set of rules governs

joint [undraisinq by the separate segregated [unas

of labor organizations and corporations. See 11

CFR l02.6(b) and (c).

6

102.17(a)(I)(i) and (b)(2l; 9034.8(b). In this c

Ron Dellums' principal campaign commi

acted as the fundraising committee's repres

tative. As the representative, the Dell

committee maintained a separate bank acco

for the joint fundraising committee's recei

reimbursements and expenditures.

Other FEC Regulations

To be fully in compliance with the rules, 

committee also had to: (I) take steps to ens

that no impermissible funds (e.g., corporate 

labor contributions) were placed in its account; 

be aware that prohibited contributions to the j

fundraiser could affect the application of 

allocation formula (I I CFR 102.17(c)(6)(iii) 

(c)(7)(i)(A»; (3) be careful to include on j

solicitation notices and literature the disclai

notices required under federal law (I I C

102.17(c)(2)-(4) and 9034.8(c)(4)-(5»j and 

refrain from distributing or reallocating fund

order to maximize the matchability 

contributions to Jesse Jackson's Presiden

primary campaign (II CFR 9034.8). (Date issu

June 10, 1988; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1988-36: PAC's Solicitation of Company's

Employee Stockholders

The Detroit Edison Political Action Commit

(EdPAC), the separate segregated fund of 

Detroit Edison Company (Detroit Edison), m

solicit contributions from Detroit Edison empl

ees who qualify as stockholders in the company 

virtue of their participation in the compan

savings plan, the Detroit Edison's Employ

Savings Plan ("ESP"). Under FEC regulatio

these employees qualify as solicitable sto

holders once they earn the right to withdraw th

shares. See II CFR 114.I(h).

EdPAC's or Detroit Edison's solicitations 

the stockholder employees must comply with 

solicitation requirements of the election law 

FEC regulations. 2 U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(3)(A)-(C); 

CFR 114.5(a).

Detroit Edison's Employee Stockholder PIan

Detroit Edison employees who have been w

the company for at least six months are elig

to participate in the company's employee savi

program by contributing from one to six perc

of their salary to a savings plan. The comp

matches every $\ salary deduction that 

employee designates for the savings plan wit

50 cent contribution to the employee for purch

of Detroit Edison common stock.

An employee may withdraw shares from 

plan once the employee's investment 

"matured." An employee's investment in the p

matures on the date the employee contributes 

it. By contrast, Detroit Edison's match
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number11

contribution to the employee's plan matures at

the beginning of the fourth year after the

company has made the matching contribution for

the employee.

Once interest on the employee's plan has

matured, the employee may withdraw this

accrued interest once a year without penalty.

More frequent withdrawals during the same year

result in a three- to six-month suspension of the

company's contributions to the employee's plan,

depending on the type of withdrawal

Under the plan, employee stockholders have

the right to vote on their stock. This right is

exercised through trustees to whom the employees have given written instructions on how to vote

their stock.

The election law and FEC regulations permit

a corporation or its separate segregated fund to

solicit the corporation's individual stockholders. 2

U.S.C. §44Ib(b)(2)(A). FEC regulations define

solicitable stockholders as persons who:

o Have a vested beneficial interest in the corporation's stock;

o Have the power to direct how their stock is

voted; and

o Have the right to receive dividends. 11 CFR

114.l(h).

Detroit Edison's employee savings plan meets the

requirements of this definition. With regard to

the first requirement, all the participants in the

savings plan have a vested interest in the

company's stock once their shares have matured.

With regard to the second requirement,

through their trustees, employees have the right

to vote on stock they have purchased as well as on

stock donated to them by the company under the

rnatehing plan.

With regard to the third requirement, participants in the plan have the right to receive dividends because they may withdraw matured stock

once a year without penalty. Moreover, participants are not limited in their withdrawal rights to

a once-a-year or a one-time basis. (Date issued:

September 26, 1988; Length: 5 pages)

AO 1988-40: Post Card Distributed Under

"Coattail" Exception

The Doug Walgren for Congress Committee (the

Committee), the principal campaign committee

for Congressman Walgren's reelection campaign,

plans to independently prepare a post card that

will: (1) feature a photograph of the Congressman

with Governor Michael Dukakis, the Democratic

Presidential nominee, and (2) include on the reverse side "information on or references toll Governor Dukakis, The post cards will be distributed

by volunteers to individuals selected by the Walgren campaign. The Committee's disbursements

for the post card will qualify for the election

law's "coattail exception, II rather than as an in7

kind contribution to the Dukakis campaign. Ac

cordingly, the Committee must report these dis

bursements as operating expenditures. 11 CFR

104.3(b)(2) and (b)(4)(i).

Since the post cards will be mailed out by

volunteers using lists developed by the Commit

tee, the Committee will not have to include on

the post cards the disclaimer notice required fo

direct mail pieces. See 2 U.S.C. §441dj 11 CFR

110.11.

Under the "coattail" exception in the election

law and FEC regulations, a federal candidate ma

be mentioned in campaign materials produced by

another federal candidate's campaign. 2 U.S.C

§43l(8)(B)(xi); 11 CFR 100.7(b)(16) and

lOO.8(b)(l7). Payments for these materials ar

not contributions to the referenced candidat

provided that the materials are used in connectio

with volunteer activity and not distribute

through direct mail (e.g., a mailing by 

commercial vendor or by a campaign using com

mercial lists) or other forms of general publi

political advertising.

In this case, the Committee plans to develop

a mailing list by obtaining an official listing o

eligible voters from the county department o

elections. The Committee will edit the list t

obtain a "desirable group" of post card recipient

in the Congressman's Congressional district

Using this edited list, volunteers will hand addres

the post cards and mail them out. Under thes

circumstances, the Committee's plan to prepar

and distribute the post cards meets the require

ments of the "coattail" exception. (Date issued

September 30, 1988; Length: 4 pages)

ELECTION INFORMATION AVAILABLE

PROM OTHER AGENCIES

Sometimes callers ask election-related ques

tions over which the FEC has little or no jurisdic

tion. This article refers callers to the agencie

that deal with these commonly asked questions

A referral table on page 9 lists the appropriate

offices to contact for more information.

State Election Activity

How can an individual get on the ballot for an

election? Ballot access is handled by each state'

election office (in most states, under the Secre

tary of State). Consult Table II on page 10 fo

your state election official.
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 1

May our political committee contribute to a

state candidate? Are there state requirements?

Federal law does not prohibit political committees that are registered with the FEC from making contributions to state campaigns, but most

states have laws governing the committees' contribution limits and reporting requirements. For

information on a particular state's laws, consult

the new Clearinghouse publication Campaign Finance Law 188 1 or contact your state elections

office. (For a listing of state election offices, see

Table II on page 10.)

Voting Rights

On our state's primary election day, I was

harassed as I went into the polling place to cast

my vote. With whom should I file a complaint?

The Department of Justice administers investigations of alleged voting fraud and violations of

voting rights. If you suspect abuse, contact the

local U.S. Attorney for your jurisdiction. For

general information, contact the Department of

Justice at the address and phone number listed on

Table I.

IRS and Tax-related Issues

Can we use our FEe ID number as the

taxpayer ID number when we open the bank

account for our committee? No. You will need

to contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and

apply for a taxpayer ID number. See Table I

below for the address and phone number of the

IRS.

Are contributions to my candidate's campaign

or to a PAC tax deductible? No. Contact the IRS

for more details.

Does my political committee have taxexempt status? The IRS has jurisdiction over taxexempt organizations. Contact the IRS at the

number listed on the table.

Do we have to use a disclaimer on our

solicitations saying that contributions are not tax

deductible? Yes. The Internal Revenue Code

requires all tax-exempt groups (including political

committees) that exceed $100,000 in gross receipts to carry such a disclaimer on certain

communications. This requirement does not apply

lCampaign Finance Law ($19 per copy) may

be ordered from the Superintendent of

Documents, Govemment Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20402. Checks should be made

payable to the Superintendent of Documents. The

order should refer to the publication's title and

order number (#052-006-00041-41).

8

to charitable organizations. Contact the IRS f

more details.

Communications

The TV station I own receives requests fro

candidates to air TV advertisements. Exactly ho

much air time must I give to each candidate? T

FEC has no jurisdiction in this area. Rather, t

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is t

agency responsible for administering the law

regarding broadcasting. Its address and pho

number are contained on Table I.

I manage a radio station. Do I have to a

political ads of candidates and parties that t

owner opposes? The FCC administers all electi

laws dealing with the obligations of broadcaste

in presenting such advertisements. For mo

information, contact that agency.

Hatch Act

As a federal employee, may I participate 

political campaigns? The Hatch Act prohib

federal employees from engaging in certain kin

of political activity. For more details and a

swers to specific questions, contact the Office 

Special Counsel of the U.S. Merit Systems Prote

tion Board at the address listed on Table I.

Personal Financial Disclosure

Where can I review the personal financ

disclosure reports of candidates? President

candidates file these statements with the FE

and you can review them in our Public Recor

Office. For more information, call 202/376-31

or 800/424-9530. House and Senate candidat

file with the Clerk of the House and the Secreta

of the Senate, respectively. House reports a

available from the House Records and Registr

tion Office. Call 202/225-1300. Senate repo

are available for review at the Senate Office 

Public Records. Contact that office at 202/22

0322.

Where can I get more information about wh

is required on candidates' personal f"mancial d

closure statements? Several different offic

administer the law on personal financial disc

sure. Regarding Presidential candidates, conta

the Office of Government Ethics. For mo

information on disclosures made by Senate can

dates, contact the Senate Select Committee 

Ethics. If interested in House candidates, t

appropriate office to contact is the House Co

mittee on Standards of Official Condu

Addresses and phone numbers for these offic

are listed on Table I.
9

*Each state IRS office has a toll-free number. Consult your telephone directory.

uTo review and copy reports, consult offices listed in the article above under "Personal

Financial Disclosure."

Office of Government Ethics

P.O. Box 14108

Washington, D.C. 20044

202/632-7642

Senate Select Committee on Ethics

220 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

202/224-2981

Federal Communications Commission

Political Programming Branch

2025 MStreet, N. W., Room 8202

Washington, D.C. 20554

202/632-7586

House Committee on Standards

of Official Conduct

Capitol Building, Room HT-2

Washington, D.C. 20515

202/225-7103

Office of Special Counsel

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1120 Vermont Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

202/653-7143 or 800/872-9855

Voting Section

Civil Rights Division

u. S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 66128

Washington, D.C. 20035

202/724-3266

Internal Revenue Service*

Organization Products Branch

IIII Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20224

202/566-4332 or 202/566-4050

Contact for More Information

See Table n on page 10.

Local U.S. Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

Senate

Voter Fraud; Voting Rights

Suspected Abuse

Personal Financial Disclosure ** (Information on what must be reported)

Presidential

House

General Information

Broadcasting and Communications

Hatch Act

(F ederal employee poli tical involvement)

Tax-related Questions

State Election Activity

Popular Vote; State Disclosure

Subject

TABLE I

REFERRAL OFFICES FOR ELECTION QUESTIONS

November 1988
November 1988

TABLE II

STATE ELECTION OFFICES

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 

Alabama

Mr. Jerry Henderson

Administrator of Elections

205/261-7210

Alaska

Ms. Sandra J. Stout

Director of Elections Division

907/465-4611

American Samoa

Moega Lutu

Administrator of Elections

684/633-4163

Arizona

Ms. Margaret Stears

State Election Officer

602/267-8683

Arkansas

Ms. Janet Reddin

Supervisor of Elections

501/682-5070

California

Ms. Deborah Seiler

Chief of Elections and Political

Reform

916/445-0820

Colorado

Ms. Donetta Davidson

Elections Officer

303/894-2211

Connecticut

Mr. Albert Lenge

Attorney of Elections

203/566-3106

Mr. Jeffrey B. Garfield

State Campaign Finance

203/566-7106

Delaware

Mr. John Davis, Jr.

State Election Commissioner

302/736-4277

District of Columbia

Mr. Emmett H. Fremaux, Jr.

Executive Director

Board of Elections and Ethics

202/727-2525

Florida

Ms. Dorothy W. Joyce

Director, Division of Elections

904/488-7690

Dr. Anne Kelley

State Campaign Finance

904/488-7690

Georgia

Mrs. Frances S. Duncan

Director

Elections Division

404/656-2871

Hawaii

Mr. Morris Takushi

Director of Elections

808/548-2544

Jack M. K. Gonzales

State Campaign Finance

808/548-5411

Idaho

Mr. Ben Ysursa

Chief Deputy Secretary of State

for Elections

208/334-2852

Illinois

Mr. Kel Hudson

Director of Election Information

217/782-4141

Dan White

State Campaign Finance

312/917-6440

Indiana

Mr. John DeLap

Deputy for Lobbyists

and Elections

317/232-6531

Laurie Potter Christie

State Campaign Finance

317/232-3939

Iowa

Ms. Sandy Steinbach

Director of Elections

515/281-5865

Kay Williams

State Campaign Finance

515/281-4411

10

Kansas

Mr. Ron E. Thornburgh

Deputy Assistant for Electio

and Legislative Matters

913/296-2236

Carol E. Williams

State Campaign Finance

913/296-4219

Kentucky

Ms. Charlotte Mullins

Executive Director

State Board of Elections

502/564-7100

Raymond E. Wallace

State Campaign Finance

502/564-2226

Louisiana

Mr. Darrell L. Cobb

Administrator of Elections

504/342-4970

Mr. Gray Sexton

State Campaign Finance

504/765-2308

Maine

Mr. Peter W. Danton

Director of Elections

207/289-4189

Ms. Marilyn Canavan

State Campaign Finance

207/289-4178

Maryland

Ms. Rebecca Babinec

Director, Division of Candidacy

and Campaign Finance

301/974-3711

Massachusetts

Mr. John Cloonan

Director of Elections

617/727-2828

Mr. Dennis J. Duffin

State Campaign Finance

617/727-8352

Michigan

Mr. Christopher M. Thomas

Director of Elections

517/373-2540
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 11

Minnesota New York South Carolina

Mr. Joseph Mansky Mr. Thomas R. Wilkey Mr. James Ellisor

• Acting Director Director of Election Executive Director

Elections Division Operations State Election Commission

612/296-2805 518/473-5086 803/734-9060

Ms. Mary Ann McCoy Mr. Gary R. Baker

State Campaign Finance North Carolina State Campaign Finance

612/296-5148 Mr. Alex K. Brock 803/734-1227

Executive Secretary/Director

Mississippi State Board of Elections South Dakota

Mr. Phil Carter 919/733-7218 or 733-7173 Ms. Darlene Gage

Director of Elections Yvonne L. Southerland Supervisor of Elections

601/359-1350 State Campaign Finance 605/773-3537

919/733-2186

Missouri Tennessee

Mr. Paul D. Bloch North Dakota Mr. David Haines, Jr.

Deputy Secretary of State Mr. Ben Meier Coordinator of Elections

for Election Services Secretary of State 615/741-7956

314/751-3295 701/224-2900

Gayla Thomas Texas

Steve Byers Ohio Ms. Donnette Smith

State Campaign Finance Ms. Dorothy Woldorf Director

314/751-3077 Elections Administrator Elections Administration

614/466-2585 512/463-5650

Montana Donald J. McTigue Ms. Patricia Hayes

Mrs. Marian Campbell State Campaign Finance State Campaign Finance

Chief of Elections and 614/466-2585 512/463-5704

Legislative Service Bureau

406/444-4732 Oklahoma

Dolores Colburg Mr. Lance D. Ward Utah

• State Campaign Finance Secretary Mr. W. Val Oveson

406/444-2942 State Election Board Lieutenant Governor

405/521-2391 Chief Elections Officer

Nebraska Ms. Marilyn Hughes 801/538-1040

Mr. Ralph Englert State Campaign Finance

Director of Elections 405/521-3451 Vermont

402/471-2554 Ms. Catherine Simpson

Oregon Director of Elections

Nevada Mr. William E. Flynn 802/828-2304

Ms. Susan Merriwether Director of Elections

Elections Coordinator 503/378-4144 Virgin Islands

702/885-3176 Ms. Henrita Tedman

Pennsylvania Supervisor of Elections

New Hampshire Mr. William P. Boehm 809/774-2575

Mr. Robert Ambrose Commissioner of Elections 809/774-3107

Deputy Secretary of State 717/787-5280

603/271-3242 Virginia

Puerto Rico Ms. Susan Fitz-Hugh

New Jersey Marcos Rodriquez Estrada Secretary

Ms. Christine St. John President of State State Board of Elections

Director of Elections Elections Commission 804/786-6551

609/292-3760 809/724-2085

Frederick M. Herrmann 809/723-9946 Washington

State Campaign Finance

Rhode Island Mr. Donald F. Whiting

609/292-8700 Deputy Secretary of State

Ms. Marjorie P. Mazika 206/753-2336

New Mexico Director of Elections Mr. Graham E. Johnson

Mr. Hoyt Clifton 401/277-2340 State Campaign Finance

Director of Elections Mr. Joseph DiStefano 206/753-1111

• 505/827-3621 State Campaign Finance

401/277-2345 continued

II
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 

West Virginia

Ms. Mary P. Ratliff

Deputy Secretary of State

304/345-4000

Wisconsin

Mr. Kevin Kennedy

Executive Director

State Elections Board

608/266-8005

Wyoming

Ms. Margy White

Deputy Secretary of State

307/777-7378

COMMON CAUSE v. FEC (Suit Seven)

On September 27, 1988, the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia issued a joint

stipulation of dismissal in which Common Cause

and the FEC agreed to the dismissal, with

prejudice, of a suit that Common Cause had filed

against the FEC in December 1986. (Civil Action

No. 86-3465)

In the suit, Common Cause had challenged

the FEC's decision to dismiss an administrative

complaint that the organization had filed against

President Reagan's 1984 reelection campaign.

The parties agreed to the dismissal of the

suit after three FEe Commissioners submitted to

Common Cause and the the court statements that

explained their reasons for dismissing the

administrative complaint. I In agreeing to the

dismissal of its suit, Common Cause did not

abandon its position that the FEC's action on the

administrative complaint was contrary to law.

Nor did the FEC abandon its position that its

dismissal of the complaint was reasonable.

1The fourth Commissioner who voted to

dismiss the complaint subsequently retired from

the Commission. The statements of reason

submitted by the three Commissioners who voted

to dismiss the complaint are summarized on p, 7

of the October 1988 Record.

12

NEW LITIGATION

FEe v. Bob Richards (or President

The FEC asks the district court to decl

that the Bob Richards for President Committ

Washington, D.C. (the Committee), 

nonconnected committee, and the Committe

treasurer Blayne F. Hutzel violated the elect

law by:

o Including a candidate's name in the Comm

tee's name (2 U.S.C. S432(e)(4»);

o Failing to amend the Committee's Statement 

Organization to accurately reflect: (1) 

name of the Committee's treasurer and (2) 

affiliation of the Committee with the Bob 

chards for President Committee, Waco, Tex

(2 U.S.C. §433(c»);

o Knowingly accepting an excessive contribut

in the form of a loan from the Populist Party 

U.S.C. §441a(f});

o Making expenditures to finance a direct m

communication that expressly advocated 

election of a clearly identified candidate a

solicited contributions to the candidate, b

failing to identify who paid for and authoriz

the communication (2 U.S.C. S44Id(a»; and

o Transferring $5,000 to an affiliated commit

from funds that included proceeds of an exc

sive contribution knowingly received by def

dants (2 U.S.C. §441a(a)(l)(C»).

The FEC further asks the court to:

o Assess appropriate civil penalties against d

fendants; and

o Permanently enjoin defendants from similar 

ture violations of the election law.

U.S. District Court for the District of C

lumbia, Civil Action No. 88-2832, October 

1988.

FEe v. Ron Bookman &: Associates, Inc.

The FEC asks the district court to decl

that Ron Bookman & Associates, Inc. (Bookma

a corporation based in Atlanta, Georgia, and 

corporation's president Ronald Gary Bookm

violated section 441b of the election law 

making a $150 corporate contribution to a Ge

gia House candidate's campaign (i.e., the Swind

for Congress Committee). Specifically, def

dants allegedly authorized a lawyer to issue 

contribution check from a trust acco

consisting of a $10,000 payment Bookman h

received from the Transportation Group, Inc.

The FEC further asks the court to:

a Assess an appropriate civil penalty against b

Mr. Bookman and his company; and

o Enjoin each defendant from future, simi

violations of the election law.

U.S. District Court for the Northern Distr

of Georgia, CV-No. 1:88-CV-1807-JTC, Aug

19, 1988.
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTIOI\J COMMISSIOI\J Volume 14, Number 11

FEe v. Friends of Isaiah Fletcher

The FEC asks the district court to declare

that the Friends of Isaiah Fletcher, the principal

campaign committee for Mr. Fletcher's 1986. Congressional campaign, and M~. Fletcher, actmg. as

his campaign's treasurer, Violated the reporttng

requirements of the election law by failing to file

an October quarterly report in 1984.

The agency further asks the court to:

o Assess an appropriate civil penalty against

defendants; and

o Permanently enjoin each defendant from

similar, future violations of the election law.

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Civil Action No. PN88-2323, August 9, 1988.

FEC v, Taylor Congressional Committee

The FEC asks the district court to declare

that the Taylor Congressional Committee (the

Committee), the principal campaign committee

for Clarence Taylor's 1984 South Carolina House

campaign, and the Committee's treasurer Rich~rd

L. Smith violated the election law's reporting

requirements by:

o Failing to file 1986 and 1987 mid-year reports

(2 U.S.C. S434(a)(2)(B)(i»j and

o Failing to file 1985 and 1986 year-end reports

(2 U.S.C. S434(a)(2)(B)(ii».

The FEC further asks the court to declare

that defendants violated 2 U.S.C. S434(b)(8) by

failing to:

o Continuously report the Committee's outstanding debts until they were extinguished; and

o Failing to file a statement of debt settlement

concerning a debt forgiven by a creditor.

Finally, the FEC asks the court to:

o Assess an appropriate civil penalty against defendants; and

o Permanently enjoin defendants from future violations of the election law,

U.S. District Court for the District of South

Carolina, Anderson Division, Civil Action No.

8:88-1950-3, July 27, 1988.

13

MUR 1689: Bank Loans to 1984 Presidential

Candidate

This MUR resolved through a civil suit, involved

$2 million 'in loans from banks to a publicly funded

Presidential candidate's campaign.

Complaint

The MUR was internally generated by the

Commission (under the procedures of Directive

61) based upon evidence that a $2 million loan to

a 1984 Presidential campaign was not within the

"ordinary course of business" exception of 2

U.S.C. S431(8}(B)(vii). (This exception per mits

banks to make loans in the ordinary course o

business to candidates and political eomrnittees.)

General Counsel's Report

The Commission found "reason to believe

that four banks, a Presidential candidate and ,hiS

committee had violated 2 U.S.C. §441b by making

and accepting prohibited contributions. Subse

quently, the Commission conducted an investiga

tion which indicated that a variety of factor

other than sound banking judgment had prompted

the banks to approve a loan to the Presidentia

committee.

The Federal Election Campaign Act expressly

prohibits national banks from making any contri

bution or expenditure in connection with any

election to any political office. 2 U.S.C. S441b

(a). The term contribution includes a loan. How

ever a loan is not a contribution if it is made by a

fede~ally chartered depository institution i~ ac

cordance with applicable law and in the ordinary

course of business. 2 U.S.C. S43l(8)(B)(vii). A

loan is considered made "in the ordinary course o

business" if it is made on a basis Which assure

repayment, is evidenced by a written instrument

is subject to a due date and bears the usual and

customary interest rate of the lending institution

2 U.S.C. S43l(8)(B)(vii)(II) arid (Ill); 11 CFR 100.7

exII).

The General Counsel focused the investiga

tion on whether the loans were made on a basi

which assured repayment. In his view, evidence

indicated that they were not.

First, the General Counsel observed that lithe

committee's financial condition at the time the

loan was granted made the committee a bad risk,

The General Counsel pointed out that, had the

continued

lFEC Directive 6 outlines the Commission'

procedures for handling enforcement matters tha

are generated internally pursuant to 2 U.S,C

section 437g(a)(2).
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number 

banks looked at the committee's reports, they

would have realized that, at the time of the loan

request, "the committee's financial condition was

becoming increasingly precarious."

Second, the General Counsel noted that the

committee did not submit, nor did any of the

banks require, relevant cash flow projections despite testimony from bank officials that cash flow

projections were necessary in evaluating loan proposals.

Third, the General Counsel observed that the

repayment sources listed in the committee's loan

proposal had little or no value. Sources of repayment included accounts receivable, deposits, liquidations of fixed assets, future contributions

and matching funds. Bank officials testified,

however, that the fixed assets were not sufficient

to pay the interest on the loan. The Commission

concluded that the expectation of future contributions and matching payments could have constituted a basis of assuring repayment if the loan

had provided a sufficient alternate source of

repayment. But it did not. The Commission

rejected the Committee's assertion that "comfort

letters" provided an alternative-or secondarysource of payment. These letters-pledges by

wealthy supporters to help raise funds to retire

the loan-were not binding on the authors and

failed to provide a suffielent basis for repayment.

Fourth, the General Counsel said that "political pressures may have been applied to those

individuals reviewing the loan request." In several

instances, the loan was not processed through

normal channels but was handled instead by individuals with political or executive responsibilities. Further, the banks granted this loan even

though the lead bank had previously rejected a

request from the same committee for a less

"speculative" loan.

Fifth, the General Counsel argued, repayment was not expected until a time when the

campaign's funds might be entirely dissipated,

thus making the loan completely speculative,

The respondents argued that only banks, not

the Commission, had to be satisfied that a loan

was made on a basis that assured repayment and

that the Commission used hindsight in secondguessing the banks. Further, the General Counsel's description of how the loan was arranged, the

respondents contended, unfairly suggested that

the loan was politically inspired.

The General Counsel responded that, within

the Commission'S authority to enforce the Act, is

the power to explore whether a loan has been

"made in the ordinary course of business. n 2

U.S.C. SS43l(8)(B)(vii) and 437g. In determining

whether a loan has been made in the ordinary

course of business, the Commission must be satisfied that the loan has been made on a basis which

assures repayment. 2 U.S.C. §S43l(8)(B)(vii)(II)

and (III). Finally, the General Counsel stated that

the statute clearly envisions that the Commission

14

investigate and make its own separate determi

tion as to whether a loan has been made on a ba

which assures repayment, and the Commiss

has, on other occasions, investigated this issue. 

The General Counsel also argued that 

arrangements surrounding the granting of 

loan, including the involvement of lobbyists 

top bank officials outside the normal review p

cess, were relevant considerations in evaluat

the loan's legali ty under the Act.

In sum, the General Counsel recommend

that the Commission find probable cause 

believe that the banks and Presidential campa

violated the Act because the banks' lo

"appeared not to have been made on a basis wh

assured repayment." The General Counsel sta

that the investigation indicated the lo

applieation may have been treated differen

because the borrower was a well known lo

f;gure running for President, and that the cre

decision may have been affected by the banks' a

some of the bank officers' support for the can

date's campaign.

Commission Determination

The Commission voted. 5-1 to accept 

reeom menda tions of the Office of General Co

sel to find "probable cause to believe" the ban

and the Presidential campaign had violated 

U.S.C. §441b. Because the Commission w

unable to conclude a conciliation agreement w

the respondents, the Commission filed a civil s

against them. See the 1987 July Record for 

summary of the suit and the consent order issu

by the court.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

Registered political committees are

automatically sent the Record. Any change

of address by a registered committee must,

by law, be made in writing as an amendment to FEC Form 1 (Statement of Organization) and filed with the Clerk of the

House, the Secretary of the Senate, or the

FEC, as appropriate.

Record SUbscribers (who are not political committees), when calling or mailing in

a change of address, are asked to provide

the following information:

1. Name of person to whom the Record is

sent.

2. Old address.

3. New address.

4. Subscription number. The SUbscription

number is located in the upper left

hand corner of the mailing label It

consists of three letters and five numbers. Without this number, there is no

guarantee that your SUbscription can

be located on the computer.
November 1988 FEDERAL ELECTION C0IV1IV1ISSI01\J Volume 14, Number 1

This cumulative index lists advisory opinions, court cases and 800

Line articles published in the Record

during 1988. The first number in the

citation refers to the "number"

(month) of the Record issue; the

second number, following the colon,

indicates the page number in that

issue.

OPINIONS

1987-29: Partisan communicaticns by

. incorporated membership organization,4:6

1987-30: Assets of candidate's wife

used to payoff bank loan to candidate, 2:3

1987-31: Eligibility of security exchange's eight membership classes

for PAC solicitations, 3:5

1987-32: Campaign contributions in

the form of silver dollars, 3:7

1987-33: Law firm and partner are

not government contractors, 3:7

1987-34: Solicitations by subsldiary

of joint venture partnership, 6:5

1988-1: Activity to influence delegate selection, 5:3

1988-2: FEC reports posted on security exchange's bulletin boards, 4:7

1988-3: Trade association solicitations, 7:3

1988-4: Affiliation of PACs through

corporate merger, 5:4

1988-5: Presidential matching payments used for '84 debts, 5:5

1988-6: Allocation of media expenses

to fundraising exemption, 4:7

1988-7: Candidate's use of personal

gifts for campaign, 5:6

1988-8: PAC contributions by estate

trust, 5:6

1988-10: Activities for post-primary

delegate selection, 6:5

1988-11: Solicitation of teachers by

trade association of schools, 6:7

1988-12: Promotion of credit card

program by party committee/bank,

7:3

1988-13: Campaign funds used to pay

candidate's rent, 7:4

1988-14: Joint PAC sponsored by affiliated corporations, 6:7

1988-17: Corporation's sale of medallions depicting candidates and national nominating conventions, 8:3

1988-18: Liability of union for donations from its funds by nonfederal

entities, 7:9

1988-19: Solicitability of employee

shareholders, '[:5

1988-21: Act's preemption of California ordinance governing contributions, 7:5

1988-22: Political activities sponsored by incorporated political organization, 11:3

1988-23: Air travel coupons sold to

campaign, 8:4

1988-24: Joint fundraising committee

established by federal/non federal

candidates, 11:5

1988-25: Cars provided by corporation to national Presidential nominating conventions, 8:4

1988-26: Hourly wage earners not so- Iieltable, 8:5

1988-27: Corporate expenditures for

PAC fundraiser and honorarium, 9:6

1988-28: Corporation's 900 line telephone service for political committees, 10:5

1988-32: Reporting last-minute contributions, 9:7

1988-36: PAC's solicitation of company's employee stockholders, 11:6

1988-40: Post card distributed under

"coattail" exception, 11:7

COURT CASES

Ralph J. Galliano v, U.S. Postal Service, 1:7j 3:9

Harry Kroll v, Americans with Hart,

Ine., 5:6

Xerox Corp. v, Americans with Hart,

Inc•• 5:6

FEC v,

-Augustine for Congress, 1:8

-Beatty for Congress Committee, 6:9

-Bookman & Associates, Ine.,

11:12

-Californians for a Strong

America, 8:7

-Citizens for the President '84,

3:10

-Citizens to Elect Jerald Wilson

for Congress, 1:9

-Dietl for Congress, 6:9

-Dominelli (second suit), 5:8

-Friends of Isaiah Fletcher,

11:13

-Ted Haley Congressional Committee,9:7

15

-Holrn es Committee, 7:7

-Lee, 7:7

-New York State Conserva

Party State Committee/1

Victory Fund, et al., 2:4

-Bob Richards for Presiden

11:2

-Rodriguez, 8:6

-Taylor Congressional Com

tee, 11:13

-Thornton Township Re

Democratic Organization

-Working Names, Ine., 7:6

v, FEC

----Antosh, 1:8j second suit, 3

6:8

-Boulter and National Re

can Senatorial Committe

-Common Cause (Third 

5:7, 10:7j Seventh Suit, 

11:12

-NRA,IO:9

-Stark (Second Suit), 4:8

-USDC, 7:6

800 LINE

Election information available 

other agencies, 11:7

Last-Minute Contributions and 

pendent Expenditures, 2:4

Partnership contributions, 8:6
$1,078,93

8,393,09

7,618,11

9,040,02

2,550,95

863,61

2,831,73

3,801,42

538,53

1,122,28

7,037,54

5,764,61

825,57

9,346,11

3,470,64

Total Amoun

Certifie

Through 10/13/8

Bulk Rate Mail

Postage and Fees Paid

Federal Election Commission

Permit Number G-31

Candidate

Babbitt (0)

Bush (R)

Dole (R)

Dukakis (0)

DuPont (R)

Fulani (NA)

Gephardt (D)

Gore (D)

Haig (R)

Hart (D)

Jackson (D)

Kemp (R)

LaRouche (D)

Robertson (R)

Simon (D)

FEC APPROVES MATCHING FUNDS

By mid-October 1988 the Commission ha

certified a total of $64,283,232 in federal match

ing funds to the U.S. Treasury for 15 eligib

Presidential primary candidates. (See cumulativ

chart below.)

During 1988 an eligible Presidential cand

date may periodically submit requests for primar

matching funds. The federal government wi

match up to $250 of an individual's total contribu

tions to an eligible candidate. Contributions from

political committees are not matchable. (See 2

U~S.C. §§9034 and 9036 and 11 CFR 9034 an

9036.1(b) and 9036.2(a).)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 14, Number1

11 CFR Parts 109 and 114: Corporate and Labor Expenditures; Announcement of Public Hearing and

Comment Period Extension (53 Fed.

Reg. 40070; October 13, 1988) -

11 CPR Part 106: Methods of Allocation Between Federal and Nonfederal Accounts; Payments; Reporting; Change of Public Hearing Date

(53 Fed. Reg. 40070, October 13,

1988)

Contributions and Expenditures;

Communications, Advertising; Trade

Associations; Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (53 Fed. Reg. 35827,

September 15, 1988)

11 CFR Part 106: Methods of Allocation Between Federal and Nonfederal Accounts; Payments; Reporting; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(53 Fed. Reg. 38012, September 29,

1988)

Title

Ted Haley Congressional Committee

Rulemaking Petition; Notice of Disposition (53 Fed. Reg. 35829, September 15, 1988)

Official Business

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

November 1988

1988-13

1988-12

1988-10

1988-11

Notice

1988-9

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

Copies of notices are available in the Public

Records Office.